Jump to content

Talk:Ruth Cupp

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured article candidateRuth Cupp is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Good articleRuth Cupp has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 11, 2021Good article nomineeListed
March 21, 2021Featured article candidateNot promoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on December 16, 2020.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Ruth Williams Cupp, the first woman admitted to the Charleston County Bar Association in 1954, was still barred by law from serving on juries, like all women in South Carolina until 1967?
Current status: Former featured article candidate, current good article


Infobox

[edit]

Template:Infobox officeholder should be incorporated into the infobox. Yoninah (talk) 19:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this has been done but let me know if I am mistaken. Remember (talk) 02:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image

[edit]

The subject has been deceased since 2016. How could she give permission for the image? It's not at all certain that this image can be licensed as public domain. Yoninah (talk) 20:01, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know the family of the deceased. How do I show the image is allowed? Remember (talk) 20:07, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is not whether the family permits it, but whether the photographer permits it. If the photographer has been dead for 70 years, I think, it becomes public domain. You could ask our helpful image editor, GRuban, for advice. Yoninah (talk) 20:12, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, Wikipedia:Image use policy has lots of details, but the point is that images we use here have to be reusable and modifiable by everyone, like the rest of the Wikipedia. (See the Terms of Use at the bottom of every page, or more specifically for images, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing) In general, the copyright to a photograph is held by the photographer, but there are exceptions, as below. So: where did this specific image come from? I can see two possibilities:
  1. If it's an image from a magazine or a newspaper, then copyright was probably held by the magazine or newspaper (due to employing the photographer), and unless that lapsed we'd need them to release it under a free license. Lapsed means that some works that were created and published before 1978 could go into the public domain if they weren't marked by a copyright statement when published or if their copyright wasn't renewed properly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_States#Works_created_before_1978 has the details. From reading the article, this could well be an image made before 1978, so that's a possibility. If you can find where the image was previously published, and can show it, that might be enough, we'd then put the details of why it is free on the image page.
  2. If it's a personal image, taken by a family member, never published, then you could ask that family member to release it. This looks like a professionally taken and posed image, though. Was a family member a professional photographer? You can ask the family if they have the terms under which it was taken, or know of them: sometimes a hired professional photographer will give the copyright to the subject, sometimes they won't (and will use those images for advertising their studio). If the family believes they own the copyright, they need to write an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org that explains how they own the rights and that they are releasing them under a free license. It could say something like "I'm Jane Smith, heir of Ruth Williams Cupp. The image now at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Picture_of_Ruth_Cupp.jpeg was taken by Bob Jones Studios of Kalamazoo, Washington on February 30th, 1987, and the copyright was assigned to Ruth Williams Cupp. I inherited the copyright upon her death, and release the picture under the license at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ allowing anyone to reuse and modify it under those terms." There are more details at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS#Licensing_images:_when_do_I_contact_OTRS? The "OTRS" people at permissions-commons might write back to confirm some details, so do check the email address this is sent from.
Good luck! --GRuban (talk) 20:48, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Heh - I notice you got this advice, in much shorter form at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_170#Help_for_DYK - this is basically what "document where the photo was released into the PD with Wikipedia:OTRS" means! --GRuban (talk) 21:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you!!! That was all very helpful!!! Remember (talk) 18:56, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Amkgp (talk) 11:45, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Poster for Ruth Williams Cupp
Poster for Ruth Williams Cupp
  • ... that Ruth Williams Cupp was the first woman admitted to the Charleston County Bar Association and served in the South Carolina House of Representatives as the only woman at the time. Source: [1] ("When Ruth took office in 1963 she was the House’s only female....I was the first female to attend the Charleston County Bar.").
    • ... ALT1:that Ruth Williams Cupp lost her bid for re-election in 1964 in part for supporting Lyndon Johnson? Source: [2] ("Ruth lost her bid for re-election in 1964 for a variety of reasons, including her involvement in Lyndon Johnson’s presidential campaign").

Created/expanded by Remember (talk). Self-nominated at 19:00, 11 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I am working on it. Been busy with personal matters but will get to it shortly. Remember (talk) 20:56, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So the info on this picture is that it was bought and paid for by Ruth Cupp herself. She had professional pictures taken of her back in the day (like glamour shots). And now those that manage her estate had this picture. I can have them write an email to that effect. Is that what should be done? Remember (talk) 02:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright of photographs generally belongs to the photographer/agency unless contractually stated otherwise. If the Cupp estate now owns copyright, they will need to provide clear evidence of permission. Please see Commons:OTRS, especially the section If you are NOT the copyright holder. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added different images. Remember (talk) 16:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the image licensing was sorted out by deleting the original image and adding a new one. But discussion is still taking place on the article talk page about article improvements. Yoninah (talk) 21:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just general suggestions based on a request on my page to make comments about the article. I can hold off on any more until after the DYK if it's helpful. I'm not trying to get in the way of that and don't see why my comments should be a barrier.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. Ready for full review. Yoninah (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall:

1. Yet to review the whole thing, but Remember, have you done a QPQ yet?

I haven't reviewed another DYK. I am happy to if that is what should be done. I have never done one before so I'm afraid of screwing it up but happy to give it a try. Any suggestions on how to start?Remember (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Working on St. Michael, Kaubenheim. Remember (talk) 13:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2. Not seeing Alice Ruth Williams and Patsy Hughes Mizell being mentioned. Moultrie source says Patsy Williams Mizell?

Added source for patsy full name and further information on her from obit. Remember (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Does this count as a source for the name Alice?Remember (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am afraid that editors consider Legacy.com [3] or Ancestry.com [4] unreliable. starship.paint (talk) 12:35, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Revised until I can find a source to support Alice as first name.Remember (talk) 20:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3. Not seeing majored in social work in Winthrop Magazine. I saw it in Moultrie, but I think Winthrop Magazine is a better source for this claim? Social work isn't sociology or political science.

I agree that Winthrop is a better source. Revised. Remember (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

4. after passage of the Civil Rights Act - not in the source, is this significant to Cupp?

Politicians in the south that supported LBJ after the 1964 Civil Rights Act got wiped out in general. I believe that is what the source I was cited was referring to. But I can remove the Civil Rights Act claim because the source doesn't spell it out. Remember (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Revised.Remember (talk) 20:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is interesting, unfortunately, our article text still goes beyond the source (her involvement in Lyndon Johnson’s presidential campaign). It would be best if you could find another source. starship.paint (talk) 12:51, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. I have revised the text. I'll try to find a source to support the other claim. Remember (talk) 20:21, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

5. I don't think the history of Winthrop College is needed in this article.

I am happy to remove. I added it because I thought a previous editor wanted more information on this. Remember (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Revised. Remember (talk) 20:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

6. Source for 1968 to 1972?

I'll check on this when I get a chance. Remember (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I found it before, but can't seem to find right now so revised. Remember (talk) 20:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

7. Source for In the forward to the book, Cupp states: "While I was not born here, my heart and soul were".

I'll check on this when I get a chance. Remember (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)\[reply]
Added source.Remember (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

8. Source that the legislative terms began in January and ended in December, for the infobox? Or remove the dates?

I'll check on this when I get a chance. Remember (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removed dates.Remember (talk) 20:31, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

9. Definitely work more on paraphrasing, there's too much that follows the sources. I've done some more of that for you. starship.paint (talk) 12:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will work on that. Remember (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I did all the things requested. Let me know how best to meet the needs of QPQ. Also, I was able to get a copy of Portia Steps Up to the Bar. I was planning on adding information from the book into the article but I don't want that to mess up the DYK. Any suggestions on whether to add the information or hold off? Remember (talk) 20:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd add stuff and not worry about that. For the quid pro quo, see WP:QPQ.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I will add stuff and then try my hand at QPQ! Remember (talk) 22:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Remember: - please address 2 and 4, above. Thanks! starship.paint (talk) 12:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I also added new information from her book to the article. Remember (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Remember: - right, the article is ready except for the QPQ (review of someone else's DYK). For the offline references, the content is accepted in good faith. starship.paint (talk) 04:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! I have taken on the task of reviewing St. Michael, Kaubenheim. I don't know what needs to be completed in order for me to check that box but I am starting to review now. Remember (talk) 13:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's a review, so all done. starship.paint (talk) 14:33, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- good to go with main hook. starship.paint (talk) 14:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How do I make sure this runs on December 16? Remember (talk) 15:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved this to the special occasions holding area for December 16. However, I find that ALT0 hits you between the eyes with "first woman" and I think you should try for something more interesting to the other half of the human race. Here is a suggestion, although any other hook angle could be suggested:

I prefer mine. But to give some new suggestions how about the following:

If we need to add another source besides Cupp's own book, here is a source on South Carolina and female juries - State article. Remember (talk) 20:47, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Added the new source since I thought that might be needed. Remember (talk) 22:06, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I’ll review but not immediately. starship.paint (talk) 00:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Poster

[edit]

When was this poster made? A photographic reproduction of a two dimensional object does not create a new copyright, and if the poster dates from before 1978 (possibly later) it is PD if no copyright notice appears on it. It would take this tag--Wehwalt (talk) 19:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Poster was made in the 1960s. Remember (talk) 19:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there was a copyright notice on it, and I don't see one, it's PD then.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:51, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments

[edit]
I agree. I seem to be at a loss for sources though. Don't know if you have any recommendations on where to find more information. Remember (talk) 21:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might make it clearer that Winthrop, established by the legislature as the state school for women, needed the legislature's permission to become co-educational. Or so I surmise from what you say here and my research on Ben Tillman.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. Remember (talk) 21:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Remember (talk) 18:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

coi notice

[edit]

Hey, Wehwalt, I'd prefer to keep the COI disclosure here? I think such notices are helpful for future editors. —valereee (talk) 20:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel knowing the family is a COI.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:07, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with it. I know them pretty well. Given that the issue is resolved, I am happy to state it and move on. Remember (talk) 22:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Name

[edit]

The article should use "Williams" to refer to the period before she changed her name. See MOS:CHANGEDNAME. It seems to me that she might be better known under "Williams" than "Cupp". (t · c) buidhe 00:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping out. Looking at the sources it seems she is best known as Cupp. I have made edits such that we now use Williams up to the year she married and then switch to Cupp, and I pushed the marriage up in the article. This seems better than what we had before, even though that was modelled on the FA Constance Stokes. What is different here is that the namechange happened later in life. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Motorola satelite 2601:447:C802:2820:9946:887D:4019:EE14 (talk) 01:30, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ruth_Cupp&oldid=1253788054"