Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:12, 2 October 2013

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the politics and government work group. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Chicago Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. U.S. Congress Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is about one (or many) Person(s). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Minnesota Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Minnesota on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MinnesotaWikipedia:WikiProject MinnesotaTemplate:WikiProject MinnesotaMinnesota Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Slovenia Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Slovenia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Slovenia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SloveniaWikipedia:WikiProject SloveniaTemplate:WikiProject SloveniaSlovenia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Slovenia to-do list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks you can do (watch): Requests: , Protestant Reformation in the Slovene Lands (sl), Metlika black (sl) Wikify: Russia–Slovenia relations Unreferenced: Inner Carniola, Litostroj, Pavel Golia, Predjama Castle Cleanup: Edvard Ravnikar, Škofja Loka, Inex-Adria Aviopromet Flight 1308 Expand: Education in Slovenia Stubs: Ajdovi žganci, Čop Street, Radenska NPOV: Gregorij Rožman, Siddharta (band) Portal maintenance: Update News, Did you know, announcements, and suggest Selected article and picture Help assess the quality of 36 unassessed articles Take/Add requested photographs

Template:Minnesota Portal Selected Biography

Untitled

Why is she listed as the senior senator before the result of the election is known? If Norm Coleman hangs on to his seat, she will remain the Junior Senator. Changing her to Senior already is premature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.58.41 (talk) 01:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Is Miss Klobuchar's name pronounced "Klo-bu-CAR" or "Klo-bu-CHAR"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.151.243.8 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 28 January 2006.

This article might help: http://www.timberjay.com/current.php?article=2124

Vic Troy 07:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The latter. This surname is most probably Slavic, more specifically Croatian. The word klobučar means "hatmaker" (from klobuk meaning "hat", "cap"). --Joy 22:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Klo-long "O"; Bu-boo; Char-shar Jakeschneider220 04:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• -shar

Somebody please help with the image

This image: Image:94653840-M.jpg

Appeared in the article at full size. Would someone please put it back at a reasonable size - 150 to 200 pixels in width? Thanks! --AStanhope 17:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Done. Misplaced Pages:Image says that px is deprecated, so I set it to 'thumb.'--Bltpdx 18:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

There's no reason to use a fair use image when a suitable free one exists. Jonathunder 18:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

This image of Klobuchar is horrible, can't we get a better one? --Sterichinderance 21:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Yeh, she doesn't look very Senatorial. Kinda cute, though, in a geeky sort of way. Wahkeenah 00:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The pic is great. There will probably be an official photo once she's sworn in, and I'll be sad to see this one go. 67.117.130.181 05:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Download it and make it your PC's wallpaper, like I just did. Wahkeenah 13:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    • USAToday has this one of Amy in "train"ing. Wahkeenah 20:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I replaced the old picture with one from Hennepin County Attorney's Office, photos for other politicians in Misplaced Pages are usually formal close-ups, thus my motivation.is to provide better sources,--Wowaconia 03:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Sehr gut. Wahkeenah 04:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• It is a more formal-looking picture, but I'm concerned about the copyright. Wowaconia uploaded it today and listed it as being the work of the U.S. government. If it came from the Hennepin County Attorney's Office, I doubt if it's a work of the U.S. government. Please document exactly where it came from and who owns it. Misplaced Pages photos should be in the public domain unless getting one would be impossible (which isn't true for Klobuchar). Appraiser 04:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The photo I had posted was a promotional work by the Hennepin County Attorney's Office and should have been noted with the tag {{Promotional}} as that would be in accord with fair use. The photo is made available to all doing stories on Hennepin County Attorney's Office and therefor is obviously promotional tagging it as a Federal work was an error on my part, but the tag should've just been changed as it was always noted to be the work of the Hennepin County Attorney's Office. See the wiki-standard on http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Fair_use#Promotional_material For an example of the acceptability of this type of fair use see the wiki-images on Mike Hatch and Matt Entenza. Luckily a new photo of Amy will be made when she takes office. This one is less than flattering. Still wiki-standards call for free photos to take precedent over fair use.--Wowaconia 20:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Senatorial succession box consistency

None of the other senators=elect have a succession box, since none of them have succeeded to that office. Please see Jim Webb for discussion, as well as an admin posting on my talk page, referencing "Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball." I'm removing this for the sake of consistency and in line with the admonitions I received in this regard. Fishhead64 22:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Photo

OK, in order to avoid a revert war, I have sent a note to the Senator's e-mail address asking for permission to use a photo in place of that snapshot someone posted. Wahkeenah 05:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• I never heard back, but it looks like it's moot. Wahkeenah 00:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Hello, I called the office. A new official portrait will be downloadable likely as soon as tomorrow. Please use it and not the snapshot. -Susanlesch 17:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Barbara Boxer pic image:AMYBOXER.jpg

That doesn't look like Barbara Boxer on the left. Are you sure it's her? The pic also has copyright issues. 67.117.130.181 00:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• It kind of does, it's just not a very good shot... looks like she's chewing on something. However, its source remains murky, as you suggest. Wahkeenah 01:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Photo provided by Senate Website is US property by transfer

Her picture provided by the United States Senate could not appear there if the rights where not transfered to the Federal Government - as this would be a civil crime. For her picture to appear on her Senate website she was required to surrender the rights to the United States Federal Government. Therefor by transfer it becomes the property of the United States Government and as such fall under Title 17, Chapter 1, sub-section 105.--Wowaconia 19:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that "surrendered to" the govt. = "created by" the govt? I am not a lawyer, so I don't know definitively whether these are the same thing, but in non-legal English they aren't quite the same. In December, you said you should have tagged it as "promotional". Which is it?--Appraiser 19:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

First the question is who owns the rights. By transferring these rights to the US Senate she has surrendered any claims in a civil court to fiscally profit from the work. It is solely a question of who is the copyright holder not one of who originally produced the work. If Melinda Gates takes a photo of Bill, she is the copyright holder, if she gives it to Microsoft and they use it she has transferred her rights to them and if Misplaced Pages used it even with Melinda's permission we would get sued by the Copyright holder Microsoft. If you look at the 9/11 page you will see the shot of a cab with a light pole ontop of it, if you click on the picture it will tell you this was taken by a Marine, but he even as he took the photo he was not the copyright holder as he was doing so in his official capacities, so the issue is not who originally took the photo but who owns the rights.

• Second, this is not the same promotional photo that was produced by Hennepin County that I posted earlier as she was wearing red in that photo and it was taken in an indoor studio. In this Senate photo she is wearing blue and it was taken outside.

As promotional photos are by wiki-standards to be replaced by free photos the red dress photo was rightly replaced by the photo taken by an wiki-editor of her in green. As the rights to the photo of her in blue were transferred to the US Gov. this photo in accord with Title 17 is a free photo and as it uses the customary headshot it is preferrable to the previous free picture for use in the infobox.

--Wowaconia 20:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

If you go to the very bottom of her Senate website and click on “Usage Policy” you will be linked to a page that includes the following Senate guideline: (Emphasis added) “4. It is the responsibility of each Senator, Committee Chairman (on behalf of the committee), Officer of the Senate, or office head to oversee the use of the Internet Services by his or her office and to ensure that the use of the services is consistent with the requirements established by this policy and applicable laws and regulations. ”

If someone other than the United States Senate has the copyright to this photo than its publication is an infringement of the copyright protected under title 17, United States Code. Therefor to suggest that Klobuchar or someone else maintains copyright of this work is to accuse her of breaking Senate rules. If you go to the bottom of her Senate website and click on “Content Responsibility” you will see that compliance with the rules is overseen by Secretary of the Senate, as it states “The information on this Web site is compiled under the authority and direction of the Secretary of the Senate, Washington, DC 20510.”

--Wowaconia 21:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Nothing in that section says every photo on the website is public domain but merely that it was not used improperly. Jonathunder 21:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

If you go to her Senate web-page at the very bottom click on “Privacy Policy” you will find: “2. Information presented on this site is considered public information and may be distributed or copied unless otherwise specified. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is requested.”

--Wowaconia 21:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

A note that the information on a website is "public information" is not at all the same as saying the copyright to an image is in the public domain. Jonathunder 23:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Misplaced Pages needs explicit definition of the copyright, not guesses or suggestions. If Klobuchar office puts copyrighted material on her page against the law Misplaced Pages shouldn't just follow suit relying on the fact that the material "shouldn't" be there. My suggestion would be to email the Klobuchar office and have them clarify which license the photo is under, have them be very specific. -Ravedave 23:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Expand

Hello. Added an expand tag under Career as I ran out of time at the moment. Needs information much of which may be in the Senate bio or at About.com (linked under References now). -Susanlesch 06:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Preempt: Seniority

Before anyone gets their knickers in a twist about Klobuchar's status as senior Senator: Even if Coleman wins the lawsuit and it turns out that he won the election, Klobuchar will remain senior Senator for Minnesota because, upon the swearing-in of the 111th Congress, Coleman's term expired. There will thus have been a break in his term (the seat being vacant from 6 January to whenever the seat is filled) and he will be in the confusing position of being the junior Senator despite no person filling the seat between his last term and his new one. A similar thing happened to Frank Lautenberg (who was junior Senator to Jon Corzine after Lautenberg decided to return to the Senate but before Corzine ran for Governor), though the circumstances were different (Lautenberg took a different Senate seat, and Corzine still held Lautenberg's old seat), but let's not get into that, shall we? Of course, considering that Franken is probably going to win anyway, this whole section will probably be moot, but it's important to have just in case. Lockesdonkey (talk) 06:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Aside from the procedural fact that she WILL BE the senior senator, regardless of the outcome of the recount battle, is it proper to call her the Senior senator for the period of time in which she is the only Senator? Senior is a comparative adjective in this context, and there's no one for her to be compared to. Just as a name can't have "senior" affixed to it until the next person of that same name comes along (i.e. Joseph Patrick Kennedy could not have gone by Joseph Kennedy, Sr. before Joe, Jr. was born;), I don't know that someone can be a Senior without the presence of a Junior. Pedantic, I know. But just a question/thought. Ajgwm10 (talk) 15:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

S.978

This bill strengthens US Copyright law making it illegal for users of popular services like YouTube to lip sync songs and post them on the internet as well as streaming videos of video games such as "Let's Play" videos.

No, it doesn't do that explicitly. The wording of the bill is vague enough to cover that but only if the material is actually not allowed. Let's Plays like Minecraft will still be up even if the bill is passed because the developers explicitly allows videos. The bill is like an extension to DMCA, giving copyright holders more authority over their materials, not forbid people from uploading allowable materials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.79.230 (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the paragraph as written was very slanted and likely violated Misplaced Pages requirements for neutral point of view. However, how we as Wikipedian's interpret of a bill's intent is immaterial. We should only care about what can be supported by reliable sources in order to maintain that neutrality. The source you deleted did indeed support the statement about You Tube and lipsyncing, even if you disagree with that interpretation.

Having said that, I have deleted the entire section on S. 978, since it fails the test for notability. The source article never mentioned her by name or said why her sponsorship was notable. The fact that a senator intorduce a bill is not enough by itself to establish notability. If another editor comes along and find sufficient evidence of notability beyond just one article or her sponsorship, then it could be added back in and edited accordingly to maintain neutrality.DCmacnut<> 21:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

"Controversy" section

• In 2006, John Hinderaker of the Powerline blog reported that the Minneapolis Star-Tribune had made a front-page story out of GOP Congressional candidate Alan Fine's 1995 arrest, which had been expunged from the record. Hinderaker theorized that “Klobuchar or one of her aides” had leaked the information to the newspaper: “If so, was a crime committed? We know that the Klobuchar campaign has already been involved in one dirty trick, which resulted in her communications director being referred to the FBI for possible criminal prosecution. Is this another instance where the Klobuchar campaign may be involved in criminal activity?”

• In October 2011 an Alternet article strongly criticized Klobuchar's introduction of SB 798, the “illegal streaming bill”, noting that such a law could be used to legitimize prosecution of people uploading YouTube videos. “Enactment of this law could affect the millions of unknown, non-professional musicians who film themselves singing, say, John Lennon or Rihanna songs from their bedrooms.”

1. Hinderaker, John. "Sucker-punch". Powerline.
2. "New Bill". Alternet. 31 October 2011.

Are Alternet and the Power Line blog sufficient sources for negative material in a BLP? Alternet was discussed at WP:RSN last year: Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 86#Alternet, but I can't find a discussion of Power Line. However blogs are usually disallowed in BLPs.   Will Beback  talk  00:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey Will. Thanks for starting this. Here is what I have to say about both sources:

• The Alternet mention just states that they criticize her and goes on to talk about what the bill has potential to do. It doesn't seem like there are any grounds to remove it from the article. It says that it could be used to legitimize prosecuting people uploading YouTube videos, which is true. Because it just mentions that they criticize her (not necessarily going into their criticism) then states which policy they didn't like I would say it is perfectly acceptable. The thread on it looks like it could be used in BLP if used correctly.
• We should be examining the legitimacy of the writer and the content for Powerline. Hinderaker is a reputable author (see his bio). WP policy does allow sources like this but when they are opinion pieces like this it should be mentioned. It is noted as such and there isn't anything saying that Klobuchar is guilty. Seems like the situation is worth a mention at least. Coralshin (talk) 07:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Speculation from a blogger insinuating that the Senator committed a crime doesn't belong in a BLP. S.978 is already mentioned in the article and doesn't need to be in there twice. Gobōnobo 19:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Additions by Coralshin

I've reverted some additions made by Coralshin that struck me as possible violations of WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. Partisan sources such as Minnesota GOP's amyfacts.com and press releases from the National Republican Senatorial Committee have questionable reliability as sources in a political biography. The bits on S.510 and criticism over wanting to take wolves off the endangered species list seem indiscriminate and undue. Gobōnobo 18:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to let you know that being you did'nt vote to stop Obama care my insurance will be going up $200.00 a month more than I can afford as I live on social Security. My check is $740.00 and now my insurance will be $572.00 and you require me to carry insurance can you live on less than $200.00. Sharon Haugen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.46.101.217 (talk) 20:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Medical Device Tax

Currently this article includes the following statement: "In December 2012, Klobuchar advocated to "repeal or reduce" the tax on medical devices included in the Affordable Care Act, as it would be harmful to businesses in her state." This seems like reasonable context for adding her recent vote to remove the amendment repealing the Tax from the government funding bill.CFredkin (talk) 21:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Just like almost all of your edits, you cannot use original research to make additions to articles. Especially articles that concern living persons. It is not up to you to search through Senate archives and insert your own point of view. You really need to start reading the links other editors direct you to, instead of just deleting them. Rest assured, if you keep this up, it will lead you into not being able to edit Misplaced Pages. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 21:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Um, how exactly is this post original research? It appears that YOU need to read the link.CFredkin (talk) 21:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC) Perhaps you could restrict your contributions to the subject, instead of engaging in personal attacks....CFredkin (talk) 21:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

It is a matter of original research. You are combining two primary sources into the same paragraph for the purposes of making a point. That is WP:SYNTH, pure and simple. If this really is a significant aspect of her voting history, find a weighty, non-primary source making that connection, otherwise it's just POV pushing nonsense. Grayfell (talk) 22:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

First it "lacked context", then it was original research, now it's WP:SYNTH. I wish you guys would get your story straight. Ok, I've added another source for good measure.CFredkin (talk) 22:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

We don't have "stories", they are Misplaced Pages guidelines. The last effort was closer, but the medical device industry website isn't a reliable source for this type of inclusion. Although something like that from an outlet like the Washington Post or such would be a good start. Next is to propose the edit here and gain consensus for your addition. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 22:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

How about the Minneapolis StarTribune? By the way, while we're quibbling over sources, do you think a blog post from Ms. Magazine is reliable?CFredkin (talk) 23:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

First of all, SYNTH is a subset of original research, which is apparent if you read the policy. Second, Yes, the WP:NEWSBLOG post at Ms. Magazine is a perfectly valid source for what it is supporting. Third, just because a link is dead doesn't mean that the reference is invalid. These are important parts of editing Misplaced Pages, and you should take the time to familiarize yourself with Misplaced Pages's policies. If you wanted to have a debate about the inclusion of those quotes on weight grounds, or NPOV grounds, or based on a number of other policies, I would pleased to support that. What you are doing now, however, is very nonconstructive. Grayfell (talk) 01:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Locating a source isn't original research, and no two ideas are being combined to create a conclusion to constitute WP:SYNTH. He's quite simply, and quite properly, identified well-sourced information that provides a meaningful contrast to the original entry. John2510 (talk) 03:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. What he has been doing is the epitome of original research and synthesis. The fact that he has canvassed you to come to his aid on this Talk page is also something that should be noted. As is the fact he has also canvassed you twice before(1,2), the fist time less than a month after creating his account. This type of behavior is against Wiki guidelines and more than a little suspicious. Dave Dial (talk) 04:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Poor Dave. It must be frustrating to whine continually on the Noticeboards and on editors' talk pages, only to have your complaints ignored. Why do you think that is? Perhaps it's because your complaints and claims belie your own POV bias, which is easily confirmed by your contribution history.CFredkin (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

1. "U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 113th Congress – 1st Session: Vote 210". Legislation & Records. United States Senate. Retrieved 2013-09-30.

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class biography articles
• Start-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class Chicago articles
• Low-importance Chicago articles
• WikiProject Chicago articles
• Start-Class U.S. Congress articles
• Low-importance U.S. Congress articles
• WikiProject U.S. Congress persons
• Start-Class Minnesota articles
• Mid-importance Minnesota articles
• Start-Class Slovenia articles
• Low-importance Slovenia articles
• All WikiProject Slovenia pages