Talk:Mike Mansfield

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

Untitled[edit]

It would be nice to hear how he went from the Navy to the Army to the Marine Corps as the categories and citiation imply. Does someone know the details? Rlquall 20:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if he joined the Navy in late February of 1918 and World War I ended in early November that same year, less than 9 months later, how could he have 19 months of World War I Navy service? And if that is a misprint for 9 months, what is it meant where it says "10 of his 19 months ..."? Hccrle (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mansfield Amendment[edit]

The redirect to this article quite simply, blows. How about some real research done instead of one line? Fcyoss 19:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. I want to know if it's still in place--it seems to be referred to in past tense quite often, but nowhere does it say whether it's still around.Salvar (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency#History paragraph 5. Hccrle (talk) 16:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One of these days I need to look up Stewart Brand's book on the Media Lab at MIT again and add more info about the Mansfield Amendment to this article. It was a classic example of Mansfield's incredible incompetence as a politician (only in Montana could such an idiot be elected to public office) and an example of why the University of Montana's reputation is so bad today (because its alumni lack the intelligence or capacity to ably manage American science and technology policy). --Coolcaesar (talk) 11:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition to Civil Rights Act[edit]

I read the link discussing Mansfield's supposed opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and I don't think it says what the author thought. The paragraph reads:

"Because the Senate Judiciary Committee failed to act on proposed civil rights legislation just seven years earlier, Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield filed a procedural motion to prevent the Civil Rights Act of 1964 from being referred to the Committee. Despite opposition to the motion from Senators opposed to the Civil Rights Act, Mansfield successfully prevented the bill from being referred to the Committee."

To me, what appears to have happened was that Mansfield filed the motion to have the act discussed by the Senate as a whole rather than by the Judiciary Committee, which had killed a civil rights bill seven years prior. Were it the case that Mansfield himself had been opposed to the bill, I don't think the Senate website would have highlighted the "opposition to the motion from Senators opposed to the Civil Rights Act."

I am removing the portions of this article that describe Mansfield as having been opposed to the Civil Rights Act, but invite anyone to reinsert them if they can come up with better evidence to suggest that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Segregold (talk • contribs) 17:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mike Mansfield. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 12:10, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mike Mansfield. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 02:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Picture[edit]

@AlaskaGal: I see that you changed the picture in the infobox; I disagree regarding the source and have restored the original. The original is of Mansfield as a senator, for which he is most well-known; while not an official portrait per se, it was donated to and is presently owned by the Senate, and was displayed there [1]. If your objection stems from the filetype being a .jpg as opposed to a .png, we can make the original a .png. Iseult Δx parlez moi 16:49, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My objection stems from the original being a painting rather than a photograph. I think a vote should be held. My only issue is the image I uploaded; I upscaled it digitally which gives a pasty look. I think an image; a photo, of Mansfield as a Senator should be uploaded and used instead. AlaskaGal~ ^_^ 18:31, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AlaskaGal: please ping me when replying; I might not see your reply otherwise. No need to be hasty; I don't think a vote or RfC is necessary at this stage; we are only beginning to resolve this disagreement, and I don't see any intractable issues. It's nowhere close to previous disputes I have encountered. In any case, we don't vote here. My position is that, asides from the lack of notability seen in Mansfield's last position, the Senate uses the portrait in its biography, that there aren't really any acceptable high-quality photos in Commons asides from the file Senators Mike Mansfield and Everett Dirksen - NARA - 192489.tif, which runs into cropping issues, and that the photo should best represent the subject per MOS:LEADIMAGE. I'll go look through NARA again. Iseult Δx parlez moi 20:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bless. I'll look at the Bettman Archive & CQ Roll Call, tho they don't tend to label the photographer of their pre-90s images so I might run into some trouble identifying the copyright and thus finding a public domain CQ photographer.
@Iseult AlaskaGal~ ^_^ 20:58, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Iseult The Bettmann Archive has a PD photo of Senator Mike Mansfield in April 1966. I've uploaded it and given it a 4x5 crop which I think would work. Thoughts? File:Mike Mansfield 1966 (cropped).jpg

AlaskaGal~ ^_^ 21:22, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AlaskaGal: looks good; that said, I found that in the archive after your post, and I don't think this would qualify without express licensing from Getty under CC-BY-SA. I found this and have reached out to the University of Montana w.r.t licensing. Iseult Δx parlez moi 21:42, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, the Library of Congress and other sources, some of which I've lost and am trying to find, have backed that Getty distributes public domain images. It's their right to; public domain means they can take it and sell it. The Bible is public domain and is still sold. Getty themselves have stated this themselves within lawsuits (though they don't seem to like to admit it, even though it wins them the cases?). They distribute the Bettmann images; they don't own them. Bettmann doesn't usually credit whoever took the photo, nor do the authors or the Archive tend to renew copyrights on the work or add licensing. I still tend to avoid works with an attributed author, because while the chance of it being public domain under the same licensing is still there, it's best only to take the work which I know is DEFINITELY public domain rather than do what the LOC advises you to do; take risk with caution. I've seen that before; I intended to upload it, but the metadata doesn't lie. Unless you can get written permission that we can use the image, and note, while Wikimedia is non-commercial, it needs to allow commercial use & derivatives. CC-BY-SA or the public domain. I think it would be quite hard, but I'll see if you can get their approval. If not, then I think we should use the 1966 image from Bettmann.
@Iseult AlaskaGal~ ^_^ 22:11, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AlaskaGal: as far as I know, the Library of Congress is circumspect on this, and I think we should be too. I'm curious about your assertion that this picture is in the public domain, considering that unambiguously PD works are pre-1928; whether it was registered is uncertain. I'm not sure what metadata you're referring to, as it was originally not a digital image, unless you're referring to the information that pops up upon click. In either case, it's certainly nowhere close to a definite-PD image.

Also, considering that I contacted the rights holders for permission, I'd presume that I know what licenses are necessary. But you do you. Iseult Δx parlez moi 22:34, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Iseult That's fair, but in the end, even pre-1928 is ambiguous. There's also icky law on perpetual copyright and whether it exists or not. Many PD images, including many on Wikimedia Commons, are ambiguous. To make it easier, copyright researchers tend to use precedent. 1928-1977 is that precedent, as is decided by the Copyright Act of 1976. It's important to do your own research on licensing, because many items explicitly licensed as copyrighted end up actually being public domain. If I can't find anything reliable that backs up my belief that something is public domain, I won't upload it. Nothing is ever certain, and it's important that extensive research is done beforehand.
Also, my apologies for implying that you didn't know what license is necessary, it was entirely unintentional. Hope all is well between us.
~ AlaskaGal~ ^_^ 22:41, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anything more needs to be said here asides from trying to verify permissions from Getty w.r.t. the Bettman picture; just because there's no evidence of CR doesn't mean there isn't CR. This is one area which I'm not willing to IAR. Iseult Δx parlez moi 22:47, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Iseult Also, e.g. note the copyright notice (though inadequate) from Corbis on this image. This seemingly certainly copyrighted image appears in the public domain 1969 Congressional Pictorial Directory. A PD publication is the best proof for disproving it, and this itself also shows how even the most reliable copyright notices may be fraudulent. With numerous lawsuits stating this, with Getty stating it themselves within the suit; which won them the case, I believe that the assumption is backed up well enough to upload it. The main thing is the lack of a visible copyright notice, or a rights statement which states otherwise (not including the publication rights statement, which covers the purchasing rights), which would suggest that this image has thus lapsed into the Public Domain. Other Bettmann Archive works have been uploaded, most importantly [Lunch atop a Skyscraper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lunch_atop_a_Skyscraper_-_Charles_Clyde_Ebbets.jpg], which is one of my favorites, and also is post-1928 with an explicit copyright registration and notice but the lack of a renewal (the 1928-1963 license). While I appreciate your concern about the gray areas, I believe the research I did is adequate enough and justifies the image's upload.
~ AlaskaGal~ ^_^ 23:00, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AlaskaGal: I respectfully disagree; I believe that the converse of all statements just made is just as valid. All of that falls within the notes of the LoC; that photographs published with proper copyright notices 95 years ago or less up until 1963 may be protected if the copyright was properly renewed, while works published after 1963 and unpublished photographs in the collection may be protected even if they were not registered with the Copyright Office. Lunch falls into the former category; the 1969 picture doesn't necessarily disprove or prove fraud, as, as I understand it, pictorial works were included only in the Copyright Act of 1976, and so previous PD publications would not have had trouble there. Then, again, the lack of a visible notice does not preclude the presence of one, if fraud or accidency is to be suspected. There is no rush; the article has done well for the past ten years without this new picture, and I welcome resolution by Getty Images. If you would prefer the 1969 picture, though, I'm not opposed to that. Iseult Δx parlez moi 23:20, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A huge point I forgot to mention is I try to go for color works. The 1969 one could work quite well. Judging by discussion on Talk:Robert F. Kennedy, it would work well as an image with no distractions in the background and a clear shot of his face. What do you think? AlaskaGal~ ^_^ 23:23, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AlaskaGal: it's literally a headshot. I don't have any issues with it in isolation, but it's quite grainy, and not exactly the paragon of photos. I'm fine with waiting a few weeks for Getty and UMont to clear things up. Iseult Δx parlez moi 01:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
True, true. I can contact Getty, but I doubt they will respond. I'll do it anyways, to see if they can provide any evidence that they or someone else owns the copyright to the work. Unless they can disprove what all these sources say, the image should be fine. AlaskaGal~ ^_^ 16:11, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair. The UMT photo I referenced is the same boat--unknown creator; while in the Mansfield papers, uncertain if the university holds the copyright. They seem otherwise open to use, if sourcing can be gotten. In my explorations of the UMT archives, there are less than five color photos of Mansfield himself, none of which online are of much quality. If any of the photos found here (also try the search term 'marine') and here strike your interest for the infobox or article body, do let me know. Iseult Δx parlez moi 23:11, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Doubling up) from this I see that there are many more pictures, some color; unfortunately, not all have been digitized; fortunately, I haven't been up to Montana in a bit, and I'm overdue. Iseult Δx parlez moi 23:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give them all a look, thank you ^^ AlaskaGal~ ^_^ 15:28, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is infobox quality, too informal, but I like this one for sure. AlaskaGal~ ^_^ 16:31, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AlaskaGal: Re all, I'm open to listing them on WP:FFD or some similar forum to find a way forward. Iseult Δx parlez moi 23:37, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. We should list them on FFD and have multiple users do their own research and contribute. The more precise and accurate we can be on what image sits best with the community, the better. I'm not that great with Wikipedia and how things work, only started serious editing a year ago and editing 3 years ago, but I think that something like FFD will help a lot. AlaskaGal~ ^_^ 03:45, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe, confusingly, that FFD requires already-uploaded files; in essence, we'd have to upload files in question, then discuss. Promisingly, your color Mansfield already qualifies for FFD. Iseult Δx parlez moi 04:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bless. It should be nominated, if you haven't already, I'll nominate it. ^^

~ AlaskaGal~ ^_^ 14:55, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Iseult Getty has responded through email. They have stated the following:
"Thanks for contacting us about an image that may be in the public domain. Public domain works can be used by anyone for any purpose without permission from the creator or copyright holder. This is distinct from the rights of any people or property depicted in the image. Where these rights exist, they will not automatically expire because the copyright for the image is in the public domain. Public domain content can be licensed by any image provider and there are benefits to doing so.
The advantage of licensing public domain content from Getty Images is that you gain legal protection under terms of our license, giving you an indemnity against any third party asserting rights to the copyright in the image.
If you can find this image in the public domain and are comfortable with the quality of the image you find, and using it without a license, you can make the judgement call to do so.
We can only make the version of this image on our website available by purchasing a license. Whenever using intellectual property of any kind we encourage you to consult with your legal team to ensure you're completely comfortable with doing so."
This is great news, notably the 3rd line, but who should I send this email to take notice of? VRT? ~ AlaskaGal~ ^_^ 15:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AlaskaGal: Great! That, though, seems like more of an acknowledgement that the image might be PD; it's not a grant of permission (that would be CC-BY-SA). If you do think it is, the appropriate procedure is found here; the body above suggests that this is for CC-BY-SA licenses. What I'm also willing to do is do a WP:BRD, keep the UMT image in reserve if a third party challenges the Getty image, upload everything, and then do a procedural nom for everything at FFD. Iseult Δx parlez moi 15:21, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. I think it seems to be more that they think it might be in the public domain fully, under 1928-1977, rather than CC-BY-SA, the preferrable license for post-1928 images on Wikipedia since it means that people can't distribute it like Getty or Alamy does. I think BRD is the right move, since no-one nor anything actually provides a copyright notice. I did also explicitly ask for one within the email or, really, anything that suggests copyright, even a generic non-answer that "We distribute it so it's ours and you can't use it." Both them and the Library of Congress tell you to do your own research, and so I think it's safe to use the image. Keep UMT as a reserve in case someone finally does step in and provides valid evidence that we can't use it. ~ AlaskaGal~ ^_^ 15:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One thing is Getty doesn't note the copyright of images, unless they have a copyright notice in their bio, such as Wally McNamee's images. (see here & here.) otherwise, it's usually up to your own research to try and find the copyright. It seems that this image does fall under the 1928-1977 license, which suggests that pre-1978 this image could've had a copyright, but since there was no notice, the copyright was lost once the Copyright Act of 1976 was passed. This may mean it's still copyrighted in other nations, though, and shouldn't be used for their Wikipedias. ~ AlaskaGal~ ^_^ 16:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mike_Mansfield&oldid=1208775228"