Talk:Lorena Hickok

Relationship with Eleanor Roosevelt

An unnamed contributor changed my description from

"...anAmerican journalist and confidant of Eleanor Roosevelt with whom she had a romantic relationship starting in 1928"

"...an American journalist and confidant of Eleanor Roosevelt with whom she probably had a romantic relationship starting in 1928" (emphasis added)

I have reverted it. This is as well established a historic fact as any, and the only reason anyone would put it in question is the unreasonably high standard with which we judge homosexual relationships as opposed to heterosexual relationships.

Roosevelt's relationship with Lorena Hickok is testified to in countless documentation, including over 2000 letters written by Roosevelt to "Hick" that include such sentiments as "I wish I could lie down beside you and take you in my arms. I can't kiss you so I kiss your picture good night and good morning," as well as letters from Hickok to Roosevelt, including "I love the feeling of that soft spot just northeast of the corner of your mouth against my lips."

In these letters the two women discuss a future in which they would share a home and blend their lives into one.

Blanche Wiesen Cook, Eleanor Roosevelt's biographer, said in an interview with PBS "Well, the fact is, we can never know what people do in the privacy of their own rooms. The door is closed. The blinds are drawn. We don't know. I leave it up to the reader. But there's no doubt in my mind that they loved each other, and this was an ardent, loving relationship between two adult women" Jliberty 13:12, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

It is very strange to me that these two women were lesbians. Maybe not Ms. Hickock but Mrs.

Roosevelt due to the simple fact that this was not suggested during the time of their intense relationship. Mrs. Roosevelt also would not put her career plans on hold for the woman she "loved." If Eleanor Roosevelt truly loved this woman, she would have done everything in her powers to make this lady happy and to be with her. That's how a relationship works, I know for a fact a heterosexual relationship does, and probably so does a homosexualrelationship. Love is a game of give and take and many, many compromises. 04:38, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Your queasiness and assumptions about "how relationships work" are not criteria for editing articles. The relationship is well documented, and you may want to read a bit about the measures taken by queer lovers in that era to avoid discovery and persecution. Jliberty 10:36, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

External sources

Hickok & Roosevelt A Love Story

Interview with Blanche Wiessen Cook

Blanche Weisen Cook: A Tribute to Lorena Hickok (audio)

Empty without You: The Intimate Letters of Eleanor Roosevelt and Lorena Hickok

It doesn't surprise me that they were in a romantic relationship. Eleanor was a free woman to herself and needed someone and more than a friendship , a lover. I have read all the books written about both woman. Being a lesbian myself in the early 1990's , in my area I had to keep it to myself. Often woman get married before they realize their true feelings. It must have been so hard trying to work around your emotions with the entire world watching. For Lorena to stand behind her and push her own feelings aside... is more than any man would have done for her. Janet Smith

Flow

The biography jumps all over the place. Hopefully someone can clean it up with a smooth chronologic flow or some other useful presentation. As it is, it appears confused. Wjhonson (talk) 22:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Focus of the article

I think this page may concentrate too much on the nature of the relationship between Lorena Hickok and Eleanor Roosevelt, and not enough on Hickok's wider role in the New Deal. There is lengthy detail about her in David M. Kennedy's 'Freedom from Fear' [see chapters 6 and 7], which are perhaps more relevant than the nature of her relationship with Roosevelt. Sophie fm (talk) 15:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to get my hands on that soon and expand further. Sorry it took four years for another editor to answer you. =) -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Affair with Roosevelt

An editor just moved the reported lesbian relationship between Roosevelt and Hickok out of the lead section. Before I revert again, I thought I'd ask here why this happened. This relationship is the subject of exhaustive commentary and study, and the lead to this article is currently only two sentences long and in obvious need of expansion. Why should this not be included? Hick's relationship with ER is by far and away the most notable thing about her. (Her biography, for example, is subtitled "E.R.'s friend".) It seems quite reasonable to mention the debated nature of that relationship in the lead section, no? -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

To give a better idea of where I'm coming from, a quick search "Lorena Hickok" into Google, Google Scholar, and Google News. A cursory glance suggests that a large number of the sources on Hickok prominently discuss the question of whether or not the two were intimate. I don't think it's undue weight to mention it in the lead section as one of the most noted issues about her life, though I'd also like to see this lead section generally expanded beyond its sad two-sentence state. Perhaps the best way to do this would be to flesh out a full paragraph about her reporting, another about her relationship with ER, etc. I'm currently working on sourcing and improving the ER article, so I can use some of those sources to work on this one a bit, too. Let me know what you think! Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, having gotten no response for a couple of days, I've restored this material to the lead. As discussed above, I've added a fuller version of the lead generally. I'm still hoping to expand (and perhaps reorganize) more of the article in the coming days. Enjoy the weekend, everybody, -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Good Article?

I've done a major expansion and rewrite of this article in the past 24 hours with an eye toward trying to make this a Good Article. Input from other editors on these changes would be great, particularly if you own the Faber biography, to which I don't have access. Thanks everybody, -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lorena Hickok/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 19:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Open review. Will start soon! Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 19:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

(beginning)

• "playing with the farm's animals" - what farm?

Her father was a buttermaker; clarified.

• two adjacent blue links: diva Ernestine Schumann-Heink - is there a way to separate them?

I've simply delinked diva.

• "cohabited" - lived with? - is there an extra meaning to "cohabited"?

"Lived" is fine with me. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Really, this is a wonderful article. I could criticize certain parts (e.g. Goodwin pages 223-224 seems to present a case that Eleanor was not homosexual, or primarily so) but I'm sure that discussion could go on and on. You have presented a concise summary of Hickok's life. Much appreciated!

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   a. prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:

   b. complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, summary style and list incorporation:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout:

   b. provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

   c. no original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   b. it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.

   fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   no edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   a. images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   b. images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Pass!

Great job! MathewTownsend (talk) 23:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks both for the review and for your copyedits! I'll take another look at the Goodwin pages and see if I can add a bit more. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

New section

Pegmoody (talk) 16:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

What edit are you requesting? 32.218.37.89 (talk) 16:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done No edit request included. Pegmoody, when you have added an actual request please replace {{edit COI|D|S}} with {{request edit}} to reopen the request. —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 20:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Elucidate, please

She enrolled at the University of Minnesota, leaving upon being forced to live in a women's dormitory.

Curious, unexplained remark. Valetude (talk) 16:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Devoted Friend and Mentor?

The leading section describes her as a "devoted Friend and Mentor" to Eleanor Roosevelt, which seems a bit like burying the lede 138.88.143.26 (talk) 08:10, 26 December 2022 (UTC)