Talk:Lizzie Magie

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 June 2020 and 10 July 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): McKenzie Funk. Peer reviewers: KeiraDig.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lizzie Magie. 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/20051210075156/http://www.adena.com/adena/mo/mo13.htm to http://www.adena.com/adena/mo/mo13.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) 20:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Changes

Hi! I changed the structure of this article and added more relevant information to make it more clear to the reader and accurate to Lizzie Magie's accomplishments and history. I also added more reliable citations and two photos that were in the public domain. If you see anything inaccurate, please change it or let me know! McKenzie Funk (talk) 23:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC) McKenzie Funk

How much did it cost in 1906 to support oneself without a husband?

So against my usual inclinations, I was bold & made a massive two-word edit (shock!) to clarify that she made $10 a week, not just an unspecified "$10 - which took a bit of digging to find in a reliable source (or semi-reliable, as the quote came from what reads like a hit piece in a 1906 paper). What I couldn't find a reliable source for is what comes after, and I thought my "citation needed" could use context.

This article says (said) "When she worked as a stenographer, she was making around $10 which was not enough to support herself without the help of a husband."

As I said, I could verify $10 a week, but nothing anywhere reliable that I spotted saying that couldn't support her without a husband. What she was actually quoted as saying at the time was this:

---

"I don't want a husband. I don't want a person who will interest himself in me for personal reasons. I admit I seek an 'angel,' but I seek a financial one. I ask nothing more than a fair chance. I get $10 a week as a stenographer now. That is no pay for a woman of ambition. I wish to be constructive, not a mere mechanical tool for transmitting a man's spoken thoughts to letter paper"

- The National Tribune (Washington, DC), Oct 18, 1906 (under the heading "Rebellion Against Conditions")

[1]https://www.loc.gov/resource/sn82016187/1906-10-18/ed-1/?sp=4&q=elizabeth+magie&st=pdf&r=-0.163,0,1.327,1.327,0

---

I'm not feeling so bold as to rewrite the paragraph to remove the bit about a husband, but, if it's true (it may well be - I'm no economic historian), it needs to be backed up by more than Lizzie saying she deserved more. Especially given the immediately prior "citation needed" (see next note. sorry I'm so verbose tonight).

One of these days... years... decades, I should really make an actual account here, shouldn't I? Maybe next year I'll find time. Until then, I'm...

-- 76.19.235.206 (talk) 09:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Novel and radical?

The article currently has a "citation needed" on the statement that, in the 1800s, the belief was considered "novel and radical" that "women were as capable as men in inventing, business, and other professional areas."

I have no citations to offer - I mostly just question the need for one. Consider a couple relevant anecdotes, or historical reference points:

- Across the pond the suffragettes weren't even formed until 1903 - or named that until three years later, seemingly the same year Lizzie Maggie and her statements came to the attention of the national press - and, while I can't say whether their ideas were thought novel at the time, the movment was certainly considered radical.

- In Magie's native US, where things were possibly moving faster, Susan B. Anthony was still arrested, tried, and convicted for voting in 1872 with hundreds arrested, hunger strikes, forced feeding, and mass harrasment and beatings as late as 1917. Again, not exactly the reaction to mainstream, accepted ideas.

It seems difficult to reconcile broad acceptance of "women [are] as capable as men in inventing, business, and other professional areas" and "women can't be allowed to vote".

Of course, this sort of argument falls somewhere on the spectrum of WP:NOR and WP:NOTESSAY, I have no idea the policies, conventions, or templates for a [citation not needed], and 5am is no time for me to start researching administrivia... but the citation request felt a little out of place. Maybe someone else will track down a reliable source with a conveniently broad statement to satisfy it & resolve the issue - but not me. Or not tonight.

Again, apologizies for running at maximum verbosity on minor points. There's a reason I rarely trust myself to do actual edits in the articles themselves :p

- 76.19.235.206 (talk) 10:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)