Talk:Dianne Feinstein

There Certainly Needs to be a Section on Feinstein's Support for Illegal Immigrants

Feinstein has been a very steady supporter of greater numbers of illegal immigrants in the U.S. Despite the existence of many guest workers programs, and the presence of at least 12 million illegal immigrants in the US, Feinstein has worked steadily for more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.145.124 (talk) 03:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

MILCON Subcommittee Chairmanship/Resignation Dispute

There is a factual dispute as to whether Feinstein was ever chair of the Military Construction (“MILCON”) and Veteran Affairs Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and if so, when did she resign.

It is undisputed that Feinstein served on the MILCON subcommittee as the ranking Democratic member while the Republicans controlled the Senate during the 109th Congress (2004-2005). Feinstein's current, official Senate biography states that “[s]he previously served as the Ranking Member of the Military Construction and Veteran Affairs Subcommittee.” http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=AboutDianne.Biography Additionally, her Senate website includes a December 8, 2006 press release identifying her as the ranking member of the MILCON subcommittee. http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=NewsRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=7929F974-7E9C-9AF9-710D-644F4233742E

Feinstein also served as chair of the MILCON subcommittee in 2001-2002 when, Jim Jeffords (I-VT) switched parties from Republican to Independent in May 2001, giving the Democrats control of the Senate (50-49). An October 9, 2002 press release identifies Feinstein as "chair of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction." http://feinstein.senate.gov/Releases02/r-milcon3.htm

Feinstein would have again become chair of the MILCON subcommittee when the Democratically controlled Senate of the 110th Congress was sworn in on January 4, 2007. However, a press release issued by Tim Johnson (D-SD), the current MILCON chair, states that he was named chair of the subcommitte on January 4, 2007. http://johnson.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=267932 Accordingly, it does not appear that Feinstein was ever chair of the MILCON subcommittee in 2007, and she must have resigned from the MILCON committee at some point between December 8, 2006 and January 4, 2007.

NPOV

This article is sorely lacking a NPOV.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cubic Hour (talk • contribs)

• I agree. I'm trying to upgrade all the citations so that we have good full footnotes from which to evaluate the sources. The revert I did this morning was to restore all of that work, which included a BLP violation that I removed, which inadvertently got all reverted for a textual change. I was going to come back and attempt to piece back in those content changes, but you beat me to it. Thank you. - Crockspot 15:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Also, the "Articles" section within the External Links are all pointing to conservative websites (ie Malkin, CNS), yet none point to liberal websites or truthfully, big media sites. These articles need to be balanced somehow or the section needs to be removed to preserve NPOV.--Utbriancl (talk) 23:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I removed all those CNS/Malkin "articles" links - none of them are appropriate for this article. They're not "articles" so much as they are attack pieces. There's no huge "Articles" section at the bottom of George W. Bush linking to DailyKos and Indymedia stories bashing his administration. FCYTravis (talk) 00:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Corruption

This could easily become a revert war.

Let's discuss whether this should be at the top of the article, or included with everything else.

I feel it violates NPOV to place it at the top. Those who already dislike the person are going to see corruption everywhere, and those who don't are going to be more forgiving. In any case, current allegations seem less important than her biographical info and voting record.

They should be in there, just not at the very top. --Cubic Hour 17:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Why not put "Corruption" it at the top? The woman has some history of corruption, just like most members of Congress. Is she somehow special, that her bouts of corruption should not be clearly identified in Wikipedia? 24.224.4.71 21:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It is clearly identified. Putting it at the top would probably violate WP:UNDUE. Criticism sections generally come toward the end of most bios. - Crockspot 03:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Gun Permit

This page has hosted a reversion war over the following paragraph mentioning gun control:

Feinstein is a strong proponent of gun control, yet is known to have carried concealed handguns herself with a normally nearly impossible to obtain California carry permit - few people, other than politicians and celebrities, are able to obtain California CCW permits. At one time, she was the only person in San Francisco to possess a concealed carry permit.

My take on this is that coupled with a lot more facts and discussion, it would be a good entry in an article on gun control. However, inserted into this short article on Senator Feinstein it is wildly POV and serves only to accuse her of hypocricy. Here is a bit of background material from a 1996 Los Angeles Times article:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein obtained her permit in 1976 when she was

president of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and a bomb exploded against her house.

"I was a victim of the New World Liberation Front," she recalled. "Then they shot out the windows of our beach house."

Although a supporter of tough gun laws, Feinstein believes citizens should be granted permits to carry concealed weapons if there is "a demonstrable need."

Her own license has lapsed.

Feinstein's gun was melted into a crucifix, which she later presented

to Pope John Paul.

Without the extra information, I don't think that Feinstein's concealed carry permit is appropriate for this article. With more information about the politics and violence of the 1970's, and in a longer article it might be a useful addition. --Paul 15:52, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

---

I agree that the paragraph is too POV even in its apparent edited form, and I've removed it from the article and pasted it here for further editing by someone who could do a better job with the specifics than I could.

Ms. Feinstein is a noted opponent of the interpretation of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution as applying to individuals. Ms. Feinstein holds a California concealed weapons permit and owns several handguns. She has been accused of taking advantage of her position in government to acquire a concealed weapons permit for herself while denying that opportunity to the "common man".

Vic Troy 04:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

---

A remark: the point was to introduce Feinstein's hypocrisy. She is generally regarded within the gun community as an elitist who doesn't seem to be worried about safety so much as the unwashed masses having access to firearms. I'll dig up sources and statements which back that up a little sometime. Stiletto Null 08:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Here we go...[http://www.frazmtn.com/~bwallis/DF_DODO.PDF#search=feinsteinak47

Feinstein and some contradictory statements]. Stiletto Null 13:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Dianne Feinstein is not my favorite Senator either, nor I am in favor of gun control laws, but an encyclopedia article is not the place for "introduc[ing] Feinstein's hyprocisy." Nor is an encyclopedia article an op-ed piece and it is not a place to fight old or new political wars or settle a grudge. If someone wanted to write a biography critical of Feinstein, then that would be a great place for gun control comments and the "evidence press conference" stuff. But this isn't a popular biography, and this isn't right venue. --Paul 18:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

---

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." -Second Amendment to the U.S Constitution

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it." -Diane Feinstein

Diane Feinstein is doing her best to remove the Constitutional right of private citizens to own firearms. Thus our basic freedoms, enshrined by our founding fathers in the U.S. Constitution, are irrelevant to Ms. Feinstein.

"Some people are more equal than others." -George Orwell

Her transparent hypocrisy became evident when, as gun owner, she used her clout as a politician to demand a concealed carry permit from the state of California. These permits are not available to ordinary citizens. After her duplicity was exposed, she had her guns melted into a cross and presented to the Pope -- a tasteless, ostentatious gesture.

Although these facts are irrefutable, apparently Wikipedia is the "wrong venue". Evidently, only pleasant facts about its subjects are permitted.

-Freedom Fan November 11, 2005

So let me get this straight: if someone whom works towards disarming the population by passing laws has a permit to carry guns themselves, this makes them NOT a hypocrite? Sorry, even though you are deleting these things because you think they are "POV" and that someone is trying to "make her into a hypocrite", the facts remain that Diane Feinsten has made many legislative attempts at civilian disarmament while posessing firearms herself. While trying to be objective, you are ignoring the reality. - Dobb's Head, Panama - 15th of January, in the Year of Our Lord 2006.

As of 1/26/06, there remains a mention of the concealed carry permit, but the phrasing of the sentence needs to be improved, the current text has some antecedent problems and appears to suggest that gun rights groups criticize Feinstein despite her having a concealed carry permit, which is clearly not the intended statement. --Joe Decker 00:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm probably going to have a renowned gun rights activist/computer expert of my aquaintance post the picture of this socialist sow with an AK-47 in her hands,magazine inserted,finger on trigger,muzzle pointed at crowd.Do any of you remember the picture?

Saltforkgunman 06:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC) I'm of fairly conservative bent and not a fan of Feinstein. That said, the fact that she had a concealed carry permit is a fact and belongs in wikipedia. I note that it is impossible to conceal an assault weapon upon one's person, and that nuance with regard to the second amendment seems to indicate that you can be in favor of small concealable arms but not in favor of allowing large magazines or semi-automatic riflery. So, to put it bluntly, that should be the thrust of this section -- to show factually the nuance of Feinstein's position without judging that position. So, state she had a conceal carry permit, and state the type of firearm for which the permit was issued, and state her other positions on the matter, but omit the words which (obviously) judge her position. Unclesmrgol 04:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous distrust

The following weasel-worded paragraph contains no references. It may be right, but it needs to be backed up.

Because of her record of moderation and bipartisanship, Feinstein is distrusted by some on the political left. She is often labeled unfavorably by them as pro-business, as she has voted for most lawsuit reform measures and was a cosponsor of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. She voted for the first tax cuts in 2001 and also for the prescription drug plan in 2003. Both positions were unpopular with many in her own party. Feinstein supported the use of military force in Iraq and is a firm supporter of capital punishment. Critics point out positions like these to indicate that she is not a true or loyal Democrat. Such critics overlook her record on other issues: she voted against NAFTA, the Defense of Marriage Act, school prayer, welfare reform, and the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005.

• It is a dubious section. I think it has some valid points but needs to be revised and have sources to validate thise claims.Kiwidude 01:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Dianne Rocks!Kiwidude 00:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Laundering this article

I wrote the first version of this article way back in May 2003. After revisiting the article today and viewing its edit history, I get the distinct impression that a group of Feinstein apologists have been systematically cleansing this article of legitimate information about Senator Feinstein in the name of NPOV. I am going to start introducing (or re-introducing) information into this article which has been laundered. Chadloder 19:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Be careful and fair. The fact that you are the "orignial" author does not give you any special right to ignore the NPOV edict of Wikipedia or to push any political view. --Paul 23:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Paul, being the original author doesn't give you special priveleges to disregard NPOV.Kiwidude 01:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I never suggested that being the original author gives me special rights. Chadloder 05:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Your impression seems to be right on target. See below. Sir Paul 15:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

1990 Campaign

I removed the text "funded by her husband" from this phrase:

In 1990 she made an unsuccessful bid, funded by her husband, for Governor of California, losing to Republican Senator Pete Wilson

In 1990 Feinstein was not some third party or independent gadfly, she was the Democratic Party candidate for the Governor of California. Her husband was undoubtedly a major contributor to her campaign, but the campaign was not "funded by her husband." The redacted language implies that Feinstein was not widely supported and had to rely on personal wealth for her campaign. This is simply not true. The language is misleading and irrelevant. --Paul 20:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

please provide a citation to that effect, if possible. Anastrophe 21:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

never mind - i found some information relevant to that campaign which i have added, including source. Anastrophe 21:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

This does appear to be a "true fact", but I don't understand the point of including it. Wikipedia is supposed to be an on-line encyclopedia, which implies structured articles, not just a collection of facts. In such a short article the inclusion of the fact that her campaign and treasurer was fined in 1990 seems arbitrary and out of place. Is this the only time her one of her campaigns has been fined? Is it the most egregous example? Is it worse than fines assessed against her opponents? It just seems like a weed in the middle of the lawn, because there is no context for it. --Paul 22:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

"a weed in the middle of the lawn" implies that the 'pleasant' facts of the article are the desireable majority, but the 'unpleasant' facts are to be removed (what else does one do with weeds?). not a good metaphor. the context is implicit - it refers directly to the content of the previous sentence.Anastrophe 00:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. I was suggesting that it be removed, but not because it is 'unpleasant.' I would removed it simply because it does not fit into a narrative of her political career. It is not a significant fact about which offices she has run for, and which she has occupied. It is a factlet which is awkwardly stuck into the paragraph, and it is stylistically inappropriate. --Paul 00:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

i disagree. it's a straight, npov statement of a fact associated with her first run for governor. it's true, and notable. it should remain. Anastrophe 00:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

additionally, it is a significant fact; failure to report campaign funding properly is a notable malfeasance for any major or minor candidate. it is no more or less noteworthy than other 'factlets' that are associated with her other runs for office (if losing by a single percentage point in an election is noteworthy, then so is a malfeasance). Anastrophe 00:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

anyone see this?

Interesting... http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/02/09/MNGSCH5M1V4.DTL Giovanni33 21:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

There's also a New York Times editorial on the subject:

The deletion of unattractive facts by apple-polishers became so obvious that Wikipedia's detectives temporarily blocked some Senate addresses from making entries. The electronic addresses of Senate offices turn out to be more easily traced than those of House members, so there is no comparable record of protective edits by lower house scriveners.

Senator Dianne Feinstein's net worth was mysteriously deleted from her biography, along with the $190,000 fine she had to pay for not disclosing that her husband had guaranteed her 1990 campaign loans. Wikinews, the encyclopedia's arm of corrective reporters, found Senator Joseph Biden's past problems with campaign plagiarism charges had evaporated, thanks to someone at one of his office computers. Members of Senator Norm Coleman's staff massaged a description of him as a liberal college Democrat; he morphed into an "activist," then merely an "active college student." A reference to Senator Tom Harkin's discredited claims to have flown combat missions in Vietnam disappeared.

Sir Paul 15:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Chinese New Year Pic

Are you sure that's Dianne Feinstein? It looks like Nancy Pelosi, the House Minority Leader; she too is from sf.Kiwidude 19:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Hilarious, but come on now...

"In 1980, she married Richard C. Blum, a shady investment banker and fulltime crook. Their personal fortune is estimated to be between $25 million and $50 million. In 2003, Feinstein was ranked the fifth wealthiest senator, with an estimated net worth of $26 million, which should be cause enough for voters to bounce this bitch out of office, but unfortunately, far too many SF voters are mentally ill themselves. [3]"

"Feinstein's daughter, Katherine Feinstein Mariano, is a superior court judge in San Francisco, which just goes to show that wealthy parents can buy their useless spoiled children right into the judiciary."

"Feinstein served on the Trilateral Commission during the 1980s while mayor of San Francisco, and is now a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, both groups are cabals for the wealthy, new world order."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pathaugen (talk • contribs)

Good point. Next time, please remove (revert) this sort of garbage yourself.

Also, if a comment were posted to a talk/discussion page every time that someone posted nonsense to main article, wikipedia's talk/discussion pages would be overflowing - so please don't do that next time. Thanks. John Broughton 19:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Irresponsible remarks

This article is riddled with inappropriate comments throughout. Controversial aspects should be relegated to appropriate subs. Obvious attacks on Feinstein in the midst of what should be unbiased information isn't going to fool anyone, folks.

I got an article started on her on the political wiki Campaigns Wikia--check it out and put in the partisan crap there.

Her mother half Jewish?

The article says:

Senator Dianne Feinstein was born Dianne Emiel Goldman[1] in San Francisco to a Jewish father and a mother, Betty Rosenburg, who was of mixed Jewish and Russian Orthodox descent.

I have always understood that a person is Jewish or is not depending on being born to a Jewish mother or else being converted to Judaism. In my opinion the Jewishness of her parents does not need to be mentioned at all. Either Senator Feinstein was born Jewish or converted or else we can not say she is Jewish. Steve Dufour 06:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC) What I'm saying is if she is Jewish just say that, don't make it complex. The statement about her parents opens up a can of worms, (which certainly are not Kosher.)  :-)

I went ahead and changed the sentence. There seems to be enough evidence that she is, indeed, Jewish. Steve Dufour 13:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

im a jewish woman from israel. I can comment on that. It is factualy correct that someone being jewish or not is determend only by the mother - not the father (like in other religons). There is no "Half jew" according to judaism - only 100% or none at all, although it is commenly accepteble culturly for people who have a jewish father to say : "i'm half jewish" (Only outside of israel and not within). In feinstein's case, she was, (correct me if i'm wrong) - converted within "the reform" conversion - witch is widely unaccepteble by jews especially in israel, who don't recognize them as jews (they only recognize the "orthoddox conversion") and even gotten to the israeli high court of apeals, though this "refomist judaism", or whaever else it is named, is widely acceptble among american jews. so it diificult to determine in her case.

by any case, i'd like to comment that a different category should be opened for those who are not officially jews - but have parents and ruits in judaism - "peopele of jewish origin" or something in that nature, caus putting people like Madeleine Albright' or william cohen under "american jews" is just factually wrong as oppose to the unclear case of feinstein.

good day - and good luck. --89.138.244.27 (talk) 20:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

But under the Orthodox standard you describe, Madeline Albright is indeed officially Jewish, because her mother/maternal grandmother/etc. were Jewish. 64.201.38.62 (talk) 15:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Subcommittee on Military Construction Appropriations

"On March 29, 2007, she resigned from the Senate Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee. Feinstein was chairperson and ranking member of MILCON for six years, during which time she had a conflict of interest due to her husband Richard C. Blum's ownership of two major defense contractors, who were awarded billions of dollars for military construction projects approved by Feinstein."

I feel there are a number of problems stemming from this portion of the article. Least of all, there is no "Senate Military Construction Appropriations" subcommittee per se. I assume the desired subcommittee is the "Senate Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies."

More deeply troubling, the date given for her resignation from this subcommittee varies from source to source. What is apparently the original article by Peter Byrne appears at Bohemian with a dateline of 14-20 March, 2007 and at MetroActive with a dateline of 21-27 March, 2007. Messageboard references to said article appear here on 22 March, 2007 and here on 23 March, 2007. Clearly, the date given in the Wiki article cannot be correct. I was unable to find authoritative reference to when she did, in fact, leave this subcommittee.

With respect to the issue of whether Feinstein was ever chair of the MILCON Subcommittee, look at this old biography from her own Senate website, where she states that “She also serves on the Senate Appropriations Committee where she is chair of the Subcommittee on Military Construction . . .” http://feinstein.senate.gov/biography5.html

Finally, the statement "during which time she had a conflict of interest due to her husband Richard C. Blum's ownership of two major defense contractors" is not NPOV unless it cites a judgement to that effect by an ethics body with relevant jurisdiction. Otherwise, this is an allegation, not a fact, and should at least be denoted as such if not removed from the article entirely. Nllewellyn 16:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

A Senate floor speech from 2003 mentions Feinstein and the subcommittee in question: I am very pleased to join with my ranking member of the Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Feinstein of California... Terjen 17:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

On April 3, Feinstein's Office called allegations of a conflict of interest "nonsense" and said Feinstein's departure from the Senate subcommittee on military construction appropriation had nothing to do with reports in the Silicon Valley weeklies.[1] Terjen 19:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

New article from The Hill that can be worked in. Doesn't look too good for DiFi. Also makes note of lack of MSM coverage. - Crockspot 12:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keene, David (2007-04-30). "Feinstein's Cardinal shenanigans". The Hill. Retrieved 2007-05-02. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Wiki's own link of the subcommittee (in article) shows she was not a member of the Contruction committee in '07 and is still a member of the Defense Subcommittee. Your blog news sources make no logic compared to Wiki having no record of her resignation on another site and no major news source mentioning even her resignation. ASG82 03:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Metro Newspapers is not a blog. Terjen 06:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, its just an "alternative newspaper" with no mention why they think she stepped down from a committee she wasn't a part of in 2007. None of the assertions of any logic claimed here have been refuted yet the article still has her resignation is still on the page because why? Where's the explanation as to why she was never shown as a member of the Construction Committee on the subcommittee's wiki site? ASG82 11:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

See her Senate floor speech from 2003 (quoted above) showing that she has been a member of the committee. It turns out the dating of the resignation to March 2007 appeared in a subhead tacked on to the Byrne article by a newspaper editor; the article itself does not date the resignation. Note that the subhead to the MetroActive article has since been changed to no longer state a date for the resignation. I have removed the date accordingly. Terjen 14:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Media Matters has a critical review of the resignation claims. Several of the comments following the review are responses by Peter Byrne, including If anyone can prove that the facts I reported are incorrect, please do so before descending into dumb statements such as saying a "central falsehood" in my reporting is a subhead that was not written by, nor approved by me, and that had little if anything to do with the 4,500 word investigation. Here is more from the response by Byrne:

The original story simply said the senator had resigned. It did not say exactly when she left. Before filing the story I contacted Feinstein's office, asking for the date of and the reason for her resignation, a term which simply means "to leave or turn over an official position," and her office did not answer me. Nor could I find a press release at that time, despite looking hard for one. I did, however, confirm with official sources in Washington that she had resigned from chairing MILCON and gone to another appropriations subcommittee during the turn over in January. I did not put the date in my story because I could not find it; even the senator's web site said she was on MILCON until recently. But the fact is: she did leave (resign) the subcommittee. Whether or not that was before my first investigative article was printed is irrelevant because Feinstein's office knew in early September 2006 that the story, with its particular facts and allegations, was coming out soon and the senator was given oodles of time to comment on the facts and declined to comment except for one item. Two and one-half months later, she has not asked for any corrections. Her so-called "rebuttal" does not contain a single correction of fact, so Doyle cannot be faulted for not quoting ten pages of spin which tries to reframe my story as about steering contracts, when it is not about that: it is about micromanaging appropriations that ended up benefitting her family and it does not even allege nefarious intent.

-- Terjen 16:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't revert reference upgrades

I spent two days upgrading the citations, and am still in progress doing so. All of my work was reverted because an editor wanted to change one paragraph of text. That's really really really rude. I reverted. I would change the paragraph in question, but I have to go offline, so I will do so later. Crockspot 13:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• All sorted out thanks to other editors. I've finished upgrading all the citations, so there are nice complete footnotes. - Crockspot 03:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

poll ratings

i left a message on 'politicsrules' user page regarding this. it appears this user posts current poll stats for a bunch of politicians. i think they should be removed from the articles. they're way too fleeting, and not relevant to an encyclopedic entry, which should focus on the politician's accomplishments(or lack thereof), which will inherently be long-term. the monthly poll results just add noise to the articles - they lend no greater depth than 'this past month, so and so must have put their foot in their mouth - in a few months they'll remove it'. Anastrophe 02:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Which Feinstein Photo Should We Use: Her Official Photo or the "Pretty" Photo (also an official photo)?

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

- Jay Leno[2]

The Issue

I ("More Truthiness") updated Senator Feinstein's biography with her Official Photo, which I got from the Senator's own Congressional website; another editor has reverted the biography to an old photo of the Senator because, in his opinion, the Official Photo is “hideous” and she is "better looking” in the older picture.

The Facts

• The Official Photo is from Senator Feinstein's Congressional website. The photo is distributed by the Senator herself—she even calls it her "Official Photo."[3]

• The Senator uses the Official Photo in her own biography page on her Senate website.[4]

• The webpage of the U.S. Senate Committee on Rules and Regulations, of which she is chairman, uses her Official Photo. [5]

• You can even request a print copy of the Official Photo, which the Senator will autograph for you.[6]

The Argument for Using the Official Photo

There is no question that the Official Photo is authentic and accurate. There is no question that the Official Photo is the most current Congressional portrait of the Senator. It is indisputable that using the Senator's own, self-designated Official Photo does not violate NPOV or project any possible bias against the Senator.

The only issue here is that one editor thinks his opinion about which picture "looks better" is more important than accuracy and currentness. A personal preference is simply not a basis for deleting the contributions of another editor. Wikipedia is about the accuracy and currentness of its content, not about the aesthetic tastes of one individual. It is about the unvarnished truth, not about painting a pretty picture.

Using the most current and accurate photo of a living person—especially when that person provides the picture and says it is their "official photo"—is an objective and neutral way of deciding which picture to use for their Wikipedia biography. When we start to use vauge standards like which picture is "better looking" we are opening the door to emense bias.

Aesthetics are a purely and uniquely individual. If the Wikipedia standard is to use the photo where someone "looks best," then there is no principled basis for ever determining which photograph to use. Heck, if are only concerned with making people look good, why not use a photo of the Senator back when she was the mayor of San Francisco[7]? Why not change Arnold Schwarzenegger's picture to one from his hunky days[8]? Or turn back the hands of time on the late Strom Thurmond[9]?

If the Senator places the photo on her own website, calls it her "official photo," and even offers to autograph a glossy and mail it to you, why does one contributer get to decide that the photo is "hideous" and delete it from Wikipedia. If we care at all about accuracy, currentness, or neutrality, we should and must use the Senator's own Official Photo.

More Truthiness 03:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The Argument for Using the "Pretty" Photo

• The "Pretty" photo, as you call it, is also an official photo that comes from the exact same source. Check the image page for the link if you do not believe me. This is a biography that encompasses the subject's entire life, and there is no policy that states that we must use the latest photo of the subject. I happen to think the new one is an awful picture. I also notice that More Truthiness' edit history is limited to the adding of this photo to this article. He has also made comments indicating that he is fully aware of my past history. By the WP:DUCK test, this user is a SPA sock of another user, who is pushing an agenda to make the Senator look bad. I am no big fan of the Senator, but that photo is awful, and I see no valid reason why we have to use it. - Crockspot 13:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Further comment. In addition to the light it places the subject in, there is also the concept of the aesthetics of the encyclopedia itself. Articles should have as much appeal as possible. The "pretty" official photo has better appeal. - Crockspot 16:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with Crockspot here. Both photos are official, and there is no policy saying that we must use the newest photo avialable. In fact there is no policy (that I know of) that says we must use official photos either, though they are certainty convenient since they are public domain. So it comes down to aesthetics: and I think she looks better in the "pretty" photo. I'd also argue that while WP:BLP doesn't explicitly address this issue, Crock and I certainly have the spirit of that policy on our side. When we have the choice of portraying in person in a good light or a bad light, and there is no compelling reason to choose the bad light, we must err on the side of porttraying the person in the good light by defualt. Yilloslime (t) 16:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• We can exercise editorial judgment here. When we have two official photos which are both public domain, then there is no reason why we can't select the best of the two. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 16:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Yilloslime, what gives you the right to say the Official Photo puts her in a "bad light"? Gamaliel, why do you get to decide which is the "best"? Neither of those are objective criteria for determining which picture to use. 66.7.37.66 17:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

66.7.37.66, while I have offered an admittedly subjective reason for my preference, you have offered nothing--neither subjective nor objective. If you are not going to even attempt to justify your revert, then I see know reason why I shouldn't change it back. (And I may have to nominate this argument for WP:LAME.) Yilloslime (t) 18:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• He's already violated 3RR here today, and has been reported. - Crockspot 19:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• No true Yilloslime. See above for my objective justifications for using the current Official Photo, but I will summarize again for you:

- (Objective Justification 1) The Official Photo is the most current Congressional portrait of the Sentator. The entire purpose of Wikipedia is to be a constantly current and updated source of information.

- (Objective Justification 2) The Official Photo is the photograph used by the Senator herself on her own senate biography page. Thus, the Senator herself believes it to be the most accurate photographic representation of her.

- (Objective Justification 3) The Official Photo is the photo used by the United States Senate on the Rules and Regulations committee. An independent and neutral endorsement of using the Official Photo as the proper photographic image for the Senator.

Regarding your comments about the lameness of this issue, it is the reverters of the contribution who must justify their actions. I have made a made an update of the article with an indisputably current, accurate, official, and legitimate picture of the Senator. The presumption is against reverting this contribution. The fact that you do not like a current, accurate, and legitimate update does not give you the right to revert it. Unless you can provide some reason other than the fact that you "don't like it" you have no basis to revert to the outdated photo. More Truthiness 19:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• You have some pretty messed up assumptions about Wikipedia, such as it's "entire purpose", and that consensus must bend to some sort of presumption in favor of your edit. You've already blown through 3RR, and every edit you've made under both IP and logged in has been related to jamming this photo into this article. I suggest you look into a new hobby while you are waiting out your impending block. - Crockspot 19:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• You are wrong when say that "it is the reverters of the contribution who must justify their actions." Actually, the burden of proof is on the editor trying introduce the new material, and so far you have not convinced anyone. Yilloslime (t) 21:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be an edit war ongoing over which photo to use. I invite the protagonists to discuss it here instead of warring. --John 20:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• We are discussing, at the top of this page. The person doing the warring was just blocked for 3RR violation. - Crockspot 20:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed the discussion right after leaving that message. Let me know if you need any help. --John 20:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a long article, and both photos are public domain, why not use both? One in the infobox, one in the senate career section, if it's her official senate photo. Frankly, I don't see that either one of them is prettier or uglier than the other. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• I can live with that. Thanks AnonEMouse, you're a smart mouse. - Crockspot 20:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to make things clear to editors just joining in, these are pics we're talking about (Yilloslime (t) 20:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)):

• 
  Feinstein in black blazer
• 
  Feinstein in red blazer

Mayoral image

We can even use an additional image - her senate website says 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. And they've got a gallery of her photos as Mayor - without any otherwise specifications. I think we should grab one for that section of the article as well. Any opinions as to which? The first one on the street car is the most dramatic, and it is a classic image of San Francisco, but doesn't actually show her in much detail. The second one with the Queen shows her quite well but doesn't really represent her mayoral duties very well; meeting Queens is not the sort of thing the mayor of San Francisco does every day, or even every term. The third one with the police shows her thoroughly and is more typical ... but she has her mouth open for no good reason, and looks a bit, dare I say it, silly. Any opinions as to which we should use? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I vote for street car Feinstein, but I don't have strong preferences in the case. Yilloslime (t) 21:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Being bold until someone has a better idea. :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Lead

The current lead displays nothing required by the MOS. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarize the article, and try to highlight something from each section on the page. Clearly, this lead only braggs about how the Senator was the first woman to accomplish many things; don't get me wrong, those are all things to brag about, but they belong in the body article, not the lead. Happyme22 02:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Bailout

The section Bailout of 2008 smacks of recentism. It includes only a single sentence, regarding a single vote, and yet it's given its own entire section heading. Can someone suggest a better place to integrate that information? —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 01:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

While I agree its placement is a bit incorrent, it's still a major decision made by the 2008 Senate. I believe the bailout info should also include a note saying that the vote in favor was against the will of her constituents. She publicly stated on 10/1/2008 at 7:30PM ET on the senate floor that she received 91,000 phone calls and emails with 85,000 opposed, and yet she still voted in favor of the bill (CSPAN clip here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZFwRAfkV1g). SDNick484 (talk) 22:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Jan 09

Based on her ideologies and voting record she seems pretty conservative to me. I propose changing a few sentences in the lede. South Bay (talk) 11:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)