Talk:Chip Pickering

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia'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 articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

United States: Mississippi Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Mississippi portal This article is supported by WikiProject Mississippi (assessed as Low-importance).

U.S. Congress

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. 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 articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is about one (or many) person(s).

Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

David Zinn (talk · contribs) This user has declared a connection.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Considering the copyright status of the image is unclear uploading it to commons would have been inappropriate. I also don't get why this image even matters, as I said there are plenty of other images from the historic site on archive.org, if you for whatever reason are going to claim that all the images there are works of (or on behalf of) the US federal government or otherwise in the public domain, you can at least choose a less contentious image. Nil Einne (talk) 03:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Large edit

I'd like to highlight this edit. Some of it looks like improvements, but some of it looks like unexplained removal of content. Yaris678 (talk) 17:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chip Pickering. 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) 10:07, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of why Pickering resigned from Congress

Howard from NYC (talk) 11:47, 1 June 2022 (UTC) quote: "In January 2009, Pickering retired from the House of Representatives." ... nothing? ... lacks details of his sexual hyjinx and eventual divorce and so on and so forth[reply]