Jump to content

Talk:Dianne Feinstein

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 70.108.1.24 (talk) at 13:50, 29 September 2023 (last tweet). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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Following suit with Dick Durbin and Bernie Sanders, these outdated official portraits from a decade ago (for Feinstein its nearly two decades) should be replaced with recent images.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)[reply]

  • Option A (current; 2004)
    Option A (current; 2004)
  • Option B (2018)
    Option B (2018)
  • Option C (2018)
    Option C (2018)
  • Option D (2018)
    Option D (2018)
  • Option E (2023)
    Option E (2023)
  • Option F (2022)
    Option F (2022)
  • Option G (2019)
    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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Technojoe, you claim Option E as your "own work". Where was the photo taken? What camera did you use? Where is the metadata for this photo? Are you the copyright holder? Cullen328 (talk) 02:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated this image for deletion on Commons. It looks like Technojoe has falsely claimed a photo to be his own work that is elsewhere (in mirrored form) credited to Getty Images. Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:16, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Support any up-to-date image. We typically revert back to images of people in their prime posthumously. But using a decades-old photo in 2023 when she's still a living person is not ideal.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 01:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed that the use of image A as lead image is problematic at this point. B,C, F or G are all preferable over A. Another option would be this high resolution photo from 2020. Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:29, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If we don't go with A, I'd favour either this or option B. DFlhb (talk) 16:53, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, the image should be changed. Any of the options besides A are good. I personally prefer B. EvanSheppard (talk) 23:54, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZT8RHmYoA/ 2603:6011:D02:407B:5569:8EE:EE95:17A7 (talk) 04:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also agree to change to up to date image and see that this has been ongoing over 6mo with no change, and strangely there are now multiple more up to date photos in the main sections than the one in the infobox - If no objections we should just move the 2023 image in the main article text to the infobox. Any objection?Xyphoid (talk) 20:00, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually on review there are 8 positive responses to this proposal and 2 negative over 6 months so I would say a reasonable consensus has been reached and if no further objections I will reposition the 2023 photo currently in the article to the infobox. Xyphoid (talk) 21:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Xyphoid, I'm confused. First of all, I do not see any consensus above. Several editors mentioned multiple images that they would consider acceptable, making it difficult to discern a consensus around one individual image. Second, you are suggesting using the 2023 image that is currently displayed in the article; however, that image is not one of the six choices that have been provided in this thread, and I don't see any other editors expressing support for it.
With respect, it seems premature to replace the existing image. I'd suggest: (a) adding the 2023 image you want to use and listing it as Option H at the top of this thread; (b) asking every editor who wants to weigh in on this question (whether or not they have already done so) to respond with the one image that is their first choice for lead image; and (c) requesting responses by a date certain. What do you think of that idea? MonMothma (talk) 03:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MonMothma, I'm a bit confused by your remarks, and I think that your suggestion is not a good idea.
Your demand that there must be a consensus around one individual image before any change can be made and insistence that after almost two years of discussion it still seems premature to replace the existing image is not supported by policy, in fact it veers pretty close to WP:STONEWALLING. This talk page section is not a formal RfC (which runs for a limited amount of time, during which one might ask to hold off on changes), but rather has been going on since October 2021.
What's more, at this point I see a pretty clear consensus above against the 2004 photo (option A). Hence I have just switched the infobox to option C, which saw some support and no opposition above, and also has the advantage that it was published by Feinstein herself (or her office), which should alleviate any concerns some may have about consent, however tenuous they may be.
People should feel free to continue this discussion and select another recent option instead. However, do not revert to option A without (a) stating a substantive rationale based in policy, guidelines and conventions or (b) participating in good faith discussion, per WP:STONEWALLING.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:08, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again I support any up-to-date image and agree with @HaeB above.
Keeping lead image up to date is the basic standard for biographical articles of living persons, and it is not clear to me why a select panel of images and community vote on the best image is even required or was initiated in the first place, in the absence of community conflict on the issue, as there can be no concerns about vandalism or bias from using an up to date image.
I can see HaeB has changed to option C from 2018 and think this should be retained. It seems highly nonsensical to revert from a 4 year old image to a 19 year old image in the interests of 'waiting for a further consensus to form'. Xyphoid (talk) 12:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
HaeB, point of clarification: Contrary to what you said, I was not stonewalling (or coming close to stonewalling), and I did not make any demands. My point was simply this: Thus far, despite lengthy discussion, no consensus has formed around which image should be used as the lead image. Also, there was no support for the image suggested by Xyphoid, because that image wasn't even one of the options listed above. If other editors are OK with Option C, great. Problem solved. If not, we should keep trying to reach consensus so we can come up with a stable solution and avoid a potential edit war over the lead image. MonMothma (talk) 13:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Option C is just fine, thanks. Einsof (talk) 06:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

That is not necessary since the rest of the sentence makes it clear that he is a Senator. Cullen328 (talk) 20:10, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why hasn't the picture been updated per the 2021 discussion above?

This photo is almost 20 years out of date. Why did that topic stall? Aerovistae (talk) 20:04, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion has been revived, Aerovistae, and there have been five comments this month. The most recent photo, Option E, has dubious licensing, and that needs to be worked out. Cullen328 (talk) 20:08, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Picure still hasn't been changed. This isn't that complicated. 73.60.215.239 (talk) 02:09, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2023

Please update ms Feinsteins photo. It is misleading, she is 90 years old and decrepit 24.101.62.215 (talk) 15:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:17, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Order within infobox

In the infobox, why is Feinstein's current position (US Senator from California, Incumbent) 4 positions down, and below 3 other expired positions that are junior to her position as senator? Shouldn't it be at the top? Grorp (talk) 00:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

death in health section

Should we mention it there, or should we just WP:NOTYET it and wait for an official coroners report to come out DarmaniLink (talk) 13:28, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Official sources have confirmed it, so it belongs there. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 13:33, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Last tweet

Senator Feinstein sent out a long and elucidate tweet about the Nagorno-Karabakh situation right at the moment of her death. This is remarkable that someone taking their last breaths could do that. Should definitely be mentioned in the article. This woman is a legend. 70.108.1.24 (talk) 13:49, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dianne_Feinstein&oldid=1177771063"