Talk:Mildred Loving

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

[edit] Article title

I have edited Mildred and Richard Loving and Richard Loving to redirect to here, instead of Loving v Virginia. However, it seems to me that it might be better to title this article Mildred and Richard Loving, with a redirect from here to there instead. The change would only require a slight rewording of the opening, as near as I can tell. I don't know how to change a page title, though.--Ramsey2006 (talk) 17:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It's an interesting idea, having a biographical article about two people at the same time. Are there other examples you can point me to? All the famous couples who did their work together that I can think of each have individual articles. It seems to be the encyclopedia standard. Furthermore, Mildred is the one who filed the case, so far as I can see. She went on to make statements in 2007 that her husband, dead least last 30 years, had no part of. I believe she is an historical figure and symbol both with her husband and on her own, and deserves her own page. Netmouse (talk) 17:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

if he wasn't party to the case, why is the first citation I foumd with a search "RICHARD PERRY LOVING et ux., Appellants, v. VIRGINIA 388 US 1, 18 L ed 2d 1010, 87 S Ct 1817, Argued April 10, 1967. Decided June 12, 1967."?? My guess is the fact that only Mildred has available for interviews for the past three decades has created the impression that she was the only one who cared about the matter. I find a number of references to a Life magazine article that quote him, and another to an Ebony article, and comments suggesting his wife didn't like giving interviews. I wonder if he had lived longer he wouldn't be the one best known as the one speaking for the Lovings. If someone dies before the internet, do they matter to history as recorded on the net? Mulp (talk) 00:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

and to give a very specific example, I point to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenbergs Mulp (talk) 03:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

that's a good example. And I should have said Mildred initiated the follow-up, because they were both defendants in the legal case but from what I've seen she wrote to the attorney general about it. I certainly don't mean to demean Richard's role in things, though I would expect having the man's name lead the legal case ledger was (and still is to an extent) simply standard practice. We can wonder what Richard might have said had he lived, but the history that actually exists is that she lived and became a noted historic figure later in her life. We shouldn't not document that just because it is an artifact of the short memory of society. It's true that I couldn't think of a really good category for her though, because African-American rights activist suggests she was more political than she was. Netmouse (talk) 16:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter to me one way or the other. All three wikipedia pages now point here. As long as is is aparently not inconsistent with wikipedia practice, given the Rosenburgs article, I really can't imagine a circumstance where any of the three articles gets split off from the other two, since they would all be likely to contain exactly the same information, anyway. --Ramsey2006 (talk) 02:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: taking out the "Matriarch of mixed marriages" quote, it has been used in multiple headlines, from different sources, so there certainly is no lie in saying that she has been called that. I believe the text of one article also referred to her that way. Now the article is missing a clear lead-in that states why it is of historical/general interest. I'm not one to get into an "undo" revision war with someone, but I disagree with your decision, there, Ramsey2006. Netmouse (talk) 17:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The phrase did certainly appear in quite alot of headlines, but as near as I could tell from a google search at the time, they all seemed to stem from a single AP story after her death. I would certainly be interested in seeing even a single use of the phrase prior to her death. I've seen several stories about the Lovings over the years, and I can't recall a phrase even resembling that one ever being used while she was alive. It may very well be that going in to the future the decision of one AP editor may result in the phrase becoming unalterably and routinely associated with her, but I think that we should wait until that happens. Multiple news outlets running with the same AP headline on the same AP story on the same day does not to me qualify as a reason to use it in the opening sentence of this article. It does, however, make it quite difficult to find any other prior uses of the phrase using google should they exist, unfortunately. --Ramsey2006 (talk) 01:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Photo Needed

While it is a good start, this article could really use a photograph. No doubt it had one at some point only to be removed by the "freedom" extremists. I suggest, now that she is dead, that a case can be made for a fair-use image. --Dragon695 (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I added a photo. --Ramsey2006 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)