Talk:Jane Addams/Draft

Video

http://www.loc.gov/locvideo/womenact/  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 16:11, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

New article of the week

Very nice work, Richard, of one of my heroes. I've nominated this for new article of the week.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 16:43, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

thaks! Richard Jensen 16:49, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

At the same time I just created John Adams, distant cousin? Yi Zhe Wu 21:25, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

Lesbianism

I was hoping someone else might raise this issue, but given that there is only 4 days till approval.... I think the following statement in the article is significantly overstated, stating things as concluded fact that can at best only be inferred based upon the evidence:

"Hull-House was lesbian-friendly space. Addams set the tone with her own long-term relationships, first with Starr and then Mary Rozet Smith."

Indeed, the source cited after this statement only allows for an inference, and one "depending on how one defines lesbian", which as I understand it did not have to involve sex. Moreover, from my reading of JA's correspondences, it has appeared to me as only something that could be inferred at best, and that the inferences are perhaps by eisegesis. The only thing really going on could have been intimate same-sex friendship, something not too many people understand or enjoy these days.

The Hull House Museum, in fact, has an exhibit under which this is written:

"Mary Rozet Smith was Jane Addams's life partner and one of the top financial supporters of Hull-House. Given the emotional intimacy that is expressed in their letters to one another, it is hypothesized that they were lesbians. It is, however, difficult to determine this for sure, particularly considering the differences in sexual attitudes of the Victorian era in which she lived and Jane Addams's own complex reflections on the ideals of platonic love."

I'd suggest verbiage along those lines, and perhaps a brief mention about "spinster" and "Boston Marriage". This will allow the reader to draw their own conclusion rather than holding back that information and concluding it for them.

This well summarizes that there is debate about the matter, and that confident assertions about the matter are unwarranted.

 —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 22:09, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

the article does NOT say that Addams was a lesbian. It says the Hull House created a lesbian friendly space (that's a close paraphrase of Hamington: Given the drastic shifts in sexual mores in the twentienth century, the contemporary understanding of what it means to be lesbian cannot straightforwardly be mapped onto the late and post Victorian eras, but it can be argued that Hull-House was lesbian-friendly space. Addams set the tone for this identification with her own long-term intimate relationships, first with Starr and then Mary Rozet Smith. he cites Brown.online edition. Richard Jensen 22:42, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

Richard, to me that text clearly shows that the text in the article is overstated. Perhaps you might seek a second opinion.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 22:45, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

The statement is a moderate one. Many historians call her a sexually lesbian, but the article does NOT say that. Eg "at Hull-House there are strong indications of lesbian relationships. Jane Addams herself..." (Phillips 1974); "Addams, the principal founder of the social work profession, was a lesbian." (Morrow & Messinger - 2006); "lesbian for those women who them- selves used it, or who had extended relations with women where there is a good indication of sexual contact, eg, Jane Addams: (Schwarz 1979); "the romantic-friendship tradition established by such leading American women as Jane Addams and M. Carey Thomas, two other types of lesbian groups arose" (MacPike, 1993); "Addams was able in the 1890s to exhibit market behavior which a cliometrician might take for clear evidence of lesbian “identity" (Cornwall, 1999); "Addams and Smith sat astride some shifting border between lesbian bonds" (Rupp 1997); "Lesbian Jane Addams founds Hull House" (Collins 2007); "Jane Addams as a Lesbian" (Faderman 1999); "the settlement houses were famous for creating opporunities for lesbian relationships" (Abbott & Farmer 1995), "the special relationship (lesbian by today's standards) of Addams and Smith, see Stebner" (Seigfried 2002); "similar to Addams, Hart was a closet lesbian" (Bullough 2002). Richard Jensen 23:25, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

Right, most of those represent one side of the debate. To be specific, by stating declaratively and without reference to the varied factors that ought go into interpreting Addams in this regard (as Hamington and the museum exhibit verbiage both do) that "Hull-House was lesbian-friendly space," followed immediately by "Addams set the tone with her own long-term relationships, first with Starr and then Mary Rozet Smith," the effect of the wording also overstates the case with both Addams and HH. The wording seems to side with one side. Let me suggest the following wording for a starting point:

"Some historian have argued that Hull-House was lesbian-friendly space and that Addams was herself a lesbian,[several cites] although the contemporary understanding of what it means to be "lesbian" cannot straightforwardly be mapped onto the late and post Victorian eras. Addams long-term relationships, first with Starr and then Mary Rozet Smith, and her many reflections on the ideals of platonic love, set the tone for many relationships within Hull House"[cite Hamington].

 —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 23:53, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

Saying "some historians" is highly misleading, as it suggests there are two sides to the issue. To my knowledge not a single historian denies Hull House was lesbian friendly, nor that Addams set the example. Richard Jensen 00:06, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Okay, point taken about "some historians". But what is most misleading--and this is my core contention--is throwing in the term "lesbian" without modifying it as Hamington does: "Given the drastic shifts in sexual mores in the twentienth century, the contemporary understanding of what it means to be lesbian cannot straightforwardly be mapped onto the late and post Victorian eras".  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 00:20, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

times have changes and people are no longer squeemish about terms like "lesbian". The article only describes her PUBLIC behavior, not her private bedroom behavior. Richard Jensen 00:26, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

That doesn't reply to the matter. That times have changed, and that "the contemporary understanding of what it means to be lesbian cannot straightforwardly be mapped onto the late and post Victorian eras" is exactly Hamington's point, right?  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 00:46, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Hamington's point is unclear. The debate among scholars boils down to 1) in social terms Addams behaved openly like a lesbian; everyone agrees yes she did; 2) whether the evidence, esp the intimate letters she exchanged "prove" there was a sexual relationship or not. Point 2 hinges on "prove" and is debated. The article does not take a position on #2, only on #1.

Addams and Starr behaved openly like they were in a "Boston Marriage" and that is what everyone agrees to, Richard. You are overstating the case--my point all along. "Boston Marriages" were considerably common in the day. And Brown, who Hamington cites, is utterly clear: "I must decline to define either Addams or Starr as lesbians simply because we do not have evidence of genital contact." Why the decline to do so? As I am sure you know, and as I am sure the sources clearly support, a Boston Marriage simply cannot be equated with a modern lesbian same-sex relationship--also Brown's point: "the contemporary understanding of what it means to be lesbian cannot straightforwardly be mapped onto the late and post Victorian eras". Women in a Boston Marriage, whether Addams and Starr or paired women workers at Hull House, may have or may not have engaged in sex. You certainly know this, yet are insisting on taking a side in the matter--"Hull-House was lesbian-friendly space". In writing this, you are taking sides in a debate not only about this historical subject but with a politicized definition of lesbianism, one that defines it apart from sexual activity, a definition Brown rejects. Please stop trying to weave your position into articles. Why not state that Addams and Starr (and later Smith) were in a Boston Marriage, describe briefly what that was or more extensively in a footnote, and say how that set the tone for some women in Hull House? Doing that avoids taking a position and reports only the facts--and adds facts that the reader is otherwise shortchanged with through the taking of a position. Don't tell people what to think, give them things to think about.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 03:59, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

"Boston marriage" is meaningless in terms of Hull House apartments (no one had a separate home there). The term "Boston marriage" was (I believe) never used before the 1920s. Was she a lesbian? interesting question but the article does not take a position, instead citing and linking to one of the better discussions (ie Brown). Richard Jensen 04:30, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Surely you see that is a non-reply. To reiterate something I stated above: "To be specific, by stating declaratively and without reference to the varied factors that ought go into interpreting Addams in this regard (as Hamington and the museum exhibit verbiage both do) that "Hull-House was lesbian-friendly space," followed immediately by "Addams set the tone with her own long-term relationships, first with Starr and then Mary Rozet Smith," the effect of the wording also overstates the case with both Addams and HH."  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 10:50, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Image talk

(moved from above; -RWK)

Also, the initial image, before it was lightened and reduced, appeared far more clear on my LCD screen.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 22:28, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

I agree that the current image is awful. Where's the original? --Robert W King 22:38, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

I have it on my harddrive. I'll email it to you.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 22:41, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

the original image was terrible on my screen--no details--so I changed the contrast. Richard Jensen 22:42, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

I'll fix it up. --Robert W King 22:43, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

What was wrong with the original? --Robert W King 23:12, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

The first image was too dark by far. Richard Jensen 23:26, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

Ok.--Robert W King 23:27, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

Richard, what kind of screen are you using, CPT, LCD?  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 23:55, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

CPT? I was not aware I had to salute my displays! --Robert W King 00:13, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

LOL - I meant CRT.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk)

The image of the map in the article and here - is it just my screen that makes the latter look very much better?  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 00:32, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

The colors are better (its a better scan chromatically) but it's really crooked and/or bent. How did they not notice that?--Robert W King 00:36, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

I'll see what I can do with the sourced image too.--Robert W King 00:38, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

R. King's (image info needs updating per copyright, original author etc.

--Robert W King 01:35, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

I don't want to make any more edits. The original looks fantastic on my screen, and I've only made marginal adjustments to make it brighter while keeping about the same levels. Any more and it'll look not so great. --Robert W King 01:39, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

The "map image" in my opinion only serves as illustrative. There can be nothing gleaned from it informationally from it's current scan. If we had a much much higher resolution scan, it might be worth messing with but frankly the file only serves as a relic. --Robert W King 01:52, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

The original still looks best on my end, too. RE: the map, my squinting thought the same thing. It's probably available in high res somewhere.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 03:00, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Approval

(Feel free to move this to the Approval subpage, I just wanted to make sure people saw it.) I see there's a notice on the article page that says the entire cluster is being nominated for approval. First, it was my understanding that, due to logistical headaches of anything else, we would always be nominating entire clusters for approval. Second, I'd like to point out that this cluster is not yet ready for prime time, for the simple reason that the definitions on Jane Addams/Related Articles aren't filled out. I'd say, either don't use the {{r}} template at all, or fill out the definitions; don't simply leave it alone. I'm sure we can agree that saying we've approved totally incomplete work like that is, frankly, ludicrous. --Larry Sanger 23:39, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

Larry, thanks for making this point. I was concerned about it myself and since this is a new process, I think we need to make sure everyone is aware - especially the nominating editor, since this should be finished before nominating. --Matt Innis (Talk) 08:00, 6 September 2007 (CDT)