Talk:Patsy Mink/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.

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
Substituted at 02:23, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20071220074252/http://www.democrats.org/a/2007/05/patsy_takemoto.php to http://www.democrats.org/a/2007/05/patsy_takemoto.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130609013747/http://wiwomensnetwork.org/resources/publications/houstonarticles to http://wiwomensnetwork.org/resources/publications/houstonarticles
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040917075309/http://www.now.org/history/patsymink.html to http://www.now.org/history/patsymink.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) 00:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Photographs
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  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 ?
 * 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, 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. Neither show any photo credits in any of the 50+ articles/campaign ads reviewed which used these images.

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


 * 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?
 * 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)
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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 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)


 * 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 . 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?
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)
 * 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)