Talk:Emma Goldman

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A discussion of an Infobox for this bio has been archived.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)

Capitalism section

Recently, a paragraph of the capitalism section was removed.[1] 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)

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)

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)

"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#Influences_and_Influenced_Fields. 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:

• 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).

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)

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)