Talk:Mabel Dodge Luhan

Faderman / bisexual
I've taken out the "bisexual" claim. Firstly, saying "as her biography demonstrates" is is original research. A claim like this should be sourced to something that says "Luhan was bisexual" or "Luhan had relationships with both men and women". Secondly, the references provided was to Faderman's "Odd Girls", which (from what I can tell) only mentions Luhan once. If Luhan's bisexuality can be properly sourced, please re-add the information? Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see why you would think this is improperly sourced. I've not read her memoirs, Faderman mentions exactly what I added. It is a published academic history book...Why would that not be a 'serious' reference?Zigzig20s (talk) 17:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A reference to a biography (a BOOK) is not OR - it is simply not easy to verify without a library.  NIghtjar (talk) 18:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, maybe SatyrTN thought I was saying that her memoirs demonstrated it...but that's what Faderman says, I've not read the memoirs, otherwise I would give the exact page in the memoirs. Hence my reference. And hmmm if we decide not to include books, then it will be extremely difficult to reference anything at all...Zigzig20s (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So if someone writes a confession of a murder, the person can't be called a murderer unless the person also explicitly comes out and calls themselves a murderer, or some author of a book draws the conclusion for us and uses the word? Not every 'deduction' can be OR surely.NIghtjar (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry - was "as her biography demonstrates" a direct quote from Faderman? I didn't get that impression - sorry.  Perhaps we can reword that so that it's in a more encyclopedic tone?  And do you have the Faderman book?  I'm assuming you do, since I've seen several references to it on various articles.  It worried me that a Google search of the book only returns one hit for Luhan in the entire book.  I don't have it, and I could very well be wrong, but that's what worried me - that it might be a mention in passing or something.  Please re-add if I'm wrong - maybe reworded? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 'As was the case with A'Leila Walker in Harlem, it was Mabel's own open bisexual behavior, which she wrote about voluminously in her memoirs, that helped to foster some sexual tolerance in Greenwich Village during those early years.'. This is pretty straightforward, don't you think?Zigzig20s (talk) 08:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Spelling of married name
User:Estebanrael changed all instances of "Luhan" to "Lujan", giving a dead webpage as a reference, but probably meaning this page on the same site. That page itself uses a mixture of "Luhan" and "Lujan". We need to use the most common form, the name by which she is known, which is Luhan. If the "Lujan" spelling is sufficiently common, note should be made of it as an alternative form. - Nunh-huh 00:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

WP: Women's History Assessment Commentary
The article was assessed as C-class, for lack of in-line citations. Boneyard90 (talk) 13:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Review of whole Article
The Wikipedia article on Mabel Dodge Luhan is credible. The information is accurate. Although the Wikipedia section on the Early Life of Mabel Dodge Luhan was not detailed enough. The article gave no information on who her parents were and how her upbringing had been. In both comparison texts about Mabel Dodge Luhan, they both stated her parent’s names and background. The amount of schooling and upbringing of Luhan was also absent. The Early life section was very short. In the comparison text written by Michael Ann Sullivan, the author went into detail about how Mabel grew up in the social elite mostly in the company of her nursemaid. Mabel attended Saint Margaret’s Episcopal School for girls until she was sixteen. Sullivan also stated that when Mabel married her husband Karl Evans it was a secret because Mabel’s father disapproved of Karl. In both comparison texts it was mentioned that Mabel was sent to Europe after Karl’s death because she was having an extramarital affair with a family doctor. Which wasn’t mentioned in the Wikipedia. In both Sullivan’s and Rudnick’s papers they describe how while she was in Paris she met her second Husband Edwin Dodge. Which also wasn’t mention in the Wikipedia article. What was mentioned in the Wikipedia article was that she was apparently actively bisexual during her early life. Which there was no mention of in either the Sullivan paper or the Rudnick paper? But the Wikipedia article did state that they had gotten that information from Luhan’s autobiography Intimate Memories

The Florence section of the Wikipedia article is only a few sentences long and doesn’t give much information during those 7 years Mabel and Edwin were in Florence. Rudnick’s information on the time Mabel’s time during Florence was basically the same as the Wikipedia article. Sullivan on the other hand went into a little more detail on how Mabel and Edwin lived their life. Sullivan talked about how Mabel recreated the Villa Curonia to its former glory. While in Italy, Luhan tried to create a name for her by reconstructing the Italian Renaissance. Many famous guests attended her Salons, such as Gertrude Stein and Leo Stein, Paul Draper and Muriel Draper, Eleonara Duse, Bernard Berenson, and Arthur Rubinstein. It was also stated in the Wikipedia article that Luhan had attempted suicide twice because of a troubled liaison with her chauffeur. I did not find any information over the suicide attempts in either of my comparison texts but it is referenced in the Wikipedia article.

The New York/ Provincetown was the largest section of the article. The Article accurately described how Mabel started becoming a patron of the arts. She began hosting her weekly salons in Greenwich Village. But the article failed to mention how Mabel first became involved in helping promote the Armory Show of modern art by raising funds. Also the salons she hosted in Greenwich Village became known as one the most successful salons in U.S. history for incorporating the diverse social, artistic, and political rebellions of the time. She wrote for the journal Camera Work and for the Masses. She became a leading advocate of modernism.

The next big section of the Article was the Taos section. Taos is where Mabel spent 45 years of her life and remained there till the end of her life. This section explains how Mabel began an art movement in Taos again with various types of artists coming to her home. Although this section fails to mention that writers artists from both the East and West coast moved to Santa Fe and Taos after World War I, Which Mabel took the leading role in promoting the southwest as the Garden of Eden because the climate, terrain, and indigenous people offered neurotic and mechanized white civilization a model for spiritual renewal. It also failed to mention how she published articles and essays in the Theatre Arts Monthly, the Dial, and Creative Arts attracting a variety of painters, writes, ethnologists, musicologists, and reformers to help her rejoice and preserve the lands of Taos. Luhan played a significant role in the revitalized cultural life of the southwest. Luhan also hoped that she could interpret the ancient ways of Pueblo life so that she would persuade modern men and woman to join their minds and bodies and learn to respect the land. All this information was not mentioned in the article but mentioned by Rudnick.

Sullivan mentioned that Mabel’s first real home in Taos was Los Gallos where it later became one of New Mexico’s most famous artist Colonies. That should have been incorporated into the article. Rudnick states that Mabel wrote four volumes of published memoirs of potential rebirth in the American Southwest, which should have been included in the article. Also during the 1940s and 1950s Mabel spent most of her time with the New Mexican and Indian affairs because Taos had become a refuge for people who were in need of physical and spiritual renewal. Crivs25 (talk) 17:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mabel Dodge Luhan. 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/20120406101848/http://www.glbtq.com/arts/salons%2C2.html to http://www.glbtq.com/arts/salons%2C2.html
 * Added tag to http://nmbookcoop.com/Projects/Best-Books/Best-Books.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:00, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Flow of article
Am I the only one to find this text disconcerting?

"Between 1905 and 1912, the Dodges lived near Florence at her palatial Medici villa...". Who are the Dodges? Further down I found her marrying Mr. Dodge. Should not this nugget of information come before the reference to "the Dodges"? Weka511 (talk) 04:10, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that nugget should come first, and I added it. But who were the Dodges? At first, I thought that they were the family from Massachusetts of which Edwin was a member (see Edwin Dodge). I edited it accordingly. Then I thought it more likely that "the Dodges" meant Edwin and Mabel, so I edited it again. As with the next item on this Talk page, I edited without any background information; my only acquaintance with Mabel Luhan is from Lawrence biographies I've read. Someone familiar with her ought to work on this.Maurice Magnus (talk) 00:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Explanation of my edit
Before my edit, it read, "Although Sterne bought a shotgun with the intention of chasing Lujan off the property, unable to use it, he instead took to insulting his wife." The words "he instead" imply that Lujan was unable to use the gun, and so he instead of using the gun, took to insulting his wife. But that doesn't appear to be what was meant. I edited without familiarity with the incident. Maurice Magnus (talk) 00:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)