Talk:United States Senate elections, 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United States Senate elections, 2006 article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	United States Senate elections, 2006 is part of WikiProject U.S. Congress, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the United States Congress.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. The options are: "FA", "A", "GA", "B", "Start", "Stub", "List", "Disambiguation", "Template", or "Category."
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. The options are: "Top", "High", "Mid", and "Low."
???	This article has not yet been assigned a subject. The options are: "Person", "People", "Place", "Thing", and "Event."

Archives
1 2

[edit] Kansas Election results

You can find the results of the Kansas elections here:

http://www.kssos.org/elections/elections_statistics.html I don't have Excel, so I cannot open the docs.

[edit] Incorrect graphic

The small picture on this page that lists states as either having 2 democratic senators, 2 republicans, etc. shows the wrong color for Delaware. Delaware has 2 Democrat senators.

[edit] Democrats Can't Take Control Of Senate

Am I reading this wrong or what. It says if the Democtats win in Virginia then it is a 50-50 split. Since this is the last uncontested race the Democrats cannot take control. So shouldn't that language be removed? Or did I miss something. Since in a 50-50 tie the Vice President will cast the deciding vote and he's a Republican

Remember about the two independents who say they will, and are expected to, vote and caucus with the Democrats.

Technically, the Senate is split 49-49. The two independents can choose which major party to caucus with and whom to vote for as the Majority Leader. In fact, as many speculated to, Senator Leiberman, who lost the Democratic primary in CT, will actually hold the difference in the Senate. (The other independent Senator, Sanders, is a self-described Socialist and will always vote with the Democrats.) In addition, while Lieberman will vote with the Democrats for leadership, the Dems better give him whatever he wants because he can "switch" at any time.

You are reading this wrong. With virginia, the democrats have 51 to republicans' 49. They won montana and missouri, and with virginia, that's the 6 they need to have 51. 68.35.201.102 18:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A confused non-American

Why is there no election in some of the states? Is there one senator for every state, and you only have an election after his/her 6 years are up? Also does "incumbent" mean they are the previous senator and are running for re-election, or does it mean they're still in the middle of their 6 years? I'm not hugely into politics, and I'm not an American, but I think a wikipedia article like this should be slightly clearer on these points for people who don't already know what's going on. 203.97.255.167 19:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

There are 100 senators (2 for each state), and, in order to stagger terms, every two years approximately 1/3 are up for re-election (i.e., either 33 or 34). Hope that helps. (And, yes, a sentence like this ought to be included if it isn't already in the article) -- Sholom 20:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

See information based on the senate classes. they each have 6 year terms, and they rotate each 2 years as to who is up for reelection. this year it's class 1, 2008 will be class 2, 2010 will be class 3, 2012 will be class 1 again, etc. and incumbent means they currently hold the spot, and they're up for reelection. this is usually denoted by a star beside their name. 68.35.201.102 06:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CT (Lieberman)

Assuming Joe Lieberman wins re-election on Tuesday, I was wondering what color Connecticut should be on the election results map. Would it be a blue "Democratic hold" or a yellow "Independent pickup?" Some political prediction sites use the former, others the latter. Would a different color and "Lieberman hold" be more accurate? I know it's a few days away, but I figure we should figure it out beforehand in case there is a disagreement. I'm personally open to whatever the consensus is. Bridge Partner 04:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

If he wins, he will likely make a victory speech and clearly respond to this very question; the Dems will also either celebrate or annex him. Until then, it is probably moot. Harr o5 07:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Technically it'll be an independent pickup, he's run as an independent, so if he wins, then its an independent seat. Whether or not he "crosses the floor" back to Democrat(well, if he's accepted back in) will change the seat after the seat has been won as an independent. Mikebloke 00:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Technically it is not an independent pickup it is a CFL pickup and should not be blue or yellow. even if Lieberman stays with the Democrats he still won as a member of the CFL party and the pickup map should be in anouther color, my I sugest, becouse no one is courently using it, orange.

This article makes it even more confusing. Lieberman says to just call him a Democrat. Even though Lieberman won re-election as an indpendent, I think we should list him in the party balance as a Democrat to reduce confusion, especially if C-SPAN and other organizations continue to refer to him as (D-CT). Remember, just because Jeffords was never elected as an independent he was still referred to as (I-VT). In addition, Lieberman never changed his personal voter registration from Democratic. Bridge Partner 19:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

No. We should refer to him as an independent or 3rd Party caucausing with the Democrats (well, promising too anyway). Wiki cannot simplify reality to make it more easily understood where that would lead to propogating an error. Lieberman lost the CT Democratic Primary, which means the Democrats of CT have rejected him as their Senator. Even if the Senate Democrats welcome him back into caucus (highly likely) the Democratic Voters of Ct made their choice, one Lieberman himself cannot overcome merely by saying "Call me a Democrat."--FNV 23:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

At some point, I expect the Democrats will officially welcome him back into the fold, and then it will be official and he can be posted as a Democrat here. However, if "the Democrats of Connecticut" have truly "rejected" him, there must be damn few Democrats in that state, given the general election results. Wahkeenah 23:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Lieberman is a member of the Democratic Party.
Lieberman will retain his seniority as a Democrat for purpose of committee chairmanship.
Any Senator can switch party affiliation at any time. (i.e. Jeffords)
Any Senator can join and declare themselves a member of any party. (Just check the box on your voter registration.)
The Democrat leadership has NOT refused to recognize Lieberman as a Democrat.
There are previous Senators elected on independent tickets (or write-in) that were Democrats or Republicans on the Senate.

Need we say anything more? user:mnw2000 23:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, if he says he's a Democrat, and if the Democrat leadership says he's a Democrat, then he's a Democrat, and dat's dat. Wahkeenah 23:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Joe has now said that he will officially be called an Independent-Democrat and referenced Harry F. Byrd, Jr. in annoucing that. I believe Byrd is listed as an I on Wikipedia, so Joe should be also. 63.166.224.67 03:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "October surprise" discussion

Since this page contains a variety of material it may be useful to also have a brief paragraph on "October surprise" incidents in the run-up to the election, including of course the Foley and Haggard sex scandals, as well as the 11/5 announcement of the verdict against Saddam, and its possibly political timing. Comments? Haiduc 21:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The same suggestion was made at Talk:United States House elections, 2006#Cursory discussion of "October surprises"? - those interested may want to look at the responses there. John Broughton | Talk 13:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do we really need a "current event" tag in addition to the "future election" one?

It seems to me that future election is more specific than current event and therefore we don't need current event. (Ditto on House & Governors pages) 168.166.196.40 22:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed the tag from the House, general, Senate and governors pages. Nishkid 64 01:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image plagairizm!

See anything familiar?. Amusingly, it credits the entire thing to "WN". WN? 68.39.174.238 07:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Now that Election Day is past, do we still need to have the page under the category of "Future Elections"? I would change it, but I can't figure out how to do it. Stealthound 15:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, I believe the "upcoming/ongoing election" template at the top of the page includes the category. Since the election is still dragging on, perhaps it's best to leave the template for now, though. · j e r s y k o talk · 15:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, the future election category includes until the election results are certified. Even in the landslide races, that's still a few days away. 168.166.196.40 16:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Now that the election is over, shouldn't the election table look like the other one from different years? like from the 2004 or 2002 elections? (For example, the headings should be Incumbent, status, ETC)? soldierboy753 10:13, 12 November 2006

I agree. The approval ratings and 2000 election results were a good reference before we had results from 2006, so they are no longer necessary. As for the rest of the information, I will work on reformatting it to match with the other Senate election tables. Bridger 19:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Numbers

Ok, I added a column for the 2006 election results. I'm curious if we should wait for certification before adding in the numbers. I'm going to put the color on the pickups. Chadlupkes 20:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I've of the opinion that as soon as all US Senate have been called by most of the major news sites, then the totals could be added here. That could still take a while. 168.166.196.40 22:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Virginia

Vote counts for Virginia have been pretty much static for nearly 18 hours now, and precincts reporting is stuck at like 99.45% or something. Has anyone seen anything in the news that explains what the holdup is? E.g. are some counties having recount problems, lost ballots, just slow, etc.? If anyone finds an article that mentions anything, it would probably be advisable to link to that from here. Tuckdogg 00:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

What happened is that all of the votes ARE counted, including absentee ballots... But there is "ongoing canvassing of the votes" which isn't producing major changes. Looks like Webb won by about 7200 votes - someone has already put a link up to the AP article. 21:12, User:Rob Shepard8 November 2006

The ongoing canvassing is mostly likely mixtures are rechecking the totals, combined with looking over the provisional ballots and seeing if their valid and if so counting them, and counting overseas military ballots postmarked before election day that's slightly tardy arriving. I'm not expecting major changes either, but so far only the AP has called this race so this may be premature. [Fox & CNN are reporting that AP has called it but both of their elections center leaves the race as uncalled.) (This will probably change by this afternoon US time, most people are expecting Allen to concede as soon as the canvassing is over which as of yesterday evening according to CNN was expected some time today; Fox also has printed this same story.) 168.166.196.40 15:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possibility of Vote Fraud?

I added this to the Montana Senate Election talk page, but unsurprisingly, that doesn't get too many hits :). Here is my question: I am trying to find out if anyone has heard of vote fraud in this race. My reason for asking is that Conrad Burns did not have a lead in a single poll after April, yet only lost by a hair. It is important to note that Tester did not have large leads, but nevertheless, Burns simply did not have one. Statistically, it feels fishy ... Thanks. Topher0128 00:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, but since he lost anyway, how likely is it to be pursued? Wahkeenah 00:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting point. When the Democrats lost races by a few thousand votes, they sued (and won after two recounts in the case of Washington Governor); when the Republicans lost races this year, they are not going to sue. user:mnw2000 00:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Except that Republican Representative Sue Kelly, in the 2006 election, is in fact lawyering up: [1]. John Broughton | Talk 01:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Nixon could have raised holy hell in 1960, also, but in an apparent display of statesmanship (a concept which would later elude him) decided not to make something out of it. Wahkeenah 02:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the information on Sue Kelly. She may be an exception. However, it seems that there is a problem in the Florida 13 where votes seem to be missing. (Guess who is losing?) But the information on Nixon is really quite good. He did not challenge the election and the country was better for it. In fact, we could create a page of "contested elections". I would have to put up the Washington Governor up on the top since it is the only election I can think about where a challenge actually resulted in a change. Then again, it did help to have a bunch of unverified provisional ballots counted. I know that this sounds a little partisan, and I beg forgiveness. user:mnw2000 06:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I was never fond of Nixon, but he was a patriot and he showed a lot of class in 1960. I remember a joke that was circulating after the election: JFK, Nixon and Chicago's Mayor Richard J. Daley are in a sinking lifeboat. Only one can stay, two will have to swim for it. They hold a vote, and Daley wins 7-2. Wahkeenah 07:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Illinois 1960 is urban legend if you leave out what happened outside of Chicago with Republican theft. Also Hawaii was fishing in 1960. There was a lot more theft of votes in 1960 than only Chicago.

In response to the comment about Florida-13, there should be legitimate concern that over 18,000 people in that district "apparently" didn't vote in one of the most competitive congressional elections in the country. In addition, there will be an automatic recount because of just how close it is; the Democrat didn't "sue" for one. When less than 400 votes separate the candidates and more than 18,000 votes from a county that the Democrat carried by a decent margin may well have been not counted, I think that a recount is more than prudent. I find these not-so-subtle claims of "only Democrats are sore losers request and recounts and Republicans never do" to be slightly ridiculous.

You do sound rather partisan, mnw2000, but I can understand that the election results have upset you. However, you shouldn't be so quick to dismiss all recounts as unnecessary. There are certainly occasions where they are warranted, and Florida-13 is definitely one of them. Bridge Partner 19:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How gains are shown

Standard practice in the reporting of election results in the UK is to show gains/losses compared to when those seats were last fought rather than to the situation immediately before the election (which may have changed due to defections or by-elections). Thus, these elections would be shown as 7 losses for the Republicans and 2 gains for Independents as Jeffords in Vermont was elected as a Republican in 2000. In other words, compared to the 2000 elections, the Republicans have won 7 fewer contests. The situation in the US is obviously different, in particular because only a third of the Senate seats were up for election, but I wonder whether the article can be tweaked to better reflect that Vermont is, in some sense, a Republican loss rather than an Independent hold...? Bondegezou 11:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me first say that this is not standard practice in the United States; look at CNN's page, for example. Besides, I think the current method is more accurate. Vermont essentially became a "Republican loss" in June of 2001 when Jeffords switched. Since Senate elections are staggered so only a third of senators is up every two years, there were two subsequent Senate elections (before 2006) which resulted in changes in the party balance and thus the totals accounted for Jefford's switch. Also, I believe it is important to maintain relative uniformity with the previous Senate election pages and they all follow the current procedure. Bridge Partner 18:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How to handle Lieberman and Sanders

I updated the chart with color to make it easier to read. I gave both Lieberman and Saunders a color of yellow to reflect thier election status as neither a Democrat or Republican. It is understood that Lieberman will remain a Democrat in when the next Senate is seated in January. (At that time, the page for the Senate should reflect that.) However, Saunders has stated his desire to be Independent in the new Senate though he will caucus with the Democrats.

There are many different ways to reflect this on the internet.

We should separate the election results, 49 Dems, 49 Reps, 2 Inds and the next Senate makeup of 50 Dems, 49 Reps, 1 Ind. user:mnw2000 01:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I think I am really confused. Now Lieberman is calling himself an "Independent Democrat". Maybe we should simply wait and see how the Senate.gov website lists the Senators next year. Until then, Lieberman was ELECTED as a independent. user:mnw2000 04:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for leaving the information as-is until next year, too. Like I said before, let C-SPAN handle Lieberman's identity crisis. ;) Bridger 16:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Question: Are votes for Liberman being counted as Democratic or Independent votes? user:mnw2000 19:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the creator/editor of the template said that they were counting Lieberman votes as Independent votes. Bridger 22:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It's also a tempest in a teapot. How often do the parties vote along straight party lines? Webb, the newly elected Virginia "Democrat" is a Reagan-era Republican. Wahkeenah 00:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Quite often; especially in votes on organizing the Senate, by choosing the President pro-tem and the committee chairs; all of which switched with Jeffords. I agree that Lieberman, and probably Sanders, should count as elected as Independents. Septentrionalis 01:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The difference is that Jeffords essentially bolted from the Republicans and gave up his party affiliation. The Democrats (or an element of them) bolted from Lieberman. The practical effect will likely be nill. But we'll see. Wahkeenah 01:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Lieberman is a good Democrat, but the rather extreme members of the party are trying to take over. He knows that it would be a mistake for his party's chances in 2008.

Actually, Lieberman is in a very powerful position. If the Democrats move too far to the left, he could throw the majority to the Republicans in a heartbeat. I am sure that the Republicans would preserve his seniority if he made the switch. And since he doesn't need to run for another six years, he doesn't need their money. The only way he can lose is if he switches and the Democrats win the Presidency in 2008 (and along with it the Senate). But, by then, he may simply be ready to retire. user:mnw2000 04:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The claim that someone who bolted the party primary is a "good Democrat" is novel, to say the least. Have you a source other than campaign literature? The rest of this is off-topic. Septentrionalis 06:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

He didn't bolt the party, the extremists in the party bolted from him and tried to push their own candidate. The majority of the general public saw through it and rejected the official party choice. That kind of thing happens now and then. If the Democrats value their situation in the Senate, they had best kiss up to Lieberman a bit. Wahkeenah 07:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Lieberman was once a card-carrying Democrat. Now he's carrying an ID card. Wahkeenah 11:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changing Tense

Some of the Senate races are spoken of as if the midterm elections have not occurred. For example, in the "Jim Jeffords" section, it says that "Sanders is expected to easily win the election". However, he has won it. Should the language be reworded to show that the elections have taken place? - PoliticalJunkie 21:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Qqqqqq 00:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding a merger proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Bridger 19:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merger proposal

Support. United States Senate elections, 2006/Complete list is not such a large article that it couldn't stand to go in its parent article. Also, subpages (such as [[Article/subpage]] are only appropriate for talk pages or WikiProjects. —Markles 13:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose The table is a bizarre comparison with a market-based predictor which doesn't actually seem to have done very well. Boiling it down to a simple one-row per state table would make it fit here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose/Delete. Isn't any relevant information within United States Senate elections, 2006/Complete list noted on the table we already have here? The subpage in question is an obsolete version of the present table and should just be deleted. Bridger 00:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete United States Senate elections, 2006/Complete list, the article is already covered by United States Senate elections, 2006 and has nothing extra to contribute. fdewaele, 27 January 2007, 12:37.
Delete United States Senate elections, 2006/Complete list. Since the election is over, the table is null and should be deleted. Byrdin2006 17:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, but please first ensure that minor candidates have been listed in the articles for each race. MisfitToys 20:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

One thing to keep in mind, though, is that the older table hasn't had a substantive update since October 4th at the latest (I suspect it was earlier than that), and some of those candidates either dropped out or didn't make it on the ballot. It appears as if the minor candidates have already been transferred here. Bridger 16:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Voter turnout

I'm surprised to see the voter turnout (as a percentage of the electorate) is not given. Isn't that a standard bit of info for any elections? All I see here is that just over 60 million people voted. A rough guess is that the electorate is about 170 million. So would the turnout then be 30%? That's pretty low, to put it mildly. Do I make some serious calculating error here? If not, this is a very essential bit of info, that should be included in the article. Oddly, I can hardly find anything on this elsewhere on the internet either. All I can find is http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=The%20USA%20is%20not%20a%20democracy, where it says the turnout during the last elections was 36%. Alas, it doesn't say which elections those were. From http://www.bbc.co.uk/scotland/education/ms/usa/reference/people/voting.shtml (a children's page, for lack of anything better) I understand that an extra possible complication is that people have to register first, so one has to know whether a percentage is for the registered voters or the eligible population. http://fairvote.org/e_news/election2002.htm speaks of roughly 39% in 2002. Roughly?? Is this not known? That would be weird indeed. Or am I missing something? DirkvdM 10:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notable fact

I deleted "[a] notable fact about the 2006 Senate elections is that they were the first since 1986 where the chamber changed hands in midterm occurring during the president's second term." Given that the potential situation for this to happen has only occurred once in the interim since 1986 (1998 Senate election), I didn't see the 1 out of 2 times incidence as particularly notable. SS451 07:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:LIEBERMANWIN.jpg

Image:LIEBERMANWIN.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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:MCCASKILLWIN.jpg

Image:MCCASKILLWIN.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.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:WHITEHOUSEWIN.jpg

Image:WHITEHOUSEWIN.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.

BetacommandBot (talk) 08:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:SANDERSWIN.jpg

Image:SANDERSWIN.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.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:CARDINWIN.jpg

Image:CARDINWIN.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.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:CASEYWIN.jpg

Image:CASEYWIN.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.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:MENENWIN.jpg

Image:MENENWIN.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 ensure 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.

BetacommandBot (talk) 13:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)