Talk:Jane Addams

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

McDuff Movement[edit]

Exactly what is the "McDuff" movement? I suspect someone is making this stuff up. My searches have revealed no source at all supporting the existence of a McDuff movement. 75.70.31.151 (talk) 18:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Hull House[edit]

There are big inconsistancies in this article about Hull House. It was not founded in 1903, and not with the partner refered to in that part of the thing.... yeah.

Laura?[edit]

Suggestion for re-write: Wikipedia:List of encyclopedia topics/Biographies A indicates that Jane Addams had a nickname, "Laura". No mention of this is made in the article. Kevyn 08:02, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Laura is not a nickname. It was her full first name: Laura Jane Addams. Reference Hassencahl, Fran. “Jane Addams.” Women Public Speakers in the United States, 1800-1925: A Biocritical Sourcebook. Karlyn Kohrs Campbell (ed.). Westport, CT; London: Greenwood Press, 1993. p. 1. TychaBrahe 15:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

LGBT[edit]

I posted that she was a lesbian. Considering that she and Gates shared the only double bed at Hull House, I'd say it was either true or a remarkable act.

lol I've shared a bed with guys before that doesn't make us gay.

In addition, she was strongly encouraged by her stepmother to marry her stepbrother, George Haldeman. Her older stepbrother, Harry, had married one of her older sister's, Alice. Jane's refusing George angered her stepmother a great deal, and Jane loved her stepmother and would have done quite a bit to make her happy. And yet she never did this, despite her friendship with George.

Gosh what girl wouldn't want to marry her step brother?

I refer you to Davis, Allen Freeman. American Heroine: The Life and Legend of Jane Addams. New York: Oxford University Press, 1973. p. 5; Meigs, Cornelia. Jane Addams: Pioneer for Social Justice. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1970. p. 34; and Murphy, Marilyn. “Would Knowing This Have Made a Difference?” Are You Girls Traveling Alone? Los Angeles: Clothespin Fever Press, 1991. p. 47. TychaBrahe 15:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to refer you to any book by David Ikes.

Alright, maybe I'm just missing something, but after a quick skim I don't see anything in this article to qualify it being in the "Gay, lesbian or bisexual people" category.

Well, since I havn't gotten a response, I'll take that out for now, and if anyone wants to put it back in, please say why. Thanks! :)

Here's a response: A recent (2006) biography by Gioia Diliberto makes the point that Addams was sustained by her deep emotional attachments to other women, especially Mary Rozet Smith, with whom Addams lived in what she called a "marriage" for more than 30 years. They traveled the country together, considered themselves married to each other and insisted on a double bed for themselves wherever they went.

Just removed this from the "publications" section of biog:

Jane addams was a homo i'm scared of homos

Not sure who posted or when. I'm a light wiki user but this disgusts me. Thanks

Krguest 20:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Why does everyone have to be homosexual nowadays? When you go to college, you share a bedroom with someone of the same gender. Does that make you homosexual? A hundred years ago, people were just more comfortable with their sexuality.

Perhaps I should apply to your college - seems to be the only place where you sign up to share a bed! Everyone doesn't have to be 'homosexual nowadays'. But homosexual people have a right to be visible, rather than hidden away for the sake of embarrassment. And I doubt very much that anyone in Victorian america was 'comfortable with their sexuality'. They were fairly repressed times at all levels, and for types of sexual persuasion! Contaldo80 (talk) 12:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Recently a contributor has removed any references in the article to Adams's relationship with Rozet. I don't care either way whether the article includes this information. But I do want to make sure due process is followed. In support of the textual insertion a verifiable source has been quoted; and supporting evidence presented. If someone wants to add an additional source refuting the claim, then they are welcome to do so. But to remove text and references without citing justification is simply pushing a POV agenda. Please can we keep this evidence-based. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone has now reverted article texts 3 times. However, despite offering to engage in constructive debate - we have ended up in a position close to vandalism or wiki-warring. It is not sufficient to argue that calling 'Malcolm X a white woman makes it true'. I simply have made a contribution based on mainstream academic evidence and quoted sources. If someone has evidence to the contrary then they should absolutely use it to improve and amend the article. The absence of this is highly unconstructive. We cannot take bits out of article that we don't personally like without supporting evidence. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that "romantic friendship" has such connotations in our emotionally and sexually much freer society that it effectively overstates the situation. I want to edit this to "long and close association which some contemporary biographers have interpreted as a 'romantic friendship.'" Because people were sometimes different about sleeping then, some people were very prudish, flowery letters proclaiming love were common between women and between men. Certainly some of these people were LGBT, but is there really any real evidence in this case? And wasn't Jane Addams strong enough a character to have left evidence of her own genuine feelings if they existed? Any thoughts? /Comment by mindbird/ mindbird 02:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mindbird
I think it's fine as it is. The balance suggests that Addams was sexually and emotionally attracted to other women. What you're proposing is a little tortuous. Let's move on from this issue now shall we - there are plenty of other areas in the article that could do with some work and energy. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

AKA?[edit]

Seeing that she was 48 when AKA was formed and is white...why is she considered an AKA sister? Please remove. User:VarunRajendran

is that whole first cousin twice removed of a famous cartoonist for the new yorker bit a bit too random and useless?, but that's just me

Blacks[edit]

Jane Addams helped found the NAACP. You don't have to be Black to believe that Black's deserve equal treatment. Just a reminder that the Civil Rights Memorial contains names like the Rev James Reeb, Michael Schwerner, and Andrew Goodman.

In any case, AKA's own Web site lists her as an honorary sister: http://www.aka1908.com/present/membership/ TychaBrahe 15:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

(Moved from the article)[edit]

(by Tpmlax13, added to the main article several times over the last few days)

The Wikipedia article on Progressivism states that “Progressivism historically advocates the advancement of workers rights and social justice.” However in this article on Progressivism the only mention of women is in regards to Women’s suffrage, which was accomplished with the inclusion of the Nineteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Beyond this mention the reader would believe that men and women in America experienced the same treatment in the economic, political and social arenas during the late Nineteenth Century and the early Twentieth Century. However, this is quite a misconception for both White women and Black women who faced hurdles in all areas of life that must not be ignored or minimized. Women endured hardships and struggled to be heard throughout the Progressive era in America. It is also unfair to generalize or assume that all women had the same experiences. White working class women inhabited a landscape quite different from that of women from the middle and upper classes. Also, Black women and immigrant women encountered obstacles that were unique to their situation. Wikipedia, rather than glossing over the plight of women during the Progressive era should peruse the historical documents and works that pertain to women and attempt to comprehend the various economic, racial and social disparities that affected the experience of women during the Progressive era.

The Wikipedia writers should read My Antonia by Willa Cather to fully grasp the point of view of poor immigrant women who find themselves in a strange new country with language barriers to boot. The hardships and bigotry that these women overcame must be read to be believed. Also, Unbound Feet by Yung depicted the harrowing experiences of Chinese women who arrive in America basically as slaves. As late as 1880 twenty one to fifty percent of Chinese women worked as prostitutes in America. This was quite an auspicious introduction to America for these unfortunate women. Other women and girls worked as domestic servants. How did the Progressive era affect these women?

Gender and Jim Crow by Gilmore delved into the lives of Black women in North Carolina after the Civil War and into the Progressive era. If any of the Wikipedia writers read this book they would be horrified at the lack of freedom for Blacks even after the Civil War. A new rabid type of racism in the South embraced lynchings and other types of sordid punishments. The white Best Man were determined to maintain order and proper decorum by subjugating the Blacks to their genetically inferior levels of humanity. Imagine the hurdles that Black Women living in North Caroline must have endured. The White suffragists while pushing for the right for women to vote were forced to compromise with the racial governments in order to gain some type of victory. The experience of Black Women during Progressive era was harrowing and unique.

Even before the push for women’s suffrage were the working issues surrounding women. In Out to Work by Kessler Harris, she examines the struggle that working class women endured to acquire higher pay and better jobs. For decades women performed the most menial jobs and were seen as competition for the men. Women had some success in joining unions but more often than not advancement was limited. The social dictate that a woman belonged in the home was a very powerful weapon against women in the workplace. Also, Dubois’ work, “Working women Class Relations and Suffrage militance:” explored the conflicts among the various social and economic classes of women in their drive for suffrage. Class struggle emerged and much compromise was required to present a unified front in the struggle for suffrage. These various classes of women all experienced the Progressive era from various vantage points in the struggle for not just suffrage, but for fair pay, improved working conditions, better jobs and the like. Wikipedia once again is not even scratching the surface by merely mentioning women’s suffrage. The struggles and contributions of women from all classes must be understood, recognized and applauded.

Not a bad essay, but better on the talk page, so I moved it. The article itself shouldn't address the Wikipedia writers, that's what the article talk page is for. --GRuban (talk) 20:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Peace Prize symbol[edit]

I saw it on another page but I don't remember which one. I don't think I worked on the page where I saw it but I remember they had a symbol for the person winning the Nobel prize. Can someone put one up for Jane Addams too please? Bolinda (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC).

Image[edit]

There is a nice image here that can be used in this article. Kingturtle (talk) 00:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

LGBT category[edit]

Before an edit war starts over this issue, some points:

  1. Addams lived with two women in her lifetime, over many years. They were considered romantic friendships at the time. As I wrote the section in the Lesbian article on romantic friendships, this puts the designation of the label "lesbian" in a gray area, but there are some points to consider.
  2. The term "lesbian" to describe women who have sex with other women, was not popularized until about 1920, and was often used to describe women who refused to adhere to traditional gender roles. Though Addams lived until 1935, she would have grown up when the culture surrounding intimacy between women was very different from what we consider today, before "lesbian" and intimacy that could considered sexual in nature were bathed in such a negative light.
  3. The absence or presence of sexual activity in romantic friendships was very rarely mentioned between women in romantic friendships. This adds to disputes among historians and here on Wikipedia, such as with Addams and Eleanor Roosevelt, where there is clear evidence of intense affection between women. So this means we must define lesbians by the presence of sexual activity? Why? How much sexual activity? What qualifies her to have the LGBT category? She would be unable to declare herself a lesbian since the term did not exist in popular parlance during the majority of her life, or bisexual as the term was popularized much later.
  4. This article is not good for the first woman to win the Nobel Peace Prize. It should be improved on all accounts. --Moni3 (talk) 16:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
You raise a valid and helpful point. I don't, however, understand why using the lesbian interpretation of the relationship necessarily would put things in a "negative light"?
I agree that it's highly unlikely that Addams would have identified herself as a lesbian - that does not, however, mean that we (looking at it from our modern-day perspective) should not support the argument that Addams enjoyed the equivalent to a lesbian relationship today. Nor would any of the relationships need to have been sexually active in order for us to describe Addams as a lesbian.
If, however, you think there's an issue with terminology, then I'm happy to support textual amendments which reflect that Addams was attracted or sexually orientated emotionally (and perhaps in an active sexual way) to members of the same gender. Contaldo80 (talk) 17:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't think it puts a negative light on anything, but conversations on this talk page and the potential 3RR violations show that "lesbian" is indeed considered negative by many. I'm following procedure by reverting, then bringing to the talk page. There is information available that should remove all doubt, but it would weight her article unnecessarily to feature her personal relationships over her work in Chicago. --Moni3 (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Gotta say that this is a true lulz. Quite the chortle it caused. --Moni3 (talk) 22:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I love it - do you think we can set one up for men? Will it stand?! Contaldo80 (talk) 15:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
No. Lillian Faderman, in Odd Girls and Twilight Lovers devotes 4 pages to the muddled history of Jane Addams' private life. Addams has an entry in Gay & Lesbian Biography, which I hope to read soon. I think the LGBT tag is pretty safe and we may have to seek 3RR intervention into this unless User:Ohyos engages the talk page here. --Moni3 (talk) 15:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Have you ever heard that beethoven was part black?

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2598/was-ludwig-van-beethoven-of-african-ancestry

There was a period in the 20th century when African Americans began to claim many respected historic figures were black or part black even when the evidence was overwhelmingly against these individuals having an ancestor from sub-Sahara Africa in the last ten generations.

I suspect the LGBT community is going through a similar phase.

Ian Mckellen has said that it is sad men can no longer show any affection for each other in public without people suspecting their relationship is sexual.

He doesn't seem to know that it's not just the living that are being treated this way.

This is a problem for those who are seeking facts about historical figures and one worse that the attempts to claim historic figures as black since while ancestory can often be proven sexuality is less tangible. For example I suspect that James Buchanan was gay but I don't know he was.

I do know however that without solid proof it's wrong to state on wikipedia that he was gay and by placeing the LGBT category I would be doing readers a disservice.

Your suspicions are original research. The non-category you placed in the article is ridiculous. I can beef up the mini-section on Addams' sexuality so much that it would make it seem as if she was a major lesbian figure who did some charity work on the side. That is how much information is available on Addams' personal relationships. This article, however, is in an unfortunate state and much, much more work should go into her professional accomplishments. Anyone here willing to read the 30+ book-length sources about Addams and Hull House to include the information supplied by all her biographers, as well as the books she wrote? Anyone? Bueller?
Somday... --Moni3 (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I think you're taking the Ian McKellen quote out of context. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Vromano (talk) 14:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)== HULL HOUSE ==

Vromano (talk) 23:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Neighborhood[edit]

I'm confused. Why would anyone remove a brief section on the composition of the emigrants that constituted the Hull House Neighborhood. If, as you say, this an article solely about Jane Addams and not Hull House, then why do you have a subtitle, "Hull House?" Jane Addams and Hull House are bonded forever with the social laboratory that constituted the Hull House Neighborhood. I'm going to put back those 3 sentences and let a higher power decide. --Vromano (talk) 13:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC).

As I've explained before to you, it is already covered on the Hull House page and putting information specifically about the neighborhood here gives it undue weight in this article It does not need to appear in both locations. And please sign your talk page additions properly with four tildes. Shsilver (talk) 16:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Shsilver is absolutely right. There is a sub-section on Hull House to give a taster of the issue and then a reference to the main page. What possible value is there repeating streams of stuff about it again in this biographical article? Contaldo80 (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Response: March 31, 2009 I may be naive. But isn't that like saying you should not mention the Civil War in a biographical article about Abraham Lincoln because the Civil War is already covered in another full blown 4 page article? The mention of the Hull house neighborhood in the Jane Addams article is not a direct quote from the Hull house article. It was, I believe, carefully crafted to be woven into and to blend with the Jane Addams article.

Would not the most salient point about Hull House be the immigrant population that inspired Jane Addams to found Hull House, rather than the number of buildings that went up? The first known newspaper article about Hull House (opened in 1889 by Addams and Starr)appeared in 1890, just one year later. Lest we forget, it was not printed in English. Jane Addams and Ellen Starr had written the invitation in the lanquage of one of the ethnic groups that resided in Jane Addams "Hull House Neighborhood." (A phrase that was coined by Jane Addams herself.)

As a member of Hull House since 1931 I was conversant with many of those to whom Jane Addams welcomed to Hull House during those early years. As a former employee of the Jane Addams Hull House and its summer camp, the Bowen Country Club, I assure you that Jane Addams herself would challenge your assertion that her beloved residents should not be mentioned in a biography that may become her legacy because it was felt that a footnote was sufficient to lead the reader, if they so desired, to unravel her full legacy. Having engaged with Hull House residents such as Willard Motley, who used the neighborhood--its people and its geography--to write his best seller, "Knock on any Door," I assure you that they and Jane Addams would be aghast that her true legacy might be stumbled upon only by those future researchers diligent enough to click through the myriad of references.

Wikipedia exists because of the belief that histroy should include the stories of those who lived it and should be conveyed for the benefit of the masses...not just a handful of intellectuals. Because of the skills and experience you acquired, you control this medium. Therefore you have the power to oonfirm or refute that thesis concerning the existence of Wikipedia. Your degree of sophistication in these matters surely has sway over someone less professional than you. Hopefully, I've given you some food for thought. Vince Romano —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vromano (talkcontribs) 04:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your flattering words - but I'm certainly no professional! I really have no objection to including a reference to the immigrant community - I think it's great if articles are diverse and stimulating. Your contributions have been interesting. The only point I'm making is one of space. This particular article is a biography of Addams - her life - while there is a whole separate article (celebrate!) on Hull House. By all means let's refer to Hull House under the Addams biography as it's one of the key achievements of her life, but let's do it in a way that is of a sensible length - I would have thought 3 to 4 paras is probably enough. I have no worries about what those paras should contain, so feel free to add references to immigrant groups provided something else is taken out. Otherwise as you'll appreciate there is a risk that the article says very little about the life of Addams but more about the lives of those that lived in the local community. I hope that makes sense. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Never thought about how the article could become out of balance. If I may, the last two paragraphs in the Hull House section more appropropiately point to the legacy she left as a social theorist. I recognize that she never viewed herself as a sociologist, but her theories did influence the social landscape for decades to come. Reaching as far into the future as Jared Diamond (Guns, Germs and Steel) and his theory on the Fates of Societies and C. O. Wilson (Biological Determinism)on the inherent behavior of Groups. This I know definitely: her social theories did influence Willard Motley, a resident artist of Hull House, (Knock on Any Door) who used the neighborhood and its people to write his best seller which has been accepted as a manifest of sorts on human behavior.


Legacy[edit]

If you like, I can do a pretty good job, one that you could review, of reconfiguring those two paragraphs into that section identifying her legacy. Her legacy was, after all, more than just the buildings and streets that were named after her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vromano (talkcontribs) 22:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds sensible - please by all means do so. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll get to it soon. Your review later Vromano (talk) 11:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)would be helpful.

This may likely be a first draft as one can extrapolate on her legacy in the early paragraphs to include such as the formation of the United Nations as part of her legacy. I will get to that later...or you can do that if you wish. I need to give the reader the definition of a Gemma. I'll attach it here for you to decide how to do that. I can refer people to the Hull House Bowen Country Club where a definition exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vromano (talkcontribs) 19:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I've completed the 2nd draft of the Legacy section. Also minor improvement of Hull House section and reconfigured much of what had been the Legacy into what may be more appropriately titled "Memorials." "Memorial" is the term used in that section to identify what was being added; e.g., "...the Jane Addams Memorial Tollway." Vromano (talk) 20:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Vromano (talk) 22:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


Vromano - I want to commend you for the amount of hard work you've put into the article; you obviously care passionately about the subject. My only concern is that the first few paras of the legacy section read too much like an essay. We should probably use more neutral language that is straight-forward and less poetic (although it would fit very well in a book for example). The later paras seem to be the right sort of tone. Also I think the section as a whole looks a bit too long - anything we can trim back to make the same points but more succinctly. Regards. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the constructive criticism. I recognize that, as well. Already in the process of rethinking it. Vromano (talk) 23:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I made the revisions I had compiled earlier. Looks much neater. I'll add the references as soon as I get back to my notes. Vromano (talk) 00:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This article is nothing short of discracefuly incomplete[edit]

There is no mention anywhere of here work as a philosopher and founding member of the Pragmatist school, any mention of William James, or any mention of the signifcant mutual influence between her and John Dewey.

Most egregiously, this article not only doesn't contain a bibliography, but fails to even MENTION the dozens of widely respected - and still actively studied - books and articles she wrote over the course of her life.

I would attempt remedy this myself, but as I'm currently working with Prof. Charlene Haddock Seigfried, who is widely recognized as one of the foremost authorities regarding American Pragmatism, and who has also written several books about Adams. I would like for her to at least take a look at it first, although I doubt she would have the time to attend to the matter personally

Finally, this article needs to be included in the Philosophy wikiproject, among others.

There is much else that needs to be added as well, but as my training is in philosophy I'll limit my focus to that aspect of it.

128.211.202.81 (talk) 02:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)(talk) 04:23, 8 November 2009


I absolutely agree with you, anon IP. I began to construct a rewrite of the article, but I got sidetracked unfortunately. There is a lot of stuff to read about Addams' life. --Moni3 (talk) 19:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)EDIT: sorry, I didn't knowtice I wasn't logged in Snowboardpunk

Her year of birth[edit]

http://books.google.com/books?lr=&um=1&q=%2B%22Jane+Addams+1860-1935%22&btnG=Search+Books -- 662 books found,

http://books.google.com/books?lr=&um=1&q=%2B%22Jane+Addams+1861-1935%22&btnG=Search+Books -- 3 books found.

Looks like '1861' was a misprint. James Gunasekera (talk) 20:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I would like to edit this page for part of a history assignment. How do I could about doing that? JustineHistory253 (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

If you're serious, JustineHistory253, I'll give you all the tips you need. Addams' life is extensive and goes into the fields of social work and pacifism. Was there a specific issue you were going to focus on, do you intend to rewrite the article? --Moni3 (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I have never used Wikipedia so I certainly do not intend to rewrite the entire article. I was hoping to add a few paragraphs (which is our assignment, to try and add to an incomplete Wikiepedia post on a subject post 1877 American History) I was hoping to add a few paragraphs based on two novels I used and based on the presentation speech for her Nobel Peace Prize which described her a bit. It would really be appreciated if I could do this edit for my professor to correct. I wrote the entries I want to do and then discovered this was (just my luck) a page that could not be edited. JustineHistory253 (talk) 20:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Addams' article is temporarily semi-protected because it gets apparently a lot of vandalism. School students must have to read it, which is my only guess as to why vandalizing it is so frequent. Once you make several edits, you will be allowed to edit this article. I suggest going to User:JustineHistory253/Sandbox and using that space to make your edits. Once you edit the sandbox the way you want it to look like, you will be probably be able to edit this article.
To clarify: novels are not reliable sources for a biography. Are you planning to use novels or non-fiction books? If you plan to use a novel, it will be overturned immediately. What sources do you plan to use? --Moni3 (talk) 20:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is the sandbox used for? Can I just type random things into it?? Sorry I was not clear in my description and novel was not the right word. I am just in a bit of a panic because this has to be submitted today and I didnt expect (or know) that certain pages were unable to be edited. I used, for example the book The Red Network by Elizabeth Dilling. Thank you for your help, my grade depends on this! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JustineHistory253 (talkcontribs) 20:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

If one day's edits are all you intend to make, write the paragraph(s) or section(s) here on the talk page, and I can walk you through how to cite from the source. If you are still unable to edit by the time you think you have finished, I'll copy the info to the page for you. You can link this page to your teacher/professor, who can see what you have done.
If you intend to make other edits or rewrite a more substantial portion of the article, you can add almost anything to your Sandbox. --Moni3 (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok great thank you. Would I be able to ue my sanbox for my professor to view? I have class in 2 hours and will send you the additions and edits I was hoping to make right after that. I will try and send her the link to this page as well. Thank you JustineHistory253 (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

If you send your prof the URL, he can see your sandbox. --Moni3 (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe she wanted to see the wikiepedia entry before and then after our edits to compare and see the revisions and additions we made. She cant do this in my sandbox , no? JustineHistory253 (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

No, but that is easily displayed in the article history. Once the new information is added to the article, you can send your prof two URL's which will be the before and after. The Sandbox is for construction (see a sandbox I have for the rewrite for this article here) so you can make mistakes and fix them in the Sandbox before putting them in the article. Well, you can still make mistakes and fix them quickly in the article, but Sandboxes are convenient for large edits. --Moni3 (talk) 21:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

So, I am ready to submit my additions. What is the easiest way i can go about doing them? Do I sent them to you. Could you publish it under my name? Sorry I am very new to wikipedia and am not quite sure. I so need a link/url to send to my prof. I know she mentioned that when we edit a page it helps us do the citations but in my case it would not right?? Is there anyway I can? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JustineHistory253 (talkcontribs) 02:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Paste them below my comment here. They will not be published under your name. No names are associated with any content on Wikipedia. Let's see your content and I can give you further tips from there. --Moni3 (talk) 14:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Socialist?[edit]

There is a passage within this article stating that "[s]ome of the Hull House residents were socialists, but Addams was committed to capitalism and its reform." However, Addams is also placed within the category list of American socialists on Wikipedia. Citations, anyone? Did her views change at some point in her life? In other words, was she committed to capitalism and then changed her mind later, or was she committed to socialism before committing to capitalism during the Hull House period? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.67.199 (talk) 08:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Confusion[edit]

I assume that the biography is accurate, and therefore, I am changing it. I will add a reference link to it. 71.146.10.10 (talk) 20:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I've been in the building many times--it was indeed built in the 1850s, --when the area was more suburban. However Spartacus is a mediocre encyclopedia and not a RS. Rjensen (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Date of death OK, but no mention of how or where.[edit]

First of all let me say that this article is extremely well written and informative. I was curious because most biographies contain information about the cause and location of the death of the person an this one does not. Is there a reason for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.66.106.111 (talk) 15:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Pott's disease[edit]

The bio says Addams had Pott's disease and then asserts that this condition is tuberculosis of "the back". This is incorrect. Pott's disease occurs when the bacterium that causes TB (Mycobacterium tuberculosis)infects the bones of the spine specifically. The infection causes degeneration of the bone and subsequent curvature of the spine. "The back" is a lay term that incorporates many organs, muscles, bone and other tissues. In an encyclopedia such as this I'm surprised this would get past an editor. Most sincerely, Heather Smith, MPH, MT(ASCP) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.151.233 (talk) 22:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Re-write Suggestion[edit]

Sections do not stand alone with topic sentence and supporting information. Case in point: The Religion and religious motives section starts out "In fact, the co-founders of Toynbee Hall, Samuel and Henrietta Barnett, shared Addams's desire to ...." which imples something preceded that sentence in that section. For the casual reader, specific topic statements (not support for a comment somewhere else inthe article) are required for clarity. I started to edit, but found that section to be too convoluted in it's relationships to other entities. It would be preferable for somebody with expertise regarding Addams to re-write at least the Religion and religious motives section in order to achieve stand alone clarity for quick reads. Taram (talk) 14:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)