Talk:Dianne Feinstein/Archive 2

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

Sources that establish that this page meets Wikipedia's requirements?

I would like to see sources that establish that this page meets Wikipedia's requirements for listing a religion in the infobox or categories (religion in the body of the article has different rules), The requirements are:

  • Per Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 126#RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes: "the 'religion=' parameter and the associated 'denomination=' parameter should be removed from all pages that use Template:Infobox person. Inclusion is permitted in individual articles' infoboxes as a custom parameter only if directly tied to the person's notability. Inclusion is permitted in derived, more specific infoboxes that genuinely need it for all cases, such as one for religious leaders." If nobody has bothered to mention religion in the body of the article, that is strong evidence that the subject's beliefs are not relevant to their public life or notability.
  • Per WP:BLPCAT: "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources" ... "These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements". In the context of politicians and political candidates, there is a strong consensus in discussion after discussion that The "relevant to their public life or notability" clause should be interpreted as follows: Would this individual be notable for his/her religion if he/she were not notable for running for US president? Are we talking about someone who is notable for being religious, of someone who is notable who also happens to be religious?
  • Per WP:CAT/R: "Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion." In other words, if someone running for US president has never publicly stated on the record that they belong to a religion, we don't take the word of even reliable sources on what their religion is.
  • Per WP:CATDEF: "A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define in prose, as opposed to a tabular or list form the subject as having -- such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc. (Emphasis is in original)
  • Per WP:DEFINING: "Biographical articles should be categorized by defining characteristics. As a rule of thumb for main biographies this includes: standard biographical details: year of birth, year of death and nationality [and] the reason(s) for the person's notability; i.e., the characteristics the person is best known for. For example, a film actor who holds a law degree should be categorized as a film actor, but not as a lawyer unless his or her legal career was notable in its own right [...] a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. For example: "Subject is an adjective noun..." or "Subject, an adjective noun,...". If such examples are common, each of adjective and noun may be deemed to be "defining" for subject. If the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining. [...] Often, users can become confused between the standards of notability, verifiability, and "definingness". Notability is the test that is used to determine if a topic should have its own article. This test, combined with the test of verifiability, is used to determine if particular information should be included in an article about a topic. Definingness is the test that is used to determine if a category should be created for a particular attribute of a topic. In general, it is much easier to verifiably demonstrate that a particular characteristic is notable than to prove that it is a defining characteristic.
  • Per the overwhelming (75% to 25%) consensus at Template talk:Infobox/Archive 11#RfC: Religion in_infoboxes, nonreligions cannot be listed in the religion entry of any infobox and "Jew/Jewish" is a special case. The word has several meanings, so the source cited needs to specify the Jewish religion, as opposed to someone who lives in Israel or has a Jewish mother. That RfC has a handy list of religions and nonreligions to avoid the inevitable arguments about what is and what is not a religion. Everyone who !voted on the RfC saw that list and had ample opportunity to dispute it if they disagreed with it.
  • Per WP:LOCALCON, a local consensus on an article talk page can not override consensus in the policies, guidelines, and RfCs listed above.

We need sources for each of the above requirements. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Feinstein's essay on her Jewishness was included in the book I Am Jewish: Personal Reflections Inspired by the Last Words of Daniel Pearl[1]

In it Feinstein describes her religious identity and how it has influenced her life of public service. Also it is odd that you have for some reason picked on Dianne Feinstein's religious identity. The religion of every other senator is listed on wikipedia and for some there appear to be no citations at all while several were already available for Feinstein. Dianne Feinstein is one of the most well known Jewish women in the country. Additionally as you know Jewish identity is about more than faith so category listing for notable Jewish people certainly can include people who are secular Jews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.195.145.80 (talk) 05:06, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Please don't accuse me of singling out Feinstein. I am working through the list of senators as part of implementing the clear WP:CONSENSUS at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 126#RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes. I already finished all of the candidates (current and withdrawn) for the 2016 US presidential election.
You have yet to provide a source that establishes that Dianne Feinstein meets the following requirements:
  • Per WP:BLPCAT: "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources" ... "These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements". In the context of politicians and political candidates, there is a strong consensus in discussion after discussion that The "relevant to their public life or notability" clause should be interpreted as follows: Would this individual be notable for his/her religion if he/she were not notable for being a politician? Are we talking about someone who is notable for being religious, of someone who is notable who also happens to be religious?
Where is the source that establishes that the Dianne Feinstein page meets the requirements of WP:BLPCAT?
  • Per WP:CATDEF: "A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define in prose, as opposed to a tabular or list form the subject as having -- such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc. (Emphasis is in original)
Where is the source that establishes that the Dianne Feinstein page meets the requirements of WP:CATDEF?
Note: because so many people have trouble understanding what a defining characteristic is, we define the term in WP:DEFINING: "Biographical articles should be categorized by defining characteristics. As a rule of thumb for main biographies this includes: standard biographical details: year of birth, year of death and nationality [and] the reason(s) for the person's notability; i.e., the characteristics the person is best known for. For example, a film actor who holds a law degree should be categorized as a film actor, but not as a lawyer unless his or her legal career was notable in its own right [...] a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. For example: "Subject is an adjective noun..." or "Subject, an adjective noun,...". If such examples are common, each of adjective and noun may be deemed to be "defining" for subject. If the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining. [...] Often, users can become confused between the standards of notability, verifiability, and "definingness". Notability is the test that is used to determine if a topic should have its own article. This test, combined with the test of verifiability, is used to determine if particular information should be included in an article about a topic. Definingness is the test that is used to determine if a category should be created for a particular attribute of a topic. In general, it is much easier to verifiably demonstrate that a particular characteristic is notable than to prove that it is a defining characteristic.
Where is the source that establishes that the Dianne Feinstein page meets the defining characteristic requirement? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:28, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Why would place of birth or college be a defining characteristic but not religious or ethnic identity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.195.145.80 (talk) 19:59, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Having just now read the Village Pump discussion, I think Feinstein's religion should be discussed in the body of the article, but agree it doesn't belong in the infobox. Chris Hallquist (talk) 17:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Quote on Feinstein's religious self-identification.

From her untitled essay I Am Jewish, ed. Judea and Ruth Pearl, 2004 (someone else already mentioned this, but Google Books previews can be a little hit-or-miss):

Despite terrible events, so deeply etched in their souls, Jews continue to be taught to do their part in repairing the world. That is why I have dedicated my life to the pursuit of justice; sought equality for the underdog; and fought for the rights of every person regardless of their race, creed, color, sex, or sexual orientation, to live a safe, good life. For me, that's what it means to be a Jew, and every day I rededicate myself to that idea.

I previously questioned whether Feinstein should be listed as Jewish here, but I've flipped to thinking she should be. I also think this source is considerably better than some of the other sources I've seen cited re: her self-identification, and should probably be used rather than those. Chris Hallquist (talk) 16:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Your quote fails to show Dianne Feinstein self-identifying as a member of the Jewish religion, Judaism, and thus her religion cannot be listed as Jewish in the infobox. The word "Jew" has multiple meanings, only some of which involve religion. See Jew and Jewish Identity. Note that self-identification is only required for infoboxes and categories, for the body of the article the standard rules for sourcing apply. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree with not including it in the infobox. "Early life", maybe, after the discussion of her parents' religion? Chris Hallquist (talk) 18:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Hmmm. The quote seems to speak of her adult life. Maybe a new, philosophy section? I do think the quote should be included somewhere. It is a clear expression of "this is who I am, this is why I do the things I do" in her own words, and it really helps the reader to understand Dianne Feinstein. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dianne Feinstein. 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) 04:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Glenn Simpson interview

Published the transcript of the Judiciary Committee’s interview with Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson.

https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?id=B708D3CB-A945-4436-8FB8-9D85978C5EEF

https://twitter.com/senfeinstein/status/950828237726408706 Ju52 (talk) 09:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dianne Feinstein. 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) 00:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Feinstein Endorsed by NRA?

A few days ago I was listening to NPR. They were interviewing some "talking head" style person, maybe an author promoting a book, and he made a comment about Feinstein's "early days" in politics. He said that at some point, the NRA actually endorsed Feinstein, due to their belief that she was a "gun moderate" at the time. This struck me as very interesting, so I've done some Google research to see if there is any truth to this, and found none. Came here to see if there was any mention of this, and found none. Thought I would leave this comment here, on the chance that someone with superior research skills might find out if there is any truth to the assertion. I think this might be noteworthy in this article as sort of an "ironic twist" in her story, if it's proven to have any substance.2605:6000:6947:AB00:17E:BFB0:BC29:C091 (talk) 14:59, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

NPOV edits re controversy section

I moved controversies to their own section as they don't make sense under political views. I also added a reference to the Intercept regarding some corruption allegations. This source seems no less legitimate than others used on this page and seems to adhere to wiki standards. The rapid removal of these edits seems coming from a non neutral point of view, with significant bias. It is common and in accordance with wiki standards to document controversies such as that which I added, regardless of the side of the political spectrum. If these edits keep getting reverted it would seem higher level moderate would be called for to ensure maintenance of neutral point of view.--Xris0 (talk) 18:42, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

You can't make corruption and ethics violation allegations against WP:BLP, citing the likes of the Moonie Times and Judicial Watch. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:07, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
First point: none of the sources used in this proposed addition are acceptable, so deleting it was appropriate. The Washington Times is not accepted by Wikipedia as a Reliable Source. Judicial Watch is not neutral. The Intercept is not neutral, describing itself as "online adversarial journalism". The Politico link is not Politico's own reporting, it is reporting allegations made in a book by a freelance journalist - not acceptable as a Reliable Source. In a Google search, I mostly found non-neutral sources like Breitbart and World Net Daily.
But with that said, there IS some information on this subject in Neutral Reliable Sources. The San Jose Mercury News reports on some of the allegations, and credits Metroactive for being the first to report on the subject. The San Francisco Chronicle did some earlier reporting on contracts to companies associated with her husband, but without alleging that she had anything to do with it. Feinstein's office issued a press release denying the charges. Bottom line, it's possible that something about this could be mentioned, but we should draft the language here at the talk page before inserting it. --MelanieN (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
@Xris0:, you have three editors here opposed to that particular edit, and you're edit warring saying you "disagree" instead. That's not how consensus works. (Not to mention "controversy" sections are to be avoided, and thus the WP:OTHERSTUFF that exists on other pages should be fixed, not replicated.) Suggest some compromise text here. If you revert again, you'll be blocked for edit warring. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I think as with every other Democrat politician I have read on "Wikipedia" that this article has a severe left-wing bias. How about we clean this up? It reads like Feinstein's office wrote it herself. Where is all the stuff that if left out that should be in the article? It is dishonest to leave stuff out just because it does not fit your narrative. As my parents always said, there is at least two sides to any argument (or political issue).  Cleaning up this dogpile will take a tremendous amount of work but it's worth doing. --Mccommas (talk) 21:38, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Name any single item of "severe left-wing bias". – Muboshgu (talk) 22:06, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Spy Embedded in Feinstein's Staff for 20 Years?

Internet is on fire with this story, and yet no mention of it here. Here's just one of many links that I picked at random:

https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2018/08/01/details-chinese-spy-dianne-feinstein-san-francisco/2605:6000:6947:AB00:1D9B:AE9C:E37E:9175 (talk) 16:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Seems more like smoke than fire. Especially with this statement: "Investigators reportedly concluded the driver hadn’t leaked anything of substance and Feinstein forced him to retire." What exactly should we add here? Seems to fit better on Chinese espionage in the United States than Feinstein's article. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:39, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
"Forcing" someone to retire over the allegation seems more like fire than "smoke" to me, and the scandal appears to be in it's nascent stage, so events will go one way or the other. Still think it's worth some mention. Also I agree with the Chinese Espionage suggestion, but two are not mutually exclusive. I'd be in favor of both, but again depending on whether or not the allegation gets "legs", or if it dies out due to lack of interest in the media and/or evidence. Still think some mention should be included, primarily because excluding it looks like censorship.2605:6000:6947:AB00:1D9B:AE9C:E37E:9175 (talk) 20:08, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

It appears content regarding this sub-topic has already been included in the article. That said, it appears the sub-topic has received significant coverage but still falls within the scope of this article, and thus if this article ever splits due to WP:TOOBIG, it is one potential WP:SUBARTICLE. It has received coverage multiple times at Fox News (1, 2), multiple times by the San Francisco Chronicle (1, 2), and The Hill (1). These sources could be integrated into the existing content, or utilized to expand the sub-topic.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 06:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Jan 09

I think you're confused because the people calling themselves "conservative" these days are nothing of the kind. A conservative wouldn't back the wall street bailout or her attacks on the second amendment to name two. She is arguably a neocon, but certainly not a conservative.

But how many houses does she own? 03:08, 25 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattomynameo (talk • contribs)

External links issues

Nine listings in the "External links" section is considered too many. Add the "Statements" subsection with two more links and, a Political offices infobox, as well as thirteen other collapsible lists, and the section becomes a serious link farm. Some of the nine links needs trimming. Otr500 (talk) 19:54, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

External links

Including the two links in the "Statements" sub-section there are 11 "External links". Along with the "political office" infobox and 13 other links this section becomes a serious link farm. Would someone please look into this. Otr500 (talk) 20:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Stock Sale Controversy

Dianne Feinstein is one of four Senators identified in multiple, independent news sources [2][3][4] as having sold stock right before the market crashed due to the ongoing Coronavirus pandemic. She has denied the implication of insider trading, of course, as have Richard Burr, Jim Inhofe, and Kelly Loeffler, but the allegations are well-sourced and should be added to the article. Uncle Dick (talk) 17:50, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Feinstein sold nothing, it was her husband, and her assets are in a blind trust that she has no role in. [5]. 331dot (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Just because the media published it doesn't make it encyclopedic, especially when it's based on allegations/speculation. CBS states in their article "There's no indication that Burr had any inside information as he sold the stocks and issued the private warnings." Feinstein said that throughout her career, her assest have been in a blind trust, and similar valid reasoning was stated by others. Leave it out per WP:RECENTISM and if their actions prove to be illegal, then include it. Atsme Talk 📧 18:17, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
I reverted the content for the same reason as 331dot and Atsme are saying. WP:RECENTISM and general conservatism in a WP:BLP mean we should tread conservatively in how we address things. Also see WP:CONTROVERSYSECTION. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:52, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough. Your edit summary made it sound as though you were accepting Feinstein's pro forma denial as proof that the allegations were false. Uncle Dick (talk) 19:01, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Then by the same reason of WP:RECENTISM and WP:BLP should similar statements made in the page of Richard Burr and Kelly Loeffler be removed? I have been editing their wiki page too. SunDawn (talk) 01:18, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't read WP:RECENTISM to require exclusion of this content, just that it has to be balanced, not given undue weight, and accurately reported. There's no question that, like several others in Congress, she sold stock. Whether or not this constitutes insider trading, or whether she will be charged for it is yet to be determined, but the sale of the stock merits inclusion. Bangabandhu (talk) 08:28, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
What I observed is that on Richard Burr and Kelly Loeffler wiki entry there is no need for a talk page to include this allegation. SunDawn (talk) 09:54, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Let's be clear here. The allegation is of insider trading and criminal wrongdoing. The fact is that stocks were sold. That isn't in question, and merits inclusion. Also please don't cite discussions that don't exist. Nothing in the talk pages of either of those entries suggest anything resembling consensus. Bangabandhu (talk) 14:25, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Bangabandhu, "sale of stock" on its own does not merit inclusion. Feinstein's stocks are in a blind trust, so "she" didn't sell the stock at all. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
As of now I think it falls under NOTNEWS. Unless there is an explicit link that she and the others sold the stock to avoid the coming crash, it seems speculative. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:50, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
What, exactly, do you take away from NOTNEWS to suggest this exclusion? Per guidelines "For example, routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Widely reported, highly relevant sale of thousands of shares of stock is none of the above.Bangabandhu (talk) 14:27, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
If you read that guideline it should be clear. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Start of Feinstein's term

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1992-11-11-mn-282-story.html Apparently, Feinstein was formally sworn in a week after the election (Nov. 10). Should we change the date? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.116.162.149 (talk) 21:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I changed the Office date for her first term as Senator to Nov 10, as well.

14:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)Cnon20 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnon20 (talk • contribs)

Accusations of anti-Catholicism

Harassing, accusing, disrespecting, and discriminating against Judge Barrett should be added. 2605:A140:2044:7474:0:0:0:1 (talk) 22:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

interesting article about her praise of republicans handling of ACB confirmation hearings

Thought this article was interesting, but wanted to see if anybody else thought it was notable enough to include into the article.Eruditess (talk) 20:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2020

Change "History" degree to "history." 70.179.51.2 (talk) 17:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Done. Good catch. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Edit request: Slight wording change on lead section

"Also, on April 13, 2021, she will become the longest-serving Senator from California, surpassing Hiram Johnson." Isn't this a bit of a hypothetical. Same as with the previous sentence, this should come with a conditional as there's no assurance that this will happen with all certainty. --181.115.61.86 (talk) 06:44, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Feinstein undermining of police investigation

This should definitely included:

https://www.sfweekly.com/news/yesterdays-crimes-how-dianne-feinstein-tipped-off-the-night-stalker/ Rustygecko (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

2020 congressional insider trading scandal

Feinstein is the only senator investigated that does not have any of the information listed under her profile. The other three politicians (Loeffler, Inhofe, and Burr) all have information of their pages.

Should the information be deleted under their pages, or added to Feinstein's? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 53backes (talk • contribs) 15:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

correcting Feinstein's wiki


  • What I think should be changed:

a hyperlink to the new world liberation front is needed, as well as a mention of who placed the bomb

  • Why it should be changed:

Dianne Feinstein was a target of a bombing but not by the new world liberation front (nwlf), but rather an individual not associated with nwlf named ronald huffman. He had a coconspirator but he accepted full responsibility and said that he was not involved with NWLF.

  • References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

google? Natethinton (talk) 15:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

References

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. WP:ONUS is on you to Google, not us. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2021

Send Feinstein died in her sleep. 

99.191.209.144 (talk) 01:21, 2 September 2021 (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. —Sirdog (talk) 01:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Archived BLP noticeboard discussion on Feinstein's health

I've just removed a stale BLP noticeboard template from here; for record's sake in case it comes up again, here is the discussion on Dianne Feinstein's health at the BLP noticeboard in December 2020. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:57, 3 October 2021 (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: [1], 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

  1. ^ https://web.archive.org/web/20090901000000*/https://www.senate.gov/general/committee_membership/committee_memberships_SCNC.htm

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)

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 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)
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)
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)
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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
    If we don't go with A, I'd favour either this or option B. DFlhb (talk) 16:53, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
    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)
https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZT8RHmYoA/ 2603:6011:D02:407B:5569:8EE:EE95:17A7 (talk) 04:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Option C is just fine, thanks. Einsof (talk) 06:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)
Picure still hasn't been changed. This isn't that complicated. 73.60.215.239 (talk) 02:09, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

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)

 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2023

Dianne Feinstein WAS a United States Senator. MrCssteacher (talk) 14:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

 Already done ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 14:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

Not likely, IMO, that such a post would have come from Feinstein herself. Politicians have staffers who run their social media accounts. GenericHumanoid (talk) 21:27, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Lead image post-death

I'm starting the ball rolling early. Now that Dianne Feinstein has died with significant secondary sources (including tributes from other senators), we should go back to a lead image that represents Feinstein during her prime, or as close to it as possible. Here's the list of choices:

  • Option A (longtime lead; 2004)
    Option A (longtime lead; 2004)
  • Option B (current image as of my edit; c. 2005)
    Option B (current image as of my edit; c. 2005)
  • Option C (c. 2008)
    Option C (c. 2008)

Personally believe in Option A; aside from being the lead image before debates on accurate representation of her recent state developed, Option B has strange lighting. SuperWIKI (talk) 13:54, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Option A does look the best, least visual clutter, best lighting DarmaniLink (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Opton A in my opinion is the most appropriate. It has the least visual clutter and was the main infobox image for a long period of time. BlueOcean02 (talk) 15:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Option A is the best and most professional in my opinion Tantomile (talk) 15:20, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Option A strikes me as the best photo to use. AlaskaGal~ ^_^ 15:44, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Option A gives, in my opinion, the image that should be used for Feinstein in the infobox, as even though it is almost 20 years old, we have seen that a newer image isnt always the better image choice HistorianL (talk) 17:04, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Option A is the highest-quality and the best looking. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 13:57, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Option A is the best quality photo and feels like the definitive Dianne Feinstein photo --- RockinJack18 14:37, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

  • Gotta agree with the rest of these comments and say Option A is best. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 15:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Option A is the best quality photo, IMO. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 17:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I would rather go with this Alternate Option (which is currently in use), as it is the official photo on her website (https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/official-photo), and I feel has better lighting than the other three options presented above as well as being more flattering than the other popular Option A (she seems more cheerful in disposition). JParksT2023 (talk) 17:49, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

  • Alternative Option (official portrait; 2004)
    Alternative Option (official portrait; 2004)
  • Option A was the version that was up until a few months ago; it is the highest quality and most representative of how the subject looked. The alternative lighting suggestion could be good, as well. Curbon7 (talk) 22:44, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Late agreement, I was wondering where that went - turns out it wasn't in her "official portraits" category on Wikimedia Commons, which I have since rectified. SuperWIKI (talk) 13:42, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Terms of office as President of Board of Supervisors.

Feinstein's statue (see https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/10/01/dianne-feinstein-san-francisco/) suggests that she was President of the Board of Supervisors on three separate occasions, not just in 1978. It suggests that she was the President twice previously before she became President (and later Mayor) in 1978. Could this be investigated and updated in the article / infobox? JLo-Watson (talk) 18:00, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Date of death

She died on September 28, not September 29:

https://apnews.com/article/dianne-feinstein-san-francisco-d59a39c2961ff603adb0e8816ca80ea3 174.196.201.204 (talk) 19:28, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing that out. DarmaniLink (talk) 01:45, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
This has been contradicted and overridden by other sources. - Indefensible (talk) 06:59, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
trout Self-trout Whoops. Sorry. DarmaniLink (talk) 10:07, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2023

please note: in the "personal details" area only Dianne's father is listed but not her mother. in the "early life and education" section, Dianne's mom, Betty (née Rosenburg), is identified. Betty's name should be added to the "personal details" section. thank you Capt Dundee (talk) 10:07, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done DarmaniLink (talk) 11:16, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Self-published sources

Several times now, I and others have removed material like "Feinstein was a tireless champion of blahblah" that are substantiated with a citation to feinstein.senate.gov. This sort of material obviously fails verifiability, specifically prong 1 of WP:ABOUTSELF, which prohibits the use of self-published sources to make unduly self-serving or exceptional claims. This seems to have happened several times in the LGBTQ+ section (see Binksternet's comments above), but I also found the same problem in the public lands section. Einsof (talk) 12:08, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I will take responsibility for the public lands section, since that was my doing. That section should be satisfactory now. Mcvayn (talk) 00:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dianne_Feinstein/Archive_2&oldid=1197197338"