Jump to content

Talk:Patsy Mink/Archive 1

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

Was Patsy deliberately "pumped and ventilated" until after the election deadline?

Is there proof that Patsy Mink was maintained "alive" until after the deadline passed to have her name removed from the ballot? What do the medical records show? AllVowelTown 21:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The medical records were never released. The time and date of death was never released. There are published reports that describe "misinformation" and "manipulation" in the month leading up to the announcement of her death.
a timeline of events is at http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?34a8f056-9b68-4e1d-82f9-3354eb81fb29 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Auntie Lihue (talk • contribs) 19:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Patsy's funeral was very large and very public, and occurred before the election. Around 5000 people were there. The vote for her in the election was considered to be a tribute by most people, who were aware of her death and did not want a Republican to be elected in this resoundingly Democratic district. AllVowelTown, maybe you should keep your pajamas on and got back to what I assume is your right-wing blog where you can spread more rumors.

DuendeThumb (talk) 23:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I happened to be looking for title IX info and saw the reference to Patsy Mink, and read her bio here. What a great role model for women. And for her contribution to equal rights for women she ought to be on a us coin, I think. As the father of 2 daughters who have had unfettered access to university education and scholarships for their achievements, I truly appreciate her commitment to equal access to higher education. I guess george w isn't all bad.

untitled

File:Patsyminkfuneral1.jpg
IMAGE TO SAVE FOR LATER USE: Members of the 3rd U.S. Army Infantry Division guarded the body of Patsy Mink during her state funeral on October 5, 2002 at the National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific.

Early career discrimination?

I just saw a documentary by PBS Hawaii in the SF Women's Film Festival, and it stated, I believe, that when Patsy received her law degree, she was unable to find work in the continental U.S. because she was a woman. She was quoted on video as saying that one of the reasons she was given was that she was "a woman, and this job is demanding and means you'd have to work late at night, and women shouldn't be out at night."

Should this be mentioned? Egthegreat (talk) 22:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Patsy Mink/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Needs inline refs. —Viriditas | Talk 10:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 10:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 02:23, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Patsy Mink. 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) 00:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Photographs

Clindberg I am hoping you can assist me with an analysis of the photographs for this article. I am very unsure of the US provisions to ensure that photographs are "taken by an employee of the Congress as part of that person's official duties, or because it has been released into the public domain and posted on the official websites of a member of Congress". This is a list of the images I would like to use on the file and just want to confirm the analysis with an expert:

Preface: A check of copyright.gov confirms that only 5 items related to Patsy Mink have been renewed (I searched Patsy Mink and Patsy Takemoto Mink as a title, keyword, and name): the film PA0001633633/2009-04-28 Patsy Mink: Ahead of the Majority; a photograph by Ricardo A. Finney, VAu001278462/2017-06-16 USS Reagan Escorted Into Pearl Harbor By ASD Patsy Mink; an oil painting by Setsuko Aihara, VAu000651384/2005-01-26 Portrait of the late congresswoman Patsy Mink; a sculpture by Helen Young (dba Holly Young) VAu001361793/2019-02-26 Patsy T. Mink Monument; and a book, by Sue Davidson TX0005485327/2001-12-19, A Heart in Politics: Jeannette Rankin and Patsy T. Mink.
  1. Official portrait of Hawaii territorial senate, 1958 This one seems complicated to me. Hawaii wasn't a state yet, so it was governed under the federal Organic Act, does that make its employees federal? While this says "The U.S. government work designation does not apply to works of state and local governments", it clearly doesn't address territories? Checking the copyright entries for 1958, the photograph does not appear to have been registered.Jan-Dec 1958 Surely by it's nature, an official portrait was "published", but I have been unable to find evidence in newspapers.com, archives.org, hathitrust, or newspaperarchive.com. Can we use {{PD-US-no notice}} or is it mandatory that I find proof that it was actually published somewhere?
  2. John, Gwendolyn, and Patsy Mink, 27 Mar 1965. Jack Anderson's column was syndicated, but I see no copyright notification nor photographer credit on this photograph. I've viewed over 50 versions of the photograph on newspapers.com and newspaperarchive.com, but none give any indication of an author or copyright. The part that confuses me is that the column was syndicated. Does that somehow give protection to images Anderson used? No registrations for anything with Mink in it in 1965 per Jan-Dec 1965. Can we use {{PD-US-no notice}}?
  3. The image in the article which was used on a poster in her 1972 campaign has a rationale that I have updated. Also, confirmed Jan-Dec 1972 no registrations for anything pertaining to Mink. BUT, I think the licensing is wrong. If indeed it was made by an unknown photographer for the Patsy Mink for President Committee, it is highly unlikely that it was made by a government employee for her official duties. I think we must use {{PD-US-no notice}}, but am not sure.
  4. Image with Abzug and Binh Checked US and French newspapers. AP originated is my guess, as the 2 versions which were published, here and here, are AP but neither match this photo. I think it's not usable.
  5. Lead image seems problematic. It may be the image found at the top of this Patsy T. Mink, press release, November 14, 1995, but I am unsure since it is shown as "Used with permission of Gwendolyn Mink" that it is in the PD. It did however appear on her web page at the house, i.e. house.gov/mink, as early as 1999 On the other hand, we might be able to replace it with this one. In searching archive.org websites, I evaluated all 50 that list her name and these were the only images found. Clearly both were posted on her official websites, but do I need to also confirm that it "has been released into the public domain"? Or is simply being on her official congressional website sufficient?
A bit of extra sleuthing the one without the lei apparently was used in her 1994 campaign (though it is flipped facing the opposite way) and the one with the lei in her 1990 campaign[1]. Neither show any photo credits in any of the 50+ articles/campaign ads reviewed which used these images.
  1. How do I know if this image is usable. It's in Clinton's papers and on his website and was published here by the government in a publication on diversity, which leads me to believe it is in the PD, but I'm not sure. SusunW (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
  2. 1948 University of Hawaii Oratorical Contest finalists. I'm fairly confident in my rationale for it's use. Do you concur?
  3. 1954 meeting of the Young Democrats Club of Hawaii.I'm fairly confident in my rationale for it's use. Do you concur?

Really do appreciate any input you can give. SusunW (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@SusunW: Sorry, forgot to get back to this. Oof. Let's see.
1 -- I had thought it was only unorganized territories where PD-USGov held true. That is what the Compendium I said (page S-19), and that was also stated in the Compendium II (page 200-9), though the two flip-flopped on District of Columbia works. However the Compendium III (page 30) says they are. So... hard to say. They did both say there was some doubt as to the status in the territories. I would say in 1958 they were not treated as PD-USGov works, and of course they became a state shortly thereafter. However, the photo would have needed a copyright notice and copyright renewal to still be under copyright. I would not have a problem assuming those were published.
Okay, I'm fine with it not being a gov't source, just wasn't sure. Since they clearly didn't register a copyright per the 1958 volume, I think we are fine with no notice, but just to be safe, I searched copyright.gov and find no renewals for "Official portrait of Hawaii/Hawaiian territorial senate", Hawaii/Hawaiian territorial senate", or "Hawaii/Hawaiian Senate". Uploaded. Can you check the rationale?
2 -- For a collective work such as a newspaper, a single copyright notice on the collective work served as a notice on all contained works (except advertisements). Even if it was the wrong name, copyright would not be lost. For a syndicated column, I would particularly not put too much stock in a single newspaper's copyright or lack thereof. Being from 1965, that means that renewal was not required, so I would suspect that photo is under copyright until 2061. If you can show a version of the photo which was physically distributed without notice, that may be the only hope. But I wouldn't get hopes up.
This is good to know, so syndication in some ways frees me up, as it would not be a single newspaper that might hold a copyright. That being said, there is no notice of copyright on the photo nor any notice of who took the photograph in the 50+ copies of it I viewed, merely Anderson's byline on the story. So, it seems to me it is usable. Am I missing something?
checkY 3 -- Hm. Yeah, not really sure there. I'm sure candidates supplied photos. It's possible that the US government made sure to have portraits of all presidential candidates that got on ballots, but PD-US-no-notice is probably a safer bet.
I changed the licensing and just to be sure checked the 1972 catalogs which show no record of anything related to Patsy Mink being copyrighted. SusunW (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
checkY 4 -- Probably a bunch of reporters there taking photos from different angles. Always possible there was a USGov employee there as well, or a staffer. But it sounds like it was part of materials she had which was donated by her daughter -- it is annotated "Used with permission of Gwendolyn Mink" here. Would probably lean against using that one.
Okay, won't use it.
5 -- Lead image, hrm. It does seem as though a copy was in the papers donated by the daughter, but that would stand to reason if it was an official government portrait as well. Used on the house.gov site, which usually indicated it was PD one way or another... hm. *Probably* OK, but some fuzzy areas there. Not sure it's really enough to nominate for deletion.
Okay, well, I've updated my research on it and will try to find an e-mail for her daughter to see if she can give information on either of the options. If we are going to shoot for FA, I think we need to be as sure as we can be. Probably enough for GA nom, but I am leery about FA without more research.
checkY 6 -- It does say "Courtesy of the Library of Congress". You'd think they would mention a non-government photographer if they knew it. Not a slam dunk, but probably OK. You would think they would stick to PD-USGov works in such publications if they could.
I know, right? Frustrating that the government wouldn't make it clear. Maybe best bet is to stick with the 2002 image we are sure of.
checkY 7 -- Yep, don't see a copyright notice anywhere in the 1948 yearbook.
Yay!
8 -- 1954 Hmm... there only had to be a copyright notice somewhere in the newspaper (well, usually in the title page area, or publisher info). Can't see the whole thing so not sure. However, does not look like that newspaper was ever renewed. PD-US-not_renewed may be safer for that one.
I did check the masthead (p 1) and publisher info (p 2). Neither give any indication that the paper was copyrighted. I will change it if you think it needs to be changed, but in light of no notice for the paper, perhaps it is okay? SusunW (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:32, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
As always, your expertise Clindberg on photographs is so very helpful. I've cleared 4 of them. Can you advise on my comments on the other 4? SusunW (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
@SusunW: Whoops, completely forgot about this again.
1. Sure, that seems fine.
2. The lack of a copyright on the photo itself could be covered by a copyright notice elsewhere in the newspaper, which would preserve copyright. For a syndicated column appearing in many newspapers, it would probably have to be a substantial percentage of newspapers forgetting a copyright notice -- a relative few would not matter. And even with a large percentage it may not matter, since the notices were not forgotten by the actual copyright owner. Therefore my guess is that the lack of a copyright in the newspaper itself did not affect the copyright. If the photos were distributed as physical copies to the newspapers, and those physical copies had no copyright notice, that would probably make them public domain, but we'd need evidence of that. I suspect that most things were transmitted by wire though, and unsure that the lack of a copyright on a wire photo itself would lose copyright -- that was not a copy distributed by the copyright owner themselves either. So no, I would not use that photo based on the newspaper alone.
5. Yeah, not sure of your level of comfort with FA. Usually the stuff on house.gov is OK. That particular copy was in the papers donated by the daughter, but you would expect that copies of congressional PD-USGov portraits would be in their own papers, so there isn't really a reason that casts any doubt on PD-USGov either.
8. Well it's either PD-US-no_notice or PD-US-not_renewed. So PD either way :-) Seems fine the way it is; only thing would be if someone found a copyright notice we missed and then didn't stop to think about not-renewed also applying. But should be OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Clindberg. I figured you'd get around to it when you could. No worries. Okay so 1 and 8 are good. I won't use 2 and 5, is at least documented that it was indeed on her official website and stationery. I am not remotely comfortable with FA and Mink's daughter never responded to attempts to reach out to her to clarify that status. So if we decide to proceed that way, we'll wing it and see what happens. Very much appreciate your help. SusunW (talk) 14:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

FAC or GAC?

@SusunW and Ipigott: as we get closer to May and the Asian Pacific American Heritage Month, do either of you think this is close enough to nominate at FAC, GAC, or both? When we do nominate it, would it speed up the snail's pace on such reviews to ask at Women In Red for a review? — Maile (talk) 18:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Maile66 Based on the comments at GA review about limiting nominations, I was holding off on nominating her. As there is currently a drive to push reviews, and my backlog has been whittled down, I think I can probably nominate her on Monday. Still don't have all the photographs worked out, but I am trying, and have attempted contact with her daughter, Wendy. SusunW (talk) 18:46, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Patsy Mink/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 21:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)


I will probably copy edit as I go along. Shout if I mess anything up.

Thank you so much for picking this review up Gog the Mild. I promised Maile66 I'd try to get it done for Asian-Pacific American month in May and I really appreciate you helping me keep my promise. SusunW (talk) 16:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Some quick first thoughts:

  • "Mink was the first Asian-American woman to seek the presidential nomination of the Democratic Party in the 1972 election" Do you mean this, or should it read 'In the 1972 election Mink was the first Asian-American woman to seek the presidential nomination of the Democratic Party'?
I mean she was the first. It happened in 1972. Let me rephrase.  Done SusunW (talk) 16:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Link valedictorian. It is virtually unknown outside North America.
Really?  Done SusunW (talk) 16:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Well I have worked in young adult education for much of my live and could have told you that it is something to do with US education; but couldn't have even hazzarded a guess at a definition.
 Done SusunW (talk) 16:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Link "segregation" to Racial segregation. In fact have a run through putting more links in. That's three I am requesting and I am only half way through the first paragraph of the lead. (Eg, "civil rights" to Civil rights movement).
 Done SusunW (talk) 16:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
  • "When she was refused the right to take the bar examination (due to the loss of Hawaiian residency upon marriage), Mink challenged the sexist statute" Optional: I think this works better without the brackets.
 Done SusunW (talk) 16:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
  • "Mink's father helped her open her own practice and she became a member of the Democratic Party." It seems odd to link these two facts. (Without further explanation.
 Done (added date and "around the same time") SusunW (talk) 16:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
  • "she worked as an attorney for the Hawaiian territorial legislature in 1955 and the following year, ran for a seat..." Due t your North American style of comma use, this is ambiguous. Maybe 'she worked as an attorney for the Hawaiian territorial legislature in 1955; the following year, she ran for a seat... '?
 Done I just ended at "1955." and capitalized "The following year ..." SusunW (talk) 16:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
  • "the first woman to serve in the territorial Senate, when she won her campaign for the higher house." Optional: There is a strong element of redundancy in this, but it will do for GAN.
Yes, it's redundant, but still true. One woman in a sea of dudes. I love that photo! SusunW (talk) 16:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done — Maile (talk) 18:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
  • "She was the Assistant Secretary of State" I think this should have lower case initial letters. Ie, as "the president of Americans for Democratic Action has a lower case p.
US State Dept has it capitalized as it is in the article. I've removed the word "the", consistent with how it is in the body of the article. — Maile (talk) 18:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
That's not MoS compliant; but that aspect doesn't need to be for GA, so fine.
  • "Tateyama arrived in the Territory of Hawaii late in the century" Which Tateyama are we talking about?
 Done Added first name - it was her grandfather Gojiro.— Maile (talk) 19:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

To the end of Family background. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break in notes

  • Link bridge.
I love working with you, it always makes me laugh. I am like, bridge? link bridge? Then the light dawns that you mean the card game, as it is in the article.  Done SusunW (talk) 22:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
And that in turn made me giggle.
  • There doesn't seem to be a reason given as to why her residency was questioned. I get the feeling that an additional sentence is required between these two: "To practice law, Mink needed to pass her bar examination, but when she applied her residency was questioned. Proving that she had never resided in her husband's home state of Pennsylvania, she challenged the territorial law as sexist."
This one may be hard. It's that same crap that happened everywhere—upon marriage, women lost their citizenship. But since the US had amended the national law, states used marriage against women (like black codes were used against people of color) to keep them from full citizenship. Not sure I will be able to find a source, but I'll try. SusunW (talk) 22:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I think I covered it adequately, but please advise. SusunW (talk) 23:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
By "citizenship", do you mean national or state citizenship? (I have never heard of the latter concept, but it is the only thing that seems to make sense.)
Yes, except at the state level it is called "residency". These laws pre-Civil Rights Act, allowed states to prevent women from serving on juries, obtaining credit, managing their own health care (I once had to get permission for medical care from my grandfather, my dad was dead), voting, becoming licensed in professions, marrying, etc. Almost all civil rights in the U.S. depend on where you live and only become a federal matter if there is an Amendment to the Constitution or a Supreme Court ruling. SusunW (talk) 19:13, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  • "Passing the test, Mink became "the first Japanese-American woman licensed to practice law in Hawaii"." and "With the opening of her firm, Mink became the first Asian-American woman to practice law in the Hawaiian territory." Technically this is two different things, but it seems a lot of words for that nuance. (I had to read both twice before realising that they weren't identical.
Yes, being licensed doesn't mean she ever worked in the field. Lots of people obtain a license for whatever reason and work in another field. But, Asian-American is also a broader category than Japanese-American. Not sure you want me to do something about this or not? SusunW (talk) 23:56, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
No, that explanation of the apparent near duplication clears it up for me.
  • "She was elected "chairman of the territory-wide Young Democrats, a group that would wield a remarkable influence over Hawaiian politics for several decades"." The MoS says "The source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion" (emphasis in original).
 Done SusunW (talk) 23:56, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Not being employed: if the issue were sexism - no one was "willing to hire a married woman with a child." - why is "even those headed by Japanese Americans" relevant? (Yes, it's a rhetorical question.
 Done Removed "gender" as clearly there were multiple discriminating policies at play. SusunW (talk) 00:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  • "She authored a bill to grant "equal pay for equal work". Would adding 'for women' help? Assuming that that was the case.
 Done Added without regard to gender, and found a clipping to confirm. SusunW (talk) 00:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  • " Motions to restrict the civil rights platform made by North Carolina Senator Sam Ervin were defeated and it passed with the approval by two-thirds of the party." No mention has been made of what "it" refers to.
I added "platform to ensure equal rights and equal protection under the law to all citizens"  Done SusunW (talk) 00:29, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

To end of Family and early career. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

  • "was the first bill of its kind to pass both houses of Congress in 1971" Probably needs rephrasing, as I am sure that you don't mean what it literally says.
 Done Rephrased to 2 sentences. SusunW (talk) 16:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 Done SusunW (talk) 16:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  • "Frustrated by the roll-backs in the Nixon administration" Optional: "in" → 'by'.
 Done SusunW (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  • "Mink entered the presidential race in 1971" I think that most readers, certainly most non-Americans, would take this to mean that she ran for president, rather than that she ran for the position of her party's candidate.
 Done SusunW (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  • "failing to secure enough delegates to support her candidacy". Optional: It would be interesting to know how many delegates she got, out of what total.
 Done SusunW (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  • U.S. v US. Could you standardise?
 Done SusunW (talk) 17:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  • "The Public Reporter" Are you sure about the upper case T?
Yes, according to the source. Do you want me to italicize or put it in quotes? SusunW (talk) 17:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
No, I was just checking.
 Done SusunW (talk) 17:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Link state funeral.
 Done SusunW (talk) 17:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Note 1: how was this applicable? Was John Mink not a US citizen.
John Mink was a citizen (though ironically, Patsy attended university as a "foreigner"--she wasn't). I added it because introducing the whole question of women's citizenship, a reader might want more information. Simply referring to the Cable Act seemed inadequate, as though it passed in 1922, it didn't stop being amended until 1940 when U.S. women finally got federal citizenship in their own right. As seen in Mink's case, that didn't always grant them residency rights or state citizenship. SusunW (talk) 17:19, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
I suspect that my preconception that the US has always been roughly as civilized as the UK is tripping me up here. Women didn't even have independent national citizenship?!?!
Nope. No where in the world in the 1920s. Laws began to be passed in the late 1920s early 1930s. Britain did not give independent citizenship to married women until 1948 (or was it 1945?) and only then because Canada and some of the other rogue parts of the empire had done so, leaving women in parts of the UK with different citizenship status than those in others. (Ooooooh, {light dawns} quite like the U.S. federal system with states). SusunW (talk) 19:22, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
I was right, 1948 (Canada was 1945)[2]
  • Formatting of notes: Optional: "Notes" → 'Note'.
If it doesn't bother you over much, I'll leave it as is. At some point, another note might be added. SusunW (talk) 17:19, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:19, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

  • I am unable to access any of the photos sourced to the Library of Congress. Any ideas as to why?
No idea. (I had some evil thoughts about government that I won't write down :S) The ones I updated have links to archive.org so you may need to clear your cookies for that site? (I know for me, it bogs down and stops allowing me access over after 30 times) I was able to open them all. (I also guess you saw the detailed discussion on the talk page regarding the photos. There are others I'd like to use, but am unsure and don't know if Carl is around since the quarantine...)
  • Alt text for the infobox image?
Good catch. Admittedly, I didn't even notice that line had been omitted from the infobox. I have tried really hard to input this once you pointed it out to me, so cannot believe I missed it. Thanks! SusunW (talk) 19:06, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:25, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Whenever all that women's lib stuff was, I have long considered it a sad mistake. Right, "To practice law ... " You use "citizenship" in one sentence, and "residency" in the one before. I am not trying to be awkward, but I don't see that you actually stated what the impediment to her sitting the bar exam was. I assume that it was not because her US citizenship was questioned? But because her "state residency" had lapsed, or transferred, when she married. Yes? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I am sure that you did not mean what that says, as I have always known you to be in favor of equality (the grasshopper gets to correct the master ), but yes, all that crap that made liberation necessary was nonsense. Yes, the territorial law claimed she was no longer a resident of Hawaii because she married someone who lived in another state. I've added a sentence that hopefully clarifies. SusunW (talk) 20:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
My view is that sexual equality will be achieved when it is pried from the cold dead hand of the patriarchy. I don't advocate this much these days as it upsets my feminist acquaintances, who believe that one can somehow negotiate one's way to equality. A triumph of hope over experience. Whatever, to business.
My view is exactly the same as your first sentence. Negotiation has been mostly futile. SusunW (talk) 21:44, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  • A lot of what you have is very interesting, but not - I think - relevant to why she couldn't sit her bar exam. So: I suggest removing "By 1940, married women in the United States were allowed to keep their own citizenship upon marriage; however, until the 1960s, legislative variations among the states, led to extremely different rights for women within the federal system depending upon their residency." And changing "The territorial law on married women had removed" to 'The territorial law of the time regarding married women had removed'. Notes 1 goes too. Or something along these lines; I'm sure you get the idea.
I disagree, as the whole point is that she fought both racial and gender discrimination in her era. I think the average reader probably would want to know why her residency was even questioned. I've modified it to make the whole citizenship/residency explanation a shorter note and edited the sentence in the text. Does that work? SusunW (talk) 21:44, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
That works fine. Good work as usual. I assume that this one is headed for FAC in short order? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:44, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
That was kind of the plan and then the whole virus thing derailed the picture part and I am just not sure if we have enough time to have a peer review and a FA review May. At least with the GA promotion, Maile66 can do her thing with DYK. As always, I am very, very appreciative of your review. I love how you always improve the article with your questions while at the same time make me laugh. Thank you so very much Gog the Mild. Can you note the check of CV? I get that it's probably really late there so if you need to wait til tomorrow, no rush. SusunW (talk) 22:49, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Nb. Copy vio has been checked, and checked, but the template above is buggy. This article has been promoted to GA because of its manifest excellence. Or do I mean destiny? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Patsy_Mink/Archive_1&oldid=1088994646"