Talk:Emma Goldman/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Homestead Plot

There are some queries I would like to make about some of the content on the page. Under Homestead Plot

I would add Goldman and Berkman and othersresolved to assassinate Frick....Claus Timmerman was involved and so was Modest Stein( Fedya) who also went to Pittsburgh.(letter from Modest Stein to EG 20 September 1929

If Eg felt that Most suggested that AB's attempt was to try and win sympathy for Frick-or the authors of the Wikipedia article feels that is the case-both would be very strange and run counter to evidence.In his article "Attentats-Reflexionen" which appeared in Freiheit on 27 July 1892 he describes Frick as "a cad and an assassin" He says AB was "eccentric" and became part of the Peukert group.However he says AB "demonstrated great heroism with the attentat." Most's critique of the act was ,in essence,a foreigner killing Frick was not a good idea and could be counter productive.Ironically this was very similar to the argument AB used,intially,to critique Czolgosz's act.Obviously EG felt betrayed by Most's lack of instant support , but to suggest he was trying to create sympathy for Frick flies in the face of all the available evidence, and what we know of Most's political practoce and ideas.

Best wishes Barry Pateman 63.204.198.82 (talk) 15:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps someone could review Wexler's Intimate Life to make sure we are accurately reflecting the source regarding Most's opinion of the attentat. Or if someone could locate the "Attentats-Reflexionen" article, perhaps that could be used to balance the POV. Regarding the involvement of others, I'm wondering if the involvement of Timmerman and Fedya was significant enough to mention here. We're trying to be very economical with the text, so many details are omitted. While we're discussing the section, I would like to raise a concern of my own. The current text says: "A group of workers – far from joining in his attentat – beat Berkman unconscious, and he was carried away by the police." If memory serves me correctly, I believe it was actually a group of clerks, rather than "workers", who attacked Berkman. This should also be verified. Kaldari (talk) 16:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I have Wexler at home. Falk too. I'll check them this evening. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Wexler, pp. 65–66:

It also polarized the anarchist community in New York. The majority were hostile to Berkman, and only a few, most notably Emma Goldman, defended him.[Note 10 omitted] One of the most outspoken critics was Berkman's former mentor, Johann Most, who had always, as Goldman put it, "proclaimed acts of violence from the housetops." Now he attacked both Goldman and Berkman in the pages of the Freiheit, implying that the attempt had been a newspaper fake or had been designed to arouse sympathy for Frick.[Note 11: George Woodcock and Ivan Avakomovic, The Anarchist Prince: A Biographical Study of Kropotkin (London: Boardman, 1950), p. 281.] Just released after a year's imprisonment in the aftermath of Haymarket, and jealous of Berkman's relationship with Goldman, Most may have been inspired partly by fear of another prison term and by resentment of Berkman—"that arrogant Russian Jew"—but soon he, like Kropotkin, reversed his previous defense of the attentat altogether.

Falk, pp. 25–26:

[Describes Berkman's attempt to shoot, and then stab, Frick.] Ironically, some workers who had been doing repairs in Frick's office came to his defense, along with Frick's assistant, beating the dazed Berkman into unconsciousness. ... [H]is act would be a subject of debate in the movement for years to come. Even Most publicly denounced Berkman's act in the weeks that followed, attempting to shield some anarchists from the backlash. Goldman, enraged by his disloyalty to Sasha, is said to have jumped onto the platform to horsewhip Most.

Wexler doesn't go into the details of the attempt on Frick's life, except to say that Berkman was "apprehended, arrested, and dragged off to jail". — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Alice Wexler references the letter from EG to Max Nettlau January 24th 1932.I can see no sign of a suggestion that EG felt Most attempted to create sympathy for Frick.Perhaps someone else should take a look.My suggestion to add "and others" was simply to suggest the AB and EG did not act on their own, but were part of a group plot.That was all. Best Barry63.204.198.82 (talk) 18:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Any thoughts on the clerks vs. workers issue? Kaldari (talk) 23:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

In Prison Memoirs Berkman writes "clerks, workmen in overalls, surround me" A carpenter appears to have initially grabbed him and then others followed. Best Barry ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.204.198.82 (talk) 15:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I also found this in Goldman's Living My Life:

The feud between Most and our group continued. Hardly a week passed without some slur in the Freiheit against Sasha or myself. It was painful enough to be called vile names by the man who had once loved me, but it was beyond endurance to have Sasha slandered and maligned. Then came Most's article "Attentats-Reflexionen (Reflections on Propaganda by Deed)" in the Freiheit of August 27, which was a complete reversal of everything that Most had till then persistently advocated. Most, whom I had heard scores of times call for acts of violence, who had gone to prison in England for his glorification of tyrannicide -- Most, the incarnation of defiance and revolt, now deliberately repudiated the Tat! I wondered if he really believed what he wrote. Was his article prompted by his hatred of Sasha, or written to protect himself against the newspaper charge of complicity? He dared even make insinuations against Sasha's motives.

Kaldari (talk) 18:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Part of Attentats-Reflexionen has been translated into English and can be found in Falk et al Made For America p 119.I see that Wexler has a different source for Note 11 in the edition you have.My edition (Pantheon 1984) references the letter from EG to Nettlau of 24 January 1932.As I said I could see no ecvidence from that of EG claiming Most was attempting to win sympathy for Frick.Neither have I ever seen any primary source documentation to suggest that it happened.He presents a tactical argument towards AB's attempt , and we can offer all sorts of suggestions as to why he does that. Best Barry ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.204.198.82 (talk) 18:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I should have noted that my version of Wexler is Emma Goldman in America, the second printing of An Intimate Life. As far as I know, EG in America is not a second edition, but merely a reprint with a different title. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Barry, do you have any idea what EG is referring to in Living My Life, where she says that Most made "insinuations against Sasha's motives"? That's the closest I've seen so far for a primary source verifying the statement, although obviously it's quite vague. Kaldari (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

No.Wish I havent I am afraid.Certainly nothing in the English or German papers that stands out Best Barry70.137.179.242 (talk) 21:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, we're required to go with the secondary sources on Wikipedia, rather than the primary sources, per WP:PRIMARY. In which case the original Wexler citation seems adequate to back up the statement (with the recent correction). That said, it's still an interesting issue and I may try to get ahold of Made For America this week to do some more digging. If it looks like Wexler is just absolutely wrong, maybe we can figure out a good way to rewrite that sentence. Kaldari (talk) 21:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I have Made for America at home. I'll copy the relevant portions this evening. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow.I didnt realise that you just used secondary material. Best wishes Barry70.137.153.246 (talk) 22:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the Original Research policy generally prohibits us from writing stuff based on primary sources. Since Wikipedia is considered a tertiary source, we're supposed to synthesize all the relevant secondary sources. Kaldari (talk) 02:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Made for America

Made for America, pp. 119–121:

To Der Anarchist, New York, 30 July 1892

"Submitted"

For many years one man has succeeded in portraying himself as a hero and martyr, perpetuating the greatest roguery, slandering, and thus undermining the best forces.

And all this under the veil of Anarchism, so that not even one hand would ever be raised to rip the mark from the face of this man.

The man about whom I am speaking is John Most, the "Anarchist Leader,"[Note 1: EG was responding to an interview with Most that appeared in the New York World on 27 July. (continued below)] the man who dares to place himself alongside Kropotkin, Perowskaya and other heroes of the movement.

Comrades and friends, if I now seize the pen to put Most in the proper light for you, it is truly not out of personal hatred (in the interest of the movement, I have not yet spoken out against Most), but out of indignation over this scoundrel's behavior toward our comrade Berkmann. Yes, the indignation that must grip every honest worker, indignation over the malicious conduct and denunciatory practices of this demagogue.

The comrades will find the interview that M. had with a reporter translated in another place.[Note 2: Most's interview first appeared in rough translation on 27 July 1892 in the New York World and was reprinted in the 30 July issue of Der Anarchist.]

[snip]

And the greatest and most vile cowardice comes in Most's current behavior. Out of fear and personal hatred he tells all kinds of lies about Comrade Berkmann. Instead of using this act for propaganda purposes, he is trying to bring it down to the level of filth. For him nothing is so bad that it cannot be used against B. Among other things he told a reporter that B. was an inept worker, although he swore to me and others a hundred times that B. is a very skillful and diligent worker.

But because B. told M his honest opinion to his face, because he said that he was anything but an Anarchist, because B. uncovered the corruption and filth in Freiheit, he was let go in the middle of July with the promise that he would be brought on again soon.

[snip]

"The police want to arrest him." A greater idiocy, a greater disgrace could not be made of B.'s deed. B. would never entrust something to Most simply because he knows this gossipmonger. Most has already frustrated several of his comrade's acts, and thus has kept several courageous people from doing anything. [snip]

Words do not help with such a person; a good thrashing would probably not change such a person, but it might shut his mouth.[Note 8: Later, on 18 December 1892, EG would confront Most and strike him in the face with a toy horsewhip at a meeting at 98 Forsyth Street in New York City.]

Emma Goldman

Der Anarchist, 30 July 1892, p. 4 Translated from German

Made for America, pp. 119–120, note 1:

EG was responding to an interview with Most that appeared in the New York World on 27 July. Most's position on AB's act is also articulated in the article "Attentats-Reflexionen," which he composed on 31 July and in which he questioned the efficacy of propaganda by the deed under present conditions in the United States. Most submitted his article to anarchist press committees in New York and Alleghany. Both unanimously approved the piece, but the former thought it best to withhold publication until tempers cooled while the latter argued for its immediate publication. Most's article finally appeared in Freiheit on 27 August. The following excerpts from Freiheit (27 August 1892, p. 1; translated from German) display both Most's argument against the tactical efficacy of AB's act and his attempt to acknowledge the personal courage of AB's intent.

The other set of people in this country only needed to hear who the would-be assassin was, to forget about all the resentment they may previously have held against the cad and assassin Frick and to make a hullabaloo about the former, joining in the hysteria of the nativist press. A Russian Jew—a man without regular employment—an enfant perdu—that was enough to stir up all the prejudices of Americans against the would-be assassin, as in a dust cloud made by buffaloes stampeding through a wildfire. The fact that this man is also an Anarchist—all the more terrible. Americans have never heard anything good about the Anarchists—now suddenly all the nonsense was revived which their press had been funneling into their indecently long ears—especially since 1886. Should such a mood signify propaganda in our sense? If so, then go on! Let's keep shooting the next best monopolists. One cannot really call that dangerous because the panderers of Americanism want to fricasee us anyway.

But we have a different opinion, have had it since time immemorial and have always said it—: in a country where we are so poorly represented and so little understood as America, we simply cannot afford the luxury of assassination. Where on every main square in the country one has barely a few active forces, there it is more than frivolous, there it is suicidal, to hand them over to the clutches of the overpowering enemy provoked through the attentat, without drawing even one person into the movement. [...]

If some stranger had said to us that he wanted to shoot Frick, we probably would have said to him that that was his business. And in our hearts would have stirred something like joy, for haters of tyrants such as we can surely have no sympathy for a monstrous bloodsucker such as Frick. A Berkmann would surely have been the last person whom we would have instructed to commit such a deed, for he has, as has been implied above, no less than all of the characteristics which would stimulate the most idiotic prejudices of idiotic Americans and thereby awaken a general antipathy for the act and make easier the inevitable campaign against Anarchists.

So that we are not misunderstood, we want to express our opinion somewhat more clearly about the assailant himself.

We were always somewhat uneasy about Berkmann because we considered him to be eccentric; we became thoroughly his enemy when he joined the New York Autonomist clique whose entire doings consisted already for years in rolling obstacles in the way of a reasonable and systematic anarchistic agitation, in ripping apart that which we had built up etc., and when he behaved among those people in a particularly fanatical and poisonous manner toward us.

All that, however, cannot and must not stop us from saying here openly: Berkmann demonstrated great heroism with the attentat, just as since then he has behaved quite bravely in jail. In this regard one owes him all respect and one can only regret—completely apart from the fact that in spite of everything else the attentat was a complete failure and also that the most serious consequences will in all probability result from it for our party—, that this energy was not saved up for a bigger and more suitable deed.

According to the editors, this is the first time portions of Most's article have appeared in English. I wish I could see portions of the New York World interview EG was responding to. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I can send you a copy of the article.Nothing about sympathy for Frick..The secondary sources policy could cause you problems.For instance you stress EG's isolation among anarchists about Czolgosz and his actions.She suggests this in LML and her biographers repeat the story.If we look at some primary sources-for instance Free Society the anarchist communist newspaper-we can see that a good number of anarchists supported what Czolgosz did.For instance Kate Austin, Jay Fox, Havel etc etc.Many more than she suggests.Secondary sources can be quite misleading, I fear Best Barry70.137.165.195 (talk) 04:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" (emphasis in original). We would need to find a secondary source that says Goldman exaggerated (or mis-remembered) Most's reaction to AB's assassination attempt, or her isolation with respect to Czolgosz. Without that, we're forced to rely on what others have written. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know hardly a thing about wikipedia guidelines but it is utter madness to keep in statements whose truth has been substantially challenged because this challenge has not been published in a secondary source. If there are serious reasons to doubt the accuracy of a secondary source (e.g. Wexler) assertion simply remove the assertion. It is only mentioned in one secondary source and the purpose of tertiary sources according to WP is to "summarize secondary sources". Do note the plural, "sources". If something is mentioned in only one secondary source and especially when that source has been challenged, it makes no sense to repeat the assertion in WP. WP ought to reflect the consensus on secondary sources, not what one person or another who happens to have written a book. Secondary source, esp. popular books written about popular figures are full of dodgy "facts". Egh (talk) 22:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

What would you suggest the consensus of secondary sources in this case is? Kaldari (talk) 22:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

There does not seem to be a consensus that Most "insinuat[ed] it was carried out to create sympathy for Frick", so take out that line. Thanks! Egh (talk) 22:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Taking out that line creates a continuity problem. In the next sentence we mention how Goldman confronts Most with a horsewhip and demands that he provide evidence for his accusations. Indeed, what she actually yelled at that moment was "I came to demand proof of your insinuations against Alexander Berkman." If we don't mention any insinuations, this sentence doesn't make any sense to the reader. Kaldari (talk) 17:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I've attempted to fix the problem without including any of the questionable statements about Most. Kaldari (talk)

Looks good. I must say that it being a toy horsewhip makes EG look considerably less hardcore. =) Scartol • Tok 18:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Issues regarding the Paris Conference, the Free Speech League, and John Turner

Yes.What a pity it does make your life very difficult- and I fear depend very heavily on the accuracy of secondary sources.I do wish you good luck with your work.Three areas I would leave you with.EG and Havel did not help organise the Paris Conference of 1900(it was organised by French anarchists and' except for one or two clandestine meetings' did not take place).EG did not help organise the Free Speech league(see Falk et al Making Speech Free pp 557) and John Turner was not prevented from entering the USA(see Making Speech Free p110)John Turner was not Scottish.He was born in Essex (See Freedom/A Hundred Years,Freedom Press,London:1986) Good luck with your work Barry63.204.198.82 (talk) 18:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing all these issues to our attention. Kaldari (talk) 18:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed the section on the Free Speech League and John Turner. Kaldari (talk) 19:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Can someone look up the section about Havel in Wexler's Intimate Life to confirm the wording? Kaldari (talk) 19:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Wexler, Emma Goldman in America, p. 89:

In late January or early February of 1900, they left for Paris. The purpose of the visit to Paris was to help organize an International Anarchist Congress scheduled for September of 1900: a Congress regarded with mixed feelings by many anarchists in the United States, who were uncertain that the benefits would be worth the expense. The organizers of the Congress proposed to provide a forum for contacts between anarchists from different countries, to establish an international correspondence bureau, and to publicize anarchist ideas. Goldman enthusiastically favored the plan, emphasizing in particular its publicity value. [snip] At the last moment, however, the socialist municipal authorities of Paris, anxious about the Exposition being held at the time, prohibited the Congress from meeting. [snip] The delegates met clandestinely on the outskirts of the city. Most gave reports on the state of the anarchist movement in their respective countries. The practical-minded Goldman's was characteristically titled, "A Report on the Ways and Means to Arrange Successful Propaganda Tours through the States."[Note 16: Free Society, 21 October 1900.]

The achievements of the Congress were limited, due partly to the intensive surveillance by French police to which the anarchists were subjected and partly to the constant danger from agents provocateurs.

In light of the above, I think our article makes the Congress sound like a bigger achievement than it was. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I am unsure as to where Wexler obtains her information.EG had been accredited as the secretary and delegate from the American groups to the Congress-actually International Revolutionary Congress of the Working People (Falk-Made For America p375)As I said the Congress was supressed by the French authorities (see Falk Made For America pp416-421)I have seen no mention of a fear of agent provocateurs.Nor of a supression due to the Exposition Universalle.The authorities simply applied the lois scelerates laws (Falk Made...p418)It was the first attempt for anarchists to meet internationally after their expulsion from the 2nd Socialist International in London in July 1896.It also cemented EG's international reputation.She met anarchists such as Jean Grave,Victor Dave etc.She also attended the International Conference of Neo-Malthusians held in Paris from August 4-6th 1900.Perhaps her first introduction to one element of what would be the Birth Control movement, and where she obtained literature and contraceptives to bring back to America (Falk Made....p509).She was also waiting for AB to arrive in Munich who was hopefully to have been sprung by Morton etc..(Made..P 414) I must stop this!! Best Barry```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.137.134.58 (talk) 03:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Feminism

"she was hostile to first-wave feminism and its suffragist goals" - some illustration of how/why she was hostile would be instructive. Шизомби (talk) 20:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, as an anarchist she didn't believe in electoral politics, so she had no interest in the womens' suffrage movement. I don't imagine she was a supporter of the temperance movement either (which was intertwined with first-wave feminism). The statement that she was "hostile to first-wave feminism", however, might need some revision or further explanation in the text though. Kaldari (talk) 23:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I revised the statement to focus more narrowly on "hostile to the suffragist goals of first-wave feminism"; this is certainly accurate, and I'm not sure that the earlier version was wholly accurate. --Lquilter (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Prison photo

The photograph of a prison interior was recently removed with the edit summary: "photo of a prison makes no sense in this article - she was opposed to wars, should we have photos of wars too?". I personally think the prison photo is sensible, since it illustrates (A) an issue that she cared about very much (I wouldn't be opposed to an image of a warzone to illustrate her opposition, especially if it helped to break up a big block of text) and (B) a place where she spent some time. What do other people think? Scartol • Tok 18:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I only like to use illustrations that are directly relevant to the article topic, but other editors are more liberal on this. Kaldari (talk) 19:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Can't we have one discussion on this freaking project without someone bringing Awadewit into it!? Why is she always held up as some sort of demigod editor who knows all and has essential wisdom for every situation? Oh wait.. It's because she is and she does. =) Scartol • Tok 19:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Date of death

Doesn't her tombstone say she died in 1939 instead of 1940? Aintnanny (talk) 20:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The stone is wrong. That's why the caption to the photo says: "Goldman's grave in German Waldheim Cemetery, near those of the anarchists executed for the Haymarket affair. The year on the stone (1939) is incorrect." — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The date of birth on the tombstone says June 29, 1869 - is that also wrong. Dleppin (talk) 16:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Which tombstone are you looking at, Dleppin? Oops! Yes, it does appear that this date clashes with the date listed in Chalberg and Wexler. But perhaps someone with more immediate access to these books than myself can verify this? Scartol • Tok 18:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The Life and Times of Emma Goldman by the Emma Goldman Papers Project at U.C. Berkeley states her birthdate as June 27, 1869. I don't have access to Wexler, Chalberg, or Drinnon at the moment, but I can't imagine our date not matching them. I guess we should note that both the birth and death dates on the tombstone are wrong. Kaldari (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I've corrected the caption. Kaldari (talk) 03:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Which calendar?

Do we know whether her birth date is rendered in the Julian calendar or the Gregorian calendar? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Probably which ever calendar was being used in Toronto, Canada in 1940? You never can tell with those Canadians. Carptrash (talk) 22:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

PS Wexler says June 27, 1869. Carptrash (talk) 22:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a good question. It never occurred to me that the Russian Empire was still using the Julian calendar. Falk also has June 27. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, indeed it was, until 1918. See Gregorian calendar#Adoption in Europe. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The Julian calendar and the Gregorian calendar differ by less than two weeks, not a full year. Jhobson1 (talk) 11:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a rather odd comment. What is the "full year" a reference to? I'm fully aware the calendars differed by only 12 days in 1869. All I want to know is whether Emma Goldman was born on 15 June 1869 (os) = 27 June 1869 (ns); or 27 June 1869 (os) = 9 July 1869 (ns). -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Like, is she a Gemini or a Cancer ? Big difference. Carptrash (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

According to Academic American encyclopedia, Volume 10, page 235 June 27 is NS. Excerpt: The American anarchist Emma Goldman, b. Russia, June 27 (NS), 1869, d. May 14, 1940, combined the anarchist traditions of the European .... Renata (talk) 03:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Should we put "(NS)" in the DOB in the leader to avoid further such confusion? --Lquilter (talk) 14:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 18:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I've added in the standard os/ns dates. Thanks to everyone except Carptrash for clearing this up. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• So, now I wonder: did she celebrate her birthday on June 15th or June 27th? Presumably as a child the 15th, using Julian, in Russia; but once she immigrated to the US, did she continue to use it on the "date" (June 15th), or did she switch to the 27th? --Lquilter (talk) 04:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Was Emma Goldman an Egoist Anarchist?

Although Goldman was an admirer and defender of both Nietzche and Max Stirner, I don't believe it is accurate to call her an egoist. She clashed with the egoists on several issues, especially the idea of private property...

"Disbelieving in private ownership, we recognize in competition for material well being the greatest enemy to human progress."
— Emma Goldman, letter to John B. Andrews, 1907

That hardly sounds like the argument of an egoist. And that was well after she was acquainted with Nietzche and Stirner. I searched through several sources on Goldman today and I haven't been able to find any that identify her as an egoist. Most agree, however, that she was strongly influenced by the egoists, especially in regards to love and sexuality. Kaldari (talk) 17:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

New Friedrich Nietzsche section

I have a few complaints with the new Friedrich Nietzsche section. Primarily, I think it gives undue weight to Goldman's views on Nietzsche. The article now includes more material about Goldman's views on Nietzsche than it does Goldman's views on the Bolshevik revolution, a topic she devoted two volumes of writing to. We also mention almost nothing of her views on Kropotkin, although I would say she was more influenced by Kropotkin than Nietzsche. Secondly, the section is a quote farm. It consists of almost nothing but quotes defending Nietzsche. Such material would be more appropriate for Wikiquote than Wikipedia. Thirdly, I don't think the section presents an accurate and unbiased view of Goldman's relationship to egoist philosophy. Yes, she often defended Nietzsche and Stirner against attacks from other anarchists, but she was no blind devotee. As I mention in the section above, her relationship with egoism was far more complex and nuanced than this new section reveals. Fourthly, this new section is redundant with the discussion of Nietzsche's influence already given in the Philosophy section. Indeed, it even repeats the same quotations! Given these reasons, I'm going to remove the section for now. I think it could perhaps be replaced with a more thoughtful discussion of her views on egoism and individualist anarchism, but I don't think we need an entire section devoted solely to her defense of Nietzsche. Kaldari (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with most of that. Zazaban (talk)

That said, I hope I haven't unduly discouraged you from contributing to the article. As it has featured status, the bar is set rather high for adding new material, but discussions of changes and additions are always welcome. You'll find there are a few Goldman "experts" (for lack of a better word) lurking around here from time to time who are great to bounce ideas off of. Kaldari (talk) 21:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Grave marker and people she's buried near

Her grave is in what is now named Forest Home Cemetery, the old name was German Waldheim. So people can find it if they wish, I changed the photo caption (which is in present tense) but the name still links to the article on German Waldheim. Also in the body of article. Also added to the names of people she's bured near, included Alexander Beckman, Lucy Parsons, and Ben Reitman. Adding those names gives more context both to the interesting amount of people buried in the cemetery (its been called the "Arlington Cemetery of the left") and to the context of her life that many of her associates are buried near each other. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with the move to add more names. First, the chief significance of her burial in Waldheim is that it is near the Haymarket martyrs—the men who inspired her life-long advocacy of anarchism. That link is lessened by adding additional names. Second, and more picayune, I don't believe Berkman is buried in Waldheim. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed the names, a poster said Berkman is buried in Nice, France, and Reitman died after Goldman so he probably chose to be buried near her and the Haymarket monument. And Malik's point well taken. Ah, a break from Christmas. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:14, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Goldman and native rights

I admired Goldman for at least a few decades; my cultural roots are in the (quickly disappearing) peace culture of New York City, and the housing activism of the Lower East Side, where Emma Goldman had significant and lasting influence as a feminist and anarchist. At a certain point, I became more concerned about environmental issues rather than housing issues, and found that that Lower East Side activists were primarily concerned with self-issues, and not the world, and definitely not the suffering of animals as a result of global environmental decay! As I moved further into the Darwinist concept that human morality has its roots in the natural affection of animals, I implemented constructivist ideas to connect native human culture (Indians) with the natural societies of animals, and attempted to show the relationship between the two as a basis for spirituality.

What I could not help noticing at that point, is that as far as I can tell, Emma Goldman never paid the least attention to the rights of Native Americans! She was only concerned about immigrants, who, when they are deployed by Capital, can easily be shown to be the death of natives (everywhere). I know she was at Kropotkin's funeral, the last gathering of the Russian Anarchists (Kropotkin was there), and that Kropotkin was on the same page as Darwin (and more so if that is possible by extending evolutionary ideas to naturally developed and healthy societies), but it seems Goldman never got the natural connection to healthy society, and instead supported alternatives to capital society, which can then only be attempts to fix communism: anarchism.

Looking at the writing about Israel, I don't see her necessarily supporting the native Arab cultures that the Zionists shamelessly attempted (and still attempt) to destroy (but under different names). Her issue with Zionism was the capitalist banking connection (that thrives today on Wall Street as financial institutions such as GoldmanSacs), more Leninism than Kropotkin. I am really hoping someone can disprove this conception of mine! --John Bessa (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not a discussion board. Please limit discussion specifically to article content. Kaldari (talk) 17:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of this edit is to attempt to clarify who Emma Goldman really was; it attempts to create research direction based on type of critical inquiry that the wikimedia wikis naturally create as part of the wiki phenomena. This type of edit is becoming increasingly common, and is not inappropriate because it is on the discussion page, and because it raises questions about cited material that may be creating generalized misconceptions, despite what you may personally think.--John Bessa (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors don't do research, we report on existing research. See Wikipedia:No original research. Besides, your comments do not seem to suggest any specific revisions of the article. That is the purpose of the article talk page, not to suggest possible avenues of novel research or to discuss opinions of people's politics outside of points directly related to article content. Kaldari (talk) 22:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure where John Bessa's questions are going to take us, but I do agree that this is the appropriate place to bring them up. And as for Wikipedia editors don't do research, we report on existing research , well that;s a pretty fine line. I have stacks of books around here, each one more or less representing my research into a particular subject area. Editors, as to my understanding, do not just randomly discover interesting and insightful tid bits to add to articles. We do research. I don't think [[User:John Bessa|John Bessa] is asking us to voice our opinions about these issues, I get the feelong that he ("he", right?) is suggesting that we look for ( ie "do research into") these areas. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Seeing as that native rights didn't become a visible political issue until the 1950s, he may have a hard time finding any relevant information connected to Emma Goldman, however. Of course I would love to wrong about that :) Kaldari (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Even the famous (infamous in some households) Kit Carson said some interesting things about native rights a century before the 1950s, but I too doubt that too much will be found regarding Emma. We'll see. Carptrash (talk) 02:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, an American-born frontiersman is going to have a lot more contact with the subject than a Greenwich Village intellectual from Lithuania. Zazaban (talk) 03:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

So did she ever ponder (in writing, we hope) as to why there were no Native America's in Greenwich Village? About the capitalistic implications of buying Manhattan Island for beads and trinkets? That sort of thing. Probably not, but we'll see. I can't seem to be able to find my copy of "Living My Life" but it probably would not help. Carptrash (talk) 03:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Fortunately there is a place in the Wikimedia for original research: Wikiversity:Emma_Goldman. My point here is that either eye-witness recollections or careful ruminations (based on the wiki phenomena) that contradict cited material are valid on discussion pages because they may prove that cited material may be creating false impressions. What is bothering me about Goldman's material is that she obviously follows Kropotkin as an Anarchist, but does not follow him into the natural environment or the protection of nature-based societies. This makes me wonder if her Anarchism is valid--POV not being an issue here, because she was a spiritual leader for me and all of my compatriots during the struggle against arson in the Lower East Side of Manhattan during the 1980s. (We won the NY Fire Department, which later fought the NY Police Department at the site of the 9/11 terror attack just after the attack. This in contrast to the NYFD's support of the Vietnam war during the 60s-70s. As a toddler, I was personally hit w/ an egg thrown from a fire truck.--John Bessa (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

(I want to update this egg incident for accuracy. The truck may have been commandeered; the hurlers, as I now recall, were teenagers.--John Bessa (talk) 13:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC))

Although I really don't see what this has to do with the article, I will offer my personal observation: As Goldman herself was an immigrant in the world's largest city of immigrants, it was probably not a very compelling issue for her. That said, she does speak sympathetically of Native Americans in her autobiography (pp. 431-432), and Mother Earth occasionally published articles sympathetic to their cause. Kaldari (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the citation, I can't really get too deeply into why I think this is significant to the article (though I probably will anyway), but if you pull together information that I provide about the LES, and compare it to the Anarchism of Kropotkin, there is a contradiction. Kropotkin talked of humans in terms of animals in the natural environment, as Darwin did. In contrast, the anarchism of the LES, which I have strongly felt descends from work by Goldman and her fellow-fighters, is not about a responsible connection to the surrounding environment, but is more self-serving. It is about carving a piece of the New World, a condition that still exists, and which, in my experience, does more than anything else to promote violent crime and cocaine proliferation. I broke with the LES because of these types of issues, and then broke with the environmental movement because of a similar tendency to rationalize violence.

When I gravitated towards Darwin to understand the evolution of empathy, I found the strongest arguments in Kropotkin's work. This brought anarchy back for me as a valid concept a decade after I had discarded it as irrelevant because of its two obvious failings: hard drugs and violence. I partially concluded that of all the various systems, anarchy is the only natural one, and hence the most valid from an evolutionary perspective. It has always been philosophically connected to the environment in the village or tribal sense, the environment being the evolutionary roots of our DNA--something Kropotkin and Darwin understood without possibly knowing what DNA is. Why then wasn't Goldman connected to the environment? And why is anarchy urban, synthetic, and violent rather than rural, natural, and peaceful? The answer, I believe, is that Goldman may have been more communist than anarchist (though not Soviet, obviously), making her influences "industrial" rather than natural; the same may apply to a lot of other a lot of Europeans in America during her time who called themselves anarchists. And that I believe is significant enough to bring up in relation to the article.--John Bessa (talk) 22:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

American anarchism at the turn of the 20th century was industrial. The IWW and Bolshevism certainly figured more prominently than Thoreau in political discussions of the day. Of course adding mention of communism to the article does little to clarify things as the meaning of "communism" has changed even more than the meaning of "anarchism" within the last century of American politics. I think we're better off avoiding political and ideological labels in the article, other than those used by Goldman herself. See the previous discussion on labeling Goldman an "egoist" for example. Kaldari (talk) 23:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Afterthought: I think Kaldari makes a good point: "better off avoiding political and ideological labels" in light of "egotism." Egotism is probably similar to narcissism, which is described as a major cause of malignant leadership (New York Times). Narcissism had been a major component of Capital during my 13 yrs on Wall Street (I doubt anything has changed), so Goldman may have had much in common with her capitalist "enemies," cementing Kaldari's point that the article should focus on Goldman's person rather than the political backdrop.--John Bessa (talk) 16:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

For the most part anarchism, until the last thirty years or so, has been an urban, industrial, and yes, communist ideology. Environmentalism wasn't really a central part of it until Bookchin and Social Ecology, and even then it was an urban communist ideology. But anyhow, this is drifting off into WP:FORUM territory. Zazaban (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Even I think that this is getting a little out of control, and hence my suggestion for discussion on the Wikiversity way above--perhaps more in the context of people in relation to systems rather than peoples' biographies. But take a look a this discussion page: Talk:Dana_Beal. I know him very well, and he is in many respects in the same league as Goldman as he is a Lower East Side revolutionary. He is still alive, and his history is still in the making (which is exceedingly amusing if you know him), so the discussion page naturally goes to reminiscences, OR, and even speculation. Because of the phenomenal nature of wikis, they tend to the Scientific idea of a single phenomenon that gets mapped contextually a layer above what we think of as encyclopedic. At the moment there is no facility to accommodate this higher layer, but it definitely exists; WP does its own OR.--John Bessa (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Confusion

I'm confused by this, which appears in the entry in the Section "Biography:Russia:"

Curt Gentry, in his 1991 Hoover biography J. Edgar Hoover: The Man and the Secrets, wrote that Hoover selectively quoted from the transcript of the murder trial of the anarchist Leon Czogolsz, accused of killing President William McKinley in 1901, nearly 20 years before, attempting to link Goldman to the assassination. Hoover's duplicitious tactics convinced the jury that Goldman should be deported.

What trial is this? What jury is Hoover talking to? When? the location where this appears in the text is at the point of deportation at the end of 1919. Does this refer to a deportation hearing rather than a trial? I check out Gentry's book when I have a chance. What we really need is a section called "Deportation" between World War I and Russia. It's post-WWI and pre-Russia.

And I wonder what the charge is here, since Czogolsz said he was inspired by Goldman. What other "link" was Hoover making?

Cheers.

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 03:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• I've had a chance to check Gentry's book and what he says is questionable. He claims Hoover somehow prosecuted Goldman at her "trial" (his quotes) in 1919. He doesn't footnote this material. And we know there was no trial per se and that Louis Post of Labor made the necessary decision. Richard Powers in Secrecy and Power, by contrast, with footnotes, tells us that Hoover wrote an attack against Goldman and the Washington Post published his arguments on the occasion of the sailing of the Buford. So Hoover had no actual interaction with Goldman in November-December 1919.

• I'm going to delete the short section about Gentry's book. It's irrelevant to Goldman's biography. Powers' account could be added to J. Edgar Hoover (propagandist).

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

category:People from McHenry County, Illinois

I reverted the addition of this category. I don't believe Goldman could any more meaningfully be described as "from" McHenry County than "from" various counties in NY; if we assigned her to every county she lived in for more than a few months we would be talking serious category bloat. Other thoughts welcome, of course. --Lquilter (talk) 01:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi- that's fine, I didn't realize she moved around so much! I was just trying to tie her in to the history of McHenry Cty somehow. Regards, --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Long time before responding; sorry. A better way to tie her in would be through use of links in the article, rather than through the category structure -- for instance, a list of famous residents of .... --Lquilter (talk) 22:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Conflict with Lucy Parsons

If the “conflict with Lucy parsons” was of such significance to both women, there should be a sizable entry about it on Emma’s page. L. Parsons legacy should not include information about where and how she disagreed with a white woman. In reading about L. Parsons I’m taken to Emma’s page due to the sizable entry, over nothing of importance. Stop centering Black women’s lives around disagreements with White women, Emma should not be mentioned on L. Parsons page especially unreciprocated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:3810:1340:7907:E879:4E5B:891 (talk) 10:45, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree that that it's imbalanced to have significant content on Lucy Parsons and no mention on Goldman's article. I disagree with removing that content from Parsons; I think a better solution would be to mirror that section in this article. Schazjmd (talk) 13:20, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Notified: Talk:Lucy Parsons. Schazjmd (talk) 13:20, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020

The following should be addressed:

• There is a hanging ref in the World War I section.
• There is sporadic uncited text throughout (I tagged only one instance, but there is more).
• Layout issues and MOS:SANDWICHing caused by too many images has crept in. There were no image layout issues in the featured version, so it looks like no one is watching this article, and editors are chunking in images without concern for WP:WIAFA.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Three months later ... There are stubby one-sentence sections (these were not in the version that passed FAC), minor amounts of uncited text, and image layout needs adjustment for sandwiching; is anyone watching this article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Thanks for bringing this up! I have fixed these issues. Wretchskull (talk) 22:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Wretchskull. I have been socked in busy lately, so if I forget to get back to review this soon, please pester my talk page. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Reviewing again

There are citations and sourcing cleanup needs throughout, these are samples only, not comprehensive.

• This sourcing is marginal; it would be optimal to have better sourcing to establish relevance (and source is missing access date):

  Paul Gailiunas and his late wife Helen Hill co-wrote the anarchist song "Emma Goldman", which was performed and released by the band Piggy: The Calypso Orchestra of the Maritimes in 1999. The song was later performed by Gailiunas' new band The Troublemakers and released on their 2004 album Here Come The Troublemakers.

• There are missing page numbers on books and inconsistent citation style (re Books should be listed in Sources with short-form citations used):

  Goldman, Emma. Living My Life. 1931. New York: Dover Publications Inc., 1970. ISBN 0-486-22543-7.

• Another missing access date:

  Anthony, David "Martha goes undercover in the video for “Goldman’s Detective Agency”" The A.V. Club May 4, 2016

• More marginal sourcing ala looks like an advert:

  Red Emma's Bookstore Coffeehouse, an infoshop in Baltimore, Maryland adopted her name out of their belief "in the ideas and ideals that she fought for her entire life: free speech, sexual and racial equality and independence, the right to organize in our jobs and in our own lives, ideas and ideals that we continue to fight for, even today".

• No ISBN?

  Alice S. Rossi. The Feminist Papers: From Adams to de Beauvoir. Lebanon, New Hampshire: Northeastern University Press, 1988, p. 507

• ISBNs inconsistently formatted throughout (most have dashes, some do not):

  Diggs, Nancy Brown (1998). Steel Butterflies: Japanese Women and the American Experience. Albany: State Univ. of New York Press. p. 99. ISBN 0791436233.

• Dead link, unformatted ISBN, and if this is a book (ISBN), why is there an accessdate given?

  Clay, Steven E. (2011). U. S. Army Order Of Battle 1919–1941 (PDF). Volume 4. The Services: Quartermaster, Medical, Military Police, Signal Corps, Chemical Warfare, And Miscellaneous Organizations, 1919–41. 4. Fort Leavenworth, KS: Combat Studies Institute Press. ISBN 9780984190140. LCCN 2010022326. Retrieved October 23, 2014.

• External link pruning needed ... does she really have that many papers in that many places, or are there duplicates there?
• Here we have an unformatted ISBN, but also .. why is the same book listed in Further reading if it is already used as a source?

  Avrich, Paul (2005). Anarchist Voices: An Oral History of Anarchism in America. AK Press. p. 491. ISBN 9781904859277.

• Legacy ... need to distinguish between the truly notable and the trivia ... and make less listy (there are two paras talking about songs, which could be one if that material is kept).
• I cannot locate in the text where this image caption is sourced ?? I could be missing it ... so we seem to be asking the reader to zoom in on the image and check the text to verify ?

  Goldman's grave in Illinois' Forest Home Cemetery, near those of the anarchists executed for the Haymarket affair. The dates on the stone are incorrect.

• Some serious "de-howevering" might be in order. See overuse of however and User:John/however.

References

These notes are only based on a quick glance. The article was written in 2007, and the standards have changed; this one still needs attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:17, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

---

For the volumes that have been written on Goldman (secondary sources), this article is quite reliant on her own writings (primary sources). czar 22:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Her grave says born June 29 1869

Her grave says June 29 1868 2600:1700:C2E0:45D0:54A3:CF55:3C48:8EA1 (talk) 22:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

The inscription is wrong: Talk:Emma Goldman/Archive 5 § Date of death czar 01:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2022

The first sentence under the "McKinley assassination" section needs a citation - specifically the claim that Leon Czolgosz had "a history of mental illness" - I can't find any mention of mental illness except for some from *after* the assassination. Reed m jones (talk) 12:35, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done —Sirdog (talk) 09:14, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Libertarian?

There are several navboxes and categories having to do with Libertarianism, but the word does not appear in the body of the article? Can someone add something? Kire1975 (talk) 00:23, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

"Libertarian socialism" is anarchism, hence the overlap czar 03:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC)