Jacob Riis was one of the Language and literature good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on May 3, 2019, May 3, 2022, May 3, 2023, and May 3, 2024. | |||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
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)
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)
Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells ( talk) 19:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
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.
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)
One reference:
What might that be?
Two more:
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:
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)
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 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)
Quote from the article:
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:
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)
We're told:
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)
Until a couple of minutes ago, the article told us:
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)
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:
After it, the article instead told us:
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)
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.
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)
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:35, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:12, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
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)
Jacob Riis was one of the Language and literature good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on May 3, 2019, May 3, 2022, May 3, 2023, and May 3, 2024. | |||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
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)
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)
Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells ( talk) 19:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
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.
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)
One reference:
What might that be?
Two more:
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:
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)
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 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)
Quote from the article:
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:
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)
We're told:
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)
Until a couple of minutes ago, the article told us:
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)
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:
After it, the article instead told us:
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)
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.
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)
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:35, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:12, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
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)