Talk:Dianne Feinstein

New lead image

Following suit with Dick Durbin and Bernie Sanders, these outdated official portraits from a decade ago (for Feinstein its nearly two decades) should be replaced with recent images.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 prefer D or G. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:31, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• 
  Option A (current; 2004)
• 
  Option B (2018)
• 
  Option C (2018)
• 
  Option D (2018)
• Option E (2023)
  Option E (2023)
• 
  Option F (2022)
• 
  Option G (2019)

Seeing that this comment was ignored for several months, I went ahead and boldly set the lede image to option B. It seems to be modern enough, and it's a little more flattering than most other contemporary images of her. Mewnst (talk) 03:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't see the big deal the average reader isn't going to really care and Feinstein's appearance hasn't really change much since then. I would say we should always keep the official portrait as the lead image as we did with Jeanne Shaheen, eventually she will probably retire/die but she might finally take a new official portrait before then. But if we are so insistent about changing the main photo I would go with one that looks the most like an official photo, like B or C because she is smiling and looking directly into the camera. Putitonamap98 (talk) 00:45, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I think it does matter. Almost everyone will look very different after 19 years,especially in office. If you are a public servant we should know what you look like today not a 20 year old picture. As you can see Senator Feinstein looks a lot different from her photo from 2004 to what she looks like in 2023. I would vote for B or C, or maybe more recent picture? Cornersss (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Option D is a strong choice as well, slightly more resolution, more refined than a spontaneous group photograph. It might be the highest-quality modern image here. My previous comment is problematic, there's no need to try to hide her age or choose a photo for a woman on the grounds of which is more beautiful. I will be boldly switching the image in the article to Option D. Mewnst (talk) 11:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Politicians often neglect their own photos as an act of political deception. Using official photos only motivates politicians to never update their photos. The voters have the right to a modern picture. I think the following would be a fair policy: Use the official photo unless it pre-dates the current term (6 years for a US Senator); if the politicians do not like the modern photo chosen, the politicians are responsible for providing a modern official photo. Personally, I think Option D is too old, and I would go with Option E, but if I am not allowed to use Option E, I would go with Option D. Option A is completely unacceptable at this point; a 19 year old photo is too outdated. technojoe (talk) 23:14, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

While I agree the image is outdated, there is no consensus yet to replace the image with an approved image. Furthermore, the image you proposed (option E) is possible copyvio. Do not change the infobox image until a clear consensus is reached AND with an image that the community approves of. Until then, the old portrait remains. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

• I like option A. Just like we wouldn't pick a picture of her as a teenager for the lead, we shouldn't choose a pic where she look very old, because neither would be representative of how she looked when she was most notable. She was notable in the 80s, and is notable now, and option A is a good middle ground. It's the picture we would revert to after she dies anyway, based on common practice. So why not keep it now? DFlhb (talk) 04:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Chair of the International Narcotics Control Caucus in the infobox

In the infobox, there is a office she held during the 2009-2015 period that has no name. In the 4th paragraph of the article, it's written that she was Chair of the International Narcotics Control Caucus ; I was also found this: , that shows the same thing. The fact that this office has no name leads to incomprehension as it could be understood that she is Senator since 1992 (office just above this), but was also during the 2009-2015 period (as there is no separator between the two, like when there's a break between terms), which doesn't make sense.

As the article is currently protected, I can't edit it and was wondering if someone who is allowed to can edit this.
It's just needed to add this line:
| office2 = Chair of the Senate Narcotics Caucus

between those two lines:
| successor =
| term_start2 = January 3, 2009

Gaugau120 (talk) 17:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Artificial pacemaker -

Why would anyone have an artificial pacemaker - as opposed to a real authentic one. What is an artificial pacemaker? I think she had a 'real' pacemaker inserted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.103.122.94 (talk) 12:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

The real pacemaker is part of the real heart; see Cardiac_pacemaker. The gizmo that is inserted to fix an improperly operating real one is an artificial pacemaker.Login54321 (talk) 01:36, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Date Feinstein became a Senator: November 4, 1992 or November 10, 1992?

Change the date of her U.S. Senate incumbency. She was elected in a 1992 special election and took office on 10 November 1992. The current date is incorrect. 96.32.160.36 (talk) 04:30, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Aoidh (talk) 01:31, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

This is pretty weird. The last day of the Congressional Record for 1992 [appears to have been October 9, 1992]. Feinstein won the special election on November 3, 1992. [Contemporary news reports] state she was sworn in, thus becoming Senator, on November 10, 1992. The next day of [the Congressional Record, for January 3, 1993], shows that Feinstein's certificate of election was signed by California's governor on November 5, 1992, but I can't find any record in the Congressional Record of what date Feinstein took office. From 1999 to November 5, 2010, [her biography on the congressional website] said she "took the oath of office November 10, 1992".

Then comes the weird part: according to archive.org, sometime between November 5 and December 2 of 2010, [her biography was changed] to say she "took office on November 4, 1992, and took the oath of office on November 10, 1992". I can't find a statement like that in any other Senate biography, and as far as I can tell, it's utter nonsense. If a person hasn't yet taken the oath of office, then the person does not hold the office.

So, I'm pretty sure she became a Senator on November 10, 1992, and I'm sure she didn't become one on November 4, 1992 (as the Congressional Record records her certificate of election hadn't even been signed yet), but I'm not sure what to do with the fact that some counterfactual claptrap was added to her official biography two decades later. Birdfern (talk) 02:36, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I've now learned that in 1935, a law was enacted that specified that when a Senator is elected in circumstances such as Feinstein's, her salary is paid retroactively back to one day after her election, regardless of the date the election result was certified or the date she was actually sworn into office. 2 USC 36, 49 Stat 22. At some point, the Senate began using this added-to-the-payroll date as a Senator's starting date for determining seniority. Thus, it is the more important date to know for most practical purposes than is the date the Senator was actually sworn into office.

The Senate Historical Office's [Senators of the United States] listed Feinstein's "Start of Initial Senate Service" date as November 10, 1992, until it was changed without explanation in [the May 2011 edition] to November 4, 1992. It seems that when a Senator's seniority date and swearing-into-office date differ, that publication lists the seniority date as the "Start of Service" date and puts the swearing-in date in a footnote. At least, that seems to be the rule for everyone else, but for Feinstein it now only lists the November 4 seniority date.

I guess the best thing to do is put November 4 in the info box, with a footnote that she was sworn into office on November 10. Birdfern (talk) 08:03, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

President pro tempore

Just a heads up. Barring anything unexpected, Feinstein is likely to be elected president pro tempore of the US Senate, in January 2023. GoodDay (talk) 06:04, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Not necessarily so, GoodDay. Selecting the longest serving member of the majority party is a tradition, not a Senate rule. According to the Washington Post, Feinstein has declared that she does not want the job. She is 89, after all. Cullen328 (talk) 06:17, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I did say "barring anything unexpected". GoodDay (talk) 06:19, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2023

I need to extend Dianne Feinstein's 1990 Gubernatorial Campaign and Senate Career 2607:9880:2158:FE:71A0:83C2:998A:2166 (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. RudolfRed (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Senator Feinstein did not make a statement saying she is not running

We should not assume she has dementia and her staff is correct. Her staff put out a tweet under her account saying she is not running in 2024 but Feinstein, herself, denied it.

https://www.newsweek.com/dianne-feinstein-contradicts-her-own-retirement-announcement-1781279

Let's report the fact. In a few days, it may become clear what happened. KoreaOK (talk) 05:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Dementia Coverup

Talk about sweeping dirt under the rug, hardly any mention in the article about her worsening dementia that has been extensively reported by multiple reliable sources. Wow. Who wrote this article, Sen Feinstein's office? --Westwind273 (talk) 00:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Westwind273, welcome to Wikipedia! We hope you enjoy your stay and add valuable contributions to the community. You're encouraged to write the section yourself. Make sure to include multiple reputable sources and to accept revisions made by other users. Thank you! Listen1st (talk) 16:17, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I removed that section in January since I believed that the BLP noticeboard discussion showed no consensus to include — DFlhb (talk) 19:01, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing to that. I read the entire discussion. We could probably Wikipedia-rule each other to death on this, but from a common sense point of view, many reliable source newspapers have published articles describing a decline in Senator Feinstein's mental health. It seems really weird that the Wikipedia article is forcibly silent on this. If you ever wonder why people accuse Wikipedia of having a left-wing bias, reflect on this article. Westwind273 (talk) 03:37, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

It's not a good approach to begin a request by insulting other editors. You never added it either, so why are you blaming anyone else? TFD (talk) 03:50, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Her cognitive decline is discussed twice, at the end of the lead section, and in the section called "Health and job role capacity". Accordingly, accusations of "coverup" and "forcibly silent" are false. Cullen328 (talk) 03:55, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

The article includes references to six reliable sources that discuss her cognitive decline, five of which are liberal or left. So much for the spurious charge of "left-wing bias". Cullen328 (talk) 04:01, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I think the BLP noticeboard discussion hashes out this issue pretty thoroughly. As you can see, there are strong arguments on both sides. I would suggest a notice at the top of this talk page pointing to that archived discussion. Westwind273 (talk) 04:09, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I did not intend an insult. I was seriously wondering if the senator's office was involved in editing this article. Now that I know people are pretty thin-skinned here, I will speak more gently. Westwind273 (talk) 04:03, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Accuracy is what we expect, not erroneous politicized talking points. Cullen328 (talk) 04:08, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Everything I wanted to say has already been said in the BLP noticeboard discussion. I think you would agree that the arguments there are more than just politicized talking points. Westwind273 (talk) 04:11, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

The inclusion of material in any article depends on the weight of coverage in reliable sources. Reliable sources exclude almost all conservative media. (Don't blame me, I voted against banning Fox News and the Daily Mail.) So the way to judge this article is whether it gives the same emphasis to these claims as the New York Times, CNN and MSNBC. Without a change in policy, we cannot provide greater weight than they do.

BTW if I wrote to you saying that you had swept dirt under the rug in the Marjorie Taylor Greene article and asked if she was paying you, would you find that insulting or is that just how you normally converse with people? TFD (talk) 13:23, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Senator Dick Durbin

In Health and job capacity:

Dick Durbin, who chairs the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, on which Feinstein serves, told CNN that Feinstein's absences were slowing down the committee

Could someone edit this to add Senator before Dick Durbin's name? Quickenedeasy (talk) 21:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)