Talk:Chip Pickering

Images

The copyright status on the two images (particularly the first, which actually has the caption as part of the image) seems questionable to me. Everyking 11:30, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Both photos were downloaded from Chip's official house.gov website and are therefore in the public domain. This work is in the public domain because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code. Dr. Watson 13:43, 14 October 2005

I edited the first photo, the public domain image of Congressperson Pickering. I cropped the inappropriate wide red border and abbreviated the original text caption, which was overly wordy and too small to read. The resulting 'product' is factually accurate and more aesthetically suited to Wiki's format. I place this image in the public domain. - Leif Oldhart

I suppose it would be obvious that the congressman (being a southern republican) would be the white guy, but I still think the caption might mention which one he is.

What does the cited "fact" that Trent Lott is a 33rd degree Freemason have to do with Chip Pickering? This whole article appears to be biased against Congressman Pickering.

I would agree. I have looked over this article in the course of an academic project, and found numerous instances of extremely biased wording. I will continue to watch this article and revert edits, if necessary, to prevent bias and unsubstantiated accusations. I considered the paragraphs on PAC and Oil money and pressure on drug regulators to be too far gone, and edited those out -- they aren't BAD additions, but someone who isn't a Pickering detractor should probably work on them to make them fair and accurate, not merely campaign propaganda. I would also add that some of the language I removed seems verbatim copy from Jim Giles' website. Wikipedia is not a campaign tool, so stop acting like it is. Sighter Goliant 14:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Image

The image doesn't belong regardless of copyvio issues. The caption is ample demonstration of that. I would like to see any other biography with an image with the caption 'this photo formerly appeared on his website'. Such an image should surely be removed. Allstarecho alleges that is shows the time of his life with in Congress. Frankly, this a rather silly suggestion since we have no idea when this photo was taken, it could have been before he was in Congress for all we know at some theme park. If we want to have a useful photo, we need one that we actually know something about, preferably a rough idea of when and where it was taken, at least if we know it was actually taken while Pickering was a Congressperson, rather then presuming to know when the photo was taken when we clearly don't, and using one added for the sole purpose of a clear BLP violating OR claim of wrongdoing by an editor with a clear grudge [1]. While the internet archive of Pickering's website is somewhat incomplete, it's not that hard to find such a photo, e.g. [2] (4th or 5th image) (5th image) [3] (2nd image). I'm personally not convinced of the copyright status of any of these images, including the one that keeps getting added back, so I won't be adding any of these myself. Also I frankly couldn't give a damn about some American I've never heard of, who has no bearing in my life, but despire BLP violations. But it should be trivial for someone who actually wants to add such an image, with the same IMHO questionable copyright status, which we can at least caption in a useful way rather then just saying it appeared on his website, which I must repeat again is one of the sillest captions I've seen (even no caption would be better). We have to use free photos yes, and we have to make do with what's available sometimes, but it's not necessary to sink that low. Nil Einne (talk) 09:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleted image with disparaging filename. Without clarity about copyright status and some reliable sources about the significance and alleged meaning of the image, it should not be re-added. Rd232 ^talk 10:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

That's utter ridiculousness. You could have just renamed the file in moving it to Commons where free images belonged. The BLP issues were addressed in doing away with the BLP-vio caption of the image. However, the image was a free image from a .gov web site and should not have been deleted. What has taken place here only speaks of your own POV violation. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 20:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)