Jump to content

Talk:The Jungle/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Literary analysis

I agree that the sentence "for lack of a proper ending" should have been deleted. It would be nice, though, to had a section entitled something like "Critical response". It's one of those works that was trounced by the critics of the time, and again over again the years, but has had so much staying power that it must now be called a classic. "Jungle as metaphor" could be a subcategory of this. Any takers? Novickas 21:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


Fiction

The book is fiction, although many people take it as truth the same as many people take "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" as an accurate account. What it really is is any early example of "Gonzo Journalism". Invented by Hunter S. Thompson, the idea is that it doesn't matter how much you exaggerate, if you have caught the spiritual essence, it is the truth.

Personally I would like to see some serious entries about what was accurate and what was Gonzo. It is true the book caught the popular imagination, and may have had major beneficial effect, but I agree w xxxxxxx (can't figure out who signed it) down below that why (like all the massacres in the Viet Nam war) none of the millions of people who must have been involved said anything until a socialist reporter made a mint writing a book"67.174.53.196 17:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yes, about inflation and money value: If you try to compare things like booze and such, you will get strange results, because the very idea of a capitalist economy is the shift in price as values change (i.e. a man who has hungry children normally won't pay as much for a drink as a bachelor might be willing). There is a TRICK to solve this (it takes serious research, but once you've got the data you pretty much set for life). Find the price of an UNPROCESSED bushel of wheat (for America - rice, etc. for other cultures) at the closest farm. This is your base value. i.e. what it costs in CURRENT money to stay alive and ONLY alive. After that, everything else (even what we normally think of as necessities) is technically a luxury.67.174.53.196 17:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Is the book fiction or not? This isn't really explained anywhere in the article... -Yes it is: the book is referred to as a "novel" throughout the article.

  • The family depicted in the book is fictional. However, the events and situations that the characters face are typical of the setting. Therefore, many historians consider the book to be historically accurate on broad terms. This article should be expanded to include more information about the content of the book itself.134.29.149.254 17:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


Great book, I highly suggest it. Mainly for the socialist output.Do you think that this deserves to be added to the portion about wages in 1906?

"But a big man cannot stay drunk very long on three dollars."

Three dollars in 1906 equates to 61 dollars in 2005 -- quite enough to get drunk. An oversight? Or is it that pricey to get drunk?]

Prices don't necessarily inflate equally. It's quite possible that alcohol was much more expensive during that period of time, particularly since it couldn't be mass produced as easily. Although it does seem a little sketchy (what were alcohol prices said to be in other parts of the book?) his figures couldn't be ridiculously off when you consider he's writing about contemporaries. Sarge Baldy 23:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Another way to assess this is to look at his daily wages as reported in the novel. It would have taken him a couple of days to earn three dollars. How much would an equivalent laborer make in two days now? By "equivalent laborer" one might consider the kind of labor a modern equivalent of a scofflaw meat-packing company might hire. Two ten-hour days at $4/hr would yield $80. I don't know if those kinds of packing workers even make $4/hr, so the $61 mentioned above might be accurate in that respect.
  • Shouldn't some of the criticism be mentioned? There's a ton of it.
  • If one goes to a bar in West Hollywood, California, U.S., for instance, and drinks alcoholic beverages, then the price may exceed $61 in 2005.
  • I think a table of wages, food expenses, rent, the price of the home they tried to buy, and other items including the price of alcoholic drinks should be compiled for this book to put things in perspective. What is wrong with an unbiased table that both shows the legitimate and profligate spending of the Lithuanian family of Jurgis Rudkus in The Jungle with the chapters in which those monetary amounts are given?

--anon

i am distressed by the fact that the bulk of this article seems to be taken directly from the text of "of meat and myth", also linked at the end of the page and generated by the mackinak center for public policy. neither article attempts to show evidence for such assertions as, "Subsequent investigation proved that most of Sinclair’s allegations of unsanitary practices had little factual basis." the first investigation was deemed by roosevelt himself to be overly defensive of the industry. it even declared that the inspection laws were not being followed due to expense. (gabriel kolko, "meat inspection: theory and reality") the neill-reynolds report, while flawed, does vindicate some of sinclair's work. Uncleosbert 21:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)uncleosbert

Agreed, it seems strongly biased. It points out some very sketchy investigations from an organization, the federal government, very much accused in the work as being part of the problem and supportive of the meat-packing industry. It clearly ignores any possibility of bias in the government's study, and calls their findings "facts". Likewise that entire stretch of dialogue is one-sided, making an argument that the book is pure fiction with no truth to it, extending this throughout without any counter of opinion. Sarge Baldy 23:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
I also agree. This information seems biased. Also, as someone who has read the book, I don't feel four paragraphs largely in defense of the meat packing industry are appropriate on this page. Perhaps they belong elsewhere; but Sinclair was primarily writing about socialism. That's the theme of his book. This isn't a journalistic expose on meatpacking that requires vigorous fact-checking. Sinclair wrote a piece of fiction, largely to promote socialism. I'd support moving the argument on meatpacking facts or fallacies elsewhere. The book clearly had a major impact on the meatpacking industry, but placing that debate here distracts from encyclopedic coverage of the novel's plot, literary themes, and political statements. I feel a page on Sinclair's book should focus more on Sinclair's book and less on what such-and-such committee's report had to say about the aftermath of an industry mentioned in that work of fiction. --Anon, 12 December 2005

I am confused. Is not the line "Subsequent investigation proved that most of Sinclair’s allegations of unsanitary practices had little factual basis" referring to the Bureau of Animal Husbandry's report. At least, a reference to that report immediately follows that sentance. So how is that "no evidence"? If there is evidence of problems with the report, then those could be discused.

-- annon

that's it precisely... it is referring to that report only and that report is already questioned by several sources. to cite it as the only investigation as if it had been satisfactory to the fed at the time is to give an incomplete picture of the investigation conducted. in fact, doubleday conducted an independent investigation before agreeing to publish the jungle, presumably to determine if it was going to result in charges of libel. i'm rounding up some cites...

Uncleosbert 01:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)uncleosbert

Havin

Censorship

A new section should be added about the censorship. Apparently it was published in a Socialist Newspaper, and was more against the capitalists who were misusing people, but no capitalist press would publish it, so she had to edit out about two chapters, making it more against the meat standards for it to be eaten.--Erkin2008 05:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Lost edition

Some mention should be made of the "lost edition" - talked about in one of the external links. 71.191.42.242 (talk) 16:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Rudkus or Rudkos?

I'm a big fan of Sinclair, so I was surprised to see that "Jurgis Rudkus" was originally "Jurgis Rudkos", before Doubleday heavily censored the novel. (The Jungle, ISBN 1-884354-60-2, pp i). Should his name be substituted for what it was originally intended to be? MosheA 22:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It might have been changed to conform to Lithuanian grammar.
  • Jurgis Rudkus → Rudkai (plural for entire family, like Smith and Smiths)
  • Jurgis Rudka → Rudkos (plural for entire family)
So, Jurgis Rudkos makes no sense for a Lithuanian, while Jurgis Rudkus is perfectly normal. Renata 02:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Doubleday did not censor the novel. This is explained, along with the reason for the Lithuanian name changes, in one of the external links (the one to hnn.com) -- there is a considerable mis-information about the so-called "lost edition" that this WP article could really help clear-up. 71.191.42.242 (talk) 16:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

POV

"Instead, what he got was tunnel vision reports from Neill and Reynolds." C'mon, wiki can do better than that. I'm changing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.12.218 (talk) 04:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Judging from the amount of vandalism on this page, the novel must be assigned really often in high school. Wish there were some way to quantify that; it's too bad that they don't see any connection between this book and to issues discussed in Fast Food Nation. Novickas 22:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the book is assigned in my high school (though some 11th and 12th grade classes read excerpts), but my AP US History teacher often gives lists of terms for us to define. Though she tells us not to use Wikipedia, mostly everyone does and it wouldn't surprise me if many of them vandalise the pages they use. If you want to see the lists and maybe be prepared to protect the pages, go here. (Also, I'm not sure if the link will work. I've found that some of the links I post have died, so I'll check back in a few days to see if it still works.) --70.113.79.34 02:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Since this page has been on my watchlist since November 2006, I have seen a lot of vandalism, as well as some good-faith contributions, from various US high school IPs. They come and go in surges that probably reflect class assignments. The vandalism doesn't, however, occur often enough to justify any kind of formal page protection. It's interesting that the teachers say not to use Wikipedia; what reasons do they present against it? When I was in high school, and when my kids were, teachers said the same thing about Cliff Notes and (more recently) SparkNotes. My position has always been - the more sources of information, the better. It's always been easy to spot plagiarism and it's even easier now, when it's on the Internet; and paraphrasing sources is good practice in language usage. Sincerely, Novickas 16:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, its just that my teacher feels its too easy for someone to modify a date or some other part of a Wikipedia article with incorrect information. She believes that most contributions are just direct copies from other sources. I also agree that the articles for the terms (did the link work?) should not be protected, but maybe they should have special attention around the time the term is due, if that's even possible. (My IP address is different because I'm typing this from school) --204.57.107.1 16:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

So...is the issue that the teacher will not accept Wikipedia as a source in student papers? Even if paraphrased rather than directly copied? Novickas 16:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

She probably wouldn't accept it as a source, but thankfully she never asks for a source. Usually she just says we shouldn't use Wikipedia (though she's okay with us going directly to the listed sources), but she doesn't try to stop us from using it. --70.113.79.34 04:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi 70.113.79.34 - sure you don't want to register? I suggest you print out today's version of the article so that the teacher can take a look at it. Like other encyclopedias Wikipedia doesn't contain any original research - by policy. The articles often do point to a number of useful printed and online sources; the printed sources are very unlikely to be found in either your school's or your community's local libraries, but the online resources can be very useful. Sincerely, Novickas 17:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I think she knows that Wikipedia has good information, she just doesn't like the chance of someone putting in a wrong date (purposely or not) or something and then everyone who used that date would get the term wrong. For example, I know that at least two of my classmates intentionally change parts of Wikipedia, from general information to outright vandalism. They do this because they know some of their classmates will see what they've done (or won't see and will get the wrong information). The misinformation is usually caught and corrected in a few days, but that still leaves a small gap that catches many of my classmates, especially those that do their terms in groups; it's one reason why I do my research earlier than everyone else and use Answers.com. This way I have less chance of hitting one of those gaps and with Answers I can see multiple sources for the same subject. (I actually have a Wikipedia account, I'll write this signed in, usually I won't sign in because I just make a few small changes) --The Omega Knight 23:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Whether the accusations in The Jungle were true or not, the whole system was corrupt. The local government and the meatpacking plants went hand in hand in and the poor immigrant workers suffered for it. The government claimed that many accusations were false because they wanted to sell meat in Europe. It was that simple. If they made a public report that the accusations were exaggerated then the people would relax and meat would sell. Working conditions would be horrible because there were no laws against it so there were no worries and they saved money. Money is what turns the business machine around. The book itself is fiction as we all know but many of the issues were very real and I myself am thankful those issues were brought to attention because if they weren't then there may not be any laws today forbidding the atrocious acts that were committed a hundred years ago.

I removed the following sentence from "Background" which is vandalism & has nothing to do with the book: "There, Chase Norton had sexual relations with Jill for seven weeks, following the brutal murderings of his family members." Sundiiiiii 22:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with this statement in the article: "Socialism and strong labor unions are the answer to all the evils that he, his family, and all their fellow sufferers have had to endure. Industry needs to value labor instead of just the product." Socialism is elimination of the wage system because it is slavery, & strong labor unions would only be needed with the capitalist wage system, so the 2 do not go together. He wanted Socialism, and an end to the capitalist wage system, like it says in the 4th sentence. The fact that we ended up only with labor unions (strikes are modern slave rebellions) happened in part because few people understood that the book was written to end the wage entirely & have Socialism (all people worldwide own all things worldwide--so food, medicine, etc, will be free). Sundiiiiii 23:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Can some non-socialist revise this article for NPOV?

I also disagree with the last part of this sentence: "As the novel comes to a close, a socialist rally is triumphantly chanting "Chicago will be ours!", and Jurgis has caught the eye of a sympathetic young woman." Drop the words after "Chicago will be ours!" because there is no indication that they were interested in each other. They didn't even talk to each other. 69.228.239.40 05:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes it'd be insane to have a book which has a clear point of view to have a point of view. Have you even read the book? 76.103.15.194 (talk) 21:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 02:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

this book is no joke it real life thing that happened 100 hundred years ago KC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.78.245.141 (talk) 18:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Change?

Could "Madame Haupt is a midwife who fails to save Ona's life" be changed to "Madame Haupt is a midwife who IS UNABLE to save Ona's life"? Stars4change (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Plot?

The summary can use some work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.197.53 (talk) 05:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

publisher

Just wondering: the cover of the pictured book says it was published by "Doubleday, Page, and company"; while the information box says "Doubleday, Jabber, and company." Is the pictured cover not the original publisher, or is the info box wrong, or do I have no idea what I'm talking about? -SineBot (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanogul (talk • contribs) 21:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The pictured cover of the book says it was published by "Doubleday, Page and company;" while the info box says "Doubleday, Jabber, and company." is the pictured cover not the original printing, is the info box wrong, or do I have no idea what I'm talking about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanogul (talk • contribs) 21:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Missing Plot Aspects

There are entire sections of The Jungle missing from the summary, such as Jurgis' work in the fertilizer plant, his time in prison, and Marija's prostitution. Anyone want to write this? LittleBrother1 (talk) 16:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LittleBrother1 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I have found this on SparkNotes- SparkNotes The Jungle Summary Does anyone feel that something along this line would make for an appropriate replacement? I am in the process of writing a summary myself. LittleBrother1 (talk) 00:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Expansion of Character list

IS is okay if I make the Character descriptions a little more detailed? Applerun (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Chicago's Ghetto District?

I just finished reading the book. There are several references to the "ghetto district:"

"The address Jurgis had was a garret room in the Ghetto district, the home of a pretty little French girl, Duane's mistress, who sewed all day, and eked out her living by prostitution."
"Ostrinski's home was in the Ghetto district, where he had two rooms in the basement of a tenement."

Anyone know where this neighborhood was? I think the definition of 'ghetto' has changed much since 1905. Also, the neighborhoods have probably changed much as well. Anyone have ideas?--Nessie (talk) 22:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Ona's Death

Could the section on Ona's death be changed from "while giving birth to the child that is the product of rape" to "while giving birth to her second child"? I just read the book, and there is no indication that this child was the product of rape.HisStory33 (talk) 16:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Intro

I agree that it's important to stress that the book is about labour and not about FDA standards on food. But a wikipedia entry should not start saying what "the jungle" is not; it should start saying what actually IS, and then commen on what it IS NOT. Don't know how to sign sorry... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.138.161.199 (talk) 01:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism that needs urgent repair

Somebody has replaced the plot with the plot of Twilight. Im not good with Wiki but can somebody please fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.64.39.239 (talk) 21:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

See also

The majority of the items listed in the "See also" section are books promoting vegetarian or vegan agendas. Are these really relevant to this article? HScrimgeour (talk) 17:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Formatting

"Public and Federal Response," "See Also," "Footnotes," and "External Links" all are listed as subheadings under "Plot Summary." This is inaccurate and not in accordance with Wikipedia's rules of style. Can someone quickly fix this? Shouldn't be too difficult. -- RMP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.46.155.93 (talk) 06:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Everyone's a Socialist?

I read this book many years ago and I never got the sense it was forwarding a socialist agenda, it's more of a battle cry of workers rights. Yet the word Socialist and socialism are a bit overused. I don't think a book that sparked change is US labor and food policies has this much to do with socialism. Socialism's definition has changed and when I see a word like thing I start to think of NPOV issues and conservative political agenda.0pen$0urce (talk) 16:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Considering the author was a socialist and member of the socialist party, and his own words stating his intentions, I would say that it is absolutely correct to say it was intended to forward the agenda of american socialists. It would be intellectually dishonest to deny it.

The definition of socialism most certainly has not changed, perhaps the connotations, yet I would challenge the inference that the connotation nor the definition for socialist was some vague different thing at the time of the author's publication.

I am confused however why you opened up with this title, "everyone's a socialist." Well, no. However, the author most certainly was, (I don't see how much more you can lay upon it than, the fact of history he a member of the party) and was heavily influenced by such.

75.200.190.191 (talk) 02:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The final chapter of The Jungle is heavily centered around Rudkus finding socialism to be the solution to the problems people like him faced. Further, the book was originally serialized in the Appeal to Reason, a socialist weekly. AndrewRayGorman (talk) 20:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Federal Response Section Bias

I am concerned with the accuracy of this section. Specifically, Theodore Roosevelt claimed 3/4 lies in a letter written July 1906. The "radical action" quote was actually prior to that, from a letter in March of 1906. The order it is currently written in makes it seem like Roosevelt eventually understood Sinclair's viewpoint. From what I have read, in March 1906 Roosevelt had already read most of Sinclair's book (by the contents of the letter), so by July 1906 he was making a reflection on the book, not some arbitrary judgement on Sinclair's sociopolitical views. If it helps, I think I see the situation as Roosevelt using Sinclair's book for public support for laws he wanted passed, even if he did not believe the claims to be true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.5.215.219 (talk) 02:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=7229

"Some two million visitors came to tour the stockyards and packinghouses of Chicago every year. Thousandsg a y, even though Chicago was a major transportation hub at the time. It seems very much to me that this mackinac.org article is very biased and commits a logical fallacy in dismissing the Neill-Reynolds report. It's sole claim against the Neill-Reynolds report was that Neill and Reynolds were inexperienced in the meat-packing industry. It makes no other claim to dispute the Neill-Reynolds report. It seems to me that even those inexperienced in the meatpacking industry would be able to refute or deny some of the sanitation and safety claims in Sinclair's book. I highly suggest editing the body of the article to remove this biased source and making it more neutral until more facts come to light.

-- 01:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)Dec 30 2000

I agree completely with what has been said here. This article seems to be very biased and mackinac.org does not appear to be a reputable site. As such, I have decided to remove the majority of the section entitled "Public Reaction and Federal Response".

-- Lvialviaquez 03:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Lvialviaquez, And why is Mackinac not a "reputable" site? Because you dont agree with their political bent? You may not agree with their critique of Sinclair, which you have not given us a reason to reject, but to go ahead and say the're not "reputable" is unfounded. I think the article's criticism is fair and reasonable and not to be simply rejected because you dont like Mackinac. It seems that you want this page to be a pro Sinclair article. Before I decide to replace it back in the article will you provide for us the specific reasons why the criticism in the Mackinac article is wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.242.174 (talk) 08:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Jungle. 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: 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) 16:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom claim

The cited American Library Association claim says the Nazis banned the book because of it's advocacy of socialism. Is there another cite that can back this claim or expand on it? I'm not disputing that the Nazis banned it, but the reason given by the ALA seems strange, as the Nazi's identified as socialists. Even in their official name was "National Socialist German Workers' Party". For the Nazis to be against it just because it advocated socialism would be uncharacteristic. Is the some confusion and conflation here with communism? The Nazis were very anti-communist. I tagged it dubious-discuss anyway, because I think we need more clarity here. 2001:56A:F56D:8C00:D590:D7C4:A5E7:3B0A (talk) 21:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we have reason to doubt it: "Among the authors whose books student leaders burned that night were well-known socialists such as Bertolt Brecht and August Bebel; the founder of the concept of communism, Karl Marx; critical 'bourgeois' writers like the Austrian playwright Arthur Schnitzler; and 'corrupting foreign influences,' among them American author Ernest Hemingway" (from The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum website) (emphasis mine). Other sources also repeat the claim, but they're not necessarily more reliable than ALA (i.e., online, not scholarly): Georgetown.edu, Mic.com, and more.--MattMauler (talk) 22:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Heavy POV

Whoever currently owns this page has twisted any neutrality or objectivity it may have had, far beyond recognition. Regardless of how much you may hate The Jungle, turning mainspace into your personal platform for it is beyond the pale.
Just one of many glaring examples: Ona is forced into sex by a foreman who credibly threatens to have the entire family blacklisted, meaning they would probably starve to death. The first time, it's clearly rape by any but the most lenient definition - and while it's going on she shows signs of extreme trauma, although it doesn't make sense until the reader later finds out what's happening. There's no question whatsoever that this qualifies as extreme #MeToo, arguably repeated rape since it's under the highly-credible coercion of "You and your family will die if you don't."
So what did the page owner(s) turn it into? They decry the family's "moral decay", and claim that it's "an arrangement in which Ona has traded regular sexual favors to Phil Connor".
I know Wikipedia is heavily prone to inaccuracy based on who owns the page, but this is utterly reprehensible. Sleazy doesn't begin to cover it. I've seen some disgraceful travesties over the years, but this is hands-down the worst - and I have no doubt it will continue exactly as written. But someone needs to record that this is NOT how Wikipedia was supposed to be, for the sake of the next person who's sick to their stomach after reading this and doesn't understand how the allegedly-reputable Wikipedia can stand behind it. 2603:3023:306:2C00:85E2:8A77:B828:AEEA (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

The section that supposedly describes Ona willingly trading sexual favors due to her "moral decay", which is horse excrement. For context: Due to a freak snowstorm that made it impossible for Ona to get home, Jurgis learned she had lied about staying with a family friend. "Miss Henderson" was a supervisor at Ona's job, and ran a house of ill repute on the side. Finally, for anyone who doesn't know: "Make love to" in the passage is an obsolete usage, synonymous with "courting" ("hitting on" isn't quite serious enough). Emphases added.

“Tell me,” he whispered, at last, “tell me about it.”
She lay perfectly motionless, and he had to hold his breath to catch her words. “I did not want—to do it,” she said; “I tried—I tried not to do it. I only did it—to save us. It was our only chance.”
Again, for a space, there was no sound but his panting. Ona's eyes closed and when she spoke again she did not open them. “He told me—he would have me turned off. He told me he would—we would all of us lose our places. We could never get anything to do—here—again. He—he meant it—he would have ruined us.”
Jurgis' arms were shaking so that he could scarcely hold himself up, and lurched forward now and then as he listened. “When—when did this begin?” he gasped.
“At the very first,” she said. She spoke as if in a trance. “It was all—it was their plot—Miss Henderson's plot. She hated me. And he—he wanted me. He used to speak to me—out on the platform. Then he began to—to make love to me. He offered me money. He begged me—he said he loved me. Then he threatened me. He knew all about us, he knew we would starve. He knew your boss—he knew Marija's. He would hound us to death, he said—then he said if I would—if I—we would all of us be sure of work—always. Then one day he caught hold of me—he would not let go—he—he—”
“Where was this?”
“In the hallway—at night—after every one had gone. I could not help it. I thought of you—of the baby—of mother and the children. I was afraid of him—afraid to cry out.”
A moment ago her face had been ashen gray, now it was scarlet. She was beginning to breathe hard again. Jurgis made not a sound.
“That was two months ago. Then he wanted me to come—to that house. He wanted me to stay there. He said all of us—that we would not have to work. He made me come there—in the evenings. I told you—you thought I was at the factory. Then—one night it snowed, and I couldn't get back. And last night—the cars were stopped. It was such a little thing—to ruin us all. I tried to walk, but I couldn't. I didn't want you to know. It would have—it would have been all right. We could have gone on—just the same—you need never have known about it. He was getting tired of me—he would have let me alone soon. I am going to have a baby—I am getting ugly. He told me that—twice, he told me, last night. He kicked me—last night—too. And now you will kill him—you—you will kill him—and we shall die.”

— Upton Sinclair, The Jungle (1906)
I dare anyone to assert the above describes "trad[ing] regular sexual favors", as opposed to de-facto rape. 03:23, 18 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3023:306:2C00:85E2:8A77:B828:AEEA (talk)

Citation needed for Upton Sinclair working incognito in the meatpacking plants of the Chicago stockyards

I think there should be a citation to prove that "In 1904, Sinclair had spent seven weeks gathering information while working incognito in the meatpacking plants of the Chicago stockyards for the socialist newspaper Appeal to Reason. " As I can find no evidence that this actually happened. It's not mentioned in the congressional hearing. If this is an accurate statement then why wasn't it mentioned in the hearing? Sinclair wasn't even at the hearings, I wonder if it is because they knew he had no first-hand knowledge.
^ Adding a diff to identify the source of this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AThe_Jungle&type=revision&diff=976604828&oldid=968238599

"in the meatpacking plants" should be corrected to "in Packingtown", but even the quickest attempt at searching turns up proof. There's no NPOV basis for trying to remove it. https://www.motherjones.com/media/2006/01/jungle-100/ 96.93.127.6 (talk) 05:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
The above suggestion wasn't thought all the way through. A better replacement would be "in the meatpacking plants of the Chicago stockyards" with "in Packingtown (the meatpacking district of Chicago)". 96.93.127.6 (talk) 05:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Reference given cites wikipedia as a source

The reference for the film adapation of The Jungle cites this very wikipedia page as one of its sources. This can't be right, right? Jaysbro (talk) 21:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Federal Response: Reference to Cosmopolitan article links the book itself, not the article.

The last paragraph under Federal Response discusses a Cosmopolitan article:

He complained about the public's misunderstanding of the point of his book in Cosmopolitan Magazine in October 1906 by saying, "I aimed at the public's heart, and by accident I hit it in the stomach."

but the #27 reference goes to the book instead of the Cosmo article. Tallard (talk) 02:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Jungle/Archive_1&oldid=1251206787"