Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:51, 13 July 2016

Elizabeth Dilling has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: June 30, 2016.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Women writers Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Illinois Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Chicago Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Women's History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Elizabeth Dilling appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 12 July 2016 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that right-wing writer and activist Elizabeth Dilling claimed that Einstein was a Communist and Hitler was a Jew? A record of the entry may be seen at Misplaced Pages:Recent additions/2016/July. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Elizabeth Dilling.

Heritage

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

2nd husband

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

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

Franco

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

Untitled

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

Anti-Semitism has never been a crime in the US

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

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

Anti-semite

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

OK. Where then? The lead calls her an anti-Communist, which is generally seen as a positive thing, but her anti-Communism was linked to her anti-Semitism.Jimintheatl (talk) 23:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

As for sourcing, I don't see how you're missing the anti-Semitism mentions in the refs, not all blogs are equal, and the cites are historical reference works.Jimintheatl (talk)

The "Women and war: a historical encyclopedia from antiquity to the present" link doesn't mention the word anti-semetic, anti-semite, or anything of that nature. A blog is a blog, and one source isn't enough for the lead. Soxwon (talk) 00:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know which ref you're reading, but read it more carefully, please. And, it's "anti-Semitic", self-published blogs are not RS, but blogs affiliated with established orgs are. I have cited 2 works by historians that refer to Dilling's anti-Semitism. So, sourcing aside, what about the issue of the lead treating Dilling as an anti-Communist, anti-war activist (not generally seen as bad things) but ignoring her darker inclinations (anti-Semitism, white supremacist, Hitler-friendly....)Needs work, agreed?Jimintheatl (talk) 01:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

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

MLK, Civil Rights, etc.

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

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

Did She Visit Soviet Union?

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

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

False Lines

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

A Clear Error

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070930035029/http://www.zoominfo.com/people/dilling_kirkpatrick_153347511.aspx to http://www.zoominfo.com/people/dilling_kirkpatrick_153347511.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061109190246/http://www.state.il.us:80/court/Opinions/AppellateCourt/2006/1stDistrict/September/Html/1042372.htm to http://www.state.il.us/court/OPINIONS/AppellateCourt/2006/1stDistrict/September/Html/1042372.htm

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

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

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

Cheers.—_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

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

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

Lead

Paragraph 1

• Insert a comma after "In 1934".

Early life and family

Paragraph 1

• Insert a comma after "In 1912".

Paragraph 2

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

Paragraph 3

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

Anti-communism

Paragraph 1

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

Paragraph 2

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

Paragraph 4

• Replace "The book had been" with "The book has been".
• Replace "and sold more than" with "and has sold more than".

I rearranged it slightly.zzz (talk) 11:28, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Paragraph 7

• Insert a comma after "In 1938".

Isolationism

Paragraph 2

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

Paragraph 3

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

Paragraph 4

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

• Removed date. zzz (talk) 11:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Paragraph 5

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

End of GA Review:

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

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

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

Maps of the USA etc

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

No, the source (as I recall it) does not "state that what concerned Dilling was that U.S. cities would be named after Soviet war heroes after the US fell to communism". zzz (talk) 21:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

To directly quote the source: "Her fears were exacerbated by Russian guides, whom Dilling claimed were Jews. One guide told her communism would conquer the world, beginning with a revolution in China and culminating in the takeover of United States. The guides also showed her a map on which American cities had been renamed for Soviet heroes.27" It mentions the spread of communism before mentioning the map. We should too, for clarity's sake. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

You said "The source states that what concerned Dilling was that U.S. cities would be named after Soviet war heroes". However, that is definitely not what the source says. zzz (talk) 21:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay, granted I was wrong on that. But that doesn't in any way invalidate my argument that we should mention the conquering of the US first. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

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

And why are you repeatedly deleting (referenced) material I add in? Particularly without giving any reason. It's just not necessary. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay, this is just getting silly... Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

You're even reintegrating the old source system which was replete with errors. Looks to me like you're placing your own sense of ownership over this page above any attempt to see its faults and problems corrected. I've tried reaching out to work constructively but you just ignore by overtures and continue removing any edits that I've done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

And that reason is... ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:51, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Early Life and Family section

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

Which direct quotation did you "bolster with extra citations", and which direct quotation is "currently not referenced at all"? zzz (talk) 10:05, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

In the version of the page that you keep reverting to, we have various quotations that end sentences ("great improvement of conditions", "don't believe the stories you hear that this man has not done a great good for this country.") without any citation provided immediately afterward. Yes, there is then a citation at the very end of the paragraph, but in my (extensive) experience of getting articles to GA and FA, there will always be calls for ensuring that every direct quotation is cited at the end of the sentence, not the end of the paragraph. Adding an additional citation in these instances is very minor and simple and really not something that needs to be argued about, so why you insist on removing the citations is beyond me.

Moreover, the opening sentence of the "Anti-communism" section – "Dilling's political activism was spurred by the "bitter opposition" she encountered upon her return to Illinois in 1931, "against my telling the truth about Russia ... from suburbanite 'intellectual' friends and from my own Episcopal minister."" – isn't cited at all. I checked the citations provided at the end of the paragraph, and this quotation isn't actually in them. So I went and did some investigating of my own, found the necessary citation, and added it in after that first sentence (but you just keep removing it; again, why?).

Further, you still haven't given me any explanation as to why you have opposed my other edits. I'm waiting. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:12, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I did miss that cite. Added now. I don't agree that it is necessary to add cites directly after every quote for this article, obviously, or I would have done so already. Same goes for adding the name of her school. I don't think the Civil War needs to be spelled out, either, obviously, or I would have done so already: it is reasonably clear given the context, I believe. So that's covered everything you mentioned except "I've slightly re-worded a sentence to better reflect the wording of the original source" - which sentence is that? zzz (talk) 10:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

@Midnightblueowl: which sentence were you referring to? zzz (talk) 10:50, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I was referring to the sentence discussing communism in the USA, however it's all in the checklist now. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:51, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Checklist

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

• "Chicago, Illinois on April 19, 1894." - why do you object to the addition of the date, the linking of Illinois, and the addition of a further bolstering citation? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Repetition, two links in a row, no such thing as "further bolstering citation".

• "the Academy of Our Lady." - why do you object to the mentioning of her school when we have a whole article about it? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Obviously, I considered the options and decided not to name the school. Why do you want to name her school?

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

Totally disagree

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

Obviously, I thought about this, and decided it was not "valuable information".

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

I think it is better as it is

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

It does cause problems occasionally to cite every sentence separately. If anyone else thinks it's a problem, they are welcome to try moving extra duplicate cites around.

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

I repeat, "I don't think the Civil War needs to be spelled out, either, obviously, or I would have done so already: it is reasonably clear given the context, I believe."

Lede

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

No, thanks, the current lead is about right, I think; for example, it is infinitely superior to the one you replaced it with yesterday, when the article was on the main page. zzz (talk) 11:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh and by the way, you got her name wrong. In the LEAD section. While the article was on the main page. After it had been passed at GA and DYK. After I had spent months working on it. Because you, nevertheless, think it is so obviously shit that it suddenly needs a massive rewrite. So the whole GA and DYK process is a complete fucking waste of time, because you can come along and say they all got it totally wrong and the article has to be rewritten by you. You couldn't wait til it was off the main page: it was so fucking shit that you had to rewrite it immediately. Why is there a GA and DYK process, do you think? Do you think they should be discontinued? Or do you just think the reviewers in my case should be sanctioned for doing such a shit job? zzz (talk) 11:51, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

RfC on Content Additions and Removal

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: History and geography Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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

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

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

As I said before, "please feel free to discuss your proposed changes". When are you intending to discuss - after an RFC?zzz (talk) 21:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

If my changes are getting instantly removed, and the Talk Page points I raise get rejected by you, how will we progress? The opinions of others will be useful here in allowing us to come to some sort of arrangement when it comes to the required improvements to the lede and article body. An RfC will be a good way of facilitating this. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

So far, you have discussed one point, above (and eventually admitted you were wrong). I would be happy to discuss any other changes, also. But if you prefer not to discuss with me, that's also fine. zzz (talk) 21:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Of course I want to discuss it with you. That's why I reached out to you to start with. But given that the response was fairly 'hostile' (forgive me if that's the wrong word), i.e. mass deletions without explanation, I felt that this is a situation that should probably involve others to act as mediating figures and additional perspectives. (Moreover, saying that I "admitted I was wrong" misrepresents my argument there; I was wrong about saying "war hero" rather than "hero", but the rest of my point still stands, and actually stands unanswered). Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:01, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Accusing me of "hostility" merely because I don't agree with your edits is obviously counterproductive. Please feel free to clarify what you think "stands unanswered", by the way. zzz (talk) 22:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

As I said, "hostility" may not have been the right word; however I am not using this term simply because you don't agree with my edits; my frustration was with your mass deletion of my edits without any explanation either in your edit summary or on the Talk Page. On your second point, you have not responded any further to my argument that the sentence should be restructured to mention the spread of communism to the US first. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

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

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• History good articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• GA-Class politics articles
• Low-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• GA-Class Women writers articles
• Low-importance Women writers articles
• WikiProject Women articles
• WikiProject Women writers articles
• GA-Class WikiProject Illinois articles
• Low-importance WikiProject Illinois articles
• GA-Class Chicago articles
• Low-importance Chicago articles
• WikiProject Chicago articles
• GA-Class Women's History articles
• Low-importance Women's History articles
• All WikiProject Women-related pages
• WikiProject Women's History articles
• Misplaced Pages Did you know articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment