| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: |  | This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies (talk), which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page. | |  FA | This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale. | | |  | This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | | | FA | This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale. | | High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. | | | | |  | This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lithuania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lithuania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. | | | FA | This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale. | | Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. | | |  | This article is part of WikiProject Gender Studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information. | | | FA | This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale. | | | This article is supported by the Feminism task force, which deals with feminism articles. | | |  | This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. | | | FA | This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale. | | Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. | | |  | This article is within the scope of WikiProject Toronto, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Toronto on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. | | | FA | This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale. | | ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | | | This article was automatically rated by a bot because at least one other project used this rating. Please ensure that the assessment is correct before removing the |auto=inherit parameter. | | | |  | Emma Goldman was featured as the Anarchism portal selected article for January 2008. |
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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) [edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] Zionism As currently stated, "She was also critical of Zionism, which she saw as another failed experiment in state control," article is misleading. See [1], for a letter she wrote. She was in favor of free immigration of Jews to Palestine and against the statist rights Palestinians claimed to prevent this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.65.77 (talk) 13:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC) - Yes she supported the right of Jews to immigrate to Palestine, but she was firmly opposed to Zionism: "I have no quarrel with our good friend about his charges against the Zionists. In point of fact I have for many years opposed Zionism as the dream of capitalist Jewry the world over for a Jewish State with all its trimmings, such as Government, laws, police, militarism and the rest. In other words, a Jewish State machinery to protect the privileges of the few against the many." Do you have any suggestion for how to reword the sentence in the article? Kaldari (talk) 15:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
|
