Jump to content

Talk:Dianne Feinstein/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)
  • 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)


  • 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)

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)

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 black blazer
  • Feinstein in red 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)

"Congressional staffer edits to Wikipedia"

Why is that linked under "See also"? In that article, Feinstein is not mentioned at all. Varana (talk) 20:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed. Thanks for pointing it out. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Governor run

I believe there is strong possibility she will run for Governor of California in 2010, her likely opponents will be Katie shackel the former CEO of ebay. 70.102.232.58 (talk) 00:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Editorializing

The section about the Milk movies says that they pointedly avoid mentioning her last name or her office, etc. The word "pointedly" is editorializing unless someone can supply a reference to intention by the movie makers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.48.218 (talk) 02:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

(updated) $25 billion corruption scandal

"Senator's husband's firm cashes in on crisis" It looks like Feinstein is trying to make money from the Credit Crisis by stealing taxpayer's money. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kennedypie (talk • contribs) 20:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I've just corrected a related subject in "4.2.8 Possible conflicts of interest" after doing some research, which I cited in the update.
Cnewmark (talk) 17:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

BLP violation

In case someone tries to revert, the content I removed was a WP:BLP violation. User:Engineer1234 added the OR almost 2.5 years ago. APK straight up now tell me 23:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

health care

this is not a good bill please do not for it there is a better way take the money you have taken for stimales buy the pepole that need heath ins with it i am a dem for all my life but will vote for some one else if you do this bad bill david mayrell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.128.86.35 (talk) 22:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Article importance class

Seeking consensus here, but why is it that this article of an important and influential state-wide politician is only rated as Mid, while Tupac Shakur is rated as high? I contest while both are definitely already Notable, that in the scope of the WikiCaliforna Project that their importance classes should be switched, with the subject of this article being High, and Tupac being rated mid. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Sometimes WP has a strange idea of what is important. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Totally agree. Changing to high. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 04:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Gun Politics Section

The Gun Politics section of this article is pretty shabby and written from an obvious guns-rights-owner perspective. (I was lead here while fact-checking a few claims a co-worker of mine who volunteers for the NRA made in a rant against Feinstein.)

Some problematic passages from this section:

  • Feinstein said on CBS-TV's 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995, "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 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

The citation does not cite the original source (which, granted, may not be available online), but a partisan editorial. Googling the quotation indicates its somewhat apocryphal character, as all the citations come from guns-rights-owners sites and the like and have varying syntax. The ellipses in the current article allow the statement to be parsed as if she is advocating for either the round-up of all guns or even American citizens themselves. Her comment referred specifically to semi-automatic firearms. The quotation here is not given the appropriate context.

  • Feinstein was accused of hypocrisy when it became public information that despite her stringent anti-gun record, the Senator maintained a Concealed Weapons permit and actively carried a .38 caliber Smith & Wesson revolver for her personal safety.

The use of the passive voice here gives the statement the tinge of scurrilous innuendo. Did someone noteworthy in particular accuse her of hypocrisy? The sources ultimately cited for this information are these websites: http://www.alphadogweb.com/firearms/Diane_Feinstein.htm and http://www.stentorian.com/2ndamend/dianne_f.html. Visiting these sites does not inspire confidence in their scholarly bona fides.

I've googled the claim but again it is mired in blogospheric regurgitation. An account which cites a letter from Feinstein in which she acknowledges owning a gun at one point in her life can be found at http://cgi.stanford.edu/group/wais/cgi-bin/?p=9475:

Thank you for writing to me about my permit to carry a concealed weapon. I would like to take this opportunity to set the record straight.

I possessed a concealed weapon permit for a short time beginning in 1976. In the mid-1970s, a terrorist organization, The New World Liberation Front, carried out two attacks against me and my family. In the first, a bomb was placed outside the window of my daughter’s bedroom. It detonated but did not explode. We were lucky: the weather was particularly (and unusually) cold, and the explosive they used didn’t explode in below-freezing temperatures. In the second, they shot out the windows of our beach home. My husband was terminally ill with cancer at the time.

Later, some of the members of the New World Liberation Front were arrested, and the threat abated. At that point, I had the gun–and several other weapons that were turned into the police–melted into a cross, which I presented to Pope John Paul II when I visited Rome in 1982. Currently, I do not possess a gun, nor do I have a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

Again, this is not a legitimate scholarly source, but it does point to the inadequate context of the current statement and challenges the assertion that there is anything hypocritical in her current position on gun regulation.

  • In 1999, Jill Labbe, of the Wilkes-Barre Times Leader, recounted Mrs. Feinstein's actions at an anti-gun press conference, where Mrs. Feinstein displayed an AK-47 assault rifle. Despite her assertions of being trained in handling firearms, after picking it up, she broke multiple basic and commonly known firearms handling safety rules; placing her finger on the trigger, and then sweeping the muzzle across the room, pointing at people who were present. A reporter who was in the audience and familiar with firearms safety, stood in disbelief as the AK-47 was panned across the crowded room.

Again poorly sourced, provocatively worded, and not relevant to the general issue of her policy positions. Insofar as as it is The Stentorian (see above) cited and not the The Wilkes-Barre Times Leader, the reference amounts to hearsay.

I'm a California resident and have voted for Dianne Feinstein, so I'll give someone with a greater claim to objectivity the opportunity to improve this section. As it stands now, it's unfair to Senator Feinstein and an embarrassing representation of Wikipedia's quality on a prominent subject.

Of your three concerns: 1) New quote source from congressional record, 2) Toned down a little, and 3) Entire paragraph removed pending reliable references.Jarhed (talk) 20:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the following from the article: Feinstein's record of advocating and voting for anti-gun legislation was called into question[who?] when it was revealed that the Senator maintained a Concealed Weapons permit and actively carried a .38 caliber Smith & Wesson revolver for her personal safety. In her explanation, she stated, "I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself because that's what I did. I was trained in firearms. I'd walk to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me."[citation needed]" A Google search for that quote does not bring up a single valid journalistic source, only clearly partisan websites and comment sections. To have it in is an unverified attempted manner to paint Ms. Feinstein as a hypocrite. However, in order to do so, citation that it was ever muttered should be noted and proven. As others have noted, it's embarrassing for Wikipedia to slander individuals without any basis. VarunRajendran (talk) 23:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

spoofed email

Info about the spoofed email announcing her death is here http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=25&sid=1996599 4.249.63.146 (talk) 11:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Approval Polling

I respectfully request that you Loonymonkey, please do not delete my addition of approval polling from SurveyUSA. It's both newsworthy and an unbiased reliable source. This polling result is current and does not add nor subtract from the overall article. I disagree with your opinion that this single poll provides undue weight to the article. If you feel otherwise, then BE BOLD and add other current polling data to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.190.25.16 (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2010 (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.

The one thing that seems to be missing is WHY she resigned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE71:5B60:223:6CFF:FE88:6904 (talk) 06:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Timeline of certain events

Hi everyone,

Although I'm pretty new at editing articles, I had a question about a couple of details in the timeline of Feinstein's term as mayor of San Francisco.

The article states the following:

"Feinstein angered the city's large gay community by refusing to march in a gay rights parade and by vetoing domestic partner legislation in 1983."

I am reading And The Band Played on, by Randy Shilts, and I noticed he had different dates for the veto and recall election than what is stated in the article. I'm still not an expert, but I believe a third-party, published and edited book would count as a reliable source. Also, there is currently no citation for the above sentence. According to Shilts' record, Feinstein vetoed the domestic partner bill on December 9, 1982, not 1983 as stated above.

Also the article states the following:

"Also in 1984, Feinstein proposed banning handguns in San Francisco, and became subject to a recall attempt organized by the White Panther Party. She won the recall election and finished her second term as mayor on January 8, 1988." (Also no citation)

According to Shilts' timeline, on December 11, 1983, two days after Feinstein vetoed the domestic partners law, the White Panthers were protesting at 18th and Castro streets, gathering signatures for a recall election due to her support for a city law that would outlaw handguns. By this point the law had already passed and been struck down in federal court; therefore, if the book's timeline is correct, Feinstein couldn't have proposed banning handguns in 1984, as the law had already passed in 1983, with enough time to be brought to court and struck down on appeal.

The White Panthers delivered the recall petition on January 13, 1983, and Fienstein won the election with 81% of the vote on April 26, 1983.

Also, it is not clear that Feinstein was actually the one who proposed banning handguns or simply supported a bill that did so. There is no citation in the article for the statement "Feinstein proposed banning handguns in San Francisco", which should be verifiable. In fact, there are no citations in the two full paragraphs between note 12 and note 13.

Can anyone provide verification of the dates in the article? Certainly the Bay Area newspapers would have covered the events talked about. I don't have access to those archives.

Thanks,

Jreans (talk) 03:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

First Female Everything!

I removed a paragraph from Feinstein's intro about several 'first female' roles she has filled. I simply don't understand the significance of this. Maybe 20 years ago it would have been noteworthy, but today I don't understand it. We don't highlight the first left-handed mayor of a city, or the first ethnically Germany chairman of some Senate sub committee. If there was on going discrimination I could understand the significance, but today, I don't. If somebody wants it put back in, please go ahead, but try to explain to me why it is important. Rodchen (talk) 07:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I reverted your deletion of properly sourced material deleted on the basis of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Seriously, how is deleting stuff you don't like constructive? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

That is fine to put it back in. But I would really be interested in explaining how this is important. The only reason may be that you like it. But if you had any better explaination for why this is important, I would just honestly be genuinely curious. Rodchen (talk) 01:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Um, see gender inequality. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Chairman vs. chairwoman

The Senate Web site for the Select Committee on Intelligence show her as chairman. Need I say more? I′d assume she took a similar approach with other current positions and with earlier Senate positions, but obviously this should be verified. In any event, listing her as chairwoman of Intelligence is clearly wrong. JeffConrad (talk) 00:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Plus, Feinstein refers to herself as 'chairman' in public and official documents. Hecman111 (talk) 20:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

SOPA & the PROTECT IP Act

Anything besides the statement of 'Dianne Feinstein supports PIPA', should be allowed for this entry. It is supported by the fact that she Co-Sponsored the Bill. If you erase this statement of fact you should be flagged for being bought by our Senators> Do not silence my voice. If you have a valid reason to hide the facts, please post it here before choosing for no valid reason to try and erase facts from history.

Irievibe (talk) 19:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Feinstein on SoPA and PROTECT IP:

"The "PROTECT IP Act" (S. 968) gives both copyright and trademark owners and the U.S. Department of Justice the authority to take action against websites that are "dedicated to infringing activities." These are websites that have "no significant use other than engaging in, enabling, or facilitating" copyright infringement, the sale of goods with a counterfeit trademark, or the evasion of technological measures designed to protect against copying.

The bill does not violate First Amendment rights to free speech because copyright piracy is not speech.

America's copyright industry is an important economic engine, and I believe copyright owners should be able to prevent their works from being illegally duplicated and stolen. The protection of intellectual property is particularly vital to California's thriving film, music, and high-technology industries.

I understand you have concerns about the "PROTECT IP Act." While I voted in favor of this bill when it was before the Senate Judiciary Committee, I have also been working with California high-technology businesses to improve the bill and to address the concerns of high-tech businesses, public interest groups and others. I recognize the bill needs further changes to prevent it from imposing undue burdens on legitimate businesses and activities, and I will be working to make the improvements, either by working with Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) or through amendments on the Senate floor.

On May 26, 2011, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed the "PROTECT IP Act" for consideration by the full Senate. Please know I will keep your concerns and thoughts in mind should the Senate proceed to a vote on this legislation. As you may be aware, Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX) has introduced similar legislation, the "Stop Online Piracy Act" (H.R. 3261), in the House of Representatives."

This statement was excerpted from an email inquiry response to a message simply worded: "What is your stance on SOPA and PROTECT IP?" 71.118.183.97 (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

@Irievibe, I've reworded the PIPA sentence to comport with the source and moved it to the positions section, along with some other material that shouldn't have been in Presidential politics. The PIPA co-sponsoring doesn't merit its own subsection. Also, put a lid on the inflammatory rhetoric, or you won't be taken seriously as an editor.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
@Bbb23, Thanks. The edit looks good, and thanks for putting it in a section that is conducive with the article. My comments were based on the entry being removed rather than edited. I wasn't trying to be inflammatory, but I'm glad this is the outcome. I'm sorry if I offended. - Cheers! 128.111.124.144 (talk) 00:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Jewish?

If, as the article states, Sen. Feinstein's maternal grandparents were Russian Orthodox, then according to Jewish law: (1) her mother converted to Judaism before she was born and she is Jewish, or (2) her mother did not convert and (a) she converted and she is Jewish or (b) she did not convert and she is not Jewish.

Caveats: (1) The Reform movement recognizes patrilineal descent, so since her father was Jewish that movement would consider her Jewish. (2) As far as conversion goes there is considerable difference of opinion even within Orthodox Judaism over what makes a valid conversion, and the differences between Orthodox Judaism and Conservative or Reform Judaism are even greater.

If someone knows more details it'd be interesting to see them. 76.76.238.2 (talk) 20:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC) Bob Rabinoff


She is not jewish and her religion is not Judaism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Data mined (talk • contribs) 21:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

You'll need more than just your saying that - the source we have says otherwise. And please stop making this change when you've been reverted multiple times. You need reliable sourcing to support your claim - sourcing specifically about Feinstein. Tvoz/talk 22:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I've REPEATEDLY pointed out that the EXISTING sources prove she is not Jewish. I even too the direct quote and added that to the article, but you guys keep deleting it with NO explanation. Here's the quote from Diane Feinstein herself, from the source listed: Her mother, however, was not Jewish as Feinstein recounts, "My father thought my mother was Jewish. But she wasn't."[1]

Her mother was NOT Jewish and unless you have ANY evidence that Diane's mother or she converted, it's quite clear that Diane is NOT Jewish. Not to mention, she went to Catholic School. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Data mined (talk • contribs) 05:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC) 

Dianne Feinstein self identifies as Jewish that makes herJewish enough for wikipedia . Wikipedia does not have the same requirements of the Israeli rabinical courts to prove Jewishness. see http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/Most-influential-Jews-in-diplomacy-and-politics-Dianne-Feinstein-404004

Also see pew research center http://www.pewforum.org/2015/01/05/members-of-congress-religious-affiliations/ Why do people feel these sources are not good enough? Do upi have better sources for other members of congress? Also she wrote a beautiful essay on being Jewish for the book "I Am Jewish: Personal Reflections Inspired by the Last Words of Daniel Pearl" enough nonsense I don't know what has caused this debate but after reading the essay anyone can clearly see she identifies spiritually and culturally as Jewish

No controversy section?

What about when she shot that poor kid in the back? What about her being anti-gun yet carrying a gun? We could double the size of the current entry with just the controversies that she has been involved in.

Sukiari (talk) 20:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I attempted to add a controversy section, but it was reverted in several minutes by an administrator. ||||Tonight, you sleep with the fishes|Talk|| 23:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

This needs to be discussed and not forced into the article, More than one editor has agreed it is not appropriate and I should mention that guidelines suggest that controversies should not have their own section and for a BLP it is very POV.

Moved from article for discussion:

Controversy
Feinstein's tenure as California senator has seen several scandals pertaining to financial conflict of interest,[2] first regarding the Iraq war and second the financial crisis of 2008.

In 2003, the Center for Public Integrity reported that Senator Feinstein and her husband made millions of dollars from Iraq and Afghanistan contracts through his company, Perini.[3] In 2003, Feinstein voted for the resolution, giving President George W. Bush the authority to invade Iraq. In 2007 the report received publicity, and the press accused the senator of war profiteering. She quietly resigned from her post on the Senate Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee in 2007, a position which allowed her to award reconstruction contracts to companies owned by her husband; during her time on the committee, military construction profits for URS, a company on whose board Blum sat, increased from $24 million to $185 million as a result of Iraq and Afghan war contracts.[4] Public response included public protest outside the senator's San Francisco office.[5] The scandal came to a close when Feinstein resigned from the committee.

Feinstein would again be accused of a conflict of interest in 2009, when it was revealed that Feinstein had routed $25 billion in federal funds to the FDIC, an agency that had contracts with CB Richard Ellis, where Blum was board chair.[6]

--Amadscientist (talk) 06:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I suggest breaking up the relevant information and placing within the appropriate sections.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I understand the BLP concerns from a Wikipedia POV, but I think a controversy section is not a bad thing in itself, unless it is forbidden by current BLP policy. WP:BLP has this to say: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article — even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." Jusdafax 00:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
See Due weight.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
See also: Wikipedia:Criticism#"Criticism" section. Since most of this "criticism" relates to Iraq and Afghan war contracts, a section title should probably bear that name instead. Shrigley (talk) 09:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
You might wish to read that section of the essay again, as it states clearly; "the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms".--Amadscientist (talk) 10:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Political Positions and Votes

Shouldn't this sub-header be changed to "Tenure"? It covers votes she made during her Senate career and there is already a seperate article on her Political Positions. I think if we changed it, it would be more unified with other politician articles. Thoughts? Whitestorm17 (talk) 00:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Correction needed

Under the (Other offices) infobox at the bottom of her article, it still shows Daniel Akaka as a senator, which is clearly wrong, since Akaka did not stand (or run, or whatever the terminology in this country is) for re-election in 2012.

--184.6.222.14 (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Jewishness

Whether her mother was Jewish is not really the question here. As far as the infobox goes, we need proof she is religiously, as opposed to culturally, Jewish. A simple Google search turns up enough doubt that we really need a direct statement from her or something very close to it before making a claim about her religion. -Rrius (talk) 13:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. This issue is subject to WP:BLPCAT. In my searching I've found various different comments from her at different times in her life as to how she feels about being Jewish/Catholic. I would feel uncomfortable categorizing her one way or the other.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
That's fine with me - my objection was to the specific wording that had been added and the fact that the source that has been there for a while indicates that she is Jewish. If there are contradictory sources, then I agree with your conclusion, and think we can handle it in the text. I don't agree, however, that "we need proof she is religiously, as opposed to culturally, Jewish." I don't know who made that rule, and it makes no sense, nor is it our job to make such distinctions. If she self-identifies as Jewish, it is irrelevant if that is "religiously" or "culturally". If we don't have anything definitive about self-identification, then the question becomes what do those multiple sources say, and how can we summarize it in the text. But "religiously" vs. "culturally" has no place here. Tvoz/talk 05:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
I understood why you did what you did. Jewish law doesn't control here. The only way in which her views on Judaism as a religion and Judaism as a cultural identity matter is when we use a field like "Religion" in the infobox. To use that particular field, we'd have to have her self-identification as Jewish from a religious perspective (without a conflicting source repudiating it - these kinds of things often evolve during a person's lifetime).--Bbb23 (talk) 17:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, I'm not convinced that we should be making a distinction between cultural and religious Judaism - when a person says he or she is Jewish, that should suffice as a description. In any case, we certainly should not be making a determination based on whether or not a person attends services, observes holidays, or was raised with a certain identity. We don't characterize people as "fallen Catholics" in infoboxes when they were raised Catholic but no longer go to church or otherwise are no longer observant - if they were raised Catholic, and we have reliable sourcing saying so, that should suffice. Perhaps the name of the field should change- or it should be left out of infoboxes-but that's not really a discussion for this talk page. In any case, as for Dianne, handling it in the text is ok with me for now. Tvoz/talk 20:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
We have to make a distinction between religious and cultural Judaism if we are going to use the "Religion" parameter in the infobox. And we can't say a living person's religion is Catholic in the infobox unless it complies with WP:BLPCAT, and being raised Catholic is insufficient.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
That's nonsense. We don't characterize people as being members of a religion unless they do so themselves. If someone were a "fallen Catholic" (by which I presume you mean "lapsed" Catholic), we wouldn't put anything for the religion parameter. Putting "Catholic" would be bizarre. If you have trouble distinguishing between cultural groups and religious groups, that's your problem, but the rest of us are perfectly capable. -Rrius (talk) 23:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
If you are talking to me, I said, "when a person says he or she is Jewish, that should suffice as a description", which means if they call themselves Jewish or whatever else, that suffices. People routinely refer to themselves as Jewish based on their cultural identity, and if they do, so should we. Maybe it's different for Catholics (and yes, I meant "lapsed"), but we're not about to check on whether an individual is a member of a synagogue or church, or attends services, takes communion, or anything else. If they state that they identify with a particular group, we should list them as such. I'm not going to get into a debate with you about Jewish cultural identity as "opposed" to religious affiliation -it's more complicated than you make it out to be, and all we should be concerned with is having reliable sources and/or the individual's statements about his or her own identification, whether you might be capable of distinguishing cultural from religious or not. Tvoz/talk 03:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
The parameter is a about religion, and nothing else. Since "Jewish" is an ambiguous word, something more is necessary than the bare word (which we don't actually have here) being self-applied. And it is just as simple as I make it out to be: a person consider herself Jewish while having been a life-long atheist. Whether other arguments about what different Jews consider a Jew to be is irrelevant. All that matters is what she considers her religion to be. We need a clear statement from her that she is a practicing member of the Jewish faith. We don't have that, so we can't fill the religion parameter with "Jewish". It is as simple as that. -Rrius (talk) 03:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, you are saying essentially the same thing that I am - how a person self-describes, reliably reported, is what we should look at, if available. But that really has nothing to do with being a "practicing" member of a faith -I know many people who are atheists, yet describe themselves as Jewish and we'd be right to do that. In any case, I agree that it would be helpful to see what she says about this. As an aside - what we often do is refer in text as a person having been born into a Jewish family, or similar, unless we also also can source that a person considers him/herself Catholic or Jewish or whatever, or is reliably reported as being a member of a church or synagogue. But as far as I'm concerned we'd do well to eliminate the "religion" field or rename it, because a standard of "practicing member" is asking us to draw conclusions that we should stay away from. And "Jewish" is really not ambiguous at all, it just has a broader meaning than synagogue membership. Tvoz/talk 01:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

When did she get elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors?

In the introduction section it says it was 1970. Later, in the sub section, it says it was 1969.TBWarrior720 (talk) 17:32, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Did this Article come from her website?

I only ask because it reads like a fluff piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.78.183.102 (talk) 12:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

2010 gubernatorial election

In hindsight, is the section devoted to rumors that she would run for Governor in California in 2010 encyclopedically noteworthy, considering she never did run? Seems superfluous. Anastrophe (talk) 23:43, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Pre-political life

It would be nice to see the period working in the DA's office fleshed out a bit. This might illuminate some of her present political positions. -- ScratchMonkey (talk) 18:32, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

NSA Revelations

Should there be cross links to NSA wiki's considering her position on the Intelligence Committee? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThisNemesis (talk • contribs) 23:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

It's important to note her positions on NSA surveillance.

WhisperToMe (talk) 06:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

In my view the NSA section in this article is both poorly written and incomplete. But it's better than nothing at all. Jusdafax 08:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I just added it so there would be something. There was nothing before. There is supposed to be more detail at Political positions of Dianne Feinstein WhisperToMe (talk) 09:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
In that case I thank you kindly, since the article's lack of acknowledgement of her powerful role regarding the NSA as chair of the United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence seemed odd to me. In fact, it stuck out as unencyclopedic, given her high profile. Now, there was a 'Controversy' section which was scrubbed out about a year ago. I commented here (December 2012) and that comment is now archived. At the time I just pulled away, but I would be interested in working with you a bit, as there is a lot of important biographical information that remains to be mentioned. Something worth adding to the article, as just one example, are her comments earlier this year on Edward Snowden. Jusdafax 11:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
What month were these remarks made? I found these about remarks she made in November:
WhisperToMe (talk) 17:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
This summer she called him a traitor. By late October, though willing to admit the NSA went too far by spying on various heads of state, she still stood by the remark. I'd call that worthy of inclusion in the new section. Jusdafax 06:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 Done WhisperToMe (talk) 07:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Jusdafax 08:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Postal properties sale through husband's company?

This story is doing the rounds through the blogosphere. Can't find anything on it in more traditional media. Anybody know if this has any truth to it? W\|/haledad (Talk to me) 04:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Global Currency Revaluation

Why is it that YOU are part of what is keeping the legal REVALUATION of most of the countries of the world in check by not allowing the revaluation of the IQD/IQN to be released to those of us who are involved over the last 10 plus years? This administration and the UST have held up the international release since December 1, 2013 so as to allow the so-called privileged of this country to enjoy exchanging dinar at a contract rate of above $35:1IQD and deplete the contract out. Then, you guys handed it off to the banks so they could do the same thing, only they just called their high dollar clients who knew nothing about the dinar or GCR and allowed their friend to join in. This is blatantly wrong and unlawful. It is called "Insider Trading".

We know that you are aware of this and yet you continue to let it go on. STOP THIS NOW!! There are so many people across this land and world who need this so very much. You are hurting each and everyone of them by not releasing the RV at this time.

"WE ARE THE PEOPLE" Don't lose sight of that simple phrase.

If you think you are going to get away with this, think again. We know you know, and just in case you plead ignorance, this email is now a matter of record, from throm this time on, YOU KNEW YET CONTINUED TO NOT DO ANYTHING. YOU ARE AS GUILTY AS THE REST. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.140.147.197 (talk) 22:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect year for veto of domestic partnership legislation?

The Wikipedia article says the following: "Feinstein angered the city's large gay community by refusing to march in a gay rights parade and by vetoing domestic partner legislation in 1983." However, there is a NYT article written Dec 9 1982 saying she vetoed domestic partnership legislation. Is the year in the Wikipedia article incorrect? Was there more than one piece of domestic partnership legislation she vetoed? Or, perhaps there is another explanation.

http://www.nytimes.com/1982/12/10/us/partnership-law-vetoed-on-coast.html

--Dansan99 (talk) 17:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Dual citizenship with Israel

Doesn't she hold dual citizenship with Israel? 87.78.75.131 (talk) 23:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

No. Feinstein has some Jewish ancestry, and she has never practiced another religion, so she is eligible under the 1950 Israel law called Law of Return(see also Israeli nationality law) to almost automatically get Israeli nationality, but she has never done so. Binksternet (talk) 00:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

support for iraq war

I have added a section with information about the senator's support for the Iraq War, and accusations of conflict of interest brought up by same. I am sure this will be deleted immediately for not being confined to a 'controversy' section. If I put this information in its own section, I am sure it will be removed for a combination of NPOV and undue weight. I would appreciate if, but certain do not expect for, anyone who would like to cape for the Senator here on wikipedia would bring in a moderator for discussion before unilaterally removing the content. Clinton (talk) 23:06, 5 January 2015 (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.

When I tried to create a sub for this a couple years back it was immediately (in under 30 minutes) deleted for Undue Weight by an admin with a District of Columbia IP. It was a 3 paragraph section, with citations for each section. NPOV is dead. 149.169.131.238 (talk) 22:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that you can dismiss actual unbiased information as "obvious attacks" when they don't paint the person in a flattering light. It's incredible. Reading Wikipedia you'd think every sitting American politician is a paragon of virtue devoid of any failings whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.168.207.237 (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dianne Feinstein. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ [10]
  2. ^ "Conflict of Interest Claims Follow Feinstein". 2007. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dateaccessed= ignored (help)
  3. ^ "Windfalls of War". Retrieved 12-07-2008. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  4. ^ [http://www.wnd.com/2007/03/40845/ "Feinstein quits committee under war-profiteer cloud"]. 2007. Retrieved 22 Dec 2012. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)
  5. ^ Kelly Johnson (2008). "Protesters Target Iraq 'War-Profiteers'". Retrieved 22 Dec 2012.
  6. ^ Chuck Neubauer (2009). "Senator's husband's firm cashes in on crisis". Retrieved 22 Dec 2012.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dianne_Feinstein/Archive_1&oldid=1147952710"