Talk:Lucy Parsons

ESP

Nice job on this and other anarchist- and labor-related articles! It's clear you're serious about your work and I'm very impressed. Oh, yeah: it'd be great for you to log in -- I want to watch more stuff that you do. -- ESP 01:30 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Renunciation of anarchism

This article currently states that Lucy Parsons renounced anarchism as counter-revolutionary in 1939. While I have no reason to doubt this claim in itself, it appears to contradict a claim that Parsons renounced anarchism "along with" Voltairine de Cleyre in 1909. Since both of these statements were inserted into the respective articles by the same person, and that person happens to be Bob Black who has a rather tarnished history in the anarchist movement, I'm requesting a fact check to reveal the source for the information.

Terminology

The article should mention that in 19th Century Chicago, Anarchism was a catch-all description for all labor radicals, including Marxism, socialism, etc. Few of the so-called anarchists of that time and place can be called true anarchists, in the sense that we know them. Albert Parsons once made the comment that if the capitalists wanted to call him an anarchist he gladly accepted the label. Many of these same "anarchists" were also members of the Workingmans' Party, which supported the Chinese Exclusion Act.

It would be helpful then to briefly define "true anarchism" as we know it today and to link to a broader article on the subject. Very well-written article. User:Okelle

CP information

The information stating that Lucy Parsons never joined the CP is incorrect. According to both versions of her biography available at www.lucyparsons.org (The Lucy Parsons Center) she did join the Communist Party in 1939. Dandannoodles

I just ran across this passage:

"It was doubtless her activity in the ILD that led some people to believe that she actually joined the communist party, though she explicitly denied this in letters to old friends. This careless and unfounded assertion in Ashbaugh's biography--that Lucy joined the CP-- has since been repeated ad nauseam by other writers and by Ashbough herself in the Encyclopedia of the American Left. Thus the unlikely image of Lucy Parsons as Communist--or worse, as The Anarchist Who Became a Communist--added more confusion to the already confused mythology of the US Left."

Page 20. LUCY PARSONS: FREEDOM, EQUALITY & SOLIDARITY Writinga & Speeches, 1878-1937, Edited by Gale Ahrens (c) 2003 Charles H Kerr Publishing

She goes on from there to spend several paragraphs explaining why the Communist myth is utterly improbable and specifically cites

Letter to Carl Nold, January 31, 1934, copy in the Carolyn Ashbaugh files...

Given that this is a very recent book that's heavily rooted in primary sources, I think Gale Ahrens' writing supersedes older disinfo. 141.140.120.107 09:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who was reverting it before, but in light of this, I'm going to edit the communist reference out of the page. If you have sources superior to Ahrens, by all means provide them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.140.120.107 (talk) 09:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

CP dispute

Again, it has been changed back to "Parsons never joined the CP," now citing one (1) work for this against every other biography--even ones by anarchists--without any mention in the discussion area. This is absurd. Cite relevant evidence in discussion, or go with the consensus. Dandannoodles

Reverted again

Citing one article which asserts (providing no actual evidence) that Lucy Parsons never joined the Communist Party as enough evidence to warrant changing the entire section, which had been balanced as at least a subject of dispute in order to appease this ludicrous theory, constitutes a total abandonment of scholarship as well as a brazen display of intellectual dishonesty. Yet the page is changed back again and again without any discussion on the part of the person(s) changing it.

Even the CP claims Lucy Parsons was a member, and whatever my own misgivings about the CPUSA, I suspect they have membership records. Aside from this, all other reputable _scholarly_ biographies of Parsons point out that she was, at one time, a CP member.

So discuss this point, or so we can try and reach some understanding, or stop changing the piece. Dandannoodles 15:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Knights of Labor condemnation

Curious why someone removed this:

For ten years until that point, she had been a member of the Knights of Labor, which condemned the Haymarket defendants.

I'm not saying the removal is unjustified-- but the Knights did condemn the Haymarket rally and the riot, per James Green, page 193 of Death in the Haymarket.

I don't know about Lucy Parson's membership in same org, and so cannot vouch for that. Richard Myers 08:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Pretty sure she was never a member of the Knights of Labor. They were much too moderate for her. 70.116.76.173 (talk) 01:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Carolyn Ashbaugh

Carolyn Ashbaugh's biography is hardly a reliable source -- she proclaims that Parsons and the Chicago anarchists were not, in fact, anarchists! She proclaims Kropotkin the "gentle anarchist theoretician of non-violence” when he was in favour of armed insurrection. More details can be found in this review of her book in Anarcho-Syndicalist Review:

https://anarchism.pageabode.com/anarcho/lucy-parsons-american-anarchist

As for her joining the CP, these derive from her book -- including, in all probablity, those from the IWW, the Lucy Parsons Project, etc. While it fits in with Ashbaugh's nonsense that Parsons was not really an anarchist, it does seem unlikely as Ahrens notes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.7.41.155 (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Emma Goldman#Conflict with Lucy Parsons

 Editors watching this article are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Emma Goldman#Conflict with Lucy Parsons. Schazjmd (talk) 13:20, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Women in Green is holding a month-long Good Article Editathon event in June 2023!

Hello Lucy Parsons:

WikiProject Women in Green is holding a month-long Good Article Editathon event in June 2023!

Running from June 1 to 30, 2023, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) editathon event – Wildcard Edition! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to any and all women and women's works during the event period. Want to improve an article about a Bollywood actress? Go for it. A pioneering female climate scientist? Absolutely. An award-winning book or film by a woman? Yes! GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to receive a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.

We hope to see you there!

Mujinga (talk) 16:05, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lucy Parsons/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 20:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll take this one. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Sources

• Source notes:

  Unless I'm missing something, Non Solus is a blog?

  yes it's called a blog and the blurb says "Non Solus was a publication of the Friends of the University of Illinois Library, published from 1974-1985. The Non Solus Blog was established in the summer of 2010 to continue the work of Non Solus in the digital realm, and to highlight the collections and share news". This article is describing an exhibition in the Rare Book and Manuscript Library of the library so seems ok to me to use Mujinga (talk) 14:39, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  As a supplementary source it's okay, but I think you should avoid contentious claims sourced only to this. In this case you've used it for important biographical claims; I think you should prune anything not also supported elsewhere. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:09, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  I don't know about that, I've used it once and it's not the only ref. I omitted to mention that the exhibition was actually about the life of Parsons - so I'm seeing this as a tertiary source. Mujinga (talk) 14:35, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  It's still a blog, though. It has no editorial oversight, and the author isn't an expert. It could easily have been written by the curator of the collection, it could just as easily be written by an enthusiastic volunteer with no background in the subject. You say you have another ref, but does it verify everything said there? Vanamonde (Talk) 16:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  I've emailed the University of Illinois Library to see if they can provide any more info Mujinga (talk) 22:35, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  The Curator of Rare Books and Manuscripts says they don't know who wrote it so they would give the author as "Rare Book & Manuscript Library". These pieces are internally reviewed by curators but not considered peer reviewed. Mujinga (talk) 16:10, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  I've googled the authors of a few other pieces currently up on their website, and they're all graduate students as far as I can see. I'll let this slide at the GA level; at FAC I would oppose its use. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  Block Club Chicago is acceptable for what it's used for, but the scope of the source makes me wonder if this is trivia, and not worth including.

  sorry which ref is this? Mujinga (talk) 14:39, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  The very last, 35. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:09, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks! My rationale for inclusion would be that it shows her continued contemporary relevance in Chicago Mujinga (talk) 14:32, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  I won't object further here, but at FAC I would consider it a problem. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  FN26 is describe as the Chicago Tribune, but links to a Daily Kos url. We have an RSP entry on the latter; if it's just a hosting website it's probably okay, but if it's possible to replace it, I suggest doing so. This also isn't loading for me (even the archived version).

  good point. strange it didn't load for you, it loads for me. in any case it's simply a 2015 repost of a repost which includes the 1915 Chicago Tribune article, so I'll find a better link Mujinga (talk) 14:47, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  improved with a clipping Mujinga (talk) 16:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  FN27 also looks like a blog; is the author a subject expert? If not, I suggest omitting.

  yes no arguments on this one, will check the other source and delete this one Mujinga (talk) 14:47, 1 September 2023 (UTC) - done Mujinga (talk) 16:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  Why is Blackpast.org reliable?

  BlackPast.org seems legit to me, it has a board of directors and describes itself as a resource for African American history. This post has an intro then is composed of the Parsons text "I am an anarchist" which it says first appeared in The Kansas City Journal, December 21, 1886, p. 1. Mujinga (talk) 14:52, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  I think I can accept this at the GA level. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:09, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  Sources otherwise look reliable.

Spotchecks

• Spotchecks:

  Replying on this version and thanks for the improvements, I was going to quibble over removing WWU but it's still there Mujinga (talk) 14:59, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  I've no problem with the acronym in general, only with its introduction in a section (including the lead) where it's not later used. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  FN8 partially verifies what it's used for, though note I recommend its removal above.

  FN9 completely verifies what it's used for, so removal of 8 would not affect verifiability.

  FN12a: I see nothing about beauty or hair, though this source also verifies much of the previous paragraph; possibly misplaced?

  hmm yes I can't verify that so removed Mujinga (talk) 16:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  FN12b verifies content about not working with Wells.

  I don't know if the sentence that precedes FN17 is a fair summary. It's a lengthy article, but my reading of it is that the author argues that Parsons advocated self-defence against racist violence, and saw commonality between racial and class-based struggles agaisnt discrimination. I don't know that I'm seeing any of the sentence as written in that source, though of course there is another footnote there.

  I take it you mean this: She developed her social anarchist approach, refusing to condemn political violence and perceiving class struggle as the battle against Christian civilization. It's hard to know what exactly I was taking from each source, but I suspect 17 is more being used to back "her social anarchist approach", since 16 specifically discusses "Christian civilisation" and "political violence". Having said that, I take your point that I could also add something about resisting racial violence, so I'll change it up a bit Mujinga (talk) 16:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  FN18 checks out.

  FN23 checks out.

  FN24 checks out, though it does make a point about relative fame; it's an acceptable simplification, but you may wish to rephrase.

  FN25 checks out.

  FN27 checks out as to content, but see note above.

  FN29 checks out as to content, but see note above.

  FN30 doesn't actually say what you say it does in its own voice, attributing that to the neighbors. It also has a lot of negative things to say about Parsons; I'm personally okay with you omitting those, given that it was a Jim Crow-era paper, but I can think of at least a few editors who would object: see recent NPOV disputes about black communists.

  I've made a tweak to show the newspaper was reporting what the neighbours said. I'm not sure if it has that much negative things to say about Parsons, although perhaps I could add something about the pension being controversial since I've seen that get mentioned elsewhere as well Mujinga (talk) 16:29, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  FN32 checks out.

  FN33 doesn't say "self-managed social center" but I assume this is non-controversial.

  FN34 completely verifies what comes before it (so 12b above is okay).

  FN35 checks out.

  FN36 checks out as to content, but see note above.

  FN3b checks out

  FN3e checks out.

  FN3h is almost okay; page refers to acceptance of Parsons' skin color, not her marriage.

  The relevant bit of Ashbaugh says Although the neighbors had been apprehensive at first about a white man and a black woman moving into their neighborhood, the German community more easily accepted Lucy's dark skin than white society in Texas or native born Americans in general. She soon found a socialist community which accepted her as a sister and never questioned her racial background., but then there's also 14, which is Jones saying "Residents could hardly keep from whispering about the peculiar couple—a slight, well-dressed white man and his attractive wife of indeterminate origin—who had settled among them" and quoting neighbours discussing the "very queer-looking couple" and "queerly matched pair" Mujinga (talk) 16:52, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  Okay, but neither of these are saying that the ethnic Germans accepted the marriage better than other communities: this needs rephrasing. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  Is Jones saying "couple .. pair .. pair" not enough here? Mujinga (talk) 13:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  No, because she's not discussing acceptance, but rather the opposite. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  FN3m partially verifies content before it, and there's a second ref. Noting that the place of birth matter is on page 268, not 30.

  I verified that info from Jones (the second ref), saying "Her biographer Jones notes that on the birth certificate she wrote her maiden name as Carter and Virginia as her place of birth" Mujinga (talk) 16:59, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  FN3t checks out

  FN3z mostly verifies what precedes it, and there's a second ref.

  FN3ai checks out.

  FN3ao checks out.

  FN3as: not seeing anything about political violence on p174.

  good point, I've brought that back into line with the source Mujinga (talk) 16:52, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  FN3aw mostly verifies what comes before, and there's a second ref.

  FN3ba checks out.

  FN3bb checks out.

• Stopping there, as these are mostly clean and where they are not the issues appear to be ones of source substitution rather than OR. Moving on to prose in a little bit.

Prose

• Prose matters:

  I wonder at your use of "Negro"; it may have been common at the time, but isn't today; and even if it's been reclaimed in some cases, I don't think the majority of our audience would know it as anything but a slur.

  I'd say I'm following the sources here and I'm happy to change. I'm not really sure what the MOS guidance is here and I'm not familiar with US custom, what would you suggest to use instead? Mujinga (talk) 16:55, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  would African American be better? Mujinga (talk) 22:01, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  I'd suggest "African American" or plain "Black". The latter is, as I understand it, used more frequently in modern scholarship. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:10, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  Noted Mujinga (talk) 12:17, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  The use of the word "Negro" is more than a stylistic matter, if you wish to keep using this term, please justify it. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  There is a lot packed into the first lead paragraph, and some of it you could elaborate on: "harsh repression of the Chicago railroad strike of 1877" is a little woolly. I suggest breaking this into two paragraphs, with Chicago material in the second; and also adding something in the first sentence about her activities; as written, it could easily be read to refer just to her views.

  I'll work on the lead last Mujinga (talk) 14:36, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  noted Mujinga (talk) 12:17, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  You haven't made any changes to the lead that I can see. There are no major issues here, but two minor points where I ask for clarity. If you're declining to change anything, I'll note for the record that MOS:LEAD is part of the GA criteria, and clarity is a part of MOS:LEAD. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  "She became a notorious political figure" again a little vague, suggest elaborating/rephrasing.

  As above, I'll work on the lead last Mujinga (talk) 14:36, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  noted Mujinga (talk) 12:17, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  "Parsons was often referred to as the wife of Albert Parsons" I know what you mean, but as written this is meaningless; she was (or considered herself) Albert Parsons' wife, of course she was referred to that way. I think you need primarily or equivalent within the sentence.

  yes "primarily" works! changed in lead and body Mujinga (talk) 21:59, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  The left aligned portrait in early life leads to oddly broken up text below it; suggest moving it down or to the right.

  made it right Mujinga (talk) 14:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  Suggest glossing Jacqueline Jones.

  done Mujinga (talk) 21:59, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  "She was 12 years old and called Lucia;" two points. Sentence is too long; also, I assume you mean she was twelve years old when brought to Texas.

  rewritten Mujinga (talk) 22:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  "and she may have been named after her." rather ambiguous; who was named for who?

  Parsons is the subject of the clause and she may have been named after the daughter of Gathings, who was called Lucy Mujinga (talk) 22:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  I've switched one "her" to "Parsons". Vanamonde (Talk) 16:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  That seems unnecessary to me, as explained Mujinga (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  "Parsons herself told different versions of her life history." this is very non-specific; and if no further detail is available, I suggest moving this up, to just after the first sentence in the section.

  That's a quick summary of the very detailed explanation Ashbaugh gives in a note "Henry and Marie del Gather (whom Lucy claimed were her uncle and mother, respectively) and John Waller (the civilized Creek Indian who was supposedly her father) are probably fictitious. Albert's story that he met Lucy at her uncle's ranch in 1869 while traveling for the Houston Daily Telegraph (pub. by his brother) is probably untrue. Lucy gave the maiden name Carter on her son's birth certificate in 1879 and the name Hull on her daughter's in 1881. Although she usually gave her birthplace as Buffalo Creek, Texas, she gave Virginia on both children's birth certificates. Lucy provided Gonzales as her maiden name to the Dictionary of American Biography for its account of Albert Parsons. On Lucy's death certificate her parents are listed as Pedro Diaz and Marie Gonzales. Lucy identified herself as Native American and Chicana in an effort to cover up her black heritage. There are other stories of Lucy Parsons' origins, but her relationship to Oliver Gathings was the most frequently publicized and repeated- with the exception of her own stories, which conflict with each other."

  I think you should fold this into where you say she mixed up the genders of her parents: it's making essentially the same point. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  noted Mujinga (talk) 12:17, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  "the homeless occupied shanty towns" If the intent here is to show that Chicago was a very unequal city at the time, you should say that directly. The fragment (really the whole sentence) sounds like editorializing; but it also doesn't mean much; the homeless live in shantytowns because they're homeless; this remains true in other cities and other times.

  I've gone back and looked at Jones chap3 and I think I based these sentences on this bit: "The fire killed 300 people, consumed 18,000 buildings, including much of the downtown business district, and leveled 2,100 acres. Yet remarkably, within a year, a public-private partnership had succeeded in scouring the visible effects of the disaster from the cityscape. When the Parsonses arrived, they saw temporary shanties built to house the homeless still in use, but they also saw neat rows of new wooden cottages for workers and impressive new downtown office buildings. The great department stores were selling an abundance of tastefully displayed ready-made goods. Prairie Avenue and Lake Shore Drive were sites of a post-fire building boom among the city’s great magnates—Marshall Field (retail sales), George M. Pullman (railroad cars), Potter Palmer (hotelier), Cyrus McCormick (farm machinery), and Philip D. Armour (meatpacking)". So I don't think I'm editorializing but happy to rephrase. Mujinga (talk) 22:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  But I still think the point about inequality needs to be made directly, and perhaps this offered as illustration; also, I think if you're mentioning a businessman by name, there needs to be a link to the narrative. I see McCormick's factory appears later, but not Pullman? Vanamonde (Talk) 04:10, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not sure that the source is making precisely this point about inequality so it feels to me like original research to say that. Of the magnates, I gave the ones which i could find wiki-articles for Mujinga (talk) 14:21, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  Okay, but the rich live in mansions in any city and time, and the homeless in shantytowns. Why is this special, and why does the reader care? Vanamonde (Talk) 16:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  I'm summarising the sources and I presume it's of interest to the reader. Would you rather I deleted it? Mujinga (talk) 13:57, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  Honestly, as written, yes. The paragraph you quote sounds like general background. If you want to use anything from here, I think the most relevant fragment is that the city was experiencing a post-fire boom that was making the local business magnates wealthy. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  removed Mujinga (talk) 12:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  "Parsons demonstrated her willingness to stand up for her rights by twice taking white people to court in 1875..." I believe what demonstrated her spine was that she took white people to court at that time. I suggest rephrasing as "Parsons showed herself willing to stand up for her rights. She took a neighbor to court over a disturbance, and sued another person over an unpaid bill; at the time, it was unusual for a black woman to initiate legal proceedings against white people." Or equivalent; as things stand, the context is lacking.

  You didn't respond to this: separate point from below. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not sure why you don't get that point from the text as it stands Mujinga (talk) 12:19, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  I get the point; a lot of readers won't, or will see it as POV-pushing. But this is a minor issue, so no further objections. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  "When the Chicago railroad strike of 1877 occurred as part of the Great Upheaval, Albert Parsons at first told the crowds to remain non-violent and to vote for the Workingmen's Party to achieve political change" I think there is too much packed into this sentence for it to be comprehensible to the lay reader. What was the upheaval? Why did the strike occur? Why was Parsons involved? What crowds?

  I'm not sure if I need to give more detail since this is all simply context for why her husband got sacked Mujinga (talk) 17:46, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  Then I suggest trimming it to something like "Albert Parsons participated in the strike, advocating non-violence and support for the Workingmen's Party. For his activities he was sacked..." It's your use of a specific narrative "at first told crowds..." without further context that is confusing. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  noted Mujinga (talk) 12:19, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, but I don't find this text clear as written. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  "In the next 24 hours he was sacked from his job, had a gun held against his head..." this implies the same person did both; I assume not, but it's confusing as written.

  seems clear to me Mujinga (talk) 14:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  Would help if you can add who was responsible for the threat. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  I think I'm going to rewrite this bit since Ashbaugh seems giving a jazzed up version of the Avrich account. In answer to your question, Parsons was threatened by the mayor, the police chief and the leaders of the business community, then two unknown men put the gun to his head when he went back to the offices of the Chicago Tribune Mujinga (talk) 21:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  Much clearer, thank you. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  "Lucy Parsons saw the brutality of the repression" this is also vague, and without detail, is a neutrality issue.

  Another point I don't think you've addressed yet? Vanamonde (Talk) 17:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  previously addressed below Mujinga (talk) 12:19, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  "She resolved to get a job to support her family" she was already working; also, what's the relevance to the previous sentence?

  She was self-employed before and (presumably) not earning enough to support the family, especially without income from Albert's job. This explains the relevance - Albert got sacked so she had to provide Mujinga (talk) 14:58, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  "campaigning against voting" suggest expanding; I assume she was not agitating against the right to vote as such, but against electoral reform as the primary means of activism.

  No she was against voting, Anderson quotes her saying "Of all the modern delusions, the ballot has certainly been the greatest. Yet most of the people believe in it." then adds " Keep in mind that Lucy Parsons, a Black woman criticizing reformism and voting, did not have the right to vote at the time she wrote this in 1905" Mujinga (talk) 21:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  "She developed her social anarchist approach, refusing to condemn political violence and perceiving class struggle as the battle against Christian civilization." Some notes above about this sentence, but it's vague as it stands. I'm sure her biographers say her views developed a lot, but without specifics this doesn't mean anything to the reader.

  already changed Mujinga (talk) 21:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  Suggest moving the sentence about her daughter's birth right after the one about her son; it's out of place where it stands.

  I'd rather stay chronological Mujinga (talk) 12:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  "He was an insurrectionary anarchist who promoted propaganda of the deed, direct action to promote a radical cause." suggest rephrasing as "...of the deed, or direct action to further his political goals". "Radical cause" is vague and sounds threatening without meaning anything.

  I'm giving "direct action to promote a radical cause" as a definition of what "propaganda of the deed" means Mujinga (talk) 14:59, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  Okay, but is "radical cause" necessary to that definition? Without explanation, "radical" doesn't mean much. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  Source says "In 1882 he was advocating "propaganda by the deed," the use of dynamite and other "revolutionary" measures." Mujinga (talk) 17:50, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  So it's his methods that are radical, which is covered by "insurrectionary". You don't need "radical" again. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  removed the bit you don't like Mujinga (talk) 12:22, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  Suggest glossing The Alarm.

  done (earlier) Mujinga (talk) 17:46, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  "During this time, Parsons" as written, this refers to the the march specifically, I don't think that's what you mean.

  I'm starting to notice we are having disagreements over style - this seems fine to me as is, but I've made it "time period" Mujinga (talk) 17:46, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  The last two paragraphs of "Moving to Chicago" could afford to be reorganized, though it is not mandatory. I would have the first paragraph be children and WWU; and the second be about publications and everything else after Most's arrival.

  yeah it's difficult here, I've gone chronological. I'll have a think about it Mujinga (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  Suggest glossing Mother Jones.

  done! Mujinga (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Prose2

• Resuming:

  You link the eight hour day, but I think you could use a footnote on why this was so important: we take it for granted today, and I doubt many of our readers know its origins.

  that would be going beyond the source, which says "In 1878, Parsons helped found the Working Women’s Union in Chicago a group whose aim was to organize women into unions (Tax 45). In addition, the WWU agitated for the eight-hour day, an exercise in futility that led to Parson’s embrace of anarchy described above." Mujinga (talk) 17:46, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  Then I suggest at least adding "unsuccessfully": this imply the same point. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  Suggesting glossing Spies and Pinkertons.

  Spies has already been introduced as an IWPA member Mujinga (talk) 18:01, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  added private security guards to Pinkertons Mujinga (talk) 18:01, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  "On May 4, Lucy Parsons was organizing a meeting to support striking sewing women and asked Albert Parsons to join her. There was also a protest against the recent police brutality at the nearby Haymarket Square and when people came to the meeting asking for Samuel Fielden and Albert Parsons to speak there, it was adjourned" This is deeply confusing. First, I think you can omit "asked Albert to join her" entirely: we've been told they worked together, I think it can be assumed. Second, which recent police brutality, and is it described that way in the source with no further detail? Third, who is Fielden? and why was he asked to speak? Finally, who adjourned the meeting? This also contradicts the fragment immediately after.

  1 "asked Albert to join her" - this gets quite complicated here becuase it might be part of the story Albert presented at trial, attempting to show he had nothing to do with the Haymarket event, or it might be true (per note B). So i think the info is worth including and i wouldn't presume they always went to the same meetings

  2 "recent police brutality" refers back to "Chicago Police and private security guards known as Pinkertons attacked the gathering, shooting at least one person dead"

  3 Source says "The section had just named Lizzie Swank-Holmes to head the sewing women's drive, when Balthazar Rau, the business manager of the Arbeiter-Zeitung, hurried over from the Haymarket meeting to ask Albert Parsons and Sam Fielden to speak there. They adjourned and left for the mass meeting, which had gotten off to a slow start. "

  4 same as 3

  what's the contradiction? Mujinga (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  If one is not an uncontroversial fact, but was potentially made up by the Parsons, we should not be stating it in Wikipedia's voice. 2 is not clear; the police action alluded to is described as being at a factory, and it sounds like you're saying it was at the square, when in fact the protest was at the square. Some copyediting would address this. 3 is only clear after you posted the quote here; the adjournment refers to Parsons sewing meeting, not the protest event (which you also call a meeting later; that was the contradiction I was pointing out). This would be much clearer if you made the Haymarket protest central to the text. I suggest something like the following: "...shooting at least one person dead.[ref] In response, a protest was organized against police brutality in Haymarket square on May 4. On the same day, Lucy Parsons was organizing a meeting to support striking sewing women and asked Albert Parsons to join her. Some Haymarket protestors arrived at the meeting, and asked Parsons and Fielden, who were present, to speak at the protest. There were a few thousand people at the square when Parsons took the podium..." or equivalent.

  The text in general is fine, but my point about Parsons' story remains. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  Gloss Fielden, please.

  This, too. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  no longer necessary Mujinga (talk) 12:22, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  Similar issues with the following content; why was the mayor there? Why were the police? I think you need to establish the context of the meeting (who was there, how many, where) before describing the events that occurred, and do the latter in strict chronological order.

  The thing is this is the article for Lucy Parsons, not Albert Parsons or the Haymarket affair, so I'm not sure how much detail we need to go into when it's all background to the story of Lucy Mujinga (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, but the reader needs to understand what's in this article, and at the moment the text is opaque. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:04, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  Sure yes we all want understandable text - I've made some changes which hopefully read better and focus more on Lucy Mujinga (talk) 14:02, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  "The mass arrests and unlawful searches continued " we cannot be told they continued when we haven't been told they occurred in the first place.

  that refers back to the arrests and unlawful search in the previous sentence, but I've rejigged Mujinga (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  Okay for now; the previous version said nothing about there being arrests besides the ones listed, or about the searches being unlawful. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:04, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  that's on your reading I'd like to point out Mujinga (talk) 12:23, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  I don't know what that means. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  I struggle to follow material about the charges when we haven't been told who was arrested, or what the aftermath of the bombing was. Was the perpetrator even arrested?

  You have not explained when Albert was arrested.

  he wasn't arrested Mujinga (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  Then why was he being visited in jail by Lucy? Chronologically, he hasn't surrendered yet.

  ah yes i see what you mean now - i've moved the media bit down Mujinga (talk) 20:21, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  "Lizzie Holmes was not charged" why would she have been?

  "since prosecutors did not want to cause a scandal by sentencing a woman to death" - she was caught up in the arrests alongside many of the IWPA branch but wasn't charged because she was a woman Mujinga (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  Okay, but we've not heard that she was arrested; if you're going to discuss her charges or lack thereof, you need the context you just gave me here. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  I've replied on why "she should have been" already Mujinga (talk) 12:23, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  Third paragraph of this section is again chronologically confusing; you go from parsons' surrender to sentencing very quickly, then return to the sentencing, without ever specifically narrating the events of the trial.

  it's the same issue as before here, I don't see why I need to give all the details of her husband's trial, people can also read his page Mujinga (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  You don't need to give all the details, but you need to give enough that the text as written here is fully comprehensible. I don't see why you are reluctant to do so: there's no length concern with the page, and clarity to the layperson is an explicit part of the GA criteria.

  perhaps what's going on here is that Albert Parsons was underground and handed himself in at the first day of trial whereas the others were arrested and held in jail - does that help with the chronology since it seems consistent to me Mujinga (talk) 14:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  It's better, but there's still missing context. Later you say "Albert Parsons and the six other men on death row"; but you haven't said that anybody was on death row except for Albert, and even that is an oblique reference. We're going into great detail about where Albert hid and when he surrendered; why are you unwilling to add a sentence that says when the trial concluded, and with what result? Vanamonde (Talk) 17:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  To repeat myself, I'm trying to focus on the things relevant to Lucy, the subject of the article. As the article says, her actions have historically been elided, so I want to focus on her rather than the men peripheral to her story. Mujinga (talk) 12:25, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  The fact that history has tended to ignore Lucy is not a reason to avoid providing context: and in any case, I'm asking you to explain details related to other people that you added. You could ignore the convictions of anybody besides Albert, but choose not to; you could ignore Holmes' not being charged, but choose not to. Having introduced those elements, I do think you need to make them comprehensible. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  link or explain "walk-up"

  not sure how to resolve that when "walk-up" links to apartment, so removed Mujinga (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  "took action to save Albert Parsons and the six other men" woolly; what action? Clearly unsuccessful, as they were executed?

  that's explained in the next sentence with "fundraising and collecting signatures on the street" Mujinga (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  "A total of between 10,000 and 15,000 people attended the funeral" again, this is providing detail without the basics; where was the funeral? when?

  I've added the date, not sure if it's really necessary since it's not her funeral. The funeral took the form of a march with the bodies of the executed people being being up along the way, then a train ride to Waldheim Cemetry. I'm not sure if that amount of detail is necessary Mujinga (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, but if it's not important to her bio you wouldn't mention it: and if you hadn't I wouldn't remark on it. You choose to mention it, but begin with something other than the basics, and that's what strikes me as odd. I think you could afford to work "march" in somewhere; that plus the date is enough. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  noted Mujinga (talk) 12:25, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  I don't understand your refusal to add a single word, but it's not worth a fight, so this is okay. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  "her a stipend of $12 per week " suggest adding an inflation template.

  Not yet addressed. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  I'd rather not since then for consistency I'd need to do the same for the other figures in the article and I don't see how that would improve the article Mujinga (talk) 12:26, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  Just to add, I've had this precise conversation at FAC and have been fine with the nominator choosing not to use the template Mujinga (talk) 12:26, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  "young and handsome black-haired German" I think the adjectives besides "young" are out of place.

  i've been pondering this - black-haired isn't very useful, handsome perhaps explains why they had a relationship but then maybe they had a nice intellectual connection. anyway, only young left behind Mujinga (talk) 14:06, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  "She developed a rivalry with Thomas J. Morgan, who advocated a socialist approach to work as opposed to her syndicalism" the majority of our readers likely don't know what socialism is (no, I'm serious) beyond the fact of which governments call themselves socialist; they certainly don't understand syndacalism. I know you can't define every term here, but I wonder if a footnote on the differences between them would be useful?

  source says "The conflict was to determine who would control the Chicago movement, but it was couched in the rhetoric of anarchism vs. socialism. The same rhetoric of hyperbole and exaggeration which prosecutor Grinnell had used to convict the Haymarket defendants, Tommy Morgan now used to try to discredit their friends [...] she advocated a syndicalist theory of society. She advocated workers' ownership and control over the means of production and distribution through their unions. Tommy Morgan, on the other hand, advocated state control of the means of production and distribution by a "socialist" political machine."

  "Over time there were events to mark the anniversary of the Haymarket affair and the police continued to stop Parsons addressing rallies" As written, connection between the halves of the sentence isn't obvious.

  How to rephrase? Both things happened over time Mujinga (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  If they're related, suggest "events and rallies" and then "...addressing these rallies"; if unconnected, make two sentences.

  rephrased Mujinga (talk) 14:07, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  "Parsons remained an implacable activist for class struggle" her friends were also leftists; why would this destroy their friendship?

  this is summarising "The Holmes more closely identified with the emerging intellectual streams of American anarchism, while Lucy Parsons stayed in the mainstream of American working class radicalism", should I rephrase? Mujinga (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  Would suggest something closer to the source, I'm sure they both saw themselves as activists working on class struggles .

  I can only find mention of this in Ashbaugh so I'll remove it, since Jones says later on Lizzie and Lucy were friends again Mujinga (talk) 21:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  "she had him committed" as written, implies there was no other reason besides ideology; if so, I'm surprised there isn't anything more to say about it. Surely even in that time placing your child in an institution without justification was considered not a good thing to do?

  details are scarce on this Mujinga (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  Top of 1900s also has the broken text under a left-aligned image

  working ok for me Mujinga (talk) 14:49, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  No doubt; but it's related to screen width, some screens are going to have trouble, some screenreaders more so. See MOS:ACCIM. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  are you referring to MOS:IMAGELOC? Mujinga (talk) 20:03, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  I'll assume so, made the changes Mujinga (talk) 13:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  would actually still like to know if you are referring to IMAGELOC as I already asked, since I'm starting to wonder when a left-sited image can ever be justified Mujinga (talk) 12:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  You said you had made the change, so no further reply seemed necessary. I'm referring to MOS:ACCIM, as I said, but IMAGELOC makes a similar point. I have stopped using left-aligned images altogether, because our documentation suggests they create accessibility problems, and I would rather the article be more widely readable than satisfy my aesthetic preferences. I won't stand in their way elsewhere, but point it out where they break up the text. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  "Parsons moved towards communism." this is a suggestion only, as above, but an explanatory footnote as to ideology would help the reader.

  noted Mujinga (talk) 12:28, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  "the International Workers' Day (May Day)" It was known to the organizers as the May day event, surely? I would put the other name in parentheses.

  Ashbaugh says "Lucy Parsons hailed May Day in the April 29, 1930, Daily Worker, and she was one of the Communist Party's May Day speakers at Ashland Auditorium in Chicago. In the Daily Worker she wrote, "On this day the workers of every land and every clime will abandon the factories, mines and other hell holes of capitalism and march by the thousands under the banner of the Communist International and will declare their intention to abolish the curse of capitalism, poverty, and misery.""

  may day was announced as an international event in the 1890s so I think this is ok as is Mujinga (talk) 14:49, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  Your sources support my point, though? They're not saying "International Labor day" at all, because that's a bizarre phrase used only in the US to refer to the day everyone else celebrates labor day. I would honestly just omit the parentheses, and pipe May Day to ILD. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  I think ILD is something else, and we have as our article International Workers' Day not May Day so thta's why I wanted to have both terms. Could switch the brackets though? Mujinga (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  That's what I suggested the first time; yes, that works.

  "supporting Angelo Herndon, Tom Mooney ..." supporting in what way? this is vague.

  Blackpast says "In the early 1930s Parsons joined in the defense of the Scottsboro Boys and Angelo Herndon."

  Ashbaugh says "Lucy worked in the defense of Angelo Herndon and the Scottsboro Boys" and "Lucy continued to work with I.L.D. for the release of Tom Mooney. She dug deep into her empty purse for $1 which she contributed to his defense [...] Tom Mooney wanted to put his own case into the context of the history of labor frame-up cases, and he asked Lucy to send him material on the Haymarket case" Mujinga (talk) 20:07, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  Suggest adding "legal defense of"

  noted Mujinga (talk) 12:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  "Her will was declared invalid" do we know why? Based on the rest of the article, it could easily be either her doing something hare-brained, or discrimination against her.

  details are again in short supply, it def could be either! Mujinga (talk) 20:07, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  Gloss Irving Abrams

  rephrased Mujinga (talk) 14:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  "Parsons' lack of interest in the struggles of African Americans" Not specific enough, I think. The sources don't say she didn't care about black folks, they say she cared about class struggle specifically; I'm guessing what's meant here is that she didn't care about racial justice as an issue separate from class struggle.

  Well the whole things says "Historians have criticised Parsons' lack of interest in the struggles of African Americans, with her stance reflecting a belief in the need for the working class generally to rise up against its employers, rather than appealing to the need for racial equality. One explanation is that since she denied her own black heritage, she focused more on class struggle." - so yes I think we are in agreement. Mujinga (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  "This meant that she did not make links with..." somewhat repetitious from above.

  yes i had trouble phrasing that, still don't really have an improvement. any suggestions?

  rephrased Mujinga (talk) 14:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  I think the legacy could be fleshed out a little bit in specific places. The race angle is covered well, and the history of coverage; but surely there is material on the actual impact she had in her own right, rather than the emphasis on what she didn't do? I would also suggest reorganizing thematically where possible; the opening sentence, for instance, would fit much better at the end of its current paragraph.

• More general note: there is a lot of colorful language being used here; I recognize the circumstances being described were harsh, but where the reader can be told the specifics of what happened, it can achieve the same effect without potentially sounding biased. Let the facts speak for themselves where possible.

  can you give an example here? Mujinga (talk) 14:49, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  Sure. "shaped by the harsh repression", "saw the brutality of the repression", "willingness to stand up for her rights", "recent police brutality", "implacable activist for class struggle". All individually justifiable if the sources support them, but in each case I think the reader is better served if the specifics are laid out in more detail. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks! I'm summarising the sources here:

  • "shaped by the harsh repression" is in the lead and summarises the defeat of the Chicago railroad strike of 1877 in which her husband was sacked and threatened with death and the wikiarticle says "By the time order was restored on the evening of July 26, 14 to 30 rioters were dead or dying" so it seems apt.
  • "saw the brutality of the repression" - this refers to the Battle of the Viaduct where "The workers, armed only with rocks, bricks, and sticks, were vastly overpowered. An estimated thirty-five workers died in the week-long clashes" Schaak quoted in Jones, chapter 3
  • " "willingness to stand up for her rights" - as mentioned elsewhere, this was when she made two separate court cases against white people
  • "recent police brutality" - as mentioned elsehwere that refers back to the previous sentence, "Chicago Police and private security guards known as Pinkertons attacked the gathering, shooting at least one person dead"
  • "implacable activist for class struggle" - this one I can understand what you mean, I don't think the current course backs that fully. I do think it's a fair statement about this rather incredible activist but it could do with another cite, I'll look for one Mujinga (talk) 20:00, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  • on the last one i ended up taking out the sentence Mujinga (talk) 14:15, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

    no reply seems to indicate the pattern of either doubling down on your point or ignoring my reply. Mujinga (talk) 12:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  • Now that's an uncollegial statement: please strike it. I don't reply when no further action is needed on either our parts, and I reply when it is. That's always been how reviews are handled. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

• Another general note; I think the article would be well served by a separate section on views or ideology. As things stand that material is mixed into everything else, which is okay in places where specific events led her to change her views, but in general leads to a scattered narrative. This is definitely not a GA requirement, and I leave it up to you whether to try to affect this change now or later (or at all).

  I'm not sure about this - do you have a particular article in mind to compare to? Mujinga (talk) 14:22, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  It's not a requirement, to be clear, but Emma Goldman is a relevant example. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  Yes I was also looking at Goldman but I think she's much more written about as a philsopher/writer and rightly or wrongly there just aren't the sources for Parsons. So then I'm following more on the model of Olive Morris. Mujinga (talk) 19:49, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

• A general point about language. You often use the construction "the [phenomenon] ..." for things that haven't been explained ("the mass arrests...", "the mainstream media campaign...") which is generally a sign that something should have been explained earlier in the narrative. I've pointed out a few examples, but please check throughout.

  Yes it seems my writing style in which I introduce a topic then expand is clashing with you wanting things explained earlier. I'm not sure what to do about this since obviously I want the article to be understandable but there's more than one way to make an omlette Mujinga (talk) 20:26, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, we clearly have stylistic differences, but I did also read through once before commenting; so if there's things that were still unclear to me, they were unclear after reading the entire article and a good bit of the sources besides the two biographies. We've gone over the biggest sticking points: once those are addressed I think we're okay. If you take this to FAC we'll see whether others agree with me or it's just a stylistic matter. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  We are clearly going beyond GA pass/fail issues here. Whilst I remain grateful that you want to do more than that to improve the article, when it's at the point of adding things I disagree with and insisting on stylistic changes, I don't feel this is a collegiate process. Your edit summary "replies to some; flagging many prior comments that haven't yet been responded to" seems to imply that when you make a suggestion that goes beyond GA pass/fail issues I am bound to respond? I can reply to everything now if you like, but you can't insist on stylistic changes. I would also appreciate a reply when I ask a direct question. Mujinga (talk) 12:16, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  Replies made Mujinga (talk) 12:30, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  Mujinga, replying "noted" to a point is meaningless. Yes, I make optional suggestions, and you can ignore them if you please; but not all the points are optional. At no point do I require you to use my phrasing, but I don't believe it is unreasonable to say "here's what I don't understand" and require you to fix it in any way you please. And certainly, I require replies when I'm flagging the use of racially charged terms. The other points I flagged were ones I believe to be issues of breadth or clarity, and you see them as style issues. I will post on WT:GAN asking for a second opinion. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

• Hi Vanamonde93, thanks for the deep dive I'm looking forward to going through the comments - my internet access is currently patchy but I'll hope to get to it later on today Mujinga (talk) 10:36, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  Stopping here for now - if you need any texts (eg Jones) I'd be happy to send them over. As you might have seen discussed somewhere I was thinking about taking this to FAC if successful at GA so these comments are very welcome! Mujinga (talk) 17:32, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

• That's all I have for a first pass. To be quite honest, I'm not sure that it's not better to close the review right now based on prose concerns. The issue isn't bad writing as such — I've made very few copyedits — as that it reads like a much larger body of material was condensed by someone very close to the source material. There's a lot of places where the reader lacks context, which I've tried to flag above, and it will take more than copyediting to address this; you will need to look at your sources for additional detail, and once you've gone over my points, I will need to do another pass. This is a subject worthy of a GA (and an FA, though I think you will need to beef up the legacy and add detail to her various actions and prosecutions, in addition to making the prose flow). I will leave this open for now, but wanted to flag my concern. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:26, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lucy Parsons/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Mujinga (talk · contribs) 09:47, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 16:55, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Hey there! I'm more than happy to take this on for review, as I unfortunately missed the opportunity to take on the first GAN or comment on the peer review. I started taking notes as part of Women in Green's May 2025 edit-a-thon and the GAN Backlog Drive, but I had a lot of thoughts so it took me a while to get through everything. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:55, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Comments

Lead and infobox

• Could we get a bit more information in the opening paragraph? Something other than her ideological affiliations, just to give us a better, immediate understanding of what she was all about.

  done - a few other people seem to be editing to the lead so maynbe they can help too Mujinga (talk) 21:06, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

• "shrouded in mystery" strikes me as a bit too idiomatic for the lead.

  changed Mujinga (talk) 21:06, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

• "In addition to Parsons, she went by different surnames during her life including Carter, Diaz, Gonzalez and Hull." Is this such vital information that we need to be telling readers about it in the lead?

  i think so in terms of summarising the article, but someone else queried it as well, so removed Mujinga (talk) 21:06, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

• Could we give a wee introduction to Albert Parsons? It'll help contextualise what comes next.

  I added "activist" is that too minimal? Mujinga (talk) 21:06, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

  That's good! --Grnrchst (talk) 09:18, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

• "Parsons' ideology was shaped by the harsh repression of the Chicago railroad strike of 1877" I'm assuming this is referring to Lucy, but it's not entirely clear as we were just talking about her and Albert as a couple.

  rejigged Mujinga (talk) 21:06, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

• "After Albert Parsons was executed in 1887 following the Haymarket affair," We've already been introduced to him, so I think this could say "After her husband [...]" Also, a little context for why he was executed (even as brief as a couple words) would go a long way.

  done Mujinga (talk) 21:06, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

• "The Life of Albert R. Parsons" Worth introducing this. I'm guess it's a biography?

  yes Mujinga (talk) 21:06, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

• "supporting Angelo Herndon, Tom Mooney, and the Scottsboro Boys." Context? Who were they and how did she support them?

  I'll come to the lead last but yes agree the opening paragraph can be improved, not sure why there is a single sentence paragraph there. On the last point, I don't think much context is needed here but it certainly is in the body Mujinga (talk) 17:05, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

  I've now answered on all the above Mujinga (talk) 21:06, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

  Lead looks good! --Grnrchst (talk) 09:19, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Early life

• Oh wow, that is a lot of conflicting information about her birth year and origins. Good job attempting to sort through it.

  Thanks! I was quite surprised there were so many versions Mujinga (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

• "Caroline Ashbaugh states in Lucy Parsons, American revolutionary" Ashbaugh should be introduced. Also, do we really need to cite the title of the book in text?

  I notice you have mentioned a few times not wanting full titles, I had a look for any MOS guidance but drew a blank. I don't mind to chop it, I think here at least I was using the title itself to identify Ashbaugh as one of her biographers Mujinga (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

  It's just to aid readability. I think short titles are ok, but using full-length titles can really mess with the flow of a sentence. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:20, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

• Regarding note A: Move the death certificate to the end of the paragraph, so the differing years of birth increase chronologically.

  I have rewritten the note and incorporated the suggestion. Mujinga (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

• Do we have context for these other surnames and their various use cases?
  • Avrich says these were maiden names she gave, so that might be worth clarifying.

    Yes I would thought that's clear in the cases of Parsons and Gathings, although Gathings is also complicated. Basaclly the more you get into the more complicated it gets. Mujinga (talk) 17:20, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

• Spotcheck:[1] Verified.
• I understand you were pulling from the e-book version of Jones' biography, but supplying chapters instead of page numbers makes verification a bit more difficult. If you're able, I think you should add page numbers in from a paginated copy; there's a paginated version available on the Internet Archive and I have my own copy, if you need me to verify page numbers myself.

  I'll have to look into this - archive.org isn't loading right now for me and at the time of writing the ebook was all I could find. Let me know if you need help with verifying anything Mujinga (talk) 17:20, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

  i can load this but it says borrow unavailable and limited preview. ultimately yes page numbers would be optimal for FAC but i dont think this is a pass/fail issue at GA level. i should prob buy the blooming book Mujinga (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

• Spotcheck: [3] Verified.
• "mixing up their genders." To be clear, this means she mixed up which of here parents was one ethnicity or the other?

  Yeah exactly, not sure how to make that more clear Mujinga (talk) 17:20, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Mujinga: I guess "but mixed up which parent was which ethnicity." or something similar? --Grnrchst (talk) 09:22, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

  I went for "changing which one was which" does that work? Mujinga (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

• Worth linking to University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign University Library in the citation for the Non Solus blog.

  It's a good suggestion but i prefer to not link any authors or publishers, so I'll unlink any to be consistent Mujinga (talk) 17:20, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

  uh, not sure why Americann National Biography continues to be bluelinked after using |title-link=none. Do you happen to know? Mujinga (talk) 17:32, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

  No idea why that's happening, sorry. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:42, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

  weird! Mujinga (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

• Why are we linking to a mirror of the WBEZ article and not the original?

  Thanks, original linked Mujinga (talk) 18:00, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

• Are there any more scholarly sources we could cite for this information, instead of a Library's blog and a radio programme?

  I think these are both quality sources and this is quite a recent development, but could prob find a reference in recent academic work. I'll have to dig out all the sources! Mujinga (talk) 18:00, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

• "Muscogee Native American" Think "Native American" might be redundant here. If he's Muscogee, it naturally follows that he is a Native American.

  I honestly don't know what version is better. I've asked for assistance at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indigenous_peoples_of_North_America#Lucy_Parsons Mujinga (talk) 18:00, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

  changed per the reply there! Mujinga (talk) 11:50, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

• Spotcheck: [10] Verified on page 171.
  • Jones is bold enough to call this backstory "fictitious". Where is the historical consensus on her origins roughly? Do any historians believe this Mexican-Native backstory?

    I'll have to have a check back on this Mujinga (talk) 18:14, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Mujinga: Did you manage to read more into this yet? --Grnrchst (talk) 09:57, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

  sorry not yet but not forgotten! Mujinga (talk) 20:55, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

• "Her entry in [...]" Provide attribution to the author of the entry, rather than the entry itself. Does Perry cite a source for her alleged parents' names?

  I see your point, and usually i'd agree, but I think the reason I said " Her entry in the American National Biography suggests she may have been daughter to Pedro Diáz González and his wife Marie" is to show that this isn't a rogue theory, it's the ANB saying it Mujinga (talk) 18:14, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

  That's a good point, thanks for explaining your reasoning. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:57, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

• "Her contemporaries remarked upon her beautiful appearance and dark hair." Why is this relevant for our readers to know? How does it relate to her origins (the subject of this paragraph)?

  Jones says in her intro The fact that her ethnic “identity” was indeterminate—she looked neither black nor white—made her all the more intriguing to Americans regardless of political ideology. In searching for an answer to the question, Who is Lucy Parsons? the press described in meticulous (and often contradictory) detail her skin tone and hair texture, the timbre of her voice and the shape of her nose, her style of speaking, and the tragedy that had befallen her family. From Reconstruction through the 1930s, her often-remarked-upon exotic appearance confounded whites curious about her lineage and her “race.” In chap8 she says "When reporters saw her for the first time, virtually all of them wrote at some length about her dress and hairstyle, the contours of her face, and her enunciation, hoping to divine from such tangible evidence not only her character but the circumstances of her birth." and Although reporters generally agreed on this quality of her voice, they struggled to convey to readers her skin color and hair texture, physical qualities that routinely went unnoticed in white speakers. Her skin was variously described as “exceedingly dark,” “brown-like” in tone, and “neither black nor yellow, but just between,” and most often as a shade of copper—dull copper, the color of a new penny, a copper tint, or “coppery.” Some reported that her hair was “fluffy, silken,” others that it was coarse, “kinky and unmanageable.” Despite her protests, she was labeled variously a Negro, a “quadroon,” or a “light-colored negress.” In chap10: The Alarm saw fit to republish a description offered by a London paper: “She has the full lips, the black hair, the gleaming black eyes, and the rich warm complexion that tell of the mingling of the blood. She is handsome with a strange beauty. But it is not until she speaks that the full power of her personality strikes you, for she has a perfect speaking voice. Rich, sweet, clear, and low it carries itself without any effort on her part with ten times the effect of ten times greater lung power. It is a voice mobile to every changing sentiment it expresses.” Honestly I'm sure if any of this is relevant for an encyclopedia and I'm inlcined to delete the sentence, but perhaps it is useful to keep this information, perhaps rewrite it to show nobody was sure of her background? Mujinga (talk) 18:14, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

  I think rewriting to show no contemporary reporter could pin down her background would be a lot more informative to the reader than the current remark. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:59, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

• "In Goddess of anarchy: The life and times of Lucy Parsons, American radical," Woah, we're giving in-text attribution for the entire title? I think we could trim this

  Again, I feel that this indicates Parsons is notable enough for multiple biographies, but I've reformulated Mujinga (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

• I think all this about Waco and the emancipation could be trimmed a bit, to keep the focus on Lucy. We don't really need to know when Waco was founded, for example.

  I would argue it brings home the chaos of the post war times to know that Waco had recently been founded, to show that Parsons was living in a very fluid, ungovernable time? But happy to rewrite as well. Mujinga (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

  I think the thing about it being "a place where people were reinventing their identities as they moved on from their past lives as slaves or Confederate soldiers" is what's important to mention here. The specifics of Waco's founding and the Emancipation proclamation are over-contextualising what this detail already describes. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:01, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

• Honestly these first two paragraphs are structurally very messy, jumping back and forth a lot and giving different interpretations without much clarity about where (or if) there is historical consensus. I understand this was all difficult to sort through, so I do understand the messiness here, but I think it could still do with a bit of refining to give the best reading experience. I think more crossreferencing in citations could help a lot for readers to see which historians agree on what parts.

  Yeah, it's so confusing. I'll give it another go .. the problem is we can't have a long section saying Avrich says but Jones say but Ashbaugh says. I'll come back on this Mujinga (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

• Lucy Gathings met the white Albert Parsons in Waco." Wait a second. We go through two long paragraphs of showing just how difficult it is to figure out her origins, then we use one of her possible names with certainty? I thought she was known by Lucy Carter at this time?

  Ummmm she possibly was Carter then became Gathings if/when she married Gathings and/or was a slave of the Gathings? I'm not sure how to improve this mess... "Parsons met the white Albert Parsons" is technically wrong and sounds bad. Mujinga (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

  If the surname is unclear, it might be worth just contracting it to "Lucy"? --Grnrchst (talk) 10:02, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

• "the white Albert Parsons" Is there a better introduction we can give for him than his skin colour? It's a necessary detail, but I think it could be better worked into the subsequent paragraph.

  Haha yes it does read a bit strange! "He had fought in the American Civil War on the losing Confederate side then after the war had become a Radical Republican agitating for black civil rights" is also pretty wild when you think about it. Reformulated Mujinga (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

  Looks much better now! --Grnrchst (talk) 10:02, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

• Judging by Ashbaugh, Avrich and Jones, it seems like Lucy's assertion that she had Hispanic/Native origins came from her relationship with Albert and their need to get around anti-miscegination laws. Might this be worth bringing up here as an explanation for the inconsistencies between her own story and the ones historians have written?

  Interesting theory. My reading was that in fluid times, Parsons would chop and change her background depending on circumstances. I like how she told the ANB a different date for the wedding (and that she lived long enough to tell the ANB herself). I'll have to see what the sources suggest, since we can't go further than them Mujinga (talk) 18:31, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

  Ashbaugh seems emphatic on this. Avrich by the way is following Ashbaugh for the most part Mujinga (talk) 22:40, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

  If it's something Ashbaugh particularly emphasises, and is relevant enough to have been picked up by other sources too, then it should probably be brought up in the article. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:04, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

• Spotcheck: [3] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [1] Verified.
• "it is likely she had witnessed the activities" Is there any doubt about this? Ashbaugh says Parsons wrote about seeing these atrocities.

  oh gosh that sentence needs rewriting ... it could also be saying that she maybe witnessed atrocities at the same time as Albert got shot in the leg!? stopping here for now. thanks for all the careful queries so far! Mujinga (talk) 18:31, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

  rewritten see what you think now Mujinga (talk) 22:40, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

  Looks good! --Grnrchst (talk) 10:05, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Moving to Chicago

• Most of this section isn't about them moving to Chicago. Is there a better option for its section header?

  How about just "Chicago"? Mujinga (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

  That works. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:06, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

• "Lucy and Albert Parsons moved to Chicago in about 1873." Avrich says "around the end of 1873" and Ashbaugh says "the winter of 1873-1874", so I think we can be safe being more specific than "about 1873" here.

  I've put at the end of 1873, but I'm not 100% happy because winter 73/74 would be December January February Mujinga (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

• "The industrial city was growing quickly [...]" No need for all this extra specific context about Chicago. I think if it's necessary context, we could just say they moved there at a time when the city was growing rapidly.

  Yeah that works for context Mujinga (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

• Detail about working-class tenements should be cited to pages 16-17 of Ashbaugh.

  I think that was a typo, 16 covers it Mujinga (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

• Can't find anything about their jobs on page 17 of Ashbaugh. Verified in page 46 of Jones. Citation should be moved inline for easier verification.

  How do you mean? I think Ashbaugh is for the groups and Jones for jobs Mujinga (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

• Link to Social-Democratic Workingmen's Party of North America

  nice spot! Mujinga (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

• "after the dissolution of the International Workingmen's Association (which had also been known as the First International)" Think we can cut the extra context in the brackets, as it doesn't come up again. Also, is the IWMA's dissolution especially relevant to Parsons' biography? If not, this detail could probably be trimmed as well.

  hmmm good question. firstly i thought people now would know the first international but not the IWMA. secondly, it does seem important to parsons' intellectual development [not that I've drawn that out] since Ashbaugh says Through the Social Democratic Party Albert and Lucy Parsons came in contact with the works of Karl Marx and Ferdinand LaSalle. The European socialist traditions were to become a big part of their lives. In the summer of 1876 Albert Parsons was a delegate to the convention in New Jersey which formally dissolved the First International. The Social Democratic Party was dissolved as well, but its members coalesced with several other organizations to form the Workingmen'sParty of the United States. The Chicago English group of the Workingmen's Party met on Monday evenings to discuss their program, politics and strategy; they often met in Lucy and Albert's apartment on Larrabee Street. Here in her own home, Lucy became intimately acquainted with socialist politics

• What did the couple do in these political parties? Why did they join? Did their party political activism begin and end with the railroad strike of 1877? When did they leave the party?

  Seems like that's more Albert's story than Lucy's, but shall I add some of the above? Mujinga (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

  Definitely add a bit of the above. In my view, clarifying it as the "First International" is only necessary if: a. it comes up again (which it doesn't); or b. it goes onto discuss the internationals that claimed to succeed it (i.e. the Second or Third Internationals). As you're already linking to it, there's no need to clarify this colloquialism. In any case, rewriting to keep its focus on Lucy without going too far into stuff that is more relevant to Albert's biography is going to help. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:11, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

• Verified membership of the parties on page 17 of Ashbaugh and pages 56-58 of Jones.
• "Parsons demonstrated her willingness to stand up for her rights" [...] Going straight from them joining the parties to this is a bit jarring. Is there any way we could make these sentences flow together a bit better?

  I'm not sure if it's her growing political awareness that meant she did this or just her refusal to back down Mujinga (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

• Most of this second paragraph is focused on Albert Parsons, before a couple sentences about Lucy at the end. Did Lucy herself not do anything during the Great Upheaval? We could definitely stand to trim Albert's story down to the necessary details so we keep the focus on Lucy.

  It's difficult because we need to know he was blacklisted and then the question would be why was he blacklisted. I've trimmed it bearing that in mind Mujinga (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

  Looks a lot better now, thanks. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:15, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

• Spotcheck: [3]:25 Verified.
• Spotcheck: [14] Verified on pages 69-70.
• "Parsons' first writings" This is referring to Lucy, yes?

  Yes, I *think* that's clear enough from context Mujinga (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

• If we are attributing something to Jones in text, then what follows next shouldn't be Ashbaugh unless Ashbaugh is quoting Jones.

  Where do you mean? Mujinga (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

• Verified writings for The Socialist in Ashbaugh page 30, but can't find anything else it's cited to here. Verified the rest in pages 77-78 of Jones. As before, these citations should be moved inline rather than bundled.

  I'm wondering what you mean by moved inline, do you mean put citations on a specific sentence? I would say to that, if I'm making a summary it's ok to have a few sentences together Mujinga (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, I think if a sentence is solely drawing from one source, then that source should be cited at the end of the sentence, not bundled together at the end of a few sentences which draw from other sources. It just makes for much easier verification. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:17, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

  I see what you mean. I had issues with this the other way round at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Death_of_Mark_Saunders/archive1#Comments_Oppose_Comments_from_mujinga where I said "so there are currently three refs namely independent, bbc and times. independent is doing most of it, bbc nothing, times could be used to cite the wine but there's better references and the secodn sentence isn't sourced as far as i can see .. the problem i think for me with clustering three references is it takes so long here to check all the claims that I can't be bothered to do that later on now. Shooting of James Ashley for comparison does use references at the end of the paragraph but usually only one or two which makes checking easier" - there the refs were at the end of a paragraph and seemed to be accpetable to other reviewers, so I would argue a few sentences in acceptable. Mujinga (talk) 20:54, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

• Spotcheck:[3]: 32, 39 Verified most, except the thing about campaigning against voting. Is that in Anderson?

  Yes - "Over a century after Parsons said this, many are still trying to convince us that voting offers solutions — solutions we know it cannot provide. Keep in mind that Lucy Parsons, a Black woman criticizing reformism and voting, did not have the right to vote at the time she wrote this in 1905" Mujinga (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

• "Her observations of the strike" What strike? Is it referring to the 1877 railroad strike? This is completely unclear if so, as there is a lot of text between this and the stuff about the 1877 strike.

  I'm not sure what lese it could refer back to, but I've added "1877" for clarity. The Jones bit says "Lucy would later write that the strike proved to be a turning point in her life, opening her eyes to multiple forms of injustice and to the realities of structures of power. She also took to heart the attention (both admiring and disparaging) that Albert received during the strike by virtue of his speaking abilities. She saw the potential of the masses to cripple the city’s economy, and the potential of the women protesters to unnerve the respectable classes." Mujinga (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

  Adding 1877 clarifies it much better, thanks. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:18, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

• "She developed her social anarchist approach" This is the first time we've mentioned anarchism, but she's already "develop[ing]" this philosophy? When did she take up social anarchism and why was she drawn to it?

  That's a good question! Mujinga (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

  So I guess her anarchism was set out in her writings and does not necessarily being at a certain time. Harrell doesn't say more than things like "When she called the working-class to arms, Parsons combined the tenets of both anarchism and socialism to form her exceptional social anarchism." Kinna doesn't either. I guess what I'm trying to say without going beyond the sources is that Parsons observed things like the repression of the strike and this developed her anarchism. Ashbaugh says of p57 "The ideological position of the Chicago movement was still undefined in 1885, and there were significant differences of opinion between prominent leaders as to whether the movement was Marxist or Bakuninist." Mujinga (talk) 23:58, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

• Spotcheck:[15] Verified in pages 5-6 and 13-14.
• Is the Chicago Working Women's Union notable enough that it might have its own article at some point? If so, it might be worth redlinking here and in the lead.

  No I don't think so. As an aside, googling the group led me to https://socialistworker.co.uk/womens-liberation/rebel-women-lucy-parsons which is lifting quite a lot from wikipedia, tut tut Mujinga (talk) 23:58, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

  Lmao. Can't say I'm surprised that the SWP steals from Wikipedia. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:20, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

• Spotcheck: [3]:34 [14] Most of this seems to be from Jones, page 72-73. Ashbaugh p. 34 verifies that she was pregnant when she organised with the WWU and that Parsons joined the Knights when they admitted women.
• Spotcheck:[1]:451, [3]:41 Child dying verified in Avrich; birth date verified in Ashbaugh.
• "In November, Albert Parsons [...]" Ok, this sentence is quite long and loosely constructuted, making it a bit hard to parse. I don't think we should be preemptively introducing the other Haymarket defendants before we even cover what the Haymarket affair was, so trimming that and ending the sentence with (IWPA) would make it a lot easier to read.

  I've trimmed, although I wouldn't be surprised if i was asked at FAC level to re-add details. Mujinga (talk) 00:23, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

• If we're only talking about Lucy's contributions, there's no need to mention the other main contributors.

  OK, trimmed Mujinga (talk) 00:23, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

• We list the article titles at length, but what was it she wrote about? The content is more important than the titles.

  hopefully in the reformulation that's become clearer. also i like the titles, they're great!!

• Spotcheck:[1]:135 Source says 10,000, not 100,000.

  Nice spot! Mujinga (talk) 23:58, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

• Probably worth mentioning Lucy Parsons joined the IWPA before she's leading a march.

  done Mujinga (talk) 00:23, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

• What did the march do at the Board of Trade building? Why was the march significant?

  Avrich says it was the inaugural banquet celebrating the new building which cost $2 million!? added Mujinga (talk) 00:23, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

• Worth linking to Chicago Board of Trade Building.

  done Mujinga (talk) 00:23, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

• Spotcheck:[3]:59 Verified.
• Spotcheck:[3]:60 Source says 1,000 to 5,000 people.

  another good spot, thanks Mujinga (talk) 00:23, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Haymarket affair

• Spotcheck:[18] Verified in pages 129-130.
• Do we need to be citing The Nation when we already have a reliable book-length source cited for this information? It's not an unreliable source, but I was a bit surprised to see a partisan magazine show up after several scholarly sources.

  Jones says The May 1 issue of the daily mainstream paper the Chicago Mail greeted the long-anticipated (or dreaded) day with the pronouncement that Albert Parsons and August Spies should be held “personally responsible for any trouble that does occur.” On that day, a Saturday, an estimated 300,000 workers went on strike at 13,000 workplaces nationwide. Chicago marked the day with a march of 80,000 people

down Michigan Avenue, with Albert and Lucy, together with their children, at the head of the march—whether they claimed their place at the head by acclamation of their followers or simply by assuming that position on their own is unknown. Hopes ran high: as many as 45,000 employees, including 35,000 meatpackers, had recently won a shorter workday without going on strike

• Nation says: In 1886, the couple and their two children stepped onto Michigan Avenue to lead 80,000 working people in the world’s first May Day parade and a demand for the eight-hour day. A new international holiday was born as more than 100,000 also marched in other US cities.

  So I think I was using the Nation source for " demanding the eight-hour day." so that seems ok to me per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources ? Mujinga (talk) 09:20, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

  Sounds good by me. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:22, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

• "Two days later, August Spies [...]" Is this detail necessary for Parsons' biography? This could be reduced to the necessary detail: that there was police brutality against striking workers.

  I thought it's good to give basic info about the haymarket accused, but happy to remove Mujinga (talk) 09:20, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

  Looks a lot better now. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:23, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

• There's a bit too much detail about the Haymarket affair here. I think we can trim it down to a more basic overview.

  Trimmed Mujinga (talk) 09:20, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• The specifics of Albert's flight from Chicago can be trimmed.

  Done Mujinga (talk) 09:20, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• Spotcheck:[3]:78[18][20] Ashbaugh and Jones (pp.134-135) both say it was Lizzie Holmes, not Lucy, who urged Albert to leave Chicago. Verified info about Albert's journey in Jones pp. 139-140.

  Another good spot! Removed Mujinga (talk) 09:20, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• Spotcheck:[1]226-227 [3]:81 Verified.
• Can we summarise this quote from Parsons?

  Reluctantly, yes :) Mujinga (talk) 09:20, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• Spotcheck:[3]:85 Verified.
• "A Grand Jury announced charges [...]" Could we trim this whole bit down so we keep the focus on Parsons?

  Chopped Mujinga (talk) 09:20, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• This next paragraph centres on Albert Parsons as the subject, can we retool it to focus more on Lucy?

  I think this has to be focused on her husband since he's the one being sentenced to death and she is reacting to that Mujinga (talk) 09:20, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• "defense committee" What defense committee? This hasn't been introduced yet.

  changed to defendants Mujinga (talk) 09:20, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• Spotcheck:[1]:297-298[3]:105 Mostly verified in Avrich; Ashbaugh covers it more broadly than in the specifics here.
• Spotcheck:[3]:108 Verified.
• Spotcheck:[1]:306 Verified.
• Spotcheck:[3]:113 Verified.
• Spotcheck:[1]:322 Verified.
• Spotcheck:[1]:323 Verified.
• "On Thursday November 10, Louis Lingg [...]" All this extra detail could be trimmed down; all we need to know is that Albert Parsons was sentenced to execution.

  ok Mujinga (talk) 09:20, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• Spotcheck:[1]:386-387 Verified.
• Spotcheck:[3]:138 Verified.
• "The Famous Speeches of the Eight Chicago Anarchists in Court: When asked if they had anything to say why sentence of death should not be passed upon them: October 7, 8, and 9, 1886" That is an extraordinarily long title that we really don't need to quote in full; The Famous Speeches of the Eight Chicago Anarchists in Court would be enough.

  I like the full title, but ok Mujinga (talk) 09:20, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Continued activism

• "Roche framed the contest [...]" Is this directly relevant to Parsons' biography?

  I would have thought say becuase it shows the seriousness with which the "threat of anarchism" personified by Parsons was regarded by mainstream politicians Mujinga (talk) 09:32, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• "In October 1888, she took the boat to London" A boat is a small watercraft; I assume she would have taken a large passenger ship no?

  Ashbaugh says "At the end of October Lucy sailed from New York to London. The voyage was an exciting new experience for her-after she recovered from the initial seasickness" and Jones says "In late October Parsons traveled to New York City, and on the thirtieth she set sail for London." ... changed to travelled! Mujinga (talk) 09:32, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• Spotcheck:[3]:159[11] Verified all in pages 215-216 of Jones; verified all except siteseeing with Jane Morris in Ashbaugh.
• Spotcheck:[11] Verified on page 217.
• Spotcheck:[3]:161-162 Verified.
• Spotcheck:[11] Verified Hubbard quote on pages 218-219.
• Spotcheck:[3]:182 Verified.
• "Freedom, a revolutionary anarchist-communist monthly" Could just call it Freedom and introduce it as an anarchist monthly newspaper.
• I suppose so yes :) Mujinga (talk) 09:32, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
• "Her relationship with Lacher" Probably should have been a bit more explicit earlier when introducing Lacher that they were having an affair, as that's not something I picked up until now.

  I've rewritten this bit Mujinga (talk) 16:17, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

• "The couple were by 1890 seen together publicly until their relationship ended in a court battle" This is a bit confusingly worded, I'm not sure what it means.

  I meant because he was married to someone else still they were at first clandestine lovers then by 1890 they were stepping out, but i've rewritten this bit Mujinga (talk) 16:17, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

• Spotcheck:[11] Verified court case on page 223; claims against Lacher in Freedom verified on page 227.
• Spotcheck:[1]:412-413[3]:198 Verified.
• Spotcheck:[3]:184-185 Verified.
• Spotcheck:[3]:192-193 Verified.
• Spotcheck:[3]:200,201 Verified.
• "At the time Goldman, Parsons and Louise Michel" And we have to cite a journal article about Michel to point this out? Do none of the Parsons biographies mention that they were notable female leaders of the movement?

  I think this was a detail I took from Bantman rather than any of the books Mujinga (talk) 16:17, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

  It just seemed odd to me to bring up Parsons alongside Louise Michel, who we never mention again in the article, citing something about Michel rather than Parsons. But I'm happy to drop this. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:29, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

• "When Oscar Rotter wrote about free love" This would flow better without the previous sentence about Goldman, Parsons and Michel.

  I can't see a better place for this sentence. I'm also worried that the last sentence (about her opposition to wars) feels tacked on but i wouldn't know where else to put it Mujinga (talk) 16:17, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

• Spotcheck:[1]:451[3]:207 Verified, although the information in Ashbaugh goes into page 208 as well.

  Thanks for the eagle eyes! Mujinga (talk) 16:19, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

1900s

• Spotcheck:[3]:210-211 Verified.
• I think we should lead with Parsons working for Free Society before having her visited by Malatesta and speaking Fox; it just feels a little odd starting a new section with a relatively trivial detail.

  That's good point, that reads better now! Mujinga (talk) 13:20, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

• Spotcheck:[1]:451 Her founding the IWW is on page 452.

  Thanks

• Spotcheck:[1]:452-453 Verified.
• We're citing a web article by Jacqueline Jones for Parsons' involvement in the Syndicalist League. Is this detail not in Jones' book?
• Do we have a secondary source (i.e. one of the history books we're already citing) that we can cite instead of a Chicago Tribune report?
• Spotcheck:[1]:453[3]:254 Verified.)
• Spotcheck:[1]:516[3]:261 Goldman criticism verified in Avrich; joining of Communist Party verified in Ashbaugh.
• "discussing its failure" Are we using "failure" in wikivoice or is this her opinion? Failure to do what?

  changed to perceived decline? hope that works Mujinga (talk) 13:20, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

• Do we need to list all of these authors? Which of them had an influence on her?

  if the library is 3,000 books it seems fair to mention some authors - neither avrich nor ashbaugh says what had the biggest imfluence on her Mujinga (talk) 13:20, 15 June 2025 (UTC

Death

• Spotcheck:[3]:263 Verified.
• Spotcheck:[3]:263,266 Verified.
• Spotcheck:[5] Verified FBI sale on page 343; verified memorial service on pages 343-344.

Legacy

• Spotcheck:[3]:265 Verified.
• "Historians have criticised Parsons' lack of interest" Which historians?

  Garrrrr you got me! I love asking people that question at FAC. Haha :) Specified Mujinga (talk) 15:44, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

• "As a result, she did not work with the" If she didn't work with any of them, then... why are we specifying who she didn't work with?

  I could try to make it clearer, to me it seems obvious that it's because it's a "contemporaneous black Chicago activist" so at first look it seems odd she didn't work with Ida Wells-Barnett nor the National Association of Colored Women and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, presumably because she favoured class struggle over black activism Mujinga (talk) 15:44, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

  It still seems odd to me to bring up an absence of a connection, but maybe that's just me. Did she specifically swear off working with them? --Grnrchst (talk) 10:32, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

  No it's good you flag this up, because the historians talk about it so I think it needs including, but possibly rephrasing Mujinga (talk) 20:47, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

• Spotcheck:[14] Verified on page 89.
• "Parsons is one of the historical figures depicted" What role does she play in the novel? Is this the only pop cultural depiction we know of?

  I don't think i added that. it's a passing mention, the reviewer says "Newitz has plenty of impressive research to show off, too, from ancient Petra (another Machine site, here called Raqmu) to a slanted version of 1990s SoCal culture, to the boisterous south side of Chicago during the World Columbian Exposition in 1893, with convincing historical walk-ons, such as the anarchist Lucy Parson [sic], the music publisher Sol Bloom, and a version of the exotic dancer Little Egypt." in fact, I'll chop it out, she doesn't even feature in our article about the book Mujinga (talk) 15:44, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

• Chronologically, the thing about the historical marker should be placed before the park.

  done! Mujinga (talk) 15:44, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Overall, this was a very nice article to read and I feel much more informed about Parsons than I was before. There are unfortunately a few things which I think are currently holding it back from meeting GA criteria, which I will list here.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   The spelling and grammar is mostly good, as far as I can tell. The prose is largely clear and concise, although the "Early life" section is rather tricky to read so could do with another go over.

will do! Mujinga (talk) 15:45, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

1. B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   All good on the manual of style front, although there is one small case of weasal wording in the "Legacy" section.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   References are properly formatted and the formatting is consistent throughout the article.

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   All the sources are reliable, although there's a couple minor cases where I think they're not the highest quality. There are a couple cases where they are bundled at the end of a section rather than inline with the specific information they verify, which makes verification a bit more tricky.

   C. It contains no original research:

   No original research or novel interpretations as far as I can see.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   No copyright violations (Earwig result) and I saw no plagiarism in my spotchecks.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   I think there might be a couple gaps in the biography, and I noticed a few interesting details that weren't in here when reading some of the books. Worth a double check of the sources to see if there's anything missing that's worth adding in. In any case, it's nothing major, and this article seems to cover all the important parts of her life.

lemme know if you want anything added! Mujinga (talk) 15:45, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

1. B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   There's quite a few cases in the article where it loses focus and either over-contextualises or switches focus to someone else. These could do with trimming and rewriting so Parsons is the subject; keep the focus on her.

2. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   One very minor case of possibly inappropriate use of wikivoice.

3. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   No major changes since this GA nomination. Last revert was many months ago and it was a blocked user.

4. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   I'm not convinced by the public domain status of the images of her children and the photo of her arrest, so it's worth double checking these. Does the gravestone accounted for under United States' freedom of panorama? All else good.

will look into this Mujinga (talk) 15:45, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

1. B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   All images are relevant and suitably captioned.

2. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   These issues are currently holding the article back from a GA rating, but I think they can be addressed with a bit of work. I'm happy to put this review on hold while the comments are seen to. Feel free to ping me if you have any questions or updated about article progress. Thanks for nominating this! --Grnrchst (talk) 16:55, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Oh thanks for taking this on! I'm quite busy next few days but will try to get started within the week. Have a great weekend Mujinga (talk) 18:33, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Hellos sorry I'm quite busy at the moment IRL, but should be able to get more done this coming week, if that's ok. Mujinga (talk) 07:30, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Aye no bother, take as much time as you need. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:33, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Hola still slowly working through this and hope to have more time this week. Re "Unclear why "American" was changed to "US" in lead sentenced." I personally don't like using "American" to describe US people since comrades from Latin America reject the term. Both US and American seem unwieldy to me and since it wasn;t the US when she was born, I don't know what is best. I might well be overthinking this. Mujinga (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Race and ethnicity doesn't really address this but does use "Americans" to mean people from the US, but it would wouldn't it Mujinga (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I understand this reasoning and sympathise with it, but it's not our place to establish new demonyms for people groups. The Castilian language has the pretty common term "estadounidense", which makes it so "americano" isn't the only option for referring to people from the United States. "American" is still the common demonym for the US in English, as "United Statesian"/"Usian"/"Yank" haven't caught on as widely. Per MOS:NATIONALITY, a nationality can be omitted if it's controversial, but given Ashbaugh refers to Parsons in the title of her biography as an "American Revolutionary", I'm not sure that's the case here. --Grnrchst (talk) 21:06, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I'm down with that and MOS:NATIONALITY also uses "American" so that's the guidance I was looking for. Don't worry I don't feel the need to right a great wrong on this particular point :) Mujinga (talk) 21:09, 22 June 2025 (UTC)