Talk:Emma Goldman/Archive 1

Copyright issues with early version of article
This article seems to have been copied from which says: "Copyright © 2001 UC Regents. All rights reserved."

My apologies if I am somehow confused; but if this was simply an instance of pasting a copyrighted text into Wikipedia, please be aware that your doing this puts Wikipedia at some legal risk. So please don't do it. --Larry Sanger

The first paragraph does come form the The Emma Goldman Papers at SunSITE - let me try again - rp

This time it seems you cribbed the article, or large portions of it, from. Since the latter is a Marxist website, it wouldn't surprise me if the article had been placed in the public domain, but I couldn't find any such declaration on the website. Wikipedia is a place for original work or public domain or open content materials. Please stop copying copyrighted materials to Wikipedia. --Larry Sanger 18 Sept 2001


 * I put in two lines, perhaps the original writer could add more details in their own words. ;-) mike dill


 * Actually, flag.blackened.net is an Anarchist website, not Marxist, so it's quite likely they eschew any copyright claims on the material (as anarchists are often fiercely anti-copyright). Of course, I agree it would be better to have explicit permission or else an entirely original article. --Kaldari

Chernychevsky
Who on earth is "Cherychevsky"? Google only provides recursive links back to this and its sources. Lenin wrote a famous tract called What is to be Done?, but it was only published in 1902 and doesn't fit the chronology. --Jpatokal 22 Nov 2003


 * I believe that's supposed to be "Nikolai Chernyshevsky", the nineteenth century Russian philosopher. I'll fix it... --Kaldari 23 Oct 2004

Epitaph
I put the quote from her tombstone in the Death/Burial section im %99 that it is correct since I've visited it 5 times but please correct me if it's wrong. --jojomnky 31 July 2005

On Lithuania
I have edited this page because I don't like how this article introduced Kaunas as "then Kovno", "Russian", etc. Kaunas is a very old city, which has been called "Kaunas" by the Lithuanians for centuries. Does it really matter what the Russian occupiers called it? Surely, the Lithuanians did not use a foreign name to describe their own city. It's not a Russian city; it's a Lithuanian one, despite Russia's attempts to "Russianize" it. --Andyluciano 01:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Re: "Haymarket Martyrs"
The title "Haymarket Martyrs" is not entirely POV, although the term's origins obviously stem from the beliefs of the Anarchist movement. It is a historical name for the "executed defendants" of long standing. For example, there was a "Haymarket Martyrs Monument" raised in German Waldheim Cemetery in 1893, later designated a National Historic Monument (cf. Haymarket Riot). Mike Dillon 17:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I wasn't entirely aware of the term's historical significance, but I'm still uncomfortable using it as an unqualified descriptor. Perhaps we can change it to "wrongly executed defendants"?  Skinwalker 18:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that the original text "Haymarket Riot martyrs" is POV, but the title "Haymarket Martyrs" has an independent historical record. I think a link like Haymarket Martyrs would be appropriate. In fact, Haymarket Martyrs itself is an existing redirect. Mike Dillon 18:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I think "wrongly executed defendants" is a much more POV term than "martyrs." The word "wrong' reeks of subjectivity, while the word "martyr," as it is defined in my dictionary, is very aptly and correctly used here.  Carptrash 21:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The term "Haymarket Martyrs" is well-established as a specific historical title (similar to "Chicago Seven"). As such, both words are typically capitalized. As an example of the term's prevalence, compare the Google hits for "Haymarket Martyrs" (22,100) to the Google hits for "Haymarket defendants" (209). Kaldari 22:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Well the hell with it!! They are not Martyrs anyway!! Anarchists are bad guys too, like this "mad women" as TR called her! (24.75.194.50 18:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC))

Naturalized citizen??
Given that she was deported I doubt she can actually be regarded as a naturalized U.S. citizen, regardless of where she was buried. So I am going to delete Category:Naturalized citizens of the United States. If you want to contact me--please email since due to an ongoing dispute with an abusive administrator I cannot sign in--my email address is rms125a@hotmail.com THANKS!!

McKinley Assassination
I've edited the McKinley Assassination section to remove the conspiratorial language. Arresting well-known anarchists (all of whom were by definition sympathetic to the violent overthrow of the government after a political assassination by an anarchist is hardly a stretch. Just because Goldman and the 9 others were arrested, does not imply a covert attempt to besmearch Anarchism. McKinley's murder had by itself soiled Anarchism far beyond anyone else's ability to do so.--CMARII 13 Mar 2006

"If I can't dance. . ."
Seriously, shouldn't this article make at least passing reference to her quote? Also, would it be appropriate to include a reference in the "Cultural References" section to "Who's Emma?", a Kensington Market (Toronto) collective/record store that used to be named after her? 24.108.183.161 11:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

It has been questioned if she ever actually said that quote. For more information, check http://sunsite3.berkeley.edu/Goldman/Features/dances_shulman.html. If anything a reference to the attribution of the quote to Emma Goldman might make sense.--begintheend 10:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Film
I found this newsreel clip of her:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa0WV5T6vHc

Maybe it should be linked somewhere, but I can't see where. The Wednesday Island 12:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Date of Death
Lead says 1940, body says 1939.

Goldman on Violence?
The section on Emma Goldman's view of political violence is misleading. Her views were always more complex. She had a compelling analysis of some examples of political violence after seeing Alexander Berkman's attempt failed in addition to Leon Czolgosz's assassination of McKinley. She covers this in "The Psychology of Political Violence." I assume that, Her experiences in Russia helped change her ideas on the use of violence: after the Red Army was used against strikers, Goldman began rejecting violence except in self-defense. is a reference to Kronstadt. She continued to see violence as a part of revolution even after Russia. Her critique was against authoritarianism in Russia. Spain was not just an example of "self-defense." I'll wait to see if anyone responds before I change the section.--begintheend 10:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Expanding sections
I think that a lot of these sections could be expanded. I will start on some of them when I have time. I also think that a new and more accurate mention to "Emma Goldman on Violence" could be useful.--begintheend 1:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Coffeeshop
199.245.18.2 had edited the section on a coffeeshop "Red Emma's" and moved it from "Emma Goldman in fiction" to a new section "Homages", but Rsm99833 reverted that. I've restored the updated formulation and corrected url from the anonymous edit, but I don't know where to put this. The anonymous version was better than the current one, since this isn't "EG in fiction", but maybe a whole new section is overkill. Perstar 22:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Spelling
This article appears to either use American or Oxford spelling (but definitely not standard British spelling). I'm guessing it's American spelling, but does anyone know for sure? It would be good to add a hidden comment at the top of the article so that future editors are made aware. Kaldari (talk) 22:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's US spelling, but I don't think there's ever been a formal announcement about it. Maybe Lquilter or Scartol can chime in? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I've added a comment to the top of the article, so that people will know to keep it consistent. Kaldari (talk) 21:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Capitalism section
Recently, a paragraph of the capitalism section was removed. Perhaps this could be discussed further. Personally, I liked the paragraph as it showed nuance in Goldman's views, as well as her ability to adapt to criticism. Kaldari (talk) 19:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Any thoughts on this? Kaldari (talk) 22:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I liked the paragraph, but I don't feel strongly about it one way or the other. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I have heard historians such as Barry Pateman reference this moment as having some good deal of importance on her outlook. I think there is value in keeping it, and if possible, some reference on the importance of this event should be expanded upon. --Cast (talk) 04:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I like it if, as User:Cast suggests, there is documentation about its significance on her outlook. The concern would be that if it's just a statement from her biography, that in picking and choosing we're constructing our own take on her views.  So I'd like something with independent significance that verifies the significance to her thought. --Lquilter (talk) 17:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

"Influenced Anarcha-Feminism"
While I agree that Goldman was a strong influence in the development of anarcha-feminism, and despite having had disagreeable run-ins with Byelf2007 in the past (on the criticisms of anarchism page), I nonetheless agree with him (or her; I'm not sure) that the "influenced" section of the infobox should only mention the names of people influenced by the subject of the article: not schools of thought. I object to Nowa's reversion of Byelf2007's edit; and to Ongepotchket's similar earlier reversion. Nonetheless, seeing as though this issue runs the risk of turning into an edit war, I'd rather discuss it here in the talk page than take any unilateral action. Are there any objections to removing anarcha-feminism from the "influenced" section of the infobox? — Life in General (Talk) 02:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Why do you feel that the "influenced" section should not mention schools of thought?--Nowa (talk) 03:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Because were we to mention schools of thought in the "influenced" section of infoboxes, we would run into issues relating to inclusiveness and scope. People like Goldman have influenced numerous schools of thought: which ones would we mention, and which ones wouldn't we (and why)? Additionally, as this sort of information is more often subject to disagreement and controvery than the people influenced, and as the "influenced" section is usually unreferenced, it shouldn't really be the place for such information. Rather include information relating to the schools of thought that were influenced by the subject of an article within the body of the article itself: with suitable references and elaboration. This allows less scope for misunderstandings, and for the inclusion of potentially dubious information. — Life in General (Talk) 03:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur; I would be surprised if this isn't already wikipedia policy. Byelf2007 (talk) 3 January 2011


 * Frankly, I don't think the article was improved when the infobox was added. A list of people influenced by Goldman would be the size of a New York telephone directory.
 * Oh, and I agree that the section is intended for people, not schools of thought. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Just chiming in with 2c: (a) I'm with Malik; not fond of the infobox. (b) Haven't thought about the people vs. schools of thought issue in terms of the "influenced" section before, but on due reflection, I would say that 'people' is probably the right approach: schools of thought are inherently amorphous, and influences on them or by them are probably best left to paragraphs in the articles, where more nuance can be discerned / displayed. I don't quite buy the "inclusiveness" concern mentioned by "Life in General" -- we deal with that problem in terms of the individual people named, too (albeit somewhat arbitrarily as far as I can tell).  But the rest of "Life in General"'s points elaborate nicely why schools of thought are best left to the text, not an infobox.   (c) And FYI, ByElf2007, your edit summary on the reversal (something like, "That's not the way things are done") struck me as a bit vague and snippy.  At least, it wasn't informative enough to explain what you meant by "not the way things are done".  --Lquilter (talk) 13:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Looking back now, I realise the "inclusiveness" point doesn't actually make sense. A sign perhaps that I should avoid editing before I've had my morning cup of coffee... Sorry about that; I'll avoid editing when half-asleep from now on. —  Life in General  Talk/Stalk 14:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, well, sometimes we can only edit when we're half asleep ... I have realized several times while archiving sections of this talk page just now that my edit summaries have sometimes revealed my lack of morning caffeine, and/or interruptions by 3yo .... --Lquilter (talk) 14:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. I wanted to be sure removal wasn’t because someone didn’t like anarcha feminism.  Many other info boxes about notable people do mention schools of thought they influenced.  See Karl Marx (e.g. Frankfurt School), Immanuel Kant (Western Philosophy),  Voltaire (French Revolution, Founding Fathers of the United States).  The question is, then, would this article be more useful or less useful to a reader if it listed Emma Goldman’s influence on anarcha feminism in the info box.  So far the consensus seems to be “no”, which is fine by me.  I was just maintaining the status quo pending a consensus otherwise. (and for the record, I too avoid editing until at least cup #3)--Nowa (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I was unaware that those articles include schools of thought in their infoboxes. Nonetheless, I've had a rather stressful day in real life, so I won't do anything about that just yet. Although Ongepotchket and Byelf2007, who were also involved in this issue, have yet to take part in this discussion, I believe I'm not premature in declaring that consensus on this issue has been achieved (at least on this article). —  Life in General  Talk/Stalk 17:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't think the section is very useful to the reader and is rather crufty. I would support removing the influenced by / influenced section entirely. Influences are complicated topics that are better served by article text than arbitrary lists. I know about a dozen people that I could add to the 'influenced' section based on anecdotal evidence, but I don't think adding them would actually enlighten the reader about much of anything. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not an arbitrary collection of information. I've never seen such influenced by / influenced lists in other encyclopedias. Kaldari (talk) 19:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems like these issues are not new. See Template_talk:Infobox_philosopher.  I wonder if there is another more fruitful way to represent the influence relationship between notable individuals.--Nowa (talk) 03:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Having given this issue further thought, I must say I agree with Kaldari. Nonetheless, as Nowa has pointed out, it appears that this has been discussed in the past; and based on a cursory examination of the past discussion, it appears that consensus was achieved that the "influenced by" and "influenced" sections ought to remain. I'd suggest that we re-open that debate though. Perhaps, taking the current consensus into account, instead of advocating for the complete removal of the "influenced by" and "influenced" sections from infoboxes, we instead advocate more stringent rules for what to include in them. Infoboxes are often unreferenced, but I've seen references within infoboxes before and perhaps we could suggest the following: Although this suggestion does leave room for debate as to when a person qualifies to be included in either list, I'm sure that for the most part there will be agreement, and when there isn't, debate can fruitfully be conducted in the article in question's talkpage (such as this debate we're having now). This is just my suggestion though, does anyone have any comments, criticisms, additions, etc? —  Life in General  Talk/Stalk 13:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That all names in the "influenced" and "influenced by" sections be referenced, to establish the notability of the influence in question; and
 * That names should only be included within them when those people's influence was substantial to the subject of the article (in the case of the "influenced by" section), or when the subject of the article was a highly important influence on the people in question (in the case of the "influenced" section).
 * I'm open to it if others are, but my personal feeling is that it's kind of a waste of time. If we're going to look up references about who Emma Goldman influenced and vice versa, why don't we integrate that information into the article prose of those biographies rather than just listing names in an infobox. For example, the biography of Noe Ito (who was definitely influenced by Emma Goldman) has no citations whatsoever, and barely even mentions Emma Goldman. Why don't we go work on building her article content rather than making this article more crufty. Of course I don't want to discourage people if the infobox is what they really want to work on, but that's my 2 cents. Kaldari (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My proposal is just meant as a compromise we could present here, to create consensus on more stringent inclusions requirements for infoboxes on people wiki-wide. On this article, if consensus can be achieved, I'm open to just scrapping the use of the "influenced" and "influenced by" sections of the infobox altogether and focusing on integrating such information (when relevant) into the text of the article itself. I'm actually in full agreement with you. —  Life in General  Talk/Stalk 00:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That makes sense to me. Thanks for the clarification. I agree that if that template is going to include parameters for influences they should add some guidelines on how to use it. Kaldari (talk) 00:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Anarcha-feminism in the infobox
While Goldman may be heralded as a pioneer of the anarcha-feminist movement, I'm not sure whether she is properly part of that "school". What do other editors think? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I think "school" is a fairly subjective term. So at the moment, I don't have strong feelings one way or the other. --Lquilter (talk) 13:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Abortion, feminism, homosexuality sections

 * An editor added a quote regarding Goldman and abortion, which I think is fine since it illustrates her views. However, the same editor also moved the abortion material to its own section, "abortion", which I think is inappropriate and reverted -- abortion was never a focal point of Goldman's activism, and to have a subsection to it suggesting so is inappropriate weight to the topic.  It would be much more useful / representative to have a separate section called "birth control", since that WAS a focal point of her activism and she served time related to it.


 * However, this made me also think about the "homosexuality" section, which, like "abortion", wasn't exactly a focal point of her activism. I thought perhaps it would be best to combine all these sections into a section called "sexuality", which would include homosexuality, free love, birth control/abortion.   I think this would actually be most closely representative of Goldman's interests.  To encompass modern conceptions of the issue as well, perhaps "Sexuality and feminism" or "Feminism and sexuality" should be the appropriate section titles.  Thoughts? --Lquilter (talk) 13:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, on further reflection, this whole section has been a bit bothersome to me for a while. This is the current "Philosophy" section:
 * 17 Philosophy
 * 17.1 Anarchism
 * 17.1.1 Capitalism
 * 17.1.2 Tactics
 * 17.2 Feminism
 * 17.3 Free speech
 * 17.4 Prisons
 * 17.5 Homosexuality
 * 17.6 Atheism

It seems to me that "tactics" is really about Goldman's shifting views on violence; there's no section on militarism and anti-war struggles (obviously a great part of her philosophy); labor is hidden in capitalism. I would propose reorganizing this material slightly:
 * 17 Philosophy
 * 17.1 Anarchism [personal anarchism; tactics]
 * 17.2 Capitalism and Labor
 * 17.3 The State [militarism, prison, voting]
 * 17.4 Free Speech
 * 17.3 Feminism and Sexuality

A lot of the subsections are rather small and this would consolidate, and make the material flow a bit more naturally. Thoughts? --Lquilter (talk) 13:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a great idea. I've never been a fan of the current organization (which grew organically as new material was added), and I think your suggestion for how to reorganize it makes a lot of sense. Kaldari (talk) 18:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Very good idea. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I did the basic reorganization, which now looks like this:
 * 17 Philosophy
 * 17.1 Anarchism
 * 17.1.1 Tactical uses of violence
 * 17.2 Capitalism and Labor
 * 17.3 The State - Militarism, Prison, Voting, Speech
 * 17.4 Feminism and sexuality
 * 17.5 Atheism

I added some new substantive text in the "The State" section under "free expression" and made a few non-substantive changes in the text to make content flow. Here are my thoughts on things left to do:
 * better citation on the speech material -- when I originally wrote it I just dumped in the cites; there needs to be more work here. (As an aside, I'm a little surprised that the San Diego Free Speech Fight is nowhere else mentioned in the article -- I think it probably should be.)
 * more thinking through of the use of sub-sub-sub-sections, and titles of sub-sub-sections. The sub-section titles I used were intended to be descriptive placeholders while we figure out the best approach, rather than my recommendation as to what to do.  I don't particularly like the use of the 4th-level subsections; the content is almost never more than a paragraph or two in practice.  On the other hand, without those subsections, the content might be a bit harder to decipher, thus necessitating longer or more awkward section titles (as in "The State - etc etc").
 * Per last comment -- I'm not sure about a separate subsection for "Tactical uses of violence". Looks busy to me, but it is a chunk of material.
 * The last line in the "capitalism and labor" section is important but clunky and not well-placed.
 * The atheism section needs work. First of all, is the title right? Second, it's dominated by the quote and there's not as much actual content. I would find a smaller quote and add a bit more context to the material. I'm a bit ambivalent about the section though -- atheism or perhaps more properly anti-religion activism was not one of her main priorities.  But, it is one of her principal analytic concerns -- she routinely cited state, capital, and church as the three major oppressions of anarchist concern.  Thoughts?
 * I do feel that the general outline is pretty good now and reflective of the major pillars of Goldman's thought -- anarchism as the organizing principle; anti-capitalism; anti-state; personal liberty; anti-clerical/anti-religion.

I don't have more time to work on this today, so please have at it. --Lquilter (talk) 11:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Legacy
Hey -- a new addition in the "Legacy" section cites a song called Emma Goldman. I'm not averse to having a paragraph about EG in music, but to avoid UNDUE WEIGHT problems we should rewrite to summarize some of the homages, including the new rock opera ; the opera "Red Emma" by Gary Kulesha and Carol Bolt ; ragtime; and E.G.. Probably a lot of other individual song references too. --Lquilter (talk) 13:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: User:Yworo deleted the link to the song on YouTube saying "Please do not link to copyright violations on YouTube." Of course, not all songs on YouTube are copyright violations.  I'm not sure if there is a particular reason for suspecting it to be so? --Lquilter (talk) 19:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that it's undue weight to have a paragraph about a single song. A paragraph about musical tributes to Goldman would be a different matter. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Education section
Eduen has added a new section on education. However, this section currently consists almost entirely of quotations. It should be converted to cited prose where possible (assuming that we want to retain a section on education). Kaldari (talk) 07:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Since we just did that clean-up (not yet finished; sorry; I've been moving IRL) of that section, I am loath to add another section especially one which was not a particularly major part of Goldman's philosophy. In the short term, I would recommend: (1) sex education materials move to the feminism and sexuality section.

(2) As a longer-term fix, maybe merge the education and sexuality/feminism material into a rewritten section that discusses Goldman's broader views about human self-fulfillment. It would involve a bit of writing and I would think some new content to pull it together, but I think it would probably present a better picture of Goldman's views on these issues. We could thus contextualize patriarchy, family, church, and other enemies of individual self-fulfillment. This would also better explain the claiming of Goldman as an intellectual forebear both by individualist anarchists as well as by third-wave feminists. Thoughts? --Lquilter (talk) 15:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a reasonable suggestion to me. Kaldari (talk) 03:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * in the meantime, kaldari took it out; if someone else has time to work on reclaiming useful bits, that's the link. --Lquilter (talk) 10:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

US v U.S.
We recently had an editor go thru and change almost all of the "US" notes to "U.S." (diff). Then we had an editor change one back to "US" -- sadly, he didn't do them all. (diff)  Sadly, in the meantime, I un-did SOME of the edits that the first editor had done (s/he had also "corrected" some quotes), so we can't simply rollback/undo if indeed we want to go back to "US". At any rate, I didn't see anything in the WP:ENGVAR about this matter; what is the policy on it? And can we pick one and stick with it? --Lquilter (talk) 13:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops, I didn't realise he'd done a bunch, I only saw the one in the intro. Per WP:RETAIN, there shouldn't be switching between national varieties of English unless the topic has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation, something I believe isn't the case with a Russian anarchist. An argument could be made that as she was American-based, "U.S" would be preferred, but the editor making the change should seek consensus here first, because I think it's entirely unnecessary. — Jon C.  ॐ  13:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, there's a note at the top that says "this article uses American English", so it's clearly been decided previously that that's the way to go. "U.S." it is, I suppose, but I can't help but feel that Pama73 could be using his/her time more productively. — Jon C.  ॐ  13:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I just didn't realize that "US" or "U.S." was an issue for WP:ENGVAR. You know, I (a US-ian) use both.  If anything I use the non-period version more often. --Lquilter (talk) 16:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I see. I thought "U.S." was used almost universally by you USers. Let's change it back, then. — Jon C.  ॐ  08:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's not make decisions based on my practices -- I may not be standard. Is the US/U.S. thing somewhere in the MoS and I just couldn't find it? --Lquilter (talk) 10:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTUSA says either US or U.S. is fine. — Jon C.  ॐ  10:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Derided?
In the fourth paragraph of the lead, change "During her life, Goldman was lionized as a free-thinking "rebel woman" by admirers, and derided by critics as an advocate of politically motivated murder and violent revolution" to "...and denounced by critics as an advocate of politically motivated murder and violent revolution." Accusations of murder and violence is not derision. 86.41.46.253 (talk) 22:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Scolaire made this change, so DONE. --Lquilter (talk) 13:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Infobox
A discussion of an Infobox for this bio has been archived. I only wanted to add here that an Infobox can be useful if suitable fields are populated. Someone in the earlier discussion belittled the Infobox because it includes the field "ressting_place." But that field need not be populated at all if we don't think it's important. As the instructions say: "Only use those parameters that convey essential or notable information about the subject."

You can see all the fields available for the generic Infobox Person here. Some are quite odd in this context (e.g., net worth!). Some could be useful to display EG's life and significance in a nutshell. Remember that someone who has no idea who she is might just be looking for a one-glance capsule reference version of her life. Note in particular how fields like "influences" and "influenced" are used in the case of Marx and Rousseau (different template, but same principle). Here are a few fields that might prove interesting: known_for, organization, notable_works, influences, influenced, years_active, party, movement, opponents, criminal_charge, criminal_penalty, criminal_status, spouse, partner. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding my removal of the box earlier today, it was out of respect for the article's contributors/consensus. At the time I added it I wasn't aware of the discussion about it, not even that the article was a featured one. Personally I like infoboxes and find them quite useful. jonkerz♠ 17:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Why is there a Religion specified in the infobox when she doesn't have one? 88.108.2.35 (talk) 14:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Editors frequently list "Atheist" in the religion field because it answers the question in a more succinct, yet still completely understandable way, than the more technically accurate "None (atheist)". --Lquilter (talk) 01:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'm curious why there's an infobox? I thought it was decided a long time ago not to have the infobox? --Lquilter (talk) 01:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I totally support (re-)removing the infobox. Kaldari (talk) 02:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

fix link
In the Deportation section, the wikilink redirects to Immigration Act of 1903. The wikilink should be changed.

were intent on using the Anarchist Exclusion Act of 1918 to deport any non-citizens they could identify as advocates of anarchy or revolution.

were intent on using the Anarchist Exclusion Act of 1918 to deport any non-citizens they could identify as advocates of anarchy or revolution.


 * Thanks -- Actually, both versions are slightly incorrect. The Anarchist Exclusion Act is 1903, and was expanded in 1918; so I rewrote your suggestion to both link to the correct act (thanks) and to be more accurate. --Lquilter (talk) 21:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Subjectivity alert
"Goldman and Berkman were released during America's Red Scare of 1919–20 when public anxiety about wartime pro-German activities had morphed into an exaggerated fear of Bolshevism."

This is an encyclopedia. The word 'exaggerated' represents a debatable opinion and should be removed or (better) replaced with another word which conveys the magnitude (if accurate) absent the subjectivity: wide-spread; pervasive; wide-ranging, e.g. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.25.221.166 (talk) 23:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This was done, and changed to "pervasive". --Lquilter (talk) 21:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 September 2013
Grammatical correction. In section 2.4 Feminism And Sexuality it reads, "Like many contemporary feminists, she saw abortion as a tragic consequence of social conditions, and birth control as a positive alternative." This is unclear as written, as it could be misconstrued to mean current contemporary feminists instead of Goldman's own (and first and third wave feminisms are quite different). This should be corrected to "Like many feminists of her time," as this will be clear and unambiguous. Thank you.

70.190.93.51 (talk) 10:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * good point. I made the change. --Lquilter (talk) 14:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's sad that the word 'contemporary' has become completely useless due to misuse. Kaldari (talk) 17:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm probably sadder about "impact", but then, my sadness in either case is pretty minimal compared, to lots of other things happening. --Lquilter (talk) 21:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Anarcho-communism
Malik Shabazz has recently deleted an edit I made to the introduction where I referred to Goldman as communist, explaining that "Goldman is not generally regarded as an anarcho-communist" (I had linked the word communist to the anarcho-communism page, btw). The assertion is somewhat odd, as there is a sidebar on the page itself that states "part of a series on Anarcho-communism". The anarcho-communism page additionally lists Goldman as one of the ideology's adherents. Goldman's closest intellectual collaborator, Alexander Berkman, wrote an entire book - Now and After: The ABCs of Communist Anarchism - advocating for the philosophy. One of Goldman's major inspirations, Peter Kropotkin, was the primary theorist of anarcho-communism.

Anarcho-communism should also be listed in the infobox under schools. There is at least as much reason to list Goldman as an anarcho-communist as to list her as an anarcha-feminist (Goldman was highly skeptical of the feminism of her time, but she advocated for communism publicly and repeatedly). In one of her most representative essays, "What I Believe", Goldman writes:


 * Anarchism...differs from all other theories inasmuch as it points out that man's development, his physical well-being, his latent qualities and innate disposition alone must determine the character and conditions of his work. Similarly will one's physical and mental appreciations and his soul cravings decide how much he shall consume. To make this a reality will, I believe, be possible only in a society based on voluntary co-operation of productive groups, communities and societies loosely federated together, eventually developing into a free communism, actuated by a solidarity of interests. There can be no freedom in the large sense of the word, no harmonious development, so long as mercenary and commercial considerations play an important part in the determination of personal conduct.

In 1935, near the end of her life, Goldman wrote an essay - "There is No Communism in Russia" - where she said that she rejected the Soviet Union not because it was communist, but because it was not communist.

In case people are not aware, there is a fairly active anarcho-capitalist movement in the US. One of its propaganda goals is to present anarcho-capitalism as the most legitimate, if not sole legitimate, form of anarchism. They have insinuated on various occasions that Goldman's ultimate rejection of Leninism was a rejection of all communism. There are also instances of socialists and liberals trying to suppress Goldman's strong communist principles from history. I think it is important that this article set the record straight. Furthermore, it was one of Goldman's significant contributions to history to be one of the first communists to acknowledge the truth about the Soviets. I would like to restore my edit.GPRamirez5 (talk) 23:04, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * As I wrote on my Talk page, I goofed with respect to anarcho-communism, but I think a simpler statement is better in the lead—which was the main point of my edit. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have to agree that GPRamirez's version of the sentence is rather wordy for the lead. I prefer the more succinct version here. The details should be saved for the body of the article. Kaldari (talk) 06:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to help craft a proposal
Surveillance awareness day is a proposal for the English Wikipedia to take special steps to promote awareness of global surveillance on February 11, 2014. That date is chosen to coincide with similar actions being taken by organizations such as Mozilla, Reddit, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Feedback from editors of this article would be greatly appreciated. Please come join us as we brainstorm, polish, and present this proposal to the Wikipedia Community. --HectorMoffet (talk) 12:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Missing Footnote
I made a small edit in the article and tried to reference it. Lacking a PhD in Wikipedia-Footnotology, I couldn't accomplish it, getting this error message:

Cite error: The opening >ref> tag is malformed or has a bad name (see the help page). Goldman, Emma. Living My Life. 1931. New York: Dover Publications Inc., 1970. ISBN 0-486-22543-7. Cite error: The opening >ref> tag is malformed or has a bad name (see the help page).

(I turned a sign into its opposite, ie >, because the changed sign had the effect of cutting my visualized post at that point, while > doesn't cause that.)

The help page was unhelpful, and I was left helpless with my reference problem.

I suppressed the reference and invited anybody with the proper PhD (nothing less is needed, currently, to insert a footnote!) to read this Talk. This being a Wiki, I hope somebody will correct what I couldn't do properly, by providing the reference and erasing my invitation to the talk. Pan Brerus (talk) 08:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Generally, we don't put such detailed information in the lead. It would be better to elaborate on this in the My Disillusionment in Russia article I think. Kaldari (talk) 12:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

nationalit(ies) in lede
compare:


 * original, reverted back to
 * Emma Goldman (, 1869 – May 14, 1940) was an anarchist known for her political activism, writing, and speeches. She played a pivotal role in the development of anarchist political philosophy in North America and Europe in the first half of the 20th century.


 * edited, reverted back from
 * Emma Goldman (, 1869 – May 14, 1940) was a Lithuanian-born American writer, philosopher, and activist. She is an anarchist known for her political activism, writing, and speeches. She played a pivotal role in the development of anarchist political philosophy in North America and Europe in the first half of the 20th century.

I just reverted a recent edit inserting information about Goldman's birthplace (Kosovo) & national identity (American), along with a little more summary about "writer, philosopher, activist". It wasn't inaccurate (except for the verb tense typo), so this is a judgment call. The extra content seemed redundant & captured by the more prominent "anarchist", with the following sentence. The birthplace & national identity were more substantive judgments: Goldman's birthplace might be summed up in any number of ways, and region is not necessarily the best choice. As to her nationality ("American"), it's true, but also a bit fraught given the last two decades of her life; and her identity is frankly international. Any other thoughts? (I'm sure this has been discussed before, so please feel free to link to those discussions.) --Lquilter (talk) 12:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Citations?
Practically the whole introduction has no citations. Please add some! --The Dracommunist (talk) 19:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:CITELEAD. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2014
Hi. I found the editing procedure bewildering, so my apologies in advance.

My intent in changing these passages is that as written, they very seriously mischaracterize Goldman's views and statements about the Bolshevik Revolution. None of the changes I am suggesting, I think, should be very controversial to anyone familiar with her writings. Emma Goldman never authored a book entitled "My Disillusionment with Russia". She wrote a manuscript entitled "My Two Years In Russia". The US publisher published only part of the original manuscript and gave it the title "My Disillusionment with Russia" (without informing Goldman).

In particular, all of my proposed changes are consistent with the discussion in her PREFACE (Revised) To Second Volume of American Edition which included the missing chapters in a "second volume". The publishers entitled this second volume as "My Further Disillusionment in Russia" which in a sense had the American publisher "doubling down" on their original error. The English version of the book apparently had the correct title and included all the chapters in a single "volume".

John1despair (talk) 21:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Please replace this original text:

Initially supportive of that country's Bolshevik revolution, Goldman reversed her opinion in the wake of the Kronstadt rebellion and denounced the Soviet Union for its violent repression of independent voices. In 1923, she published a book about her experiences, My Disillusionment in Russia.

With this proposed replacement text:

For years Goldman fought "the Marxian theory as a cold, mechanistic, enslaving formula" and wrote about it, for example, in "The Truth About the Bolsheviki"(in Mother Earth Publishing Association, New York, February, 1917.)(Link here)

Initially supportive of that country's revolution, Goldman watched in revulsion as it was hijacked by the increasingly undemocratic machinations of the Bolsheviks that culminated in the Kronstadt rebellion. In 1923, she recorded her experiences in a manuscript entitled My Two Years in Russia. Much to her dismay, she learned that the American publisher been had changed the title of her book to My Disillusionment in Russia without informing her. Adding insult to injury, she learned that the last twelve chapters of her manuscript were entirely missing from the US version, including an Afterword which Goldman felt was the "most vital part" of the book.

John1despair (talk) 21:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think your suggested passage is a bit too detailed. This article is meant to be a brief overview of Goldman's life, so we need to keep it concise. I would lose the first paragraph and try to condense the second paragraph further. Kaldari (talk) 14:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

You are also using value-laden phrases "watched in revulsion", "hijacked", "undemocratic machinations" "Adding insult to injury" etc. which are not encyclopedic language, and unless they are sourced from a reliable source are not NPOV. - Arjayay (talk) 15:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ❌ You are suggesting a quotation "the Marxian theory as a cold, mechanistic, enslaving formula" without any source whatsoever.

Hi. Sorry for failure to include the reference for the quote "the Marxian theory as a cold, mechanistic, enslaving formula": it was the preface to "first volume" of the renamed American edition. I will also attempt to rewrite in more encyclopedic language. I will also include some of the information about the publishing history of the book on the wiki page about the book. Thanks, John1despair (talk) 19:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC) >

strange sentence
In the section on adolescence it reads: Another teacher tried to molest his female students and was fired when Goldman fought back. How do you "try" to molest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.82.109.203 (talk) 03:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Her father's quote
If something is in quotations it probably should have an unbiased source who heard it. Since the source of the quote is her own autobiography, it is likely not an actual word-for-word quote, as the 3rd-person article suggests.

Goldman begged her father to allow her to return to school, but instead he threw her French book into the fire and shouted: "Girls do not have to learn much! All a Jewish daughter needs to know is how to prepare gefilte fish, cut noodles fine, and give the man plenty of children." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.82.109.203 (talk) 04:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

...Actually I'm finding many so-called quotes in the article, supposedly attributed to people she knew or encountered. The problem is all these quotes come from her own book. Seems like a lot of hearsay: he took her into a saloon, gave her $10, and told her she didn't have "the knack". Can that be independently verified, other than by her own statements? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.82.109.203 (talk) 04:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Autobiographical information being presented as factual/historical
It feels like a lot of this article is either plagiarizing or summarizing her autobiography (a somewhat biased source), as opposed to being an unbiased encyclopedia Take the following anecdote for instance:

Once on the street, she caught the eye of a man who took her into a saloon, bought her a beer, gave her ten dollars, informed her she did not have "the knack", and told her to quit the business. She was "too astounded for speech".

The reference for this episode is her autobiography — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.82.109.203 (talk) 04:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

atheist label in infobox
The infobox label of Emma Goldman's religion : "none (atheist)" was removed by editor User:Guy Macon; I reverted. I noted there was already discussion here on this talk page but should have started a new discussion. Then User:Carptrash took the atheist information out again, and posted a comment on my user talk page.


 * You are an atheist and you consider it to be a religion (re. Emma Goldman)? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 01:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Sigh. No, I consider the "religion" section on the information box to be intended to be "views about religion", rather than some epistemologically narrow definition of "religious belief". This means that the box can be used in ways that are unsurprising to most readers, and place information where it is most relevant and most expected. --Lquilter (talk) 09:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Look, this has already been discussed here (see above), and in infobox discussions in the past. Is there some new purge of infoboxes happening site-wide?  Or this just on the Emma Goldman article?


 * At any rate, if you look on this very page you will see this issue already addressed. In view of that, it's bad form to just change the edit back, again, without raising it on the relevant article talk page.  What gives? --Lquilter (talk) 09:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Follow-up -- I found this lengthy discussion from December on the infobox page: Template_talk:Infobox_person. There was a lot of confused argumentation, and no apparent consensus, and apparently this was all caused by the exact same set of edits by Guy Macon before. --Lquilter (talk) 10:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * In looking at the discussion a little more closely, it appears that there was a write-up of a "consensus" to remove religion-relevant views from the infobox "religion" field. I honestly couldn't discern said consensus, but as I  posted on User:Guy Macon's talk page: "I'm not going to fight this one, because it's not a hill *I* want to die on." On that page, for users who wish to follow up, Guy Macon had a detailed response substantially refuting my claim that this change would result in a "gajillion" discussions.  "Gajillion", it appears, was wrong.  My bad. As I said on GM's user page, "I do think the encyclopedia is poorer for reading a field label narrowly to mean religious belief as opposed to broadly to mean beliefs about religion. Because now, the central fact that Goldman was an atheist and that was an important identity to her (as it is to most self-defined atheists), will be excluded from the infobox." --Lquilter (talk) 10:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

(Please note that nobody has a problem with the use of "Atheist" in the article text. This only concerns infoboxes.)

There are many reasons for saying "Religion = None" rather than "Religion = None (atheist)" in Wikipedia infoboxes. They include:

It goes against our manual of style for infoboxes.


 * Manual of Style/Infoboxes says:


 * "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts that appear in the article. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance."


 * I might add that the infobox talk pages have a long history of rejecting the arguments of various editors who insist on trying to cram more and more information into the infoboxes, using the same basic argument: "yes this is well covered in the article, but this VITALLY IMPORTANT detail MUST be in the infobox as well because mumble mumble (waves hands)." Again and again, the overwhelming consensus has been to put only the bare minimum into the infobox and to expect the reader to read the actual article for the fine details and distinctions.

There is no consensus for it.


 * This was discussed at length at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 142. Opinions were mixed, but the two positions with the most support were "Religion = None" or removing the Religion entry entirely.


 * A bit later, it was discussed at Template talk:Infobox person. The result of that discussion in in the closing summary: "The preferred phrase would be 'Religion: None'."


 * More recently, I did a survey and found that hundreds of Wikipedia pages use "Religion: None" in the infobox and only five use "Religion = None (atheist)"

METHODOLOGY:

Before I started this project I searched to find what wording most pages use and found a strong consensus for "Religion: None" across multiple Wikipedia pages. More recently I did a count to see how strong that consensus really is.

First, I did a search on "Religion: None" in article space, grabbed the first 500 results, and deleted everything that wasn't "Religion: None" in the infobox of a BLP (including many pages such as Ysgol Bryn Alyn that use "Religion: None" in the infobox but are not BLPs). This left me with the following 280 pages:
 * Abdurrahman Vazirov
 * Achille Occhetto
 * Adalet Agaoglu
 * Afonso Costa
 * Agata Passent
 * Agnes Kant
 * Ahilya Rangnekar
 * Ahmet Altan
 * Akhil Gogoi
 * Akram Yari
 * Albert Caraco
 * Albert Rivera
 * Aleksandar Vulin
 * Alessandro Gadotti
 * Alfred Charles Hanlon
 * Ali Akbar (writer)
 * Aliheydar Garayev
 * Anders Carlsson (politician)
 * Andrea Pason
 * Andrzej Morozowski
 * Anindya Sinha
 * Anna Grodzka
 * Ante Ciliga
 * Anton Hofreiter
 * Antonio Carluccio
 * Antonio Maccanico
 * Antony Flew
 * Arthur Smith (comedian)
 * Ashraf Dehghani
 * August Spångberg
 * Ayo Sogunro
 * Bahadir Baruter
 * Bart D. Ehrman
 * Benoy Choudhury
 * Bernhard Caesar Einstein
 * Billy Leonard
 * Billy Wharton
 * Bob Ferris (Likely Lads)
 * Bob Scott (politician)
 * Brian Koppelman
 * C. M. Padmanabhan Nair
 * C. N. Jayadevan
 * CJ Werleman
 * Camilo Ballesteros
 * Can Yücel
 * Carlos Martínez Gorriarán
 * Carlos Ominami
 * Carmelo Bene
 * Casey Patrick Tebo
 * Çetin Altan
 * Chadayan Govindan
 * Charuhasan
 * Chingiz Ildyrym
 * Christian Lindner
 * Christopher Hitchens
 * Claudio Bisio
 * Clive Soley, Baron Soley
 * Colin Challen
 * Cordelia Gray
 * Cyril Desbruslais
 * Dan Barker
 * Daniel Dennett
 * Danny Ledonne
 * Dave Cross
 * David Wearing
 * Desiree Schell
 * Donald McLachlan
 * Duncan Scott (director)
 * Edmund McMillen
 * Edoardo Sanguineti
 * Eduardo Ferro Rodrigues
 * Eduards Veidenbaums
 * Edward Roderick Davies
 * Edwin Kagin
 * Ehsan Jami
 * Enrique Ferrarese
 * Ephraim Evron
 * Eric Maisel
 * Eric Wiebes
 * Erik Naggum
 * Eugen Leviné
 * Ewout Irrgang
 * Faiz Ahmad
 * Frank Baude
 * Françoise David
 * Gamca
 * Gilbert Romme
 * Gilles Duceppe
 * Giorgos Kaminis
 * Giovanni Spadolini
 * Goparaju Ramachandra Rao
 * Gopinath Muthukad
 * Gorka Maneiro
 * Greg Pason
 * Greta Christina
 * Grigory Kaminsky
 * Grzegorz Napieralski
 * Gustav Koerner
 * Hanna Bakula
 * Harald Beyer (politician)
 * Hare Krishna Konar
 * Heather Mac Donald
 * Henk Vonhoff
 * Herman Philipse
 * Hugues Gentillon
 * Ian Mearns
 * Ian O'Doherty
 * Ibn al-Rawandi
 * Ilir Hoxha
 * Imam Mustafayev
 * Irena Krzywicka
 * Irene Montalà
 * István Vágó
 * Ivan Macek
 * J. H. Patel
 * James Underdown
 * Jamie Kilstein
 * Jan Hartman (philosopher)
 * Jan Terlouw
 * Jeff Berwick
 * Jenn Forgie
 * Jennifer Michael Hecht
 * Jerzy Urban
 * Jesse Bering
 * Jessica Ahlquist
 * Jimmy LaSalvia
 * Joan Smith
 * John Ball (pioneer)
 * John Beaman
 * John Maxton
 * Jonas Sjöstedt
 * Jonathan Neale
 * Josip Manolic
 * Jovanka Broz
 * Juan José Sebreli
 * Juan Mendez (politician)
 * Julia Scheeres
 * Julian Sanchez (writer)
 * Julie Elliott
 * K. A. Mathiazhagan
 * K. Balakrishnan (CPI-M)
 * Kang We-suck
 * Kazimiera Szczuka
 * Kazimierz Kutz
 * Kimun Ongkosandjojo
 * Kinga Dunin
 * Kingunge Ngombale–Mwiru
 * Kitty Harris
 * Kodiyeri Balakrishnan
 * Koenraad Elst
 * Laci Green
 * Ladislav Hrusovsky
 * Lazar Mojsov
 * Lech Janerka
 * Lee Jung-hee
 * Leo Ford
 * Leonid Gozman
 * Leslie Alexander (businessman)
 * Lewis McDonald
 * Ljubo Cupic
 * Lorenzo the cat
 * Lucía Topolansky
 * Luís Guillermo Peréz
 * M. R. Radha
 * Maarten Boudry
 * Maarten van Rossem
 * Magdalena Sroda
 * Mahmud Aliyev
 * Marcello Pera
 * Marcus Bakker
 * Margaret Downey
 * Maria Peszek
 * Marian Marzynski
 * Mariko Yamada
 * Martin Harty
 * Matt Taibbi
 * Matthew Asinari
 * Maurice Williamson
 * Mehmet Shehu
 * Michael Newdow
 * Michael Nugent
 * Michael O'Riordan
 * Miguel Ángel García Domínguez
 * Mike Hicks (trade unionist)
 * Mikhail Kalinin
 * Milutin Mrkonjic
 * Mir Bashir Gasimov
 * Mir Hasan Vazirov
 * Misir Ali
 * Mookie Tenembaum
 * Moovalur Ramamirtham
 * Multatuli
 * Murat Belge
 * Myrthe Hilkens
 * Naman Ahuja
 * Nanasaheb Kunte
 * Nanduri Prasada Rao
 * Narendra Dabholkar
 * Narendra Nayak
 * Nathalie Arthaud
 * Nathan Phelps
 * Nedurumalli Janardhana Reddy
 * Nenad Puhovski
 * Nick Gillespie
 * Nicola Bombacci
 * Nigar Kocharli
 * Nihar Mukherjee
 * Nikolay Gikalo
 * Nikolay Kavkazsky
 * Noemí Rial
 * Oliviero Diliberto
 * Ophelia Benson
 * Orion Metcalf Barber
 * Oronzo Vito Gasparo
 * Osvaldo Dorticós Torrado
 * P. Krishna Pillai
 * Pablo Iglesias
 * Patrick Harvie
 * Pedro Sánchez (politician)
 * Pelin Batu
 * Piero Angela
 * Ploutis Servas
 * Provash Ghosh
 * R. J. Hollingdale
 * Radovan Vlajkovic
 * Relus ter Beek
 * Remus Cernea
 * Renata Dancewicz
 * Renske Leijten
 * Rob Burch (politician)
 * Robert Biedron
 * Robert Carroll (Australian politician)
 * Roman Kostrzewski
 * Ron Reagan
 * Rosa Díez
 * Rosie Kane
 * Ruben Rubenov
 * S. E. Cupp
 * S.G. Sardesai
 * Sadanand Dhume
 * Sanal Edamaruku
 * Sarbottam Dangol
 * Sergej Kraigher
 * Shibdas Ghosh
 * Siraj Sikder
 * Slobodan Penezic
 * St Patrick's Purgatory
 * Stanislav Hurenko
 * Steven Whitehurst
 * Susan Jacoby
 * Susheela Gopalan
 * Swaminathan Aiyar
 * Tages
 * Terence Hallinan
 * Theo de Meester
 * Thomas Gore
 * Thomas Megahy
 * Tom Copley
 * Tom Flynn (author)
 * Trifko Grabež
 * Turan Dursun
 * Tyler Curry
 * Ugur Uluocak
 * V. Subbiah
 * Vali Akhundov
 * Vashti McCollum
 * Vicko Krstulovic
 * Victor Stepaniuc
 * Viduthalai Rajendran
 * Vitaly Fedorchuk
 * Vittorio Feltri
 * Vladimir Ivashko
 * Vladimir Polonsky
 * Walid Husayin
 * Walter Schütz
 * Woolf Wess
 * Yan Gamarnik
 * Ye Xiaowen
 * Zbigniew Religa
 * Zhou Tienong

I could probably come up with another hundred or so if I checked more than 500 pages.

To test whether the above might be the results of my own efforts, I spot checked a couple of dozen of those pages and found that the vast majority of those pages have never been edited by me and that most have used "Religion: None" for months or years.

I then did the same search on "Religion: None (atheist)" and "Religion: None (atheism)" in article space and found five pages:


 * Ernie Chambers
 * George Will
 * Johann Hari
 * Vesna Pusić
 * Zoran Milanović


 * This reflects the strong consensus for "Religion: None" across multiple Wikipedia pages.

It attempts to shoehorn too much information into a one-word infobox entry


 * In the article, there is room for nuance and explanation, but in the infobox, we are limited to concise summaries of non-disputed material. Terms such as "atheist", "agnostic", "humanist", "areligious", and "anti-religion" mean different things to different people, but "Religion = None" is perfectly clear to all readers, and they can and should go to the article text to find out which of the subtly different variations of not belonging to a religion applies.

It is highly objectionable to many atheists.


 * Many atheists strongly object to anything that even hints at calling atheism a religion.


 * One of the standard arguments that evangelic christian apologists use in an attempt to refute atheism is "atheism is just another religion. You need faith to believe that there is no God". That's why so many atheists object to any hint that atheism is a religion and why before adding "(atheism)" there must be a reliable reliable source that establishes that the individual is [A] An atheist, and [B] considers atheism to be a religion.


 * In addition, "Religion: None (atheist)" usually fails to tell the whole story. Most atheists do reject theism, but they also reject all nontheistic religions and a wide variety of non-religious beliefs. "Religion = None (atheist)" actually narrows down the meaning of "Religion = None" to the point where in many cases the infobox entry is no longer accurate.

'''It violates the principle of least astonishment.


 * Consider what would happen if Lady Gaga decided to list "Banana" as her birth date. We would document that fact in the main article with a citation to a reliable source (along with other sources that disagree and say she was born on March 28, 1986). We would not put "Birth date = 1986 (banana)" in the infobox, because that would cause some readers to stop and say "wait...what? Banana is not a birth date...". Likewise we should not put anything in an infobox that would cause some readers to stop and say "wait...what? Atheism is not a religion..."

In my opinion, "Religion = None" remains the best choice for representing the data accurately and without bias. I also have no objection to removing the religion entry entirely. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I would be OK with removing the religion parameter entirely. Kaldari (talk) 18:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I am sorry that I missed the earlier discussions and am okay leaving it as is. ("religion _= atheist")  As someone raised in a family of atheists I am pretty comfortable with the understanding that atheism is not a religion and feel that I know enough about Ms. Goldman to believe that she would not be comfortable with this either.  But I also understand that we are not writing for atheists, fallen away atheists or Ms Goldman. Carptrash (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for Comments
There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

American citizenship
Hi, I'm translating this well-written article to Vietnamese but there are some information I find quite contradictory. In the head section, there is a statement that "Goldman never became an American citizen".

But in the section 'Deportation', it is said that "her American citizenship invalidated any attempt to deport her under the Anarchist Exclusion Act, which could be enforced only against non-citizens of the US" and a DOL official cited "the revocation of her husband's American citizenship in 1908 had revoked hers as well". These sentences obviously suggested that she had an American citizenship, at least officially when she was marriaged. Can anyone kindly tell me what is the truth here? Michel Djerzinski (talk) 15:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Huh, interesting question. The US government's official position is here - she was never a citizen, because her husband had obtained his citizenship fraudulently. She disagreed (per the NYT articles - footnotes 110 and 111). I removed the statement from the lead paragraph; the section on "deportation" is not perfectly clear, but is at least accurate as best as I can tell. —Luis (talk) 18:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you.Michel Djerzinski (talk) 03:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

In Section "England, Canada, and France", it is mentioned that: "She worked on analytical studies of drama, expanding on the work she had published in 1914. But the audiences were "awful" and she never finished her second book on the subject."

But in a previous section covering the period 1908-1917, there isn't a word about her work on drama(The Social Significance of the Modern Drama, 1914). Do you think a line should be added here to make the story more coherent? Michel Djerzinski (talk) 15:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Prostitution
Please add that she said prostitution was caused by capitalism here: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/goldman/works/1910/traffic-women.htm Thank you. Pepper9798 (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Death of Alexander Berkman
I just spotted another inconsistent info. In this article, Berkman is said to die one day after she came to his deathbed (Drinnon). In the article of Berkman, his suicide attempt, her arrival and his death happened in one day only (Wexler). I have neither of these books and cannot confirm which is true. Can anyone help? Michel Djerzinski (talk) 15:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The Berkman article is right. He shot himself in the early morning and died late at night, the same day (June 28). See Goldman's account of "Alexander Berkman's Last Days", or historian Paul Avrich's last book, completed by his daughter and available on Google Books. 63.116.31.198 (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed, and added the Wexler reference. Kaldari (talk) 02:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2016
The article states her year of death as 1940, but her gravestone says she died in 1939. I'm assuming the gravestone is correct, so the article needs to be corrected. 96.19.64.122 (talk) 18:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

96.19.64.122 (talk) 18:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: According to the article, the gravestone is not correct.  RudolfRed (talk) 19:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2016
Serbian city of Novi Sad has the street named after Emma Goldman.

Scabzine (talk) 09:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: WP:NOTNEWS. Unless reliable sources widely discuss this fact, it's not something that should be included. nyuszika7h (talk) 16:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

FA, yet plagiarized?
I was reading this very good article when I came across a passage that was written in literary (flowery) style, and I reached for the Edit button, only to realize that this might be plagiarism (anomalous writing styles reveal a lot of copy-paste editing which lacks attribution). So I entered several flowery passages from the article into Google, and came up with one matching "Google Book" for all of them. Entire paragraphs, and series of paragraphs matched between the book and the article. The book was not one of the listed source materials for the article. Here is the book's info:
 * EMMA GOLDMAN: ANARCHIST WOMAN
 * Author: Biographiq
 * ISBN-13: 9781599862156
 * Publisher: Filiquarian Publishing
 * Publication date: 01/20/2008
 * Pages: 88

This is a little paperback from a weird publishing house in the upper midwest, with no human as its author. This publishing house, many of whose authors are named "Biographiq," and many of whose publications came out in 2008, may be sort of a Dover-ish press, reprinting some public-domain oldies and churning out biographies of criminals and "leaders," among other things, but what is going on?

uh-oh...

"This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source: Emma Goldman: Anarchist Woman, Filiquarian Publishing, 2008"

So, the flowery phrasing of this article originated in the article, and then was used verbatim by the book? Even the (abbreviated) endnoted references? Verbatim? Yuk! How did they stretch a Wikipedia article to 88 pages? As WP articles go, it isn't that very long.

Any comments or juicy tidbits? Does this happen often?--Quisqualis (talk) 06:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There are lots of online sites that republish WP content; they come up all the time when you attempt to determine if something on WP is a copyvio. I've run across physical copies of print-on-demand books created by assembling WP articles. Related and sometimes not-so-related articles are added to give the book some heft. I don't know how common this is.
 * The copyright page of the Filiqarian book says it is available for free download - but the website is dead and archive.org does not have a copy (since it excluded robots). The Google Books sample indicated that there's not much text on each page, but I was not able to see enough to get a feel for how close the book was to the article.
 * The template backwardscopy and its siblings exist for this situation to make it slightly easier to discern who copied whom.  &#8212;jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  08:09, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I have seen how WP articles normally get spread to seemingly hundreds of sites, but to see one article turned into a book (available used on Amazon and elsewhere) kind of shocked me. I hope getting published enabled the article to be more widely read.--Quisqualis (talk) 08:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If there are any particular passages that strike you as overly "flowery", please let me know. This article was a collaboration between several editors and written back when Wikipedia articles were allowed to have a bit more color, so the writing style may be uneven. Kaldari (talk) 20:34, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * My overall impression of the writing style is that it is literary. The article reads well, and impresses me as being a literary work in most parts, a colorful biography or hagiography, which mostly recapitulates Living my Life. If it were rewritten in encyclopedic style, the "color" would have to be removed. The article would be much shorter, losing most of its anecdotes. I have not read Wexler's work, Emma Goldman: An Intimate Life, nor do I have access to it, but I wonder how derivative this article may be of that work. Note that I only wonder about this. I could cite dozens of "literary" passages from the article, but the point is that this article is interesting and a good read even while being far from "encyclopedic", and I doubt anyone interested in the article's subject is willing to transform this article into an encyclopedia-style article.--Quisqualis (talk) 02:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Emma Goldman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130911140147/http://www.uic.edu/depts/lib/specialcoll/services/rjd/findingaids/EGoldmanb.html to http://www.uic.edu/depts/lib/specialcoll/services/rjd/findingaids/EGoldmanb.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Emma Goldman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080512084543/http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/goldman413.htm to http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/goldman413.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080108084728/http://www.emmagoldman.com/about/about.htm to http://www.emmagoldman.com/about/about.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Emma Goldman incorrectly referenced as having lived in communal apartment in Woodstock, Illinois
The place of her living together with Sasha, Freyda, and Helen was on 42nd Street in New York City, as mentioned in Chapter 4 of her autobiography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1280:2069:BD8D:537:B17A:4D0 (talk) 19:27, 7 August 2017 (UTC)


 * You are absolutely right. They lived in midtown and moved to Worcester, Mass. Incredibly, that bit of vandalism was slipped into the article in March 2008 and nobody has noticed it until today. Thank you very much. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:19, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Emma Goldman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150712130323/http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/goldman/peopleevents/p_frick.html to https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/goldman/peopleevents/p_frick.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Emma Goldman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080506062044/http://www.redemmas.org/section/About/emma/ to http://www.redemmas.org/section/About/emma/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:30, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Vilijampolė
The citation for "Emma Goldman's Orthodox Jewish family lived in Vilijampolė" seems a bit weak. The only reference to Goldman that I could find on that page is that she's included in a long list of people that presumably lived in Kaunas, although it doesn't say that she lived in Vilijampolė (as likely as that may be). Also the webpage seems to be a self-published source, which are generally not accepted on Wikipedia, especially in a featured article. Kaldari (talk) 03:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Goldman's family lived in Vilijampolė?
In this edit, Victorgrigas added to the article that Goldman's family lived in Vilijampolė. He cited this source. Aside from the fact that it may not be a reliable source, I don't see how it supports the assertion that Goldman's family lived in Vilijampolė. The only thing it says about Goldman is that she was from Kovno.

It says that historically, Jews had an easier time living in Vilijampolė than in Kovno proper, but it also says:
 * After the failed Polish rebellion in 1831, the Russian administration improved its treatment of the Jewish residents in Lithuania. Nothing was changed in the books, but they allowed the Jews to settle in all parts of the city ...
 * On one occasion, the Russian czar crossed Kovno and was shocked to find it in such neglected condition. The explanation offered for this neglect by the governor of the region was that the cause of this was the limitation of the rights of the Jews to buy real estate. The Czar wanted to receive detailed information about the issue and in 1846, he received detailed documents, which contained an appendix asking him to cancel all the restrictions imposed upon the Jews. ... Upon reading the recommendation of the minister of the region and the general governor, the Czar cancelled in 1858 all the limitations placed upon the Jews of Vilna. In reality, all of these limitations were cancelled in 1864.

So by the time Emma Goldman's sisters were born (Helena in 1860 and Lena in 1862), there were no legal restrictions on where in Kovno Jews could live, and de facto, Jews had been free to live in the city itself for a generation.

Can one conclude, then, whether the Jewish Goldman family lived in Kovno or in Vilijampolė? I don't think we can using this source. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd say feel free to remove the claim I added into the article, it's weak. In the meantime, does anyone want to help me find any sources that might better specify where exactly she was from? Kovno/Kaunas is a big enough city to have different neighborhoods/areas and the government of these areas in the 19th century could be of interest to anyone reading her biography? Victor Grigas (talk) 20:04, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Somebody in Lithuania may have searched old city directories, but as far as I know that information hasn't been published (or if it has been, it isn't widely known). The latest significant biography of Goldman, Sasha and Emma: The Anarchist Odyssey of Alexander Berkman and Emma Goldman (2012) by Paul Avrich and Karen Avrich, merely says that she was born in Kovno, moved to Popelan as a child, to Konigsberg in 1876, and to St. Petersburg in 1881. Goldman's autobiography, Living My Life, is rich in details about her life in New York City and later but vague about where she lived in Europe, perhaps because she moved so much and came to the U.S. when she was 16. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Category removals
Not sure why Category:American women writers and Category:Lithuanian writers were removed. Could you explain? Kaldari (talk) 18:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The article is now in the categories and . -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, makes sense! Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 20:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Any time! -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

No source for picture caption
Hello. I edited a photo caption on this page, removing some unsourced puff, but it I was reverted. Here's a link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emma_Goldman&curid=9764&diff=858571097&oldid=858570712. Please comment. Thanks so much. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:03, 8 September 2018 (UTC)


 * You deleted a portion of the caption—that Goldman's image, "often accompanying a popular paraphrase of her ideas—"If I can't dance, I don't want to be in your revolution"—has been reproduced on countless walls, garments, stickers, and posters as an icon of freedom"—allegedly because it had no source. I reverted you, and my edit summary was pretty clear: "Look at the article text". The paragraph beside the image says: In 1970, Dover Press reissued Goldman's biography, Living My Life, and in 1972, feminist writer Alix Kates Shulman issued a collection of Goldman's writing and speeches, Red Emma Speaks. These works brought Goldman's life and writings to a larger audience, and she was in particular lionized by the women's movement of the late 20th century. In 1973, Shulman was asked by a printer friend for a quotation by Goldman for use on a T-shirt. She sent him the selection from Living My Life about "the right to self-expression, everybody's right to beautiful, radiant things", recounting that she had been admonished "that it did not behoove an agitator to dance". The printer created a statement based on these sentiments that has become one of Goldman's most famous quotations, even though she probably never said or wrote it as such: "If I can't dance I don't want to be in your revolution." Variations of this saying have appeared on thousands of T-shirts, buttons, posters, bumper stickers, coffee mugs, hats, and other items. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:46, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Category overkill
I removed some mother categories that lower-level categories would feed into. This list seems like category overkill.Parkwells (talk) 15:04, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

1937-39
What were her actions between 1937-9 in Spain? I think that she supported the Republic government. But in the article it is not described. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 01:35, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * According to the article, she (a) lived temporarily in Catalonia, (b) delivered lectures and gave interviews, and (c) wrote regularly for Spain and the World. Not a bad schedule for a person in her late 60s. If you're interested, a volume of her writings from the period was published: Vision on Fire: Emma Goldman on the Spanish Revolution. ed. David Porter. New Paltz, NY: Commonground Press, 1983. ISBN 0-9610348-2-3. AK Press reissued it in 2006, so it should be fairly easy to find in a decent library or bookseller. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:08, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * thank you for your time and your suggestion. I will try to find it, but i  am living in Greece so...it is more difficult to find it in a library. So i will have to order it. But my main question is simple: did she supported the Democratic government until 1939?Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 14:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/goldman/PrimarySources/scanneddocuments.html as i understand she was heavily -but in private- critisized communist party. But in the same time she supported the war against nationalists.Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 14:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry. The answer to that question seemed so obvious to me that I didn't think to answer it. Goldman supported the CNT-FAI, the two Spanish anarchist organizations that participated in the Republican government in Catalonia before May 1937, despite her misgivings both about government in general and working with the Communists in particular.


 * Goldman and Alexander Berkman had alienated many of their anarchist colleagues with their initial enthusiastic support of the Russian Revolution in 1917. After they left Russia in 1921, their relentless criticism of the Soviets during the 1920s and '30s alienated many of their remaining supporters. It's been a while since I read Porter's book, but as I recall—and your research in her correspondence seems to support—Goldman remained supportive of the Republicans against Franco and the Nationalists in public, but after her experiences in Russia, she never trusted the Communists and frequently criticized them in "friendly spaces" such as anarchist journals and in her correspondence. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much. Can you add this simple facts to this article? i will be obliged. Thank you!. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 11:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I think the facts are there, but they may be buried. For example, the first paragraph of the section describes the Spanish Civil War and the Spanish Revolution, and says Goldman went to Barcelona, where she was welcomed by the CNT-FAI. The second paragraph says she was worried when the CNT-FAI joined the coalition government, because anarchist principles oppose government and because the group made concessions to the Communists. Nevertheless, she spoke in London as an official CNT-FAI representative.
 * The third paragraph says Goldman continued to support the Spanish anarchists and wrote for Spain and the World. In May 1937, the Communists in Barcelona crushed the anarchists and the other leftist groups in the Republican coalition. The British press printed the Republican/Communist line; George Orwell, who had been in Barcelona that month (fighting with a non-Soviet communist group, the POUM, by the way) described it as the worst lying he had ever seen. The fourth paragraph says she returned to Spain in September, but the anarchist movement had been destroyed. She found that anarchists and other radicals elsewhere didn't support the Spanish anarchists. The Nationalists won the Civil War soon after, and Goldman moved back to Canada.
 * Are there specific changes you think should be made? Is there information you think is missing? Does the section assume too much about what the reader knows about Spain and the Civil War? What do other editors think? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you dear Talk from your explanations. I am kind familiar with this topic, and for POUM party, cause they participated greek volunteers in this party as they did (mostly) in the communist party, and it is a well known topic IMHO. I think what isn't well known topic IMHO is that the most Anarchists even a radical anarchist like Emma Goldman, continued to support the cause of Democratic Army, despite of the May Days of 1937 for the period 1937-1939. For that reason i propose to add it cause IMHO it's not clear. But it's ok if you don't add it. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 16:13, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Lithuanian-born American
Is it worth mentioning Goldman’s nationality in the lede? I propose adding “Lithuanian-born American”. Goldman was born in Lithuania and then moved to America.--EsotericJoe (talk) 02:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:36, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * KarlMikhailEmmaPitr Posse.jpg

Please restore an image


The image of Emma Goldman on the right, and the accompanying caption, used to be in the "Legacy" section of the article. It was replaced by an image of a t-shirt which has since been removed from the article. Would somebody please restore the old image and caption? Thank you. They call me the Big Pill (talk) 09:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The reason it was deleted was probably because there’s no reference for the quote or commercial/ political use of the image, plus it’s not the best picture of her. Raquel Baranow (talk) 21:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oops, I see the references in the text and replaced the picture. Raquel Baranow (talk) 22:09, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. They call me the Big Pill (talk) 08:17, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Bias
This is awfully biased in favor of the subject. Could use a little more discussion of her reasoning in the attempted murder of Frick. Also, some mention of comtemporary critiques, such as her role in inspiring G.K. Chesterton to write his sweeping and fantastical attack on Anarchy ‘The Man Who Was Thursday’. 2A00:23C3:E284:900:481D:79C2:96B1:B4C (talk) 02:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

"persistent suitor"??
To describe a man who rapes a woman as a "persistent suitor" is to trivialize what is a violent crime. "Suitor" implies that he had her consent and this is clearly not the case. The statement needs editing, which is an understatement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.248.13.32 (talk) 16:54, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for noting this and suggesting an edit. I replaced the term with just "man", which seems all that is needed by the sentence. In the future you can perform such corrections directly yourself, if you want. Nemo 17:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * EmmaGoldmanWallPainting.jpg