Jump to content

Talk:Elizabeth Dilling/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Heritage

There's an awful lot of discussion of her ancestry on this page that doesn't seem germaine to her own history is may only be the contributions of those editors interested in promoting her as "racially pure." Should these stay, since they may be factual, or not, since they are potentially propagandistic? SNDLLN (talk) 01:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

2nd husband

"Her second husband, Jeremiah Stokes (1877-1954), was a lawyer and author. He published the antisemitic The Plot Against Christianity in 1964,"


A neat trick for Mr. Stokes to publish something ten years after his death! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.147.247.254 (talk) 21:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Franco

Saying 'She believed Franco was a brave Christian' does not seem to get to what was different about Dilling. Surely everyone, including his foes, believed that Franco was personaly brave (as shown by battles in Morocco) and that he was a believing member of the Roman Catholic Church. I suggest this sentence be replaced with a summary of Dilling's beliefs, sourced from her books, that military dictatorship could be an acceptable alternative to Communism.173.13.153.50 (talk) 21:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Untitled

Some mistake in dates, here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.89.68.24 (talk) 20:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism has never been a crime in the US

Elizabeth Dilling Stokes (April 19, 1894 – May 26, 1966) was an American anti-communist and anti-war activist and writer in the 1930s and 1940s, who was charged with antisemitism and sedition in the Great Sedition Trial of 1944

The First Amendment to the US Constitution protects the rights of anti-Semites to freedom of speech. That was true even during the Second World War.Falange (talk) 21:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Anti-semite

Ok, so we have a blog, a source that doesn't mention anti-semitism, and a single source. That's not enough for the lead IMO. Perhaps the body, but not the lead (or at least not an assertion of fact). Soxwon (talk) 22:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

OK. Where then? The lead calls her an anti-Communist, which is generally seen as a positive thing, but her anti-Communism was linked to her anti-Semitism.Jimintheatl (talk) 23:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
As for sourcing, I don't see how you're missing the anti-Semitism mentions in the refs, not all blogs are equal, and the cites are historical reference works.Jimintheatl (talk)
The "Women and war: a historical encyclopedia from antiquity to the present" link doesn't mention the word anti-semetic, anti-semite, or anything of that nature. A blog is a blog, and one source isn't enough for the lead. Soxwon (talk) 00:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't know which ref you're reading, but read it more carefully, please. And, it's "anti-Semitic", self-published blogs are not RS, but blogs affiliated with established orgs are. I have cited 2 works by historians that refer to Dilling's anti-Semitism. So, sourcing aside, what about the issue of the lead treating Dilling as an anti-Communist, anti-war activist (not generally seen as bad things) but ignoring her darker inclinations (anti-Semitism, white supremacist, Hitler-friendly....)Needs work, agreed?Jimintheatl (talk) 01:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I think reading her book 'The Plot Against Christianity'(1952) will settle the question of whether she was an anti-Semite or not. I vote yes; however it should be noted in the article somewhere that she only shifted to this view in the late 1930's. 173.13.153.50 (talk) 21:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

MLK, Civil Rights, etc.

The article mentions that she thought Gandhi, etc., were Communists. Did she feel the same way about Martin Luther King Jr., or the Civil Rights movement in general? I would assume that she did, but right now the article doesn't explicitly say so. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

She died in 1966, so her "productive" years predated MLK.Jimintheatl (talk) 02:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I recall a survey of the far right in the mid 60's called 'the further shores', or something like that. It mentioned Dilling as someone from an earlier generation living in Chicago, and opposed to civil rights marches. If the reference can be tracked, it could address this point. 96.90.200.185 (talk) 21:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Did She Visit Soviet Union?

The article states that when she returned to Illinois she began a tour exposing the workers' paradise as anything but. It is not explained what that was but implies the USSR and that she had been there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.34.181.212 (talk) 00:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. She went to the USSR and took several films, showing them around the US with commentary in the early 1930's. See the 'Mother's Movement' book in the references for more info; it is the single best source of info I know of about Dilling. 173.13.153.50 (talk) 21:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

False Lines

Someone put a line at the end of the article saying Dilling put false lines in the Talmud. Though anti-Semites often fabricate quotes from the Talmud, the allegation was unsourced, so I removed it. Either a reference should be provided for this claim, or some examples should be provided, with links to the real texts (available online). 67.188.213.31 (talk) 08:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

A Clear Error

Apparently her second husband, Jeremiah Stokes (1877-1954) published her book in 1964 (note the ten year discrepancy!). Given the somewhat controversial nature of Dilling, it would be good if the article was as accurate as possible, and an error of this type might give ideological diehards an excuse to discredit the article. 85.76.168.47 (talk) 10:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Elizabeth Dilling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Elizabeth Dilling/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Carbrera (talk · contribs) 03:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


Lead

Paragraph 1

  • Insert a comma after "In 1934".

Early life and family

Paragraph 1

  • Insert a comma after "In 1912".

Paragraph 2

  • Omit "extensively" in the first sentence; it seems unnecessary.
  • Insert a comma after "In 1923".

Paragraph 3

  • Replace "when she noted a" with "where she noted a".
  • Insert a comma after "in 1939".

Anti-communism

Paragraph 1

  • Replace "she encountered, on her" with "she encountered upon her".
  • Replace "on her doctor's advice" with "following her doctor's advice".
  • Maybe break up the last sentence; it's a little lengthy. Or at some semi-colons rather than the excessive commas.

Paragraph 2

  • Insert a comma after "In 1932".
  • Replace "organisation" with "organization".
  • Reword the first sentence somehow; it's a little disorganized.

Paragraph 4

  • Replace "The book had been" with "The book has been".
  • Replace "and sold more than" with "and has sold more than".
I rearranged it slightly.zzz (talk) 11:28, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Paragraph 7

  • Insert a comma after "In 1938".

Isolationism

Paragraph 2

  • "It was the base of the isolationist America First Committee found in September 1940, which by 1941 had 850,000 members, and influential far-right activists Father Charles E. Coughlin, Reverend Gerald L. K. Smith and Lyrl Clark Van Hyning." could be reworded. It's just cluttered and hard to read.

Paragraph 3

  • "7 March" ? Turn it around to March 7.

Paragraph 4

  • Replace "in December 1941" with "on December 1941".

Paragraph 5

  • Insert commas before and after "convened in 1941 to investigate fascist propaganda".
  • Weird date: "21 July 1942" - turn it around.
  • Another weird date: "4 January 1944".
  • And another: "3 January 1944".
  • And again: "29 November 1944".
  • There's a lot of turned around dates; please fix them.
  • Insert a comma following "in 1954".

End of GA Review:

On hold for seven days to allow for the aforementioned changes to be made. Please @PING me here with any questions, comments, or concerns. Thanks so much and good luck! Cheers, Carbrera (talk) 05:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC).

Thanks very much for the comments. I think I fixed everything. zzz (talk) 11:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

@Carbrera:zzz (talk) 11:44, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Maps of the USA etc

Hello User:Signedzzz. the prose as it originally stood stated: "They spent a month in the Soviet Union in 1931, where local guides, who Dilling claimed were Jews, showed her a map of the US with Soviet city names, and warned her that communism would take over the world." This can cause confusion; I mean, what on Earth is a "Soviet city name"? The source states that what concerned Dilling was that U.S. cities would be named after Soviet war heroes after the US fell to communism. Thus, we really need to be mentioning that "communism would take over the world" first; it's not a major change, and I don't really see why anyone would oppose it. It's a simple amendment that makes things a lot clearer. We can always take this to 3rd Opinion if you like? Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

No, the source (as I recall it) does not "state that what concerned Dilling was that U.S. cities would be named after Soviet war heroes after the US fell to communism". zzz (talk) 21:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
To directly quote the source: "Her fears were exacerbated by Russian guides, whom Dilling claimed were Jews. One guide told her communism would conquer the world, beginning with a revolution in China and culminating in the takeover of United States. The guides also showed her a map on which American cities had been renamed for Soviet heroes.27" It mentions the spread of communism before mentioning the map. We should too, for clarity's sake. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
You said "The source states that what concerned Dilling was that U.S. cities would be named after Soviet war heroes". However, that is definitely not what the source says. zzz (talk) 21:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Okay, granted I was wrong on that. But that doesn't in any way invalidate my argument that we should mention the conquering of the US first. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Moreover, on a wider level, Signedzzz, I'm certainly not trying to undo all of the good work that you have done with this article in getting it to GA status. Indeed, I thank you for that! However, I have a great deal of experiences with political biographies here at Wikipedia, and I think that there are a few ways in which I can improve on this article; for instance there were various problems with the list of sources (some titles weren't italicised etc), the lede doesn't really properly cover the article as per WP:Lede, and the article doesn't have sections on her personal life and ideology. These are all things that I know I can improve on; there's no need to feel threatened by me edits, I'm just here to help! Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

And why are you repeatedly deleting (referenced) material I add in? Particularly without giving any reason. It's just not necessary. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Okay, this is just getting silly... Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
You're even reintegrating the old source system which was replete with errors. Looks to me like you're placing your own sense of ownership over this page above any attempt to see its faults and problems corrected. I've tried reaching out to work constructively but you just ignore by overtures and continue removing any edits that I've done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

"Various problems with the list of sources (some titles weren't italicised etc)": Books were not italicised, Journal articles were. In other words, it was fine (and had already been checked by other editors) zzz (talk) 21:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I'll try to meet you half-way, Signedzzz. I'm not going to stand by and let you delete everything and anything I have added. You need to reflect on your ownership issues and recognise that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. I am only here to help, and I have a great deal of experience in improving biographical articles here at Wikipedia so please don't treat me like some vandal. On the other hand, I appreciate that maybe you were annoyed that I began to use a different citation system and that I changed the formatting of the chunk quotations. I still would like to see those two things reformatted, but that's an issue we can deal with another day. In the meantime, I am going to reintegrate some of the more minor information that you removed back into the article. I'll try and restrict myself to re-adding the minor stuff, and will hold off on adding any new sections until we can agree on this together (hopefully with some RfC contributions too). I respect you as an editor and I really hope that we can work constructively on this one, because an ongoing edit war and mud-slinging isn't good for either of us or the Wikipedia project itself. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

No, please don't "reintegrate" minor information into the article. It is excluded for a reason. Thanks. zzz (talk) 09:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
And that reason is... ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:51, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Early Life and Family section

What is it that you object to here, exactly? I've simply bolstered the prose in places with extra citations, particularly after direct quotations, including to one direct quotation that currently is not-referenced at all. I've added the name of Dilling's school with a link to the appropriate article on the subject, I've made mention of the Spanish Civil War in a sentence describing her travels in Spain, and I've slightly re-worded a sentence to better reflect the wording of the original source. To be honest, I can't see anything here that you could reasonably object to. Are you simply unhappy that someone else is contributing to your article? Because that's how it looks to me. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Which direct quotation did you "bolster with extra citations", and which direct quotation is "currently not referenced at all"? zzz (talk) 10:05, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
In the version of the page that you keep reverting to, we have various quotations that end sentences ("great improvement of conditions", "don't believe the stories you hear that this man has not done a great good for this country.") without any citation provided immediately afterward. Yes, there is then a citation at the very end of the paragraph, but in my (extensive) experience of getting articles to GA and FA, there will always be calls for ensuring that every direct quotation is cited at the end of the sentence, not the end of the paragraph. Adding an additional citation in these instances is very minor and simple and really not something that needs to be argued about, so why you insist on removing the citations is beyond me.
Moreover, the opening sentence of the "Anti-communism" section – "Dilling's political activism was spurred by the "bitter opposition" she encountered upon her return to Illinois in 1931, "against my telling the truth about Russia ... from suburbanite 'intellectual' friends and from my own Episcopal minister."" – isn't cited at all. I checked the citations provided at the end of the paragraph, and this quotation isn't actually in them. So I went and did some investigating of my own, found the necessary citation, and added it in after that first sentence (but you just keep removing it; again, why?).
Further, you still haven't given me any explanation as to why you have opposed my other edits. I'm waiting. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:12, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
I did miss that cite. Added now. I don't agree that it is necessary to add cites directly after every quote for this article, obviously, or I would have done so already. Same goes for adding the name of her school. I don't think the Civil War needs to be spelled out, either, obviously, or I would have done so already: it is reasonably clear given the context, I believe. So that's covered everything you mentioned except "I've slightly re-worded a sentence to better reflect the wording of the original source" - which sentence is that? zzz (talk) 10:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
@Midnightblueowl: which sentence were you referring to? zzz (talk) 10:50, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
I was referring to the sentence discussing communism in the USA, however it's all in the checklist now. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:51, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Checklist

Okay, I've seen that you have agreed to add a citation in after the quotation that had none. That's a good start. Now, let's look at the other issues on a point by point basis now. What is your objection to each of these edits? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Originally it was Chicago, Illinois, as per MOS. Then a user changed it to Chicago, Illinois. I agree with this change. Linking both separately is wrong in cases like this.

The date is in the lead, just above.

You didn't say why you think that a "further bolstering citation" is required. zzz (talk) 04:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Why do you want to add it? zzz (talk) 04:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

  • " Christian scripture" - why do you object to the word "Christian", which helps keep things clearer for the reader? Just mentioning "scripture" could result in a reader gaining the impression that Dilling had been reading the scriptures of many different religious traditions. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Following normal usage in RS. zzz (talk) 04:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

  • "Their relationship was turbulent; when Dilling discovered her husband was having an affair with another woman, she broke into the latter's home at gunpoint and threatened her.[3] Albert gave his wife $100,000 not to divorce him, and although he promised not to commit adultery again, he had two further extra-marital relationships before their eventual divorce.[1]" - why do you object to the addition of this valuable information? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

From an encyclopedic gender neutral perspective, it is not at all clear that this is "valuable information".

More importantly, what you added is factually wrong. The cite states "He soon acquired two new mistresses, and the Dillings separated twice before divorcing in 1943." And you omitted the mother's role in the break-in. zzz (talk) 05:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

  • "warned her that communism would take over the world and showed her a map of the US with cities named after Soviet heroes" - why do you insist that we mention the map first when the source material mentions it second? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

The current version is perfectly clear and more concise, and avoids talking about "Soviet heroes". No one else has objected to it.

  • Why do you insist on leaving citations till the end of the paragraph in several instances rather than having them at the end of every sentence discussing a different issue? For instance, in one paragraph you discuss her travels in Britain, France, Italy, and the impact that they had on her, before then moving on to the Soviet Union; only at the very end of the entire paragraph do you have citations. A reader could reasonably think that those citations only apply to the information about the USSR and not the earlier material too. The additional citations don't cause you or the reader any harm and they make it clearer that the paragraph is fully or properly referenced. Adding them causes no problems and has clear benefits. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I am opposed to adding cites to the same thing repeatedly after each sentence. I remove these when I see them. Cites should convey useful information.

  • Why do you oppose any mention of the Spanish Civil War? Readers unfamiliar with Spanish history (let's face it, that'll be a lot of people) won't be aware that the communist killings of priests, church burnings etc were part of the conflict. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Already answered above. zzz (talk) 04:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC) And why have you responded to many of my points only to delete those same responses all shortly after? What am I supposed to do in this situation; do I respond to them or not? It's very odd. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference Jeansonne, p8 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Dye, 2
  3. ^ Jeansonne, 8–9

If Dilling threatened someone with a gun, it is interesting info, and belongs in the article, if it can be properly sourced. 96.90.200.185 (talk) 21:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

What on earth are encyclopedic 'gender-neutral' standards and why should anyone care? Please leave current intellectual fads out of this.

Lede

As per WP:Lede, we really should be rewording and expanding the lede so that it properly summarises the wider content of the article. At present it doesn't do that; it adds some core facts about her life and her significance but gives no broader biographical overview. To demonstrate how it could be improved just take a look at today's featured article, Margaret Murray, as an example; it is about a successful woman who lived around the same time as Dilling and so serves as a good comparison. Look at the structure of the lede; that is what we should be seeking to emulate here. I'm more than happy to work on putting a new lede together with you. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Again, why have you responded to my point only to delete your response shortly after? Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Anyway, I'm sorry to have to take it to this level, but your comments here and here were sufficiently aggressive and abusive that I had to take them to the administrators' noticeboard to see what they think I should do about them. Such personal attacks were totally and utterly unwarranted. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:50, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

RfC on Content Additions and Removal

A range of properly referenced changes and additions to the article have been proposed; a core contributor disagrees with their value and argues against their inclusion. A list of the proposed changes has been provided here for further discussion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

The content issues at hand

"Early Life and Family" section

  • At present this section is called "Early Life and Family", however a very large proportion of it deals with Dilling's travels in Europe and Asia. I suggest that it could therefore be renamed "Early life, family, and travel"; a very minor and not particularly important change but one which adds some additional accuracy. This is a change that Signedzzz has undone. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
The travel was done with her family, as the article states. I have already addressed the other points in the section above, "Checklist" zzz (talk) 10:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Concur with zzz.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
If the travels were mainly with birth family, I concur with zzz, if they were later in life they might move to new section/merge with existing sections.Pincrete (talk) 16:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
(Came here via RfC) On Wikipedia, it seems common practice to use "early life" to mean anything that happened before the events the person is most notable for. For example, Early life and career of Barack Obama covers Obama's life up until his mid-thirties, including the publication of his first book. Chris Hallquist (talk) 13:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
  • At present the opening sentence relies solely on one citation and doesn't mention Dilling's date of birth. Granted, this isn't a major issue, but I added an additional citation and the date of birth (the latter being found in the additional citation) to this sentence. Signedzzz then removed these alterations. I can see no good reason for this omission; we often include dates of birth in the opening sentences of early life sections of biographical articles at Wikipedia, and two citations is hardly excessive. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
First, we need to decide whether the WP:LEAD is going to be fully cited or fully uncited. Either all facts in the LEAD have WP:ICs or none of them do. Once this is decided, we can address whether these later citations are necessary. However, the LEAD is suppose to summarize the main body. No fact in the LEAD should be without equivalent or greater detail in the main body. This includes birth/death dates. There should be greater detail about birth in the body than the LEAD. Please include such detail in the main body.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Sorry Tony, it looks like there has been some confusion here. By "At present the opening sentence" I mean the opening sentence of the "Early Life and Family Section"; it appears you are talking about the opening sentence of the lead. Sorry I didn't make that clearer. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:33, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I am either confused or wrong that I am not confused, but I do not believe I am confused. My point is that what is at issue in this point is subject to correctly formatting the LEAD. Once you decide which way you want to format the LEAD and do so, it will affect the response to this issue in some senses. Regardless, this section must have more detail than what is in the LEAD. The LEAD is only a summary of the main body.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
WP:LEADCITE doesn't support the policy that the lede needs to be either "fully cited or fully uncited". Rather, it suggests that potentially controversial claims in the lede should be cited, but less controversial claims backed up in the article body need not be. Chris Hallquist (talk) 13:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
  • There is a piece of what I think is quite significant information mentioned in the reliable sources but which is missing from the article. I added it in thusly; "Their relationship was turbulent; when Dilling discovered her husband was having an affair with another woman, she broke into the latter's home at gunpoint and threatened her.[3] Albert gave his wife $100,000 not to divorce him, and although he promised not to commit adultery again, he had two further extra-marital relationships before their eventual divorce." Signedzzz removed this, relating "Obviously, I thought about this, and decided it was not "valuable information"." Well clearly, I do think that this is valuable biographical information, as does the reliable source in question. I don't know why they would want to omit this information from the article, although its omission might suggest a desire to avoid mention of incidents which paint Dilling in a less-favourable light, in which case we have a neutrality issue at play. Midnightblueowl (talk)
  • The article currently states "showed her a map of the US with Soviet city names, and warned her that communism would take over the world". Now given that the reliable source mentions communism taking over the world before Dilling being shown such a map, I restructured the sentence to reflect that source. Signedzzz undid that edit. However, I believe that mentioning the spread of communist first is appropriate. As I read it, the source implies that the "Jews" whom Dilling met in the Soviet Union claimed that communism will sweep across the United States, resulting in American cities being renamed after "Soviet heroes" (it explicitly says the latter). For this reason I think that mention of communism's spread should appear first in the sentence, and moreover it should be made clear that the map displayed would depict U.S. cities being named after "Soviet heroes"; after all, the US would have already appeared on Soviet maps with Russian names for its cities... At present the sentence doesn't really make sense. My proposed restructuring fixes the problems and makes it all much clearer. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:49, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Repeatedly, citations are left to the very end of the paragraph rather than being positioned at different points throughout the paragraph. In some cases this causes problems; for instance, we have a number of direct quotes which end sentences but are left without a citation immediately following them (in my experience, that's a no-no at Wikipedia and I've been called out for it at GAN and FAC's in the past). In others, we have a wide range of different topics discussed in a paragraph, all then relying on the citations at the very end. Again, something I've been called out for doing back in my early years as a Wikipedian. To correct this, I went through the paragraphs and integrated citations to the reliable sources at the appropriate junctures. Once again, Signedzzz undid these edits. However, these additional citations cause no problems, and moreover help prevent any confusion that the reader may have regarding what information comes from what reference, whether a sentence is actually referenced or not, etc. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Lede

At present I am not convinced that the lede does the best possible job at matching the criteria for WP:Lede. At present it consists of two rather thin paragraphs, each of which mention some of Dilling's significant achievements but which give no wider discussion of her biography; it does not mention for example where she was born and doesn't give any wider outline of her life. The lede also mentions information (such as "Dilling's writings secured her a lasting influence among right-wing groups") which actually doesn't appear to be present in the main article body at all, which again is in contravention of WP:Lede. Previously I drew comparisons with yesterday's Featured Article, Margaret Murray, which is also a biography of a woman living at around the same time as Dilling, urging that we reformat the lede to look more like that of the Murray article; rather than a reasoned response I received a torrent of abuse here and here, which were admittedly later removed. Again, I had tried to make some tentative changes to the lede in order to expand it a little but these were pretty quickly reverted. Do others agree that the lede could be improved? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

References

At present, the referencing system is a little messy. We have footnotes followed by sources, but the two are not differentiated into sub-headings (which is of course the norm here at Wikipedia). Moreover, the list of sources displays some problems. Different sources are formatted differently; book titles are not italicised, books are described as first editions (this is only necessary when dealing with revised editions), some books are given location of publisher while others aren't, etc. I corrected all of these issues, but Signedzzz simply went in and undid this, without offering an explanation. Do I have support for re-introducing the division into "Footnotes" and "Sources" sub-headings and for standardising the format of the sources? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

"Personality and personal life" and "Ideology" sections

As part of my attempted improvements to this article I added sections on Dilling's "Ideology" and her "Personality and personal life", in keeping with most other GA and FA political biography articles. Signedzzz deleted these. Admittedly both sections were fairly scanty at the time of their deletion, but I had intended to expand and build on them, using the appropriate reliable sources. Do others think that the inclusion of sections on these topics would be a good addition to this article? Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

There would need to be a reason to NOT include 'personal life', which would include the marriage mentioned above, and its problems. 'Personality' can be problematic. I note that there is also little 'criticism', either in her own time or since, though some of her 'battles' are within other sections.Pincrete (talk) 18:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Old introduction

Update: In hindsight, this initial introduction to the RfC is not sufficiently neutral and is excessively verbose. I have replaced it with a more appropriate introduction (above). Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC)'

User:Signedzzz has done some fantastic work on this page recently, pulling it up to GA status. However, I notice that there are still some significant omissions to the content; there is no section discussing Dilling's personal life or personality for instance, and no wider discussion of her political views or ideology. Moreover, the lead does not aptly summarise the rest of the article, as is required in WP:Lede (Contrast, for example, this article with that of other political figures like Else Christensen or Vladimir Lenin). Thus, this evening I have gone back to the reliable sources, and used them as part of a project to add these sections into the article and to ensure that on the whole it is more thoroughly sourced.

Unfortunately, Signedzzz has simply undone almost all of my additions, often not giving any explanation in their edit summaries and barely responded to my Talk Page comments. In my opinion, this smacks of WP:Ownership, which I think is completely unwarranted in this situation. I'm more than happy to work with them in improving the article, but at this stage I think it is best if I take it to RfC to see what other people have to say. Do I have a point? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:41, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

My specific points: 1) Should the article lead follow the recommendations of WP:Lede by summarising the wider content of the article and providing an outline of Dilling's life rather than simply mention of her impact and legacy (as it presently does). 2) Should the article have a section devoted to Dilling's personality and personal life. 3) Should the article have a section devoted to a wider exposition of Dilling's specific ideological beliefs? 4) Should the various details I have introduced in the article be re-added? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:59, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

As I said before, "please feel free to discuss your proposed changes". When are you intending to discuss - after an RFC?zzz (talk) 21:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
If my changes are getting instantly removed, and the Talk Page points I raise get rejected by you, how will we progress? The opinions of others will be useful here in allowing us to come to some sort of arrangement when it comes to the required improvements to the lede and article body. An RfC will be a good way of facilitating this. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
So far, you have discussed one point, above (and eventually admitted you were wrong). I would be happy to discuss any other changes, also. But if you prefer not to discuss with me, that's also fine. zzz (talk) 21:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Of course I want to discuss it with you. That's why I reached out to you to start with. But given that the response was fairly 'hostile' (forgive me if that's the wrong word), i.e. mass deletions without explanation, I felt that this is a situation that should probably involve others to act as mediating figures and additional perspectives. (Moreover, saying that I "admitted I was wrong" misrepresents my argument there; I was wrong about saying "war hero" rather than "hero", but the rest of my point still stands, and actually stands unanswered). Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:01, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Accusing me of "hostility" merely because I don't agree with your edits is obviously counterproductive. Please feel free to clarify what you think "stands unanswered", by the way. zzz (talk) 22:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
As I said, "hostility" may not have been the right word; however I am not using this term simply because you don't agree with my edits; my frustration was with your mass deletion of my edits without any explanation either in your edit summary or on the Talk Page. On your second point, you have not responded any further to my argument that the sentence should be restructured to mention the spread of communism to the US first. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Hi TonyTheTiger and thanks for stopping by. Given that Signedzzz contests almost every one of my proposed additions, I shall produce a list and post it below. Your thoughts on any or all of these points would be gratefully appreciated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:07, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment on RFC

I have deleted the RFC because it was started minutes after "discussion" began, it was clearly biased etc. It was started by a user who was offended that I reverted her 5-minute rewrite, replete with factual errors, while the article was on the main page at DYK. zzz (talk) 01:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

From the above comments, I can see that those commenting don't realise that no biography of Dilling has been written, which is why this article is shorter than most, and yet comprehensive (one of the main GA criteria). There is one source that is already used for most of the info; to expand the article beyond its present size would turn it into an article about that book instead. As for adding more about her "personal life", that's a bad idea on two counts: more would be undue in relation to the article; and I don't think you would be saying that if she was male. Her personal life is well-covered in the article, inasmuch as it had any impact on her public life. zzz (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

This is totally and utterly unacceptable. The RFC results in several other uninvolved editors actually stating that they agree with my proposed changes, so you unilaterally shut it down to stop debate. This will be reported to the administrators' noticeboard. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Why would we not be saying that someone was married, but had problems with their marriage, if the subject were male? We even have 'personal life' sections on longterm bachelor men and women, sometimes saying little is known, or who their friends were. If mainly one source is used for 'historical' info and is deemed reliable for that purpose, why does it become unreliable for personal info? I agree the suggested personal info could be pruned. Pincrete (talk) 16:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
I did not say that a source is unreliable. Cheers zzz (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
I know you didn't, in which case why exclude information about private life, inc schooling? Why exclude context to those who don't know what was happening in Spain in the 1930s? What are the factual errors that you speak of? If you are right about any of this, how would any of us know, outside of the assertion that it is so? Pincrete (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Look: you just said "If mainly one source is used for 'historical' info and is deemed reliable for that purpose, why does it become unreliable for personal info?" zzz (talk) 20:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
I know I did, because I was trying to find out what the objection was. The objection therefore isn't lack of source. It's a bit strange to claim it is because she is a woman we should exclude where she went to school and that she had some troubles in her marriage. The objection that disproportionate use of one source could obviously be used to exclude any info, but why this info, not the stuff you want to keep? What possible objection is there to a phrase or two saying what the Spanish Civil war was?Pincrete (talk) 21:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Why did you say "why does it become unreliable for personal info?" when you know I didn't say that?
  • Why did you say "I was trying to find out what the objection was" when I had already stated the objection, immediately above, in this section?
  • Why did you say "It's a bit strange to claim it is because she is a woman we should exclude where she went to school and that she had some troubles in her marriage" when you know I didn't say that?
  • Why did you say "but why this info, not the stuff you want to keep?" when I had already stated why, immediately above, in this section?
  • Why did you say "What possible objection is there to a phrase or two saying what the Spanish Civil war was?" when I have already stated "possible objection"s to that? zzz (talk) 21:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Point me to these answers above, because I cannot see them. Pincrete (talk) 00:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
What do you mean, "Point me to these answers above"? zzz (talk) 05:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I mean I cannot see where your objections to edit suggestions are. I don't even know which text you actually object to, nor specifically why. Isn't that what discussion is? 'Text A doesn't work because of reason B' . There is no hope of progress if you don't offer reasons, or simply claim to have already given them in places I just cannot see. How much info about her personal life, marriage and its problems, for example, do you think is appropriate? If none, why? I've already said above that I think the offered text could be 'pruned' somewhat. Pincrete (talk) 10:51, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

"Checklist", a section on this talk page, is a list of questions. I answered them, (my answers have been ignored so far), then the questions were repeated below. I suggest that users read my answers, to aid the forming of a consensus. zzz (talk) 20:50, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I've read them, I don't think most of them are either clear or valid, Why would we not mention her school, give context to younger readers by mentioning the Spanish civil war and give info on her married life. Her reactions to the various European countries seem very relevant to later role and actions.(I am presuming all this is RS, which you appear to endorse). Pincrete (talk) 21:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

As I said before, the question is not "why would we not mention her school's name", but "Why would we add her school's name?" Or "How would adding the name of the school benefit readers in any way?" It is already stated that it is a Catholic girls' school. It is a grey area to me, and I eventually decided to remove the name. Clearly, I could change my mind if a reason for adding the name is stated. That is what is needed here to advance the discussion, which is just going round in circles at this point. I'm happy to discuss this with other users, by the way, contrary to what is stated in the RFC notice above. zzz (talk) 23:06, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

For the same reason we mention where she was born, or her middle name, or her exact date of birth, or her parents' professions, or that she lived in Wilmette or not just any Chicago suburb, or any of a hundred other individually trivial facts, any one of which can be left out and lose little, but which, together,
1) combine to building up a more exact picture of this person than leaving them out does, and
2) contribute to the (hopefully correct!) impression that this profile is a carefully researched one, rather than a superficial one based on editorial and opinion.
It's an exact and undisputed fact, and it is slightly useful. That, in my opinion (and presumably that of those that likewise agree), combines to be worth the space it takes up on the page. If you disagree, fine. People can disagree on editorial decisions like this one in perfectly good faith. And yet we must decide. Hence, the RfC. --GRuban (talk) 23:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

DOB + full name goes without saying. Parents profession also, could be of interest. Wilmette comes up later in the article, so that was an obvious choice (although none of the main sources mentioned it). I think therefore that this would be the most trivial fact in the article. I am glad that you state that people can disagree in good faith. I would be interested to see what others have to say about this.

"Hence, the RFC" - Since the RFC was so obviously non-neutral, attacking me personally, people commenting in it are inevitably swayed to disagree with me on all points. That is the reason, of course, why RFCs are supposed to be neutral. Also, no discussion had occurred beforehand, as is supposed to be the case, so no one commenting even understands what the arguments are about. Since the RFC was so fundamentally illegitimate, it is no surprise that it has not been productive. Really I think the best thing is for people to stop pretending that a biased RFC needs to take place before any discussion, and instead start discussing on article talk. zzz (talk) 23:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Another result is that people are now looking for any evidence that the allegations are true, so in that sense, I have no objection to you adding the name of the school, of course. It's no big deal either way, just very slightly detrimental. Ideally I'd prefer to hear from someone who was not brought here by a biased RFC attacking me, no offense, but never mind. Obviously, I could easily be wrong, and it's actually a very slight improvement. We'll never know. zzz (talk) 00:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the RfC is seriously flawed, I don't see it as 'attacking', though it contains unnecessary 'gripes'. Its main flaw is that it is too complex, RfC's are good at asking 'A or B' questions, presented with both sides of the argument. Having said that, I think naming the school is the same kind of info as 'suburb', it's relatively inconsequential, but since we know and since it is a few words, include.
I am assuming now that her visits to Spain were during or immediately after the civil war, why not contextualise it for those readers who don't know what was happening in 1930's Spain? Pincrete (talk) 10:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
In describing the personal attacks against me as "gripes" and stating that you "don't see it as 'attacking'", I can only assume that you intend to insinuate that the personal attacks are legitimate (if I have not misunderstood.) I have no wish to discuss your opinion of my personal failings, however, so please keep this type of commentary to yourself.
You did not read what I just wrote. You stated: "school is the same kind of info as 'suburb'". I just stated (immediately above) why, in this article, that is plainly not the case. Added to which, as I also just stated, none of the main sources mentioned the name of the suburb; similarly, I would most likely not have mentioned in the article the name of the suburb unless there was a good enough reason to mention it. zzz (talk) 17:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Please state specifically what your reason for adding the name of the school is. I read what you just wrote, but I am sure you would agree that "it's relatively inconsequential, but since we know and since it is a few words, include" is not a valid reason. zzz (talk) 20:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

nb edit conflicts:

I don't intend to 'insinuate' anything, except that 5 times as much space, time and 'bad blood' has been spent on characterising the 'gripes' than they themselves occupy, I would welcome them being struck through. They are unproductive, but so is taking umbrage on such a scale. The 'suburb' analogy was made by GRuban, I agreed with him that 'school' is useful additional, not essential info. Of course I read what you wrote. … … Specific reason as given by GRuban, true, slightly useful fact, like many others, which on their own are trivial, meaningless to 99+% of readers but which give a more rounded overall picture. … … could you make up your mind whether you object to the school going in or not? A few posts ago you said it was no big deal either way.Pincrete (talk) 20:23, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It is "no big deal", in the sense that I think it is only slightly detrimental, in my view, as I stated. Now that I have spent another day on this "problem", it would make sense to actually come up with a reason for the change. The suburb analogy doesn't work in favour of inclusion, but rather against, as I stated. What, specifically, is the reason to include the name rather than a million other true facts - in other words: why do you think the name of the school "gives a more rounded picture"? This is the crux of the issue. As I said before, a comment from a neutral editor would be useful here. (Unfortunately, because of the RFC, that is currently highly unlikely.) "like many others, which on their own are trivial, meaningless to 99+% of readers " - which "many others" are you referring to? As stated above, this would be the most trivial/meaningless fact in the article (probably - I cannot think of anything as trivial/meaningless as this, anyway). This argues against inclusion, also, on the face of it. zzz (talk) 21:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
It hardly matters to most readers that a person was born on the xth of the month, but we include it, it hardly matters the name of the suburb or city, it hardly matters what the name of their mother was, but all taken together constitute basic biog info. Since known, I believe the few extra words of the school name are worth including on that basis, you don't, fair enough. The judgement is a judgement, let's see what others think. Pincrete (talk) 22:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
So, your answer is, DOB, name of suburb, and name of parents. As you already know, the name of the suburb is important elsewhere in the article, so it is clearly not possible to suggest in good faith that it is as trivial/meaningless as the name of the school. You also claim that DOB and name of parents are less important than name of school (or of equal importance). This is also plainly wrong. The fact that you make these categorically wrong statements in support further inclines me to believe, at this point, that it should not be included. zzz (talk) 22:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
I didn't say anything was less important than school, what I said was that collectively all these facts give a rounded picture and follow standard patterns. I believe you have already said you oppose inclusion, I and others have already said we support.
'School' is relatively trivial either way. Why would we not give context to the Spain trip(s)? Not everyone is going to understand why she was shown burnt-out churches.Pincrete (talk) 10:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Brought here by the RfC. zzz's claim that the material they were reverting was "replete with factual errors" looks to my eyes untrue; the arguments they've made on this talk page to that effect mostly appear to be semantic nitpicks. It's possible these aren't semantic nitpicks, and some of the distinctions zzz is insisting on are important, but if so they should explain why the distinctions are important on the talk page. Chris Hallquist (talk) 15:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
(Answering pings) What would you like me to explain, Chris Hallquist? Can you be more specific? zzz (talk) 17:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
The only real case I see where you've tried to discuss one of the alleged errors on the talk page is regarding her husband's affairs, and comparing the text that had been added to the Wiki article to the source, I can't see the distinction you're making. The other argument I had in mind was the argument over the map anecdote—but on giving it a second look, I can't even tell if you're alleging an error there or not, in any case it looks like a trivial disagreement over wording, with the other editor proposing a wording closer to the original source. Even if those two claims were errors, I'm not sure if I'd call that being "replete" with errors, other objections look like issues of emphasis. Chris Hallquist (talk) 18:17, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Is there anything you want explaining, or are you just making general observations? zzz (talk) 18:41, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm trying to offer suggestions on how you could interact with other editors more helpfully on this talk page. Chris Hallquist (talk) 19:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions on a subject or an editor. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, and please have a nice day. zzz (talk) 22:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

a lasting influence among right-wing groups

The final line of the lead "Dilling's writings secured her a lasting influence among right-wing groups", whilst true, and almost a quote of the 'Jeansonne', is a bit vague. 'Right-wing' is a very broad term covering everything from 'right of centre', to extreme right. It appears to be more the latter, extreme groups, on whom she has had any 'lasting influence'. Is a more explicit phrasing possible? Pincrete (talk) 19:07, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion re: claims of disputed verifiability

Came here via RfC. Looks like there are some disputes over the verifiability of certain claims that are being sourced to print works. It's hard for me to comment directly on those disputes, as I don't have access to the cited books. And Google Books can be somewhat unreliable, in terms of what gets included in a preview. My suggestion is including direct quotes from the sources in discussions on this talk page, so editors can have an informed discussion about the exact content of those sources here. Chris Hallquist (talk) 14:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Repeating from above:

"Their relationship was turbulent; when Dilling discovered her husband was having an affair with another woman, she broke into the latter's home at gunpoint and threatened her.[3] Albert gave his wife $100,000 not to divorce him, and although he promised not to commit adultery again, he had two further extra-marital relationships before their eventual divorce.[1]" - why do you object to the addition of this valuable information? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I replied

From an encyclopedic gender neutral perspective, it is not at all clear that this is "valuable information". More importantly, what you added is factually wrong. The cite states "He soon acquired two new mistresses, and the Dillings separated twice before divorcing in 1943." And you omitted the mother's role in the break-in.

I thought my original explanation was understood, since there was no reply; the following is intended as further clarification.

The proposed addition claims that "he had two further extra-marital relationships before their eventual divorce." This leaves the reader in no doubt that he had two affairs/mistresses, i.e. not 3 or more, before their divorce, many years later. However, the cite merely states that he "soon acquired two new mistresses". The book actually mentions at least one more later on, I believe (I will re-read it to confirm that, at some point); regardless of whether it does or not, however, the proposed addition is not verified by the citation. This is why I removed it, per WP:V.

Secondly, I am not comfortable with the idea of relating the break-in anecdote in an incomplete form. As this is an encyclopedia article -and not a Hollywood film script - it seems pretty dodgy to edit the story like that, omitting to mention one of the "main characters" involved, as per the source. zzz (talk) 11:00, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

zzz, could you not have c/ed to make the text align with the source? The exact number of mistresses hardly seems important, that he (soon) acquired a number does as a factor in their marriage. I still don't understand From an encyclopedic gender neutral perspective, it is not at all clear that this is "valuable information. Because Dilling was a woman, we shouldn't give the circumstances leading to their divorce? I have never heard of such a policy or practice. Pincrete (talk) 11:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by making the text align with the source. I have not offered any opinion on the importance of the exact number. I am opposed to stating an incorrect number, or one which is not verified. "From an encyclopedic gender neutral perspective, it is not at all clear that this is "valuable information." - that was in the context of proposals to add a section on her "personal life". I am not opposed to stating that her husband had affairs, if the wording is sourced accurately. zzz (talk) 12:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Sedition trial

Seems like the topic should get more coverage. I think she was part of this sedition trial, though I don't have a source at the moment. Chris Hallquist (talk) 16:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Infobox

User:Signedzzz: Why do you keep removing the infobox?Zigzig20s (talk) 09:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

As I said, I think it's better without. Why do you keep on adding it? zzz (talk) 09:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Because we always add infoboxes to articles about people, except for music composers because some editors don't like it. She's not a music composer, so please let me add it. It makes the article easier to read.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Please explain why you think it makes the article easier to read. zzz (talk) 10:12, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
There is neither a requirement for, nor a policy against them. The advantage is that key-facts (dob, dod, etc.) are presented in one place. I have a slight preference for inclusion on biogs, so long as they do not become bloated mini-articles, which this one isn't IMO. Pincrete (talk) 10:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The first sentence of the lead presents these key facts in one place, already. The box would make that two places, for no apparent reason. The other facts - name of husband, number of children, religion - are not key facts. I honestly think it is much better without. The picture doesn't fit, and adding a massive box to draw attention to these makes no sense.zzz (talk) 10:42, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Why don't we reinsert the infobox here to make it look like the vast majority of Wikipedia articles about people, and then you can argue about the usefulness or lack thereof of infoboxes elsewhere?Zigzig20s (talk) 15:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Category:Critics of Judaism

Judaism is a religion. If you want to know how criticism of Judaism works, read

  • Pablo Christiani: "denounced the Talmud, making assertions that it contained passages that were derogatory in regards to Jesus and Mary" (weak, but still a sort of criticism)
  • Uriel da Costa: "He came to believe that the rabbinic leadership was too consumed by ritualism and legalistic posturing"

Contrast this with your own quote from this article: "It airs their (Jews) dirty lying attempts to shut every Christian mouth and prevent anyone from getting a fair trial in this country" ??

You call that criticism? It's polemics. And it has no connection to Judaism the religion. This lady was just a regular simple-minded Jew-hater. No criticism involved. --Hob Gadling (talk) 00:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree to the extent that this is more 'hatred of Jews' (antisemitism) than rational criticism of the religion. I could not quickly find an apt category though but thought her views on Jews were a defining characteristic. Pincrete (talk) 09:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Hob Gadling on this; hatred of Jews is not criticism of Judaism; nor is inventing stuff about Judaism. I don't really see where she actually criticized Judaism. Jayjg (talk) 13:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Is there another suitable category? To not categorise her views on Jews/Judaism seems v. strange.Pincrete (talk) 14:20, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
I presume there is no objection to "Category:Antisemitism in the United States" - which I've just added. Pincrete (talk) 14:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
None from me. What about Category:Antisemitic publications? She wrote two famously antisemitic books, The Octopus and The Plot against Christianity. Jayjg (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
But she is not a publication. Category names in plural mean the categories are set categories. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
She's not a publication, but this article is the only one that discusses her publications. In any event, I've created a couple of redirects that should serve the purpose. Jayjg (talk) 16:48, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elizabeth_Dilling/Archive_1&oldid=1226927947"