Jump to content

Talk:Amy Klobuchar/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

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 [shallot] 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)

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)

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.is to provide better sources,--Wowaconia 03:48, 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 Wikipedia 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?”[1]
  • 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.”[2]
  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: Wikipedia: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 + c 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 + c 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.[1]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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, and you should take the time to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia'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)
You throw the guideline labels around with frequency to intimidate people, but I'm not sure you've actually read them. CFredkin suggested I might want to participate in the discussions, but made no attempt to influence what my position should be. As such, it wasn't canvassing at all, and specifically condoned by that guideline. John2510 (talk) 03:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Since DD2K and Grayfell have expressed a strong objection to primary sources here, I'm sure they'll support that POV in the discussion at Talk:Joe Donnelly. Right?CFredkin (talk) 04:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to have to correct you, John. Canvassing is not exclusively defined by the content of the notifying message. CFredkin notified you and you alone of this discussion. I may be mistaken, but you have no history of editing this page, and your past editing history suggest that you are sympathetic to CFredkin's case. It may not be entirely cut-and-dry, but it's not outlandish to suggest that CFredkin's post on your talk page was canvassing. This is a policy that has a lot of baggage and disagreement attached to it, but bringing this up for discussion isn't unreasonable. As for the Donnelly thing, I'm not sure what you're getting at. This discussion is already enough of a side-track to the topic as it is, and trying to bring another topic into it seems very WP:POINTy to me. Grayfell (talk) 22:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

References

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

Medical Device Tax revisited

Hi, I tried to make an edit yesterday about the senator's view on the medical device tax, but it was removed and I want to defend my case. I updated the Senator’s position on this issue (co-sponsorship of a bill is actually a more important policy stand than a vote) and though I did not reference to a source that confirms this, I do have a citation for this (the actual bill that was mentioned in the edit - S. 149) and will footnote it here to be viewed (this will be added to the edit if approved)[1]. As you can see, Klobuchar is listed as the first cosponsor of the bill. I also sourced a new study about the issue – a report based on official data on the topic. I hope that’s enough – if not, please let me know why not. DNUMD (talk) 19:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I've created a new talk-age section for this, since the previous one was over a year old.
There's a lot going on with your edit. It did not present the info from a neutral point of view. Yes, the source did not even mention Klobuchar, which is an important detail that could be fixed, but wording such as "one of only 5 senators..." gives the clear appearance of trying to prove a political point. You're free to do that, but not on Wikipedia. Tying a that research to this legislation to make a point about Klobuchar without any source connecting the three is a violation of WP:SYNTH. Senators are involved in many proposals, bills, and laws every year, often for non-obvious reasons, so you need to find reliable, WP:SECONDARY sources that explain why this is significant. Yes she cosponsored a bill, and yes a study came out around the same time saying something related to that bill. Wikipedia is not the place to draw a connection between those two, you need a source to do that. Grayfell (talk) 20:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I edited the post to be more neutral, citing secondary sources that discuss the economic effects of the device tax. DNUMD (talk) 01:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
That's a step in the right direction, but you didn't address the primary concern. The word "evidence" is loaded in this instance, and still gives the appearance of trying to prove a political point. The Washington Post article mentions her once as part of a non-partisan group that opposed the tax, but your edit made it appear to be primarily Democrats. The other two sources supporting the tax don't mention her at all. This is the problem with Synth, it's linking her to a controversy out of proportion with what reliable sources are saying. Can you can find sources about the tax that specifically mention Klobuchar? This is important info, but this article is not the appropriate place to include it. Right now these details give the appearance of being an attempt to discredit one senator, when the issue is much broader, and concerns both Democrats and Republicans. If there are no sources linking the medical device excise tax to Klobuchar, then we cannot create such a link in this article. Grayfell (talk) 01:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi again, I drafted a new addition that I want to put in the article. I'm sorry if there are issues with Wikipedia rules - I'm still learning. Here's what I want to add: "Senator Klobuchar has said that the medical device tax threatens jobs, although her statements have been questioned by investigative journalists [2][3]. Medtronic spent more than any other medical device company to lobby against the device tax in 2014, with Senator Klobuchar as one of Medtronic's top recipients of political action committee (PAC) donations [4]" I used secondary sources that mention the Senator. DNUMD (talk) 01:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-114s149is/pdf/BILLS-114s149is.pdf
  2. ^ Alan Fram. "Medical device tax repeal struggles in Congress. PBS", Washington DC, 31 January 2015. Retrieved on 30 March 2015.
  3. ^ Michelle Ye Hee Lee. "Has the medical device tax eliminated 'thousands' of jobs?. The Washington Post", Washington DC, 07 January 2015. Retrieved on 30 March 2015.
  4. ^ Henry Powderly. See which medical device companies lobbied the most in 2014. Healthcare Finance News. Retrieved on 30 March 2015.

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Amy Klobuchar/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Congratulations on the many improvements to this article. It should reach B class biography with just the addition of prose based on a few more references, and by following these steps. -Susanlesch 01:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 01:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 07:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Amy Klobuchar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Committee Assignements

I am removing the following from the article and placing it here in case anyone decides to add past committee assignments. Note this is all unsourced anyway:

For the 113th Congress, Klobuchar is assigned to the following committees:

Committee on the Judiciary
Subcommittee Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights (Ranking Member)
Subcommittee on Bankruptcy and the Courts
Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism
Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security
Subcommittee on Oversight, Federal Rights and Agency Actions
Joint Economic Committee
Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation
Subcommittee on Aviation Operations, Safety, and Security
Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet
Subcommittee on Tourism, Competitiveness, and Innovation
Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, and Insurance
Subcommittee on Science and Space
Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Infrastructure, Safety, and Security
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry
Jobs, Rural Economic Growth and Energy Innovation
Conservation, Forestry and Natural Resources
Livestock, Dairy, Poultry, Marketing and Agriculture Security

Knope7 (talk) 02:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Assignments actually look stable so I added the new ones. Knope7 (talk) 02:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Amy Klobuchar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Amy Klobuchar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

BIAS IN ARTICLE

Can we clean this up and make it more encyclopedic and less like the Democrat Party wrote this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mccommas (talk • contribs) 22:25, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

under civil liberties section, she is sponsoring the unconstitutional honest ads act

the honest ads act, cosponsored with mccain, is unconstitutional and could lead to another citizens united, which was a response to a previous unconstitutional mccain bill.

the controlling cases are talley v california and mcintyre v ohio. talley was a black civil rights activist. mcintyre was a little old lady who opposed a tax vote.

50.90.218.77 (talk) 15:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)robbin stewart

I didn't know anything about the Honest Ads Act, so I looked it up.
https://www.warner.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/the-honest-ads-act
I think you might believe it goes against the 1st amendment because it puts restrictions on ads so that "foreign individuals and entities are not purchasing political advertisements in order to influence the American electorate". This sounds like a good thing to me, especially given what happened a couple of years ago, and it's the opposite of Citizens United because it takes away power from rich foreigners and governments. Restrictions on ads are something we've always had, so this isn't new or scary.
If you want to add some mention of this law to the article, I say go for it, but please make sure it's accurate and unbiased. Calling it unconstitutional is just your opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.116.45 (talk) 01:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2019

Change "dink" Franson to Dick Franson under the 2012 senate primary results because obviously his name is not dink. It's this guy https://ballotpedia.org/Dick_Franson 73.242.95.228 (talk) 01:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done – Muboshgu (talk) 01:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Political positions

I propose splitting off the section to it's own page (see for example Political positions of Cory Booker Political positions of Elizabeth Warren), as it is now it takes up a very large part of the page WP:SPINOUT. Hydromania (talk) 02:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I completely agree. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Agree. Leviv ich 17:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Done. Please review at Political positions of Amy Klobuchar. The summary left on this page should be better sourced.Hydromania (talk) 01:34, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

presidential campaign

At the moment it seems to me that Klobuchar's campaign for the Democratic nomination for president in 2020 is the most prominent fact about her to most users. (At least, that's what I was most interested in, in looking her up here, and I don't think I'm all that untypical.) It is currently the seventh and last sentence in the lead section, coming after the infobox in the mobile view. I propose am boldly moving it to a more prominent position, in the initial paragraph. --Thnidu (talk) 20:52, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with this edit. It is now appropriately prominent. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:27, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

It is now. But will it be in six months? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuka Chief (talk • contribs) 17:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Religion

Not one mention of her religion in the article. Is she Jewish?Abenr (talk) 20:21, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect. It says in Amy Klobuchar#Personal life that she is a member of the United Church of Christ. Also, who cares? Religion (or lack thereof) should be a personal thing. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Request for Comment invitation

Please participate in the Request for Comment about a change proposal for the infobox for caucus results. Xenagoras (talk) 21:47, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Photo

Can someone please change her offocial Wikipedia portrait? The current photograph is outdated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M. Martinez 2020 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Source on medical records

Stopped by to add this info because everyone is talking about this issue. Seemed important to include. Added the quote but it was deleted as not important.
"Klobuchar has not yet released any medical records.[1]"

References

  1. ^ Viser, Matt; Bernstein, Lenny (February 24, 2020). "In a historically old presidential field, candidates refuse to release health records". Washington Post. Retrieved February 24, 2020.


FYI, the article reports that as of February 24, 2020, candidates had released the following medical records testifying to their health. In order of the amount of documentation from least to most: • Pete Buttigieg has not released any medical records. • Amy Klobuchar has not released any medical records. • Mike Bloomberg has released a one-page letter from his doctor declaring him in “great physical shape.” • Joe Biden has released a three-page letter from his doctor describing him as a “healthy, vigorous 77-year-old male.” • Elizabeth Warren has released five pages of documents revealing her blood pressure (115/57) and thyroid condition, along with a doctor’s letter declaring her in “excellent health.” • Bernie Sanders has released letters from three doctors, including a cardiologist who expressed confidence that the senator from Vermont “has the mental and physical stamina to fully undertake the rigors of the presidency.”
Ironically, Buttigieg, who has been demanding transparency regarding medical records, has yet to release his own. WebMaven2000 (talk) 23:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@WebMaven2000: Thank you for the info. I deleted your original addition from the article (and also the Buttigieg article) because medical records have received scant mention for these candidates. They are usually only a factor for the older candidates (especially the candidates who have had heart attacks). There are no articles I am aware of that specifically target these two candidates for the lack of medical records, and the WaPo article only refers to all the candidates. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Scjessy - If you read the article's content, you will see information about which candidates have released their records. I have summarized the information you will find above. Aside from Trump, ALL candidates have released their medical records when running for President, regardless of age, since about the early 1990s. (https://time.com/4472265/clinton-trump-health-reports-history/). Young people CAN get/have serious illnesses and/or injuries that are not visible but could affect their ability to perform their duties as President. Buttigieg himself has defined this as a major issue. He has been highly critical of other candidates for not releasing MORE information even though he has not released any medical information yet. He is recommending that all candidates should submit to a physical exam. From the Washington Post article, "Former South Bend, Ind., mayor Pete Buttigieg, 38, has yet to release any medical records — though Buttigieg argued during last week’s debate that the candidates should undergo physical exams and disclose the results."
By the way, the updated version of this article says "Sen. Amy Klobuchar, 59, on Monday night released four pages of medical documentation, with recent lab results and a letter from her doctor declaring her in “very good health.”" Klobuchar is off the hook. WebMaven2000 (talk) 14:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
I understand perfectly well what you are saying. My point is that we put these things in the article if they have significant coverage in reliable sources. Obviously Bernie Sanders is getting a lot of coverage, and now Bloomberg is attracting some as well, but the other candidates haven't yet been pressed very hard on medical matters. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm with scjessey here. That info belongs on the page about the campaign. Hydromania (talk) 03:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
I agree, this should not be included at this time.--Chuka Chief (talk) 16:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Military promotions

On January 6, 2021, military promotions were approved by Congress. The Colonel candidates for the Air Force National Guard were not on the list or approved. The Colonel candidate list was sent to the Pentagon in November. Why were these candidates not approved or was the list overlooked? Sincerely, Putzelle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Putzelle (talk • contribs) 15:52, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

New lead image

Following suit with Dick Durbin and Bernie Sanders, these outdated official portraits from nearly a decade ago should be replaced with recent images. Here's some potential replacements and let's vote as to whether we should change the image. I personally favor F & H. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:01, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Option A (current; 2013)
    Option A (current; 2013)
  • Option B (2019)
    Option B (2019)
  • Option C (2019)
    Option C (2019)
  • Option D (2019)
    Option D (2019)
  • Option E (2019)
    Option E (2019)
  • Option F (2019)
    Option F (2019)
  • Option G (2020)
    Option G (2020)
  • Option H (2021)
    Option H (2021)

Open borders

What are you doing about the crisis at the border? 2001:5B0:47C2:238:F536:9067:8B49:65C1 (talk) 04:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

This is an article on Klobuchar, not a way to communicate with her. Dimadick (talk) 14:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Amy_Klobuchar/Archive_1&oldid=1142752233"