Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Emma Goldman
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Emma Goldman
My latest FA-bound project. With the help of Kaldari, Malik Shabazz, and Lquilter, I've rewritten and reorganized it. I believe it's in very good shape, but I'd like to get other eyes on it before taking it to FAC. Thanks in advance for your comments. – Scartol • Tok 21:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] From Jay
- The lead mentions the emotional distance from her mother, but Family doesn't explain this much except to say she didn't intervene in beatings.
- In Rochester: "Her parents, furious at her intransigence" Is intransigence the best word? It seems she's discontent or non-committal as opposed to stubborn.
- Also, check tweak I made to see if this is okay with you.
- In Emma Goldman#Most and Berkman the second paragraph is a quotation, but the {{bquote}} doesn't seem to properly indent with a picture on the left. In my browser at least, this block quote is not indented and I didn't realize at first that it was a quotation.
-
- Hmm, yes. The template is supposed to make the font smaller too (it does on my browser at home, but not at school). I manually made the font size 90%. I did the same for the other quotations. I should make a bquote2 template which does this automatically, since blockquotes often look better with slightly smaller text IMO, and it's not like the non-spaced left margin problem is unique to this article. – Scartol • Tok 18:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Also in this section, I'm not exactly sure what is meant by "Berkman and Goldman regarded each other as comrades of the deepest sort." Does this mean they always remained political allies?
- In Homestead plot the steel plant "became the focus of attention" as in the focus of Emma's attention? The focus of national attention? Anarchist attention?
- I'm embarrassed to admit that I don't know what stockbreakers are.
-
- You're an ignoramus. Just kidding – I stupidly wrote the wrong word for strikebreakers. My bad. – Scartol • Tok 18:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- In "Inciting to riot", what sort of relationship did she begin with Havel?
- In World War I is "No conscription League" correct capitalization?
- Also, which one of them actually spoke the block quote?
- Also, is "twenty-on-year-old boy" correct? It's in quotation so I didn't want to change it without access to the quote.
- In Russia, "Although her marriage to Jacob Kershner had offered some grounds for arguing Goldman's citizenship, the US government invoked the 1918 Anarchist Exclusion Act and deported them both to the Soviet Union, along with over two hundred others." I initially read this to mean that the government deported her and Kershner. Also "for arguing citizenship" is a bit of an odd construction.
- Anarchism: is the sentence at the start of this section a bit of a tautology?
- In Capitalism, I don't know what she meant by "take bread". She advised workers to steal bread from the market?
- In Legacy is "If I can't dance I don't want to be in your revolution" really an abridgement of "the right to self-expression, everybody's right to beautiful, radiant things"?
- Also, "Goldman's belief in the value of aesthetics, for example, can be seen in the later influences of anarchism and the arts." She was among the later influences?
- Red Emma is unpublished in Norway for political reasons?
I must say, it's an exquisite piece of work. I will note, however, that it's approaching the upper limit (in my mind at least) in terms of article length. No point trimming down something this well done, but I think we should be careful at this point not to grow it too much further. As you're the ones who've done the research, feel free to disregard any of my above comments and questions that are off the mark. Great work to all! --JayHenry (talk) 01:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks kindly. I agree that it's at the upper limit; I actually removed some items (particularly about her mother's emotional distance, heh) for brevity. Now I have to convince other folks not to add more stuff in. I appreciate your kind feedback and careful commentary. I'll make the specific repairs tomorrow or the next day. – Scartol • Tok 03:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Also, I'm a bit curious about the sources. For someone who supported the assassin of a president the article seems to me quite sympathetic. Were some of the sources fairly critical? Or is it the consensus of scholars and biographers that Goldman was more or less unfairly demonized? --JayHenry (talk) 01:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- The latter, definitely. I checked out every book about Goldman available from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, including one they had to get from the special reserve section of the State Historical Society. I obviously can't judge how NPOV I've been, but (as with Chinua Achebe vis a vis Conrad) I've tried to represent the facts, the subject's commentary, and the world's response. If there are specific spots where you think this needs to be improved, please let me know. Thanks again! – Scartol • Tok 03:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Comments from Awadewit
I am having great fun reading this article - well done all. Here is my first batch of comments.
Lead is too long - examples:
-
- Still, she read voraciously and found a literary role model in Vera, the protagonist of Nikolai Chernyshevsky's novel What Is to Be Done?. - Is this detail necessary for the lead?
- Goldman herself was imprisoned several times in the years which followed, for "inciting to riot" and distributing information about birth control in violation of the Comstock Law. - perhaps cut "inviolation of the Comstock Law"?
Infobox is unnecessary - detracts from the picture and all information is in the article already.
Emma Goldman (27 June 1869 – 14 May 1940), known as 'Red Emma', was a Lithuanian-born anarchist known for her writings and speeches. - Somehow I want this to say "anarchist writings and speeches" so that the content of the writings and speeches is clearer.
Goldman suffered from a violent relationship with her father and a powerful emotional distance from her mother - "powerful emotional distance" doesn't make much sense to me
Together they planned an act of propaganda of the deed, or attentat, in the form of assassinating Henry Clay Frick, whom they viewed as the villain of the 1892 Homestead Strike. - seems wordy
Goldman also published a magazine called Mother Earth, which provided a platform for her anarchist treatises, as well as articles from other writers and philosophers. - odd diction: "platform for her anarchist treatises" - perhaps "platform for her anarchist ideas"?
Although she distanced herself from first-wave feminism and its efforts toward women's suffrage, she incorporated gender politics into anarchism which had only been hinted at by earlier anarchists. - awkward syntax
Her father ruled the house with an iron fist - sounds a little melodramatic
"Adolescence" section feels melodramatic.
-
-
- I suppose it does, but from all accounts it was a pretty tumultuous childhood. The elements I've highlighted ("first erotic sensations", father throws books in the fire, violent sexual contact) seemed particularly relevant to her later perspectives and attitudes. If there are specific things you think need toning down, I can take a closer look? – Scartol • Tok 15:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- When she was a young girl, Goldman's family moved to the village of Papilė, where her father ran an inn. At the age of six she became friends with a servant named Petrushka, who played jovially with her, exciting her "first erotic sensations".[10] When her father fired Petrushka after an argument, she was crushed; she described it as "one of the greatest tragedies of my child-life."[11] Another tragedy struck when she witnessed a peasant being whipped with a knout in the street. Horrified by this spectacle, she was haunted for days as her mind replayed it again and again. - We go from "jovially" to "erotic" to "crushed" to "greatest tragedies" to "horrified". All in one paragraph. I think this is just too much. Awadewit | talk 01:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Yeah, I think I'm having trouble reading and re-reading this article so many times. Thanks for pointing that out for me. – Scartol • Tok 02:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've taken another whack at it. – Scartol • Tok 12:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
-
Should "nihilist" be capitalized?
On their wedding night she discovered that he was impotent, and he became jealous and suspicious. - need a little more here
caption: Johann Most trained Goldman in public speaking and organized her first tour to promote "the Cause". - You might consider saying what "the Cause" is.
Impressed by his fiery oration, Goldman began to learn from him about public speaking. - Just sounds a bit odd - also, I'm wondering about agency here - the caption makes it sound like Most was the actor while this sentence makes it sound like Goldman was. Who was the initiator? Do we know? Later, you make it clear that Goldman asserted her independence - this suggests that early on she did not initiate the speaking training. Is this correct? Should this be emphasized?
She left the society of Die Freiheit and joined with another publication, Die Autonomie. - I thought Die Freiheit was a publication - why describe it as a society? Was it also a group of intellectuals?
The beginning of "Homestead plot" needs a transition from the previous section - it is jarring to go from Berkman to steel strikes.
When a majority of the nation's newspapers came out in support of the strikers, Goldman and Berkman resolved to carry out an attentat — an attack that would rouse the people to revolution. - A revolution against what and for what?
-
-
Done Added "against the capitalist system". As for "for what" – from what I can tell EG and AB expected the people to rise up in a spontaneous mass action and create something new in its place. Goldman, at least, was adamant about not prescribing a replacement. – Scartol • Tok 16:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
-
Goldman, meanwhile, decided to help fund the scheme by selling herself. - terrible connotations to this phrase - cannot we find a more neutral phrase? We don't want to sound like we are judging Goldman.
I would remove some of the details from the "Homestead Plot" section (more summary style, less detail).
-
-
- I assume you mean about the assassination attempt itself. If so, it's been Done – Scartol • Tok 16:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Perhaps even more, regarding Berkman's actual attempt, for example. Awadewit | talk 01:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- I've trimmed it a little more, but it's relevant that a group of workers beat Berkman unconscious, I think. And given the fact that it led to him being sent away for so long I think it's risky to cut any further. – Scartol • Tok 02:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- I assume you mean about the assassination attempt itself. If so, it's been
-
I would start the "Inciting to riot" section with something like "The next year" so that the reader can more easily follow the chronology.
By year's end nearly three million workers were unemployed, and "hunger demonstrations" sometimes gave way to riots. - An unemployment rate would be better here than the number of people
Despite this positive publicity, the jury was persuaded by Jacobs' testimony and made anxious by Goldman's politics. - "made anxious" doesn't seem like quite the right emotion, does it?
In Vienna she achieved two diplomas and put them immediately to use back in the US. - don't people usually "receive" diplomas?
Although Czolgosz repeatedly denied Goldman's involvement, the police held her in close custody, giving her the "third degree". - colloquial
Goldman's attitude toward assassination had changed — while in jail, Goldman offered to provide nursing care to McKinley before he died, referring to him as "merely a human being".[60] However, she yet defended Czolgolsz, standing virtually alone in doing so. Throughout her detention and after her release, Goldman steadfastly refused to condemn Czolgosz' action. - How had her attitude changed, then?
I would remove some of the details from the "McKinley assassination" section, particularly in the first few paragraphs which detail the ins and outs of the meeting of Goldman and the others. More WP:SS is needed here. (There is a whole article on the event, after all.)
-
-
-
- I still think more can be trimmed. The details of the faux-infiltration are not that important, in my opinion. It is Goldman's supposed link to the assassination that needs to be explained and her support of the assassin. Awadewit | talk 01:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- I think I have to disagree. Infiltration was/is a serious business, and the distance they put between themselves and him is relevant for the government's later charges that she was in on it. – Scartol • Tok 02:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Again, perhaps more explanation of these linkages is needed, then. Facts without interpretation aren't always enough. Awadewit | talk 02:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I still think that the first paragraph of this section feels a little disconnected from the rest of the section. Awadewit | talk 10:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- I've added a sentence about keeping their distance, but unless I want to say something like "showing a wise foresight", I'm not sure how I can link it up more clearly. If you think it needs more connection, would you advise adding something to the first paragraph, or something elsewhere? I think the structure we've got at present effectively mirrors that in Wexler and Chalberg, which indicates something untoward is coming from Czolgosz while explaining how the events unfolded in the eyes of Goldman and her friends. – Scartol • Tok 13:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Since encyclopedia articles aren't stories, I think that letting the reader know where this whole section is going is a good idea. I was confused by it the first time I read it (particularly the relationship of the first paragraph to the rest of the section) and I still think it is confusing. Awadewit | talk 07:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- I see what you're saying, but the only remedy I can conceive of would be to describe Czolgosz's attack on McKinley first, and then discuss Goldman's interactions with him later – which would disrupt the chronological order. Do you think this would work? Or do you have another suggestion for it? – Scartol • Tok 03:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- I would mention the link to McKinley first, so that the reader knows why this material is important. Chronological order is not all that important in an encyclopedia article - emphasizing the connections between items is, however. Including a bunch of facts that readers don't really understanding the purpose of is not really useful. Awadewit | talk 17:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
Although Turner and the League lost, Goldman considered it a victory from a propaganda point of view. - wording is slightly awkward
-
-
- Done Agreed. Revised to "a victory of propaganda". – Scartol • Tok 18:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
-
I would leave out the detail of the changing of names of Mother Earth - more appropriate for the Mother Earth (magazine) article.
As a doctor, he returned to the underworld, attending to people suffering from poverty and disease – particularly venereal disease. - "The underworld"? More objective language, please!
He and Goldman began an affair; they shared a commitment to free love, but Reitman found his way into many more beds than she. - This sounds a bit sordid. More neutral language is needed.
Two years later Goldman had added frustration with lecture audiences to her list of woes. - I feel like the language of the article, while poetic, is becoming a bit unencyclopedic.
When Margaret Sanger, an advocate of access to contraception, coined the term "birth control" in the June 1914 issue of her magazine The Woman Rebel, she received aggressive support from Goldman. - support for the coining of the term?
To this end, she and Berkman organized the No conscription League of New York Should "conscription" be capitalized here?
To reduce the length of the article, I would remove some of the quotations in the "Biography" section. Some of these are a luxury. I think that quotations are more important in the sections describing Goldman's thought.
This article has lots of links - it is overpowering at times. I delinked some obvious terms, but perhaps you should think about delinking some of the geographical terms. I think that the "high quality" links, as they say, get a bit lost here.
I wondered if some of the uses of "communist" should be "Communist".
As World War Two began to take shape in Europe - Something about this wording seems off to me - perhaps its vagueness?
-
-
- Yeah, it didn't really begin, but I agree that the wording is vague. Done I've replaced it with: "As the events preceding World War Two began unfold in Europe…". – Scartol • Tok 18:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, it didn't really begin, but I agree that the wording is vague.
-
She helped found the philosophy known today as anarcha-feminism. - briefly explain in a sentence
Goldman was first drawn to anarchist thought after the persecution of anarchists after the 1886 Haymarket Riot in Chicago. - too many "after's"
Later, while working at the newspaper Die Autonomie, she was introduced to the writings of Peter Kropotkin. Before long she found herself torn between his patient belief in the mass of humanity and Mikhail Bakunin's advocacy of urgent, violent action. She gravitated more toward Kropotkin's perspective through her life, but never completely sided with one or another. - This seems unnecessary to me - I would focus these sections on her thoughts and writings, rather than on the biography behind them. Also, this makes it sound like she didn't really have thoughts of her own.
While she never encouraged audiences to commit acts of violence - I thought it wasn't clear whether she did or not in the "Inciting to riot" section?
-
-
- I'm making a distinction between property destruction ("take bread") and violence ("kill people"). Perhaps it needs to be clarified? The other thing is that the sources indicate that some of the observers present were motivated by a general distrust of Goldman, and heard what they wanted to hear. – Scartol • Tok 18:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I removed the statement about never encouraging audiences to commit acts of violence during the reorganization, so while I can add a distinction in the Anarchism section, it doesn't seem necessary to me now. (But I recognize that my perspective is getting hard to maintain, so please let me know if you disagree.) – Scartol • Tok 02:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
-
-
Her experiences in Russia led her to reassess her earlier belief that idealistic ends justified violent means. - we need a more precise word than "idealistic"
I feel like the "Violence" section repeats too much of the "Biography" - either dramatically reduce the explanation of these events in the "Biography" section and move that material here or integrate the "Violence" section into the "Anarchism" section, deleting some of the redundant material.
-
-
- Agreed. Will work on this. – Scartol • Tok 18:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done I've trimmed what I can, but to be honest I don't really see much to remove. If you can suggest specific other spots, I'd be happy to take a look. – Scartol • Tok 18:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- The "Tactics" section (I like the new organization) repeats the same examples as the article. Are there other examples of these tactics from her life that can be utilized? Awadewit | talk 01:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- You know, I've searched over and over, because I agree with you; but I just don't think there's much else to pull from. The section on violence in Red Emma Speaks includes "The Psychology of Political Violence" (from which I've quoted and summarized already), as well as a section each on Homestead and McKinley and prisons. I feel like we've exhausted the possibilities. – Scartol • Tok 02:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
-
The "Voting" section seems like it should be more about Goldman's methods of revolution (and therefore retitled). It is probably good to mention in passing her objections to voting, but it is more important to describe what she thought were the best means to achieve her ends. Perhaps the "Violence" material could be integrated into a new "Revolutionary methods" section (terrible name, but you get the idea).
I think that the picture of Anthony and Stanton is not the best choice - Goldman didn't associate with them much, so it doesn't seem that relevant. How about a book cover?
-
-
- I dunno; the Russia cover is the only one I've found in my quest, and I generally prefer people to book covers. Despite Goldman's lack of interactions with them, they were important people at the time, and I feel recognized easily by many readers. (And she didn't ever interact with Frick or Sacco & Vanzetti, either.) – Scartol • Tok 18:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done Removed during reorganization anyway. – Scartol • Tok 17:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
-
I feel like the "Philosophy" section as a whole could be explained a bit more thoroughly.
-
- EX: In essays like "The Hypocrisy of Puritanism" and a speech entitled "The Failure of Christianity", Goldman made more than a few enemies among religious communities. - Why? Missing the "because" clause.
-
- I suppose so. Perhaps I was trying to race through to the end on my first pass. I'll deal with this. – Scartol • Tok 18:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've tried to rework this, but I feel as though more explanation would conflict with the "pare it down" comment below. All things considered, I feel as though the latter recommendation is the more urgent one here. If there are specific things that you feel needs more explanation, I can add it. Meantime, I'm going to try keeping the word count down. – Scartol • Tok 17:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Other things can be pared down, so these sections can be expanded. That's why I suggested paring down some of the details in the biography. :) I'll read through the whole "Philosophy" section again in a day or two and see. Awadewit | talk 01:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Thanks much. Apologies again for the breakneck pace I've implemented. – Scartol • Tok 02:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- I think that this section is much improved, however I still have some suggestions:
How come "anarchism" is sometimes capitalized and sometimes not in the "Anarchism" section?
she is considered one of the most important figures in Anarchist history, and helped found the philosophy known today as anarcha-feminism, which analyzes patriarchy as a hierarchy to be resisted alongside state power and class divisions. - Is "analyzes" the best word here?
In the title essay of her book Anarchism and Other Essays, she wrote - Because this comes right after the sentence about anarcha-feminism, the reader expects it to explain or expand on that idea more, but it doesn't really seem to do that. Perhaps the anarcha-feminism bit should come later?
I would briefly explain "expropriation" in the "Capitalism" section. It appears to be a crucial idea.
I think that a more effective organization of the "Tactics" section would be to present the tactics that Goldman endorsed first and then the ones that she opposed.
These works brought Goldman's life and writings to a larger audience, and she was in particular lionized by the modern women's movement. - a particular movement? There have been several. :)
- An image of the iconic statement on a button or t-shirt would be nice in the "Legacy" section.
-
-
- Yeah, I wanted to use this graffiti pic, but it's apparently not free for use. I suppose I could take a picture of a button or shirt, couldn't I? – Scartol • Tok 18:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Is Ragtime (musical) really a "significant retelling" of Goldman's life? She is only one of many figures in it.
I think it is a bit odd to have only one "Further reading" book. That is why I prefer "Bibliographies" - why split up the "References" and "Further reading"? For people really interested in the references, two lists are not particularly helpful.
- I don't know if anyone will get on your case about this at FAC, but I've had people complain about it to me. Page ranges with three numbers are supposed to be expressed thus, apparently: 211-15, not 211-215 (this includes the ridiculous looking 100-01).
I'll keep adding as I read. Awadewit | talk 22:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Ok! Done! The article is about 10,200 words. I think this is a bit long. I would try to cut a bit (I hope you don't think this is a pot-and-kettle situation). It is however, difficult to make it through such a long article. Perhaps, like I did, you should aim to cut 1,000 words or so? (I fully recognize the horror of this statement - I'm just trying to be a reader, here.) Awadewit | talk 04:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- I hear you. I tried to scale it back as I went, but I can accept that it may still be too long. (Although when I see article like Theodore Roosevelt at 100k+, I feel indignant that the divine Ms. G. must be pared back from 80k.) I'll see what I can do. Thanks again for your careful attention to detail. – Scartol • Tok 12:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- In a way, it doesn't matter of TR is 200K if readers don't make it to the end. :) (And by the way, it is "the divine aunt Jane".) Awadewit | talk 01:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- I've done another round of trimming quotes from the biography and other reductions. Thanks again for your careful commentary. – Scartol • Tok 02:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- I really appreciate your willingness to go over and over and over this stuff, A. You rock. – Scartol • Tok 13:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Have you had Brighterorange run his dashbot? It's very helpful. Awadewit | talk 07:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
-
-
