![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
To say Day was seeking more "reverence" in her life strikes me as awkward, perhaps it would be more correct to say she was looking for more spirituality in her life. Comments? - Mark Dixon 02:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I reverted the replacement (possibly a copyvio, possibly somebody's school paper); but it looked like there might be some salvagable information in there, if it had been sourced. Can somebody more knowledgable than myself about her life take a look at it? -- Orange Mike 14:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
The link to the premier of "Don't Call Me a Saint" at Marquette appears to be broken. Pustelnik ( talk) 03:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I do think this is some other Dorothy Day!! Pustelnik ( talk) 02:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC) OK , it was fixed. Pustelnik ( talk) 22:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Wasn't she an atheist for some time before joining the RNC? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CatholicW ( talk • contribs) 03:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
There is also a dormitory at Seattle University named after her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdwuhs ( talk • contribs) 19:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC) lmkh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.246.232 ( talk) 20:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
A link was removed with the explanation, "Removed at the request of VCVB-TV, which holds copyright."
Here's what was removed from the article:
Bio and a video clip of Dorothy Day talking about anarchism and voluntary poverty at Jesus Radicals
Stonewhite 21:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not challenging the removal of a link from the article; i would just like an explanation, so that i can determine whether i should challenge it. thanks, Richard Myers ( talk) 01:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
The article has a large Anarchist template, but I can find nowhere in it where her anarchist beliefs are listed. I see over at Christian_anarchism#Catholic_Worker_Movement and Christian_anarchism#List_of_key_individuals that she's listed as one, but I can't find anywhere so far where she espouses anarchism, Christian or otherwise. For now, I'm removing the template, as it's just confusing without any explanation in the body of the article. Sχeptomaniac χαιρετε 15:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
There is contention about whether or not the following links meet the guidelines of WP:EL Please discuss below. Active Banana ( talk) 00:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
1) "Dorothy Day Library" Includes biographies, photos, and an indexed, searchable collection of most of her writings. From the main website for the Catholic Worker movement, catholicworker.org
2) Dorothy Day-Catholic Worker Collection at Marquette University; official repository of her papers.
3) Guild For the Canonization of Dorothy Day
4) Entertaining Angels: The Dorothy Day Story at IMDb
5) Dorothy Day: Don't Call Me a Saint, a documentary
Films are not uncommon to be included in the articles. Is there any specific policy that would deprecate it in articles about people? If not, the documentary page (5), and perhaps imdb page (4) should be returned. The guild page (3) - if one would want to return that one, let him provide a reason (ie writings of Day - if there are such on the said site), I can't really see it. Catholic worker site (1) however, is not just a site of the organization she founded, but it also contains numerous biographies, her bibliography, gallery, and tons of her writings. It's definitely a keep, no question about it. As for "Dorothy Day-Catholic Worker Collection" (2), someone should research that site if it lists any Day's works that (1) does not. I didn't, so I can't say.
In short, (1) should be returned, (3) perhaps not, and (2) - someone else should say. (4) and (5) might be returned, depending on the policy on films in articles about persons (I'm not familiar).
P.S. To whoever removed it first (too lazy to look now), please ASK first next time. The default should innocent (keep) until proven (discussed) guilty (remove). This isn't German Wikipedia. -- Paxcoder ( talk) 14:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
The correct link for the Dorothy Day-Catholic Worker Collection is now http://www.marquette.edu/library/archives/Mss/DDCW/DD-main.shtml. I think it should be reinserted, as it does contain information about Day (writings, correspondence, photographs, etc.) runkelp ( talk) 13:30, 27 October 2010
and, therefore, what could POSSIBLY be more relevant to an article about Day THAN DAY HERSELF SPEAKING OF HER OWN SOCIO-RELIGIOUS PRAXIS?
The YouTube video link clearly states that it is SHE who is being interviewed.
Here is the link: http://www.youtube.com/user/4854derrida?feature=mhum
Please leave said link at article. These are the ONLY extant interviews with Day. I requested--and received--upload permission from 1) The Christophers, and 2) WCVB-TV, Boston BEFORE uploading to YT.
Also...
Dr. Phil Runkel is the archivist at Marquette University, which is the sole academic repository of Day's writings (bequeathed to MU): correspondence, journals, personal photos, etc.
Please allow the link to that archive to remain on the article, as that archive is the height of relevance to an article about Day. And here it is:
http://www.marquette.edu/library/archives/Mss/DDCW/DD-main.shtml.
Thank you. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Stonewhite (
talk •
contribs)
19:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Should there be a Bibliography of Day's published works in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.199.236 ( talk) 15:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Peter Maurin definitely ought be a name included in that list. Day acknowledged again and again (see The Long Loneliness) that if it weren't for Peter, she would never have gotten The Catholic Worker going. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.244.103.224 ( talk) 19:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
According to Day's biographer Robert Coles she left socialism behind for distributism, so it is wrong to say, as the introduction says, that she was both. Yes, she was both, but not that the same time. She was a socialist in her early days, not in her mature days.
Day's own video-taped commentary on the matter, viewed here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRSjY_4fFfc
She allowed that she had WORKED for the Communist Party--but many individuals had some affiliation to the CP without ever themselves becoming a "member." Here are some of her remarks, transcribed from aforementioned video:
J: Were you a member of the IWW?
D: I was a card-carrying member of the IWW—yes.
J: Were you really?
D: Yes, I was.
J: I didn’t know that…
D: When I worked for the Communists they didn’t have card-carrying members. But the IWW did—they had the red card.
J: Yes…
D: And, another thing that attracted me about the IWW was…it had an essentially religious theme. Their motto was, “an injury to one is an injury to all.” And, that’s the saying again, of St. Paul, that we are all members of the One Body. And, we’re members, one of another. And, when the health of one member suffers the health of the whole body is undermined.
J: Was there a problem for you coming from being a member of the IWW, and joining the Catholic Church? Was there a contradiction there?
D: Well, I felt it was a great struggle, yes, because, after all, religion was the opium of the people…
J: Yes…
D: …the whole radical movement…
J: Right…
D: …and, I had to take that risk of…but I soon found I didn’t have to. After all, I continued to express myself as I always had—in religious terms…My old Communist friends used to say, “Dorothy would never be a good Communist—she’s too religious.” Fred Ellis, who was the cartoonist for the Daily Worker—and, a very fine artist—made that remark. But, it was a struggle…but I just felt absolutely…the necessity—and, I think it was…just a steady growth in religious thinking.
Stonewhite 21:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stonewhite ( talk • contribs)
Day is said to be a distributist and a socialist. Which is it? She cannot be both. The fact is she left socialism behind and took up distributism. If you are going to say she is a socialist you should say a former socialist or one-time socialist.
Áthe phrase "initially Marxist, became Catholic in 1927" is problematic. She was a member of IWW- more anarchistic than Marxist. "Initially" seems to indicate she had to leave this position to become Catholic- a problematic position.
Dorothy Day was a member of the Communist Party; she was a staff writer for The Masses, The Call and The Liberator, all CPUSA press organs. Also, she did leave many of the positions both the IWW and the CPUSA held, primarily their stances on religion and the role of the state. The IWW in the early 1930's wasn't nearly the anarchistic union it is today and it fell very deeply in with the communists; being the largest radical union movement in the United States at the time. Dorothy Day's positions of Distributionism and Personalism, both based in the Rerum Novarum, reject the communist ideals out of hand as another version of worker suppression, and rejected the IWW for its support of the Communist Party. So, no, this is not problematic so much as it is true. -- The Grza 11:12, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
I was under the impression that, for most of her life, Day was an anarcho-pacifist. My source for this is "Demanding the Impossible" by Peter Marshall, a book on the history of anarchism. There are various bios on the net which describe her as an anarchist -- she is cited in Wikipedia's article on Christian anarchism. -- james
I'm not sure what that means. -- The Grza 22:39, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
She was a communist in fact, for most of her life, and only converted to Christianity in end of her life.
Shut up and leave, troll. Few pages actually offend me in their vandalism, this being one of them. Piss off somewhere else if you insist on failing to contribute something useful to life.-- The Grza 13:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
New biography, All Is Grace by Jim Forest covers her nursing experience during the 1918 epidemic, the fact that Lionel Moise (father of child aborted) got her a reporter job, and her brief marriage that may have extensive bearing on her strong desire to marry Tamar's father, and lacking that opening may have chosen religion by default (my emphasis). 216.70.22.249 ( talk) 21:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I question if this in the public domain. Corbis appears to claim copyright.I haven't seen any evidence that it was published prior to 1923. Phil Runkel, Marquette University Archives Runkelp ( talk) 14:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
There are three references that are unclear what they are referring to. Only page numbers are given, and it isn't obvious what author/title/publication they are for, though it might be implicit in the text. To find these unclear references, simply search in the page for "(p.". I'm not sure if the respective author names should be explicitly added to the parenthetical references or if the article's citation method should be more generally improved. I'd lean towards the latter. — djr13 ( talk) 20:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I've come upon the entry rather by accident and discovered a seriously deficient entry. There's lots of discussion of politics and conflict, but in no particular sequence and sometimes its buried in a section called "Legacy" rather than in the biography. I read phrases like "shortly after" or "in these years" and find it impossible to know what decade we're talking about. I'd describe the overall problem as one where too many hands have been involved, often trying to make points on one side or another of one's view of her activism. Some of that is definitely appropriate at some point, but its really difficult to make sense of when we haven't told the main story: her life.
I've tried to shuffle what is already there into a chronological sequence, doing some (I hope) respectful editing along the way. I'll next try to get a good biography and focus on getting her chronology in place. Just the straightforward facts to the extent that is possible. The tougher pieces to write -- explications and evaluations of her politics and charism -- will remain. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 14:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
It's a Wikipedia, not a trash can. Billions of people don't care about such deep reflections. Xx234 ( talk) 12:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Under "beliefs," I removed this comment, labeled "Revolution." The context of the quote does not focus on any political revolution in a standard sense of the word. In fact, it sounds like she's describing these "Johnsons" as viewing the Catholic Worker as revolutionary, not expressing her own opinion. -- GoldCoastPrior ( talk) 20:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
In the January 1970 Catholic Worker, she wrote that "Neither of the Johnsons thought of our work as charity, in its bad sense, but as a work of justice. In other words we were a revolutionary headquarters rather than a Bowery mission, as most newspapers like to picture us." Day, Dorothy (January 1970). "On Pilgrimage: Mary Johnson". Dorothy Day Collection. Retrieved January 31, 2014.
— Previous version of the article
She saw herself as a revolutionary, just not the kind of revolution anyone but a Christian anarchist would take seriously. See her articles in the October 1941 and January 1942 issues of the Catholic Worker. AECwriter 00:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)AECwriter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aecwriter ( talk • contribs)
The article says she married Tobey and they were in Europe, then skips to talking about her next lover and Tobey is never mentioned again. What happened to the marriage? john k ( talk) 02:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Dorothy Day. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1204800.htmWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
To say Day was seeking more "reverence" in her life strikes me as awkward, perhaps it would be more correct to say she was looking for more spirituality in her life. Comments? - Mark Dixon 02:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I reverted the replacement (possibly a copyvio, possibly somebody's school paper); but it looked like there might be some salvagable information in there, if it had been sourced. Can somebody more knowledgable than myself about her life take a look at it? -- Orange Mike 14:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
The link to the premier of "Don't Call Me a Saint" at Marquette appears to be broken. Pustelnik ( talk) 03:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I do think this is some other Dorothy Day!! Pustelnik ( talk) 02:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC) OK , it was fixed. Pustelnik ( talk) 22:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Wasn't she an atheist for some time before joining the RNC? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CatholicW ( talk • contribs) 03:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
There is also a dormitory at Seattle University named after her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdwuhs ( talk • contribs) 19:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC) lmkh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.246.232 ( talk) 20:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
A link was removed with the explanation, "Removed at the request of VCVB-TV, which holds copyright."
Here's what was removed from the article:
Bio and a video clip of Dorothy Day talking about anarchism and voluntary poverty at Jesus Radicals
Stonewhite 21:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not challenging the removal of a link from the article; i would just like an explanation, so that i can determine whether i should challenge it. thanks, Richard Myers ( talk) 01:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
The article has a large Anarchist template, but I can find nowhere in it where her anarchist beliefs are listed. I see over at Christian_anarchism#Catholic_Worker_Movement and Christian_anarchism#List_of_key_individuals that she's listed as one, but I can't find anywhere so far where she espouses anarchism, Christian or otherwise. For now, I'm removing the template, as it's just confusing without any explanation in the body of the article. Sχeptomaniac χαιρετε 15:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
There is contention about whether or not the following links meet the guidelines of WP:EL Please discuss below. Active Banana ( talk) 00:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
1) "Dorothy Day Library" Includes biographies, photos, and an indexed, searchable collection of most of her writings. From the main website for the Catholic Worker movement, catholicworker.org
2) Dorothy Day-Catholic Worker Collection at Marquette University; official repository of her papers.
3) Guild For the Canonization of Dorothy Day
4) Entertaining Angels: The Dorothy Day Story at IMDb
5) Dorothy Day: Don't Call Me a Saint, a documentary
Films are not uncommon to be included in the articles. Is there any specific policy that would deprecate it in articles about people? If not, the documentary page (5), and perhaps imdb page (4) should be returned. The guild page (3) - if one would want to return that one, let him provide a reason (ie writings of Day - if there are such on the said site), I can't really see it. Catholic worker site (1) however, is not just a site of the organization she founded, but it also contains numerous biographies, her bibliography, gallery, and tons of her writings. It's definitely a keep, no question about it. As for "Dorothy Day-Catholic Worker Collection" (2), someone should research that site if it lists any Day's works that (1) does not. I didn't, so I can't say.
In short, (1) should be returned, (3) perhaps not, and (2) - someone else should say. (4) and (5) might be returned, depending on the policy on films in articles about persons (I'm not familiar).
P.S. To whoever removed it first (too lazy to look now), please ASK first next time. The default should innocent (keep) until proven (discussed) guilty (remove). This isn't German Wikipedia. -- Paxcoder ( talk) 14:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
The correct link for the Dorothy Day-Catholic Worker Collection is now http://www.marquette.edu/library/archives/Mss/DDCW/DD-main.shtml. I think it should be reinserted, as it does contain information about Day (writings, correspondence, photographs, etc.) runkelp ( talk) 13:30, 27 October 2010
and, therefore, what could POSSIBLY be more relevant to an article about Day THAN DAY HERSELF SPEAKING OF HER OWN SOCIO-RELIGIOUS PRAXIS?
The YouTube video link clearly states that it is SHE who is being interviewed.
Here is the link: http://www.youtube.com/user/4854derrida?feature=mhum
Please leave said link at article. These are the ONLY extant interviews with Day. I requested--and received--upload permission from 1) The Christophers, and 2) WCVB-TV, Boston BEFORE uploading to YT.
Also...
Dr. Phil Runkel is the archivist at Marquette University, which is the sole academic repository of Day's writings (bequeathed to MU): correspondence, journals, personal photos, etc.
Please allow the link to that archive to remain on the article, as that archive is the height of relevance to an article about Day. And here it is:
http://www.marquette.edu/library/archives/Mss/DDCW/DD-main.shtml.
Thank you. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Stonewhite (
talk •
contribs)
19:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Should there be a Bibliography of Day's published works in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.199.236 ( talk) 15:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Peter Maurin definitely ought be a name included in that list. Day acknowledged again and again (see The Long Loneliness) that if it weren't for Peter, she would never have gotten The Catholic Worker going. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.244.103.224 ( talk) 19:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
According to Day's biographer Robert Coles she left socialism behind for distributism, so it is wrong to say, as the introduction says, that she was both. Yes, she was both, but not that the same time. She was a socialist in her early days, not in her mature days.
Day's own video-taped commentary on the matter, viewed here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRSjY_4fFfc
She allowed that she had WORKED for the Communist Party--but many individuals had some affiliation to the CP without ever themselves becoming a "member." Here are some of her remarks, transcribed from aforementioned video:
J: Were you a member of the IWW?
D: I was a card-carrying member of the IWW—yes.
J: Were you really?
D: Yes, I was.
J: I didn’t know that…
D: When I worked for the Communists they didn’t have card-carrying members. But the IWW did—they had the red card.
J: Yes…
D: And, another thing that attracted me about the IWW was…it had an essentially religious theme. Their motto was, “an injury to one is an injury to all.” And, that’s the saying again, of St. Paul, that we are all members of the One Body. And, we’re members, one of another. And, when the health of one member suffers the health of the whole body is undermined.
J: Was there a problem for you coming from being a member of the IWW, and joining the Catholic Church? Was there a contradiction there?
D: Well, I felt it was a great struggle, yes, because, after all, religion was the opium of the people…
J: Yes…
D: …the whole radical movement…
J: Right…
D: …and, I had to take that risk of…but I soon found I didn’t have to. After all, I continued to express myself as I always had—in religious terms…My old Communist friends used to say, “Dorothy would never be a good Communist—she’s too religious.” Fred Ellis, who was the cartoonist for the Daily Worker—and, a very fine artist—made that remark. But, it was a struggle…but I just felt absolutely…the necessity—and, I think it was…just a steady growth in religious thinking.
Stonewhite 21:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stonewhite ( talk • contribs)
Day is said to be a distributist and a socialist. Which is it? She cannot be both. The fact is she left socialism behind and took up distributism. If you are going to say she is a socialist you should say a former socialist or one-time socialist.
Áthe phrase "initially Marxist, became Catholic in 1927" is problematic. She was a member of IWW- more anarchistic than Marxist. "Initially" seems to indicate she had to leave this position to become Catholic- a problematic position.
Dorothy Day was a member of the Communist Party; she was a staff writer for The Masses, The Call and The Liberator, all CPUSA press organs. Also, she did leave many of the positions both the IWW and the CPUSA held, primarily their stances on religion and the role of the state. The IWW in the early 1930's wasn't nearly the anarchistic union it is today and it fell very deeply in with the communists; being the largest radical union movement in the United States at the time. Dorothy Day's positions of Distributionism and Personalism, both based in the Rerum Novarum, reject the communist ideals out of hand as another version of worker suppression, and rejected the IWW for its support of the Communist Party. So, no, this is not problematic so much as it is true. -- The Grza 11:12, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
I was under the impression that, for most of her life, Day was an anarcho-pacifist. My source for this is "Demanding the Impossible" by Peter Marshall, a book on the history of anarchism. There are various bios on the net which describe her as an anarchist -- she is cited in Wikipedia's article on Christian anarchism. -- james
I'm not sure what that means. -- The Grza 22:39, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
She was a communist in fact, for most of her life, and only converted to Christianity in end of her life.
Shut up and leave, troll. Few pages actually offend me in their vandalism, this being one of them. Piss off somewhere else if you insist on failing to contribute something useful to life.-- The Grza 13:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
New biography, All Is Grace by Jim Forest covers her nursing experience during the 1918 epidemic, the fact that Lionel Moise (father of child aborted) got her a reporter job, and her brief marriage that may have extensive bearing on her strong desire to marry Tamar's father, and lacking that opening may have chosen religion by default (my emphasis). 216.70.22.249 ( talk) 21:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I question if this in the public domain. Corbis appears to claim copyright.I haven't seen any evidence that it was published prior to 1923. Phil Runkel, Marquette University Archives Runkelp ( talk) 14:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
There are three references that are unclear what they are referring to. Only page numbers are given, and it isn't obvious what author/title/publication they are for, though it might be implicit in the text. To find these unclear references, simply search in the page for "(p.". I'm not sure if the respective author names should be explicitly added to the parenthetical references or if the article's citation method should be more generally improved. I'd lean towards the latter. — djr13 ( talk) 20:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I've come upon the entry rather by accident and discovered a seriously deficient entry. There's lots of discussion of politics and conflict, but in no particular sequence and sometimes its buried in a section called "Legacy" rather than in the biography. I read phrases like "shortly after" or "in these years" and find it impossible to know what decade we're talking about. I'd describe the overall problem as one where too many hands have been involved, often trying to make points on one side or another of one's view of her activism. Some of that is definitely appropriate at some point, but its really difficult to make sense of when we haven't told the main story: her life.
I've tried to shuffle what is already there into a chronological sequence, doing some (I hope) respectful editing along the way. I'll next try to get a good biography and focus on getting her chronology in place. Just the straightforward facts to the extent that is possible. The tougher pieces to write -- explications and evaluations of her politics and charism -- will remain. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 14:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
It's a Wikipedia, not a trash can. Billions of people don't care about such deep reflections. Xx234 ( talk) 12:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Under "beliefs," I removed this comment, labeled "Revolution." The context of the quote does not focus on any political revolution in a standard sense of the word. In fact, it sounds like she's describing these "Johnsons" as viewing the Catholic Worker as revolutionary, not expressing her own opinion. -- GoldCoastPrior ( talk) 20:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
In the January 1970 Catholic Worker, she wrote that "Neither of the Johnsons thought of our work as charity, in its bad sense, but as a work of justice. In other words we were a revolutionary headquarters rather than a Bowery mission, as most newspapers like to picture us." Day, Dorothy (January 1970). "On Pilgrimage: Mary Johnson". Dorothy Day Collection. Retrieved January 31, 2014.
— Previous version of the article
She saw herself as a revolutionary, just not the kind of revolution anyone but a Christian anarchist would take seriously. See her articles in the October 1941 and January 1942 issues of the Catholic Worker. AECwriter 00:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)AECwriter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aecwriter ( talk • contribs)
The article says she married Tobey and they were in Europe, then skips to talking about her next lover and Tobey is never mentioned again. What happened to the marriage? john k ( talk) 02:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Dorothy Day. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1204800.htmWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)