Talk:Amy Klobuchar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is about an active politician who is running for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy.

Because of this, this article is at risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.
This article was the selected biography of the Minnesota Portal in March 2007.

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 [shallot] 22:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Klo-long "O"; Bu-boo; Char-shar Jakeschneider220 04:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • -shar

Contents

[edit] 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. Wikipedia: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 [1] 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 Wikipedia are usually formal close-ups, thus my motivation.--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. Wikipedia 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/wiki/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)

[edit] 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 "Wikipedia 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia needs explicit definition of the copyright, not guesses or suggestions. If Klobuchar office puts copyrighted material on her page against the law Wikipedia 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 (Adopt a State) 23:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)