Talk:Jacob Riis

Social attitudes

There is a paragraph of what appears to be propaganda here:

Riis's sincerity for social reform has seldom been questioned, maybe the war though critics have questioned his right to interfere with the lives and choices of others. Economist Thomas Sowell,[53] for example, argued that immigrants during Riis's time were typically willing to live in cramped, unpleasant circumstances as a deliberate short-term strategy that allowed them to save more than half their earnings to help family members come to America, with every intention of relocating to more comfortable lodgings eventually. Many tenement renters physically resisted the well-intentioned relocation efforts of reformers like Riis, states Sowell, because other lodgings were too costly to allow for the high rate of savings possible in the tenements. Moreover, according to Sowell, Riis's own personal experiences were the rule rather than the exception during his era: like most immigrants and low-income persons, he lived in the tenements only temporarily before gradually earning more income and relocating to different lodgings.

This article is not about Thomas Sowell; why is there an entire paragraph devoted to his theories attempting to debunk Riis? It makes the article seem biased. If it is a popular academic opinion that Riis was incorrect or exaggerating, both sides should be discussed with multiple citations. If this is one lone academic going against the majority I don't know that he even deserves mention. He is known to write from a political perspective (libertarian), so, ideally, more politically neutral historians should be cited in any case.

I am going to eliminate said paragraph for now. If there is an actual debate over the accuracy of Riis's observations and experiences it should be presented as such, with valid arguments and counterarguments.

all Wikipedia history articles report criticism of the subject by reliable sources. Sowell is a professor who has written widely on ethnic history. Rjensen (talk) 23:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes but this is an encyclopedia; it's purpose is to present factual information in article form, not to engender debate. Criticism is only to be included if it's valid, not simply for the sake of having a Criticism section. (And I'm not saying there isn't plenty to criticize about Riis, but he is a widely cited authority on the socioeconomic conditions of his era. If you're going to open a debate to call into question some of his fundamental conclusions, that were developed over decades of firsthand observation and research, it must be conducted on the basis of impartial, disinterested inquiry that is appropriate to this forum.)

The personal attack on a living figure (likening him to Hitler) is not allowed in Wikipedia so it's been erased. Please follow the wiki rules re WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:BLP. Rjensen (talk) 05:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. You do realize that by your phrasing, and editing my paragraph, you make it seem like I committed Reductio ad Hitlerum, when it was Sowell. Why did you do that? It's both permissible and relevant to report that Sowell made this attack. I also noticed you deleted the other negative information about him as well as my reasonable request to find a more neutral source. In fact, your editing seems to mostly serve to make my correction look like frivolous nit-picking. Fortunately, I copied my original paragraph and can thus reproduce it as many times as necessary. Here it is:

Yes but this is an encyclopedia; it's purpose is to present factual information in article form, not to engender debate. Criticism is only to be included if it's valid, not simply for the sake of having a Criticism section. Further, as you pointed out, criticism must come from a reliable source; per his own Wikipedia page, Sowell would not be so considered. (He has committed Reductio ad Hitlerum in a published editorial, and his academic peers have found inconsistencies in his work that have political implications.) Find a more neutral, less politically-charged source; this shouldn't be difficult if the criticism is legitimate. (And I'm not saying there isn't plenty to criticize about Riis, but he is a widely cited authority on the socioeconomic conditions of his era. If you're going to open a debate to call into question some of his fundamental conclusions, that were developed over decades of firsthand observation and research, it must be conducted on the basis of impartial, disinterested inquiry that is appropriate to this forum.)

I find it just a little disingenuous that you should cite WP:NPOV and WP:RS when those were the very Noticeboards I was invoking against the inclusion of Sowell. Rest assured, I will be appealing to both; nor (as is clear from my restored paragraph) have I violated any rules, to deserve an admonishment to 'follow' them.

Wikipedia is not a compendium of "facts"--it is a summary of what the reliable sources say. Sowell's book on Ethnic America (1981) had the original critique of Riis; Sowell was professor of economics at UCLA at the time. Upon publication it was was reviewed on the front page of the book review sections of New York Times and Washington Post, as well as reviews in Time, Newsweek and the Wall Street Journal. It was reviewed in the major scholarly journals, which demontrates that the editors take it seriously. The book has since been recommended by many scholars, such as American History: Since 1865 (1987) by Richard Current; American history: a survey (1999) by Alan Brinkley; Ethnicity and the work force (1985) by A. Van Horne. According to books.google.com It has been cited by hundreds of scholars and Sowell was awarded the highest award of the national Endowmnet for the Humanities for his scholarship. No one has cited ANY criticism of his treatmentr of Riis. Removing his criticism because someone admires Riis violates all Wikipedia guidelines. Rjensen (talk) 06:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

How do you come to the conclusion that anyone has removed criticism out of admiration for Riis? Either you aren't reading my comments or you're somehow managing to misinterpret them. Either way, you're responding to imaginary content, which doesn't speak well for your arguments. I'll investigate the rest of your assertions later.

We have a case of erasing a scholar's analysis of Riis because one anonymous editor thinks it's biased. That's not true--Sowell's analysis is in the mainstream of historiography and the editor in question has failed to find ANY RS that disagree with Sowell regarding Riis. So it's his personal private unsubstantiated POV that leads to erasing information that another editor (it was not me) added. Google gives 1640 hits for "thomas sowell" AND "jacob Riis" I looked at the first 50 of them and not one criticizes Sowell's analysis. However I did find scholars who published similar criticisms of Riis. Yaakov says Riis was "a progressive elitist" and "patronizing perhaps" p 149 of Ariel Yaakov. , "The Evangelist At Our Door: The American Jewish Response To Christian Missionaries, 1880-1920' American Jewish Archives, July 1996, Vol. 48 Issue 2. Also Jeffrey S. Gurock, in American Jewish History, Sep 1981, Vol. 71 Issue 1, says Riis was "lacking sensitivity to the needs and fears of new East European Jewish immigrants" Rjensen (talk) 08:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Isn't there a question of undue weight here? I don't mean Sowells criticism shouldn't be mentioned, they should, but I must admit I find his criticisms is elaborated too much in comparison to the length of the main article. Also Sowell writes from a self-proclaimed libertarian political standpoint, a view that is definitely not mainstream academia. Google Scholar turns up 13 hits on a search of "Thomas Sowell" "Cosmic Justice" "Jacob Riis". None of them relevant academic works regarding this subject, most of those 13 hits would not even pass as reliable sources in Wikipedia. So I would very much question your claim that Sowells views are the most recent accepted mainstream academic work on the subject. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually the further I look into this, I am not even sure Thomas Sowells The Quest for Cosmic Justice qualifies for anything but as a primary source of Thomas Sowells views. It is published by an academic publisher, and it seems primarily to be a book of political commentary. While he is undoubtedly well-read it is not an academic work. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Libertarianism is mainstream (and perhaps dominant) in economics these days, which is Sowell's perspective. --Progressives like Riis have been under attack in recent years for interfering in communities and imposing their own middle class values on traditional peoples (as shown by the cites to Yaakov and Gurock above). as for Sowell: he developed his critique in the 1970s and has repeated it in a dozen books and many articles (13 books according to google. Google gives 1640 hits for "thomas sowell" AND "jacob Riis" I looked at the first 50 of them and not one criticizes Sowell's analysis. That suggests that Saddhiyama did not get his critique from any RS and is merely presenting his own personal views --which is the sort of personal POV that Wiki rules are designed to weed out. Rjensen (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I can't say I appreciate the lack of good faith you show in your post above. When I search Google Scholar for "Thomas Sowell" AND "Jacob Riis" I get 12 hits. I guess it just goes to show that Google Scholar is completely unreliable as any kind of evidence. Also no, libertarianism has never been mainstream anywhere, not even in the United States. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The link you provide includes exactly 71 results. 98% of which is to Sowells own work. So my point still stands. Sowell has never been part of the mainstream, and specifically his theories on Riis has never been part of mainstream academia (His book was not reviewed in either The Journal of American History, Journal of American ethnic history , Reviews in American History or the The American Historical Review). We need reliable secondary sources to back that up, so far none has been provided. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Sowell is a product of the Chicago School of Economics, which in recent years has won 9 Nobel Prizes. How mainstream can one get? As for Riis, Saddhiyama seems not to have read much on the subject--and has cited zero support for his views. Lots of scholars share Sowell's view of Riis; I cited Yaakov. and Gurock and here's another: "Riis was quite impatient with most of his fellow immigrants; he was quick to judge and condemn those who failed to assimilate, and he did not refrain from expressing his contempt." [Tom Swienty, The other half: the life of Jacob Riis and the world of immigrant (20080 Page 157] Or try this "Riis's work is defined by its bourgeois values and by the middle-class audience to whom it was addressed. Riis “recoiled from workers and working-class culture" (Megan Williams - 2003, p 187 citing Strange). Which is Sowell's starting point. Rjensen (talk) 19:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Uhm, I see no mention of Sowell, but a heck of a lot of WP:SYNTH. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH is when an editor invents an idea and does not cite a a reliable source. I have cited four RS and Saddhiyama has cited zero--the only research he claims to have done is read the Wiki article on Riis. That is not an acceptable level of research for a contributor to a serious article. Rjensen (talk) 19:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

"never been part of mainstream academia"--simply false. Sowell's work on ethnicity has been reviewed by the major journals: Political Science Quarterly, Winter 1982-83, Vol. 97 Issue 4, p694; Political Science Quarterly, Fall 1979, Vol. 94 Issue 3, p539; Journal of Social History, Spring 1983, Vol. 16 Issue 3; American Historical Review, Dec 1982, Vol. 87 Issue 5, p1452; American Historical Review, Oct 1979, Vol. 84 Issue 4, p1142; Journal of Ethnic Studies 1984, Vol. 12 Issue 2, p99-120; Labor History, Winter 1984, Vol. 25 Issue 1, p113-115; etc etc Rjensen (talk) 19:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. The book in question, The Quest for Cosmic Justice was published in 1999. Interesting that according to you it was reviewed in academic journals in 1979-1989. Notice I never said that Sowell shouldn't be mentioned or that he as an academic was never part of academia. I am simply objecting to the book linked in this specific article being presented to such length. My point was that Sowell, in this particular instance, presents himself as a politcial partisan, this book is not an academical work, and as such it should not be provided more space than we usually provide to say blogs or editorials written by semi-famous political commentators (usually a sentence, unless it is especially notable). --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The Cosmic book reprints Sowell's newspaper essays. He did his work on Riis back in the 1970s and has recycled it many times (he is indeed repetitive). The point is that Sowell is a famous expert on ethnicity and his analysis counts as a RS. Rjensen (talk) 05:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, this only strengthens my case. It being a newspaper essay it is clear that this is indeed an opinion piece. So it is only a reliable source regarding the opinion of Sowell himself. It may very well be notable enough for this article, Sowell is definitely not a nobody, but it should be shortened a lot. At present it is clearly undue weight of a personal opinion. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Deleting the analysis by a leading scholar violates NPOV rules--Saddhiyama has no problem with the source only with the statement, which he evidently disapproves. That's blatant POV by an editor that is not allowed. Saddhiyama has been unable to cite any RS that backs his personal opinion. Rjensen (talk) 17:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Staging Photos

I was reading my history book and came across a section about Jacob Riis and how he would stage his photographs to make them more effective, especially since cameras back then had a slower shutter speed. (My history book is A People and A Nation, Sixth Edition, published by Houghton Mifflin Company; it can be found on page 532.)
This seems like very important information to not have included in this article; I do not, however, know much more than what my history book has said about him.
If someone knows about this, I think it would be a good contribution to this article. 68.92.246.151 (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of text

I have removed

Perhaps far worse, his judgments about each ethnic group follow prevalent, ages-old stereotypes: for example, in the two chapters devoted to the section of New York called "Jewtown," the Jews are usurious, and willing to starve their children because they are enslaved by love of silver (indeed, the Jews' scrimping and saving is viewed as a vice, whereas in other chapters other ethnicities are criticized for their failure to save money). The immigrants for whom Riis reserves the least sympathy are the Chinese. In the chapter titled "Chinatown," Riis accepts, without examination, the belief that Chinese men entrap native-born white girls in "white slavery" through various devious methods, including opium addiction. He believes that the only solution to this problem is to allow the Chinese man to bring his wife from China so as to avoid entrapment of white girls in unsanctified living arrangements. Part of Riis's enmity toward the Chinese seems to stem from their supposed inscrutability, their refusing to allow themselves to be known (an observation perhaps enforced by the mysteriousness of their written language, at least to Riis) and, worse, their refusal to allow him into their homes to be photographed. Readers suspect that the Chinese men's resistance to Riis's photographic invasions is what damns them in Riis's eyes.

pending at least a sourced non-OR and NPOV version. This is a good article, you need sources and coherent prose. The above is a personal opinion/analysis and as such violates policy. EconomicsGuy (talk) 14:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The last two sentences seem mere speculation and thus unsalvageable, but the earlier ones purport to be summaries, and more need toning down than specific chapter and page citations. "Far worse" and "without examination" for example may be true but aren't facts. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Right but it's pretty much just more of the same. The remaining part of the section is fairly well sourced and I see no reason why we can't at least require the same citation standard here. I didn't mind the rest of the criticism section but this was added later, after the GA nom (judging from the article history), and I think we need to be careful not to ruin that. Some criticism sections have a tendency to become pile-ons and it would be a shame if that was allowed to happen here. EconomicsGuy (talk) 15:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Darn it, it's more fun to argue against idiots than people who are paying attention. I was going to go on about the delight of reading about the mysteriously lascivious Chinaman and the stingy Jew (I'll dine with each of those ethnicities, though alas not those stereotypes, in Brooklyn Heights Tuesday evening). Anyway I followed the link to How the Other Half Lives which turns out to be the right place, if any, to pile on anything that ought to be piled on for topics like this. So, assuming I don't get too tired, I'll study both articles and see if something ought to be moved from this to that, and whether something ought to be lost in translation, since the summary prose that you didn't cut is also overexcited in parts. And wow, I also love Riis's chapter about the Color Line in New York, which isn't mentioned in either article. I mean, despite his confirmations of contemporary prejudices, the guy wasn't dead set against minorities in general. Many interesting things to do, if only I can provide the careful attention the job requires. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Jacob Riis/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of August 15, 2009, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   One query - Marriages and early life: At age 25, Riis wrote to Elisabeth Gortz to propose a second time. When was the first time? I can find no mention of it. WP:MOS The lead does not summarize all sections of the article, particulary the later life and criticism sections.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   All references check out. Citations could be more consistent but it is not required for GA

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   • I would like the lead to be expanded slightly to accurately summarize the entire article. On hold for seven days, major contributors and projects will be informed. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The first marriage proposal to Elisabeth/Elizabeth is now explained. There's more to be done, however. -- Hoary (talk) 11:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Conveniently, I've had the book Rediscovering Jacob Riis checked out from my library for the last few weeks. Can probably help out a bit. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Will source/rewrite what I can in the next few days. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I think Hoary has pointed out a lot of problems (below) which I missed so, i will de-list it and when editors can agree on what should be in the article it can be brought back to WP:GAN. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Oddities

One reference:

Eli Siegel, "Art as Ethics," The Right of Aesthetic Realism to Be Known, no. 738 (May 1987).

What might that be?

Two more:

New York Times June 2, 1900

New York Times September 21, 1918.

I cannot believe that any WP editor would look through NYT microform and find these sources but yet not be bothered to specify the precise article titles, etc. Surely these come via some second hand source. What would that be?

We read:

His son, Edward V. Riis, represented American media in Denmark after World War I.

First, I don't know what "media" might mean in that historical context other than the press. But whatever "media" means, what does this assertion mean? If the source says he was a foreign correspondent, let's say so; if it says something else, let's say that. -- Hoary (talk) 11:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the first as a fringe source. (See its website.) -- Hoary (talk) 14:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The NYT sourcing is now sorted out. (The articles are on the web.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources

This article is largely sourced to a single article by somebody (Bernstein) who is very keen to bring into his discussion one Eli Siegel and his mystical-sounding beliefs, and who repeatedly cites material published in Siegel's newsletter (which libraries ignore in droves, if we can believe WorldCat). This all looks dodgy to me, and quite unnecessary given the large number of books on Riis from respected publishers. This Wikipedia article looks to me a well-intentioned article but hardly a good one. -- Hoary (talk) 23:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC) [slightly rephrased Hoary (talk) 11:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)]

The longer I look at that article, larded as it is with blather about Siegel and its own author, the less impressed I am by it as a source for an encyclopedia article. For this article to be "Good", it shouldn't rely at all on Mr Bernstein, however well-intentioned and scrupulous he might be. I've already substituted a better source for one factoid attributed to Bernstein; let's do more of this. -- Hoary (talk) 00:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The article also three times references "Teaching History Online: 'Jacob Riis'". This is a short, unsigned piece; it's not clear how it's authoritative. -- Hoary (talk) 01:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Fictional sourcery

Quote from the article:

In 1906 Roosevelt himself coined the term "[[Muckraker|muckraking journalism]]", of which Riis was a recognized exponent.<ref name="bernstein"/>

But whatever else one might say about Bernstein's diffuse article, it doesn't once use the string "muck".

So this example of "sourcing" is fictitious. I wonder how much else here is fictitious too. I suggest that every "source" in this article is checked, dreary though the process will be. -- Hoary (talk) 07:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC) (augmented Hoary (talk) 11:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC))

Another quote from the article as it was when the GA reassessor arrived at it:

From 1915 until 2002, Jacob Riis Public School on South Throop Street in Chicago was a high school operated by the Chicago School Board. It was razed in 2004-05.<ref>[http://www.preservationchicago.org/chicago7/2005/jacobriis.html Preservation Chicago<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>

As that page is linked from a list of seven Chicago buildings threatened with demolition in 2005, it's hardly surprising that the page says nothing about its having been razed from 2004. (The building also doesn't appear in that site's page about lost Chicago buildings.) It may indeed have been razed in 2005 (or conceivably even 2004) but the "source" doesn't back this up.

Fact, factoid, and fictional sourcing were all introduced in this one edit. -- Hoary (talk) 01:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Riis's arrival in NYC. Or rather, arrivals.

We're told:

His only companion was a stray dog he met shortly after his arrival.

True. Or anyway for that particular time, upon that particular arrival. Riis arrived in NYC three or more times. He'd arrive in NYC, give up hope there and go to the interior, give up hope there and arrive back in NYC, etc; as is explained very clearly in any biography. And this isn't just biographical filler, as each experience seems to have taught him something (at least as he wrote it up in hindsight).

There's a whole lot more to be done in this article.

Oh well, it could be worse, much worse. Check this fix to a "Good Article". -- Hoary (talk) 10:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

"images of his drowning brother"

Until a couple of minutes ago, the article told us:

When Riis was 11, his younger brother drowned. Riis would be haunted for the rest of his life by the images of his drowning brother and of his mother staring at his brother's empty chair at the dinner table.<ref name="bernstein">{{cite journal |journal=Photographica World: The Journal of the Photographic Collectors Club in Great Britain|url=http://www.lenbernstein.com/RiisArticle.html |title=What Do The World and People Deserve? |issue=98|date=April 2001|last=Bernstein|first=Len}}</ref>

A story from a source that I regard as pretty dodgy (see above).

This could be true, but if so I'd expect it to appear in Riis's autobiography. Searching through the PG etext of this for the strings "brother", "chair" and "drown" (separately, of course), the closest I see is unspecified grief (chair not mentioned) over the death of unspecified brothers. So it's not in his autobiography. If it turns up in some reliable source, it can go back in; meanwhile, it's out. -- Hoary (talk) 14:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It's an inaccurate version of what Ware writes in her biography, which is available as a horribly OCR'd text-file-within-web-page and an excellent PDF file. -- Hoary (talk) 14:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

In this edit, AlexGWU (in his/her own words) Replaced infobox - Article was being reviewed for GA - Why overhaul and destroy instead of just take care of what was requested to qualify for GA?

What was requested in the GA reassessment business has pretty much been taken care of already. Though I don't intend to boast, I did much of this myself. Perhaps the article now qualifies as "Good". If so, this doesn't mean it's actually good. Indeed, it's pretty bad, as will be clear if you compare it with a good biography of Riis.

Why overhaul? Why not "just take care of what was requested to qualify for GA"? Because I'm much more interested in good than in "Good" articles. To that end, I've already removed dodgy looking claims (noting these on the discussion page), replaced dubious sources with good sources, and replaced links to Google pages for the books (pages that at most had partial scans) with links to Project Gutenberg texts and Harvard University Library photographic scans, where these exist.

Why destroy? From the context, I guess this edit was meant. Before it, the article told us:

Jacob August Riis (May 3, 1849 - May 26, 1914), was a Danish-American social reformer, muckraking journalist and photographer. [...]

Born May 3, 1849(1849-05-03) Ribe, Denmark

Died May 26, 1914 (aged 65)

Nationality American

Field [sic] Social reform, journalism, photography

After it, the article instead told us:

Jacob August Riis (May 3, 1849 - May 26, 1914), was a Danish-American social reformer, muckraking journalist and photographer. [...]

So the "destruction" was of duplication -- and duplication in slightly odd English ("Field" for three fields) and with simplification (one nationality rather than two).

Seems strange to call this "destruction". But if it's destruction, I'm all for destruction.

When the article became "Good", it didn't have an infobox. Even Wikipedia-recognized "Goodness" doesn't require an infobox, and actual quality certainly doesn't require it. -- Hoary (talk) 06:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

General assessment

I feel compelled to comment on this article because it's so poorly written. Much of the time I wasn't sure what the writer was trying to say. Here is an example, from early in the article: "He attempted to alleviate the bad living conditions of poor people by exposing their traditionalism to middle class ridicule." Huh?

"While living in New York, Riis experienced poverty." I guess that's explained later on, but at the point at which it appears in the article, it makes no sense. "He pleaded with the French consul, who expelled him." Expelled him from what?

"Simultaneously, and unusually, Riis got a letter from home." Simultaneously and unusually? What does that mean?

"Riis developed a tersely melodramatic writing style." He could have developed a writing style that was terse and that was melodramatic, but how could it have been "tersely melodramatic"?

The following wording is completely ungrammatical, to the point that I don't know how to decipher it: "Camera lenses of the 1880s were slow - necessarily, for depth of field despite their considerable length - as was the emulsion . . . . " Despite their considerable length WHAT? Are there some words missing here?

"The obvious venue would be a church . . . . " Why is this obvious?

"Theodore Roosevelt introduced himself to Riis, offering to help his efforts somehow." Somehow? What does the writer have in mind?

"Riis depictions can be harsh. As portrayed in Riis' books, 'The Jews are nervous and inquisitive, the Orientals are sinister, the Italians are unsanitary.'" Is this referring to text or photos? If photos, is this just someone's biased opinion? How could anyone be portrayed in a photo, objectively speaking, as "nervous" or "inquisitive" or "sinister"?

I had no idea what the discussion regarding his wife's bio, where she "added a chapter examining her life," was all about. Why was this even included? What is its significance? So, Riis decided to set a limit on her biographical article. I think I would too. Is that important to know?

In addition, the article is obviously overly dependent on too few sources - and those being secondary sources.

In general, the article reads like a book report, apparently just rephrasing what a book-length biography has already said. That would explain the article's characteristic of being overly focused on biographical incidents that might seem like interesting points when you're reading a book-length biography, but that are actually devoid of much real significance. Some of the specific incidents in Riis's life that are mentioned have no bearing on his career or on his significance as a journalist and as a photographer.

Criticism

The section is named "Criticism", therefore it is implied that the information in that section contains some criticism. A quotation from the autobiography alone is WP:OR since it is criticism made by the Wikipedia editor who added the information. Please add some reliable secondary source that criticises Riis for those statements. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

OK I fixed it: let's call it "Criticism and self criticism" :)This is legitimate material and an autobiog is considered a RS for the person;s own beliefs, which is what we are considering. Rjensen (talk) 16:33, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Reverted as there isn't anything remotely self-criticism about that paragraph. Please refrain from making original research. As a fellow historian you should also know better than to engage in such anachronistical editorialising. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jacob Riis. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061015122629/http://www.nypl.org/research/chss/spe/rbk/faids/riisj.pdf to http://www.nypl.org/research/chss/spe/rbk/faids/riisj.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090207060835/http://www.preservationchicago.org/chicago7/2005/jacobriis.html to http://www.preservationchicago.org/chicago7/2005/jacobriis.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090924094532/http://www.riissettlement.org/index2.htm to http://www.riissettlement.org/index2.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:35, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jacob Riis. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090108211949/http://insideschools.org/index12.php?fso=41&page=2 to http://insideschools.org/index12.php?fso=41&page=2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:12, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

A good article

I anticipated an article which would basically attack Riis for racism. This one aims for balance and provides much information in a non-judgmental manner. I wish there were more in Wikipedia like it. WmDKing (talk) 13:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC)