Talk:Dana Loesch

RfC w rgd image in infobox

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

---

Per MOS:LEADIMAGE ("The lead image is perhaps the first thing to catch the reader's eye, so avoid lead images that readers would not expect to see there. Unlike other content beyond the lead, the lead image should be chosen with these considerations in mind. Advice on selecting a lead image includes: Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations......"), w rgd the image currently in the blp's infobox, it doesn't IMHO seem so very bad. Perhaps the look is not uncharacteristic of the subject. I don't know. Granted: No type glamor shot, if avoidable, should be resorted to. An encyclopedia isn't intended to be promotional (Cf. wp:Publicity photos and see eg the subject's most recent bookjacket design: nothing akin to this). Maybe a shot like the one currently in the infobox might be the most appropriate; Ms. Loesch appears to be captured grimacing in it, its having been chosen with a rationale similar to that for the oft editorial choice of the iconic snapshot of Winston Churchill: a candid shot that seems iconographically apropos given the subject's public persona? Hmm: Maybe this one of Loesch wouldn't be out of place in heroic statuary, sculpted in some earlier era...representing the noble American Indian princess, emoting in contempt at the desecration of her people's lands; but, I digress. Were the shot chosen because it was believed unflattering to its subject, that would be a shame, however, IMHO (see wp:NPOV). Here are some choices available at Wikimedia Commons--> gallery).--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:35, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Considering that the change was here, I'd say it's sufficient to restore it back to the image it was originally on although it would be slightly dated. For example, Romney's picture however has been used for 6 years which it was taken in 2013. So I would argue that it's safe to restore it back to the one used last time. I would restore the image size back to 270 px as it got removed in this edit here. ViriiK (talk) 23:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't have a strong feeling one way or another, but why is this an RfC? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Reply - Perhaps a faux pas. Opted to go straight to an AfD in hopes of focusing the discussion on best practices project-wide without getting sidetracked with feelings about Loesch herself. Maybe overestimate the heat-to-light ratio on political pages such as this one, though. If any others feel I should rescind the RfC and render this solely a talkpage query, say so...or, Do it! Thanks.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:08, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

If we can't reach consensus on what image to use, reaching consensus on anything else is going to be next to impossible. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 20:17, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment do not think either of the images is very flattering or suitable, the latest one has a grimace and the previous one had a distracting arm expression. Looking at the ones on Commons, this one shown here is the best in my opinion, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 09:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Loesch in 2013

• Support this 2013 image. The current image is horrid for the infobox or anywhere because it's quite unflattering. The previous image was even more horrid for the infobox because it's not infobox suitable with the pose. There aren't many free images for Loesch, and of what exists, even though this photo is a little over four years old it is the best of the lot. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:46, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Promotional photo for conservative talk show host Dana Loesch

• I assume we can't use the portrait shots in commons? Because they seem like the nicest pictures. Though also even older. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 14:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

We can, but personally, I don't think the promotional photo is recognizable as Loesch as to how she appears currently. At least the one I posted above looks like her and is popularly recognizable. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Hmm true. Maybe TheTBirdusThoracis can ask the Loesch's for a good current neutral photo that can be licensed appropriately, since they are in contact with them. Seems the easiest way, if they are willing. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 14:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

• I think we should give more weight to quality over recentness, especially if appearance hasn't changed significantly in a decade or so. I think that, of the options currently on Commons, File:Portrait of Dana Loesch 1.jpg is the top contender, although it could use some touch up to reduce the lightness. A smiling portrait is better than an awkward or open mouth expression taken while someone is speaking. File:Portrait of Dana Loesch.jpg is also a contender, although it too can use some darkening. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:58, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  

  A slightly over-exposed yet aesthetically pleasing, professional quality, and acceptable composition
  .

Neither of the older, promotional photos are representative of her "look" today. In fact, if someone didn't tell me that's Loesch, I would never think it was her. At least the photo I uploaded looks like her, even if the original quality of the photo isn't the best. Remember, infoboxes are for the reader to have a quick glance to get a general understanding of who the article subject is. If the infobox photo isn't immediately or near-immediately recognizable, you've defeated the purpose. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

We need not focus exclusively on what she looks like exactly right now, when there are superior photographs available. MOS:LEADIMAGE also states (emphasis added): "they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see." Obviously there are limitations to what's available on hand (Fred Savage isn't a child anymore, contrary to his infobox image), but given that we have a good amount of choices, I'd take a professional quality portrait from several years ago to a 'current' snapshot or awkward expression any day. We can optionally indicate the year in caption (although captions are not required for infobox photos). We have the entire rest of the article to convey what she looks like at other points in time. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

You're completely missing the point and meaning of "what our readers will expect to see". When people look at a Fred Savage image they expect to see him as he looked during "The Wonder Years" years. Readers will see it and recognize him immediately - because that's when he was most popular and his career was at its height. With Dana Loesch, she is most recognizable for how she looks now - because right now is when she is getting the most widespread exposure in her entire career (up to this point). The photos you are going for don't look like her now, people will look at them and wonder if they are at the wrong article. One of her most recognizable features she has is the square-jaw look to her face. The two photos you want don't show that. The photo I've included above does. Until we get a better current image of her, we need to opt for the one where she looks like she does today, at the height of her career, at her most recognizable. As it says in the quote you added above, that's what readers will expect to see. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:12, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose the three images provided above. The 2013 image has a strange expression, and the earlier promo images do not look like present-day Loesch. There are better images available in the Commons link, such as File:Dana_Loesch_(33132787725).jpg, which has Loesch in a conference setting (that's what she's known for). In any case, the current infobox image as preferable to the three images being discussed. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:20, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
• !vote: Agree that some candid with the least iffyness about it might suffice. (For what it's worth, I think the tone of the professional portraiture (eg File:Portrait of Dana Loesch.jpg) isn't "serious" enough. I.e., it seems more like a magazine cover shot than a representation of a political commentator, to my eye.)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 02:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
• Withdrawn by poster. Apparently slightly more respondents favored some reasonably acceptable candid shot (albeit there was one or more who cited guidelines in support of the more professional photography e/g File:Portrait of Dana Loesch 1.jpg).--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lightning round

The kittenish pose was arguable cutest, but maybe cute is not the best in the context (ditto a representive shot for a Governor Palin or a Jane Fonda-style activist). In any case, please help choose from among the following.

• 

  A. "CPAC 2013"

• 

  B. "Loesch 2"

• 

  C. "33132787725"

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

OK folks, I'm closing up shop here. I've decided to opt for a 33.33% chance for each via double coin toss: Both tails --> re-toss. 1st coin heads --> "CPAC 2013." 2nd coin heads --> "Loesch 2." Both heads --> "33132787725." Results: Heads/tails --> "CPAC 2013." Thanks for all who participated.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:51, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose A - vapid / vacant expression, not an improvement on the previous "smiley" version; strongly oppose B - horrible; how is this even a candidate?; support C - in a professional setting; highly recognisable.

@Hodgdon's secret garden: if we are randomly picking, why not go with C? --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:36, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Because then it wouldn't be random! Ha ha --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Dr. Fleischman. I'm Back! It looks like you've lost. TheTBirdusThoracis (talk) 00:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support A as the best of the three choices. B doesn't look like her today, C is taken from below her gaze, which is unpreferred as well as not optimal for the infobox photo per MOS. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

My objection to this image is that Loesch looks under the influence and / or like a port star. Image C is much more professional, even if the angle may not be typical for infoboxes. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:00, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

"Curb-stomping" never was hidden - brought back up by Shaun King to blame Loesch for newspaper event on June 28

This is not new material and this was resurrected by Shaun King which he tweeted this out today to attack Dana Loesch and tie her to the newspaper shooting. What's the significance? Shaun King selectively cropped out parts of her interview with the NRA person.

This material has always been out. The reason for the edit is that it was "resurfaced" but it never was hidden from public view. Why is it significant now? It's not. November 23, 2016 for example. Why now? Are we going to start inserting every unrelated event to Dana Loesch and then blame her everytime? It's irrelevant to the body and inserts a POV since the edit that I removed massively crops her interview to portray her negatively. ViriiK (talk) 18:27, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

It is interesting that it would come up now, when Loesch has no apparent connection to the Capital Gazette shooting (at least not one that's publicly disclosed). That being said, she did say it, it certainly seems noteworthy, and the story has now been picked up by multiple reliable news outlets. In fact, the curb stomping quote made it into the reliable news media even before the shooting [1], so it could have been added here earlier. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

(And to be perfectly clear, my parenthetical isn't to implicate Loesch in the shooting, but it would be interesting if the shooter turned out to be a member of the NRA or whatnot. But that's pure what-if on my part.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Residence

Should we include the town where Loesch lives, citing this source? As far as I know we routinely include where a subject lives, as long as it's verifiable. Of course she's a public figure. Of course we respect people's privacy, but it's not like we're publishing her street address. (Street addresses are covered by WP:BLPPRIVACY.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

In general, I think including the city of where the subject lives is fine. I'm concerned about the particular reference that is used which includes details such as photos of the inside of the subject's home. This is particularly of concern for someone connected to an organization that is as publicly reviled as the NRA and for someone who is personally the target of much online vitriol. I looked for an alternate source to support the information, and found this source that says Loesch has sold the Southlake home. Therefore the question appears to be moot, because the information is no longer accurate anyway. Gnome de plume (talk) 18:11, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

No they moved from one home in Southlake to another. The SF Gate source is about the sale of the first house after the recent move. I don't see the privacy issues with the photos. They're staged with no personal belongings or information. The street address and sale price are available through public records anyway. (I downloaded the deed just to confirm it's possible.) Regarding security, the property is gated and I'm sure they have plenty of additional security. Besides I'd be very, very surprised if the story and the photos weren't published with the Loesches' permission. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Philando Castile justified?

Should probably mention how she treated Cliven Bundy as a hero.199.247.44.139 (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)