Talk:The Ladder (magazine)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Question

Out of interest - how often was 'The Ladder' produced? Weekly? Monthly? Quarterly? Thanks for this help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.219.251 (talk • contribs) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celithemis (talk) 14:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The Ladder May 1966.jpg

Image:The Ladder May 1966.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Gittings's departure, and copyright status of the magazine

Great expansion. There's a lot of stuff here that I hadn't known and was interested to read. One question, though:

Differences in the direction of politics became evident, and Gittings was ousted as the editor after removing "For Adults Only" on the front cover neglecting to consult the Daughters of Bilitis.[5] Although another source says Gittings was ousted for getting an issue out late just prior to the national convention. [6]

This gives more credence to an Afterellen article (which doesn't explain where it gets its information) than to the Journal of Homosexuality paper. I don't have online access to J. Homosex. so I haven't read that paper yet, but is there a reason Afterellen is more credible here? And are the stories even really incompatible? Afterellen just says that removing "adults only" was one of a series of disputes, not necessarily the triggering event.

Also:

Del Martin and Phyllis Lyons still continue to hold the copyrights for all issues of The Ladder.

I don't think this can be true. I checked the Library of Congress copyright renewal database and didn't find anything for The Ladder, so at least the issues through 1963 have fallen into the public domain. —Celithemis 22:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

As for the the copyright issue, I found out that I have access to an incredible amount of academic writings while I'm at work (work at a university), which allowed me to be able to view all these articles from The Ladder. I pulled up the articles one by one and every single one has an attached page behind it saying: "Copyright of Ladder is the property of Phyllis Lyon & Del Martin and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use." (Realizing I just copied that to a site - I hope that doesn't include the copyright notice...)

As for the exact reason why Barbara Gittings was ousted, I think both sources are probably reporting as truthfully as they can. Just like the vastly different perspectives on the stealing vs. saving the subscription list, both articles probably asked folks who thought they were "in the know" (as if we can tell if they were or not). There was probably conjecture, assumptions, and gossip and this is what came of it.

I hadn't actually seen a copy of The Ladder until I was able to pull it up on my computer at my desk. What a wonderful surprise! So I spent half a day reading every article from 1956-1963, another day reading everything to 1969. It's like getting a time lapse vision of group dynamics from 15 years to 24 hours. I was tired and a little sad at the end. I mean, I understand why it imploded and folded. It started with such earnest intention and was probably a beacon of hope for many women. Barbara Grier, I think, said some women worked themselves to exhaustion and illness for the magazine. Thanks, Celithemis Moni3 00:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Moni3

Claiming copyright on public domain works is very common in databases -- more the rule than the exception in my experience. ProQuest's New York Times database, for example, tags every page with a warning that it's not to be reproduced without permission of the copyright holder, even issues whose copyright has long since expired. It's like putting up a "beware of dog" sign when you don't have a dog, I guess. Given when and where those early issues were published, if the copyrights were not renewed they're public domain, though there might be individual articles that are in copyright for whatever reason. I don't think we should say in the article that anything is public domain -- we're not supposed to give legal advice -- but we shouldn't say it is in copyright either.

(That copyright notice, on the other hand, was probably written recently and is still in copyright, so you're totally in all kinds of trouble now, I'm sure.)

As for Gittings's departure, I'm sure there must be at least two sides to it and probably many more. My concern is that the current wording says "the cause was X, although another source says it was Y" -- asserting one story while merely attributing the other. They should at least be put on equal footing.

Being able to pull up a full archive of The Ladder from your desk is very cool. I had no idea they had all been digitized. I had a chance to read one of the bound volumes once, but that was a long time ago. —Celithemis 02:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Bib/Ref

The bibliography should be merged with the references. jj137^Talk 20:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Since I don't really know what facts came from which books in the bibliography section, I changed it to "Further reading". However, if a previous editor knows and can clarify those citations, that would be excellent. Now I have to get all those books and read them... --Moni3 20:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Moni3

Quotes

Quotes are supposed to be cited directly after the quote, not a sentence or two later. This article has several quotes where that is not the case and there is no citation directly after the quote. Loopy48 (talk) 16:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Not really. Citations should appear at the end of a passage cited to a specific source. It's convenient to cite at the end of quotes and statistics, but ugly, unnecessary, and distracting when three sentences in a row have the same number following each period. If there are examples that are unclear in this article, point out which ones. --Moni3 (talk) 16:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)