Talk:Richard Blumenthal
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Richard Blumenthal article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 14 days  |
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (center, color, defense, realize, traveled) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | A fact from Richard Blumenthal appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 6 September 2004. The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. |
 | Section sizes
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New lead image
Following suit with Dick Durbin and Bernie Sanders, these outdated official portraits from a decade ago should be replaced with recent images. People keep reverting the update I make to this page without reasons, but let's try to establish some consensus around using a more recent image of the senator as the lead. CompleteAnonymity (talk) 10:24, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
- @CompleteAnonymity : The photograph is dated 2023. That seems very recent. I personally do not see the reason why one would need the freshest possible photo if the one shown is a clear and dated. That would be what the man looked like then. So? This always confuses me when I see people bring this up.
- Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 21:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the vote Wordreader - I ended up changing the lead image as no one had responded to this talk in a month, and figured that the established precedent covered the updated image, which you've now seen! Cheers! CompleteAnonymity (talk) 10:36, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
- You reverted my edit on Richard Blumenthal for the new lead images, but they are low in resolution but I understand why you are changing it. But I would suggest hopefully finding a picture that is newer than the official portraits, but comparable in resolution to the official portrait. Thanks! Jetwindy (talk) 15:53, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
- I think the test for photos is:
- 1. Is it current (from their current elected term)
- 2. Is it sufficiently legible as the politician (it's not unclear)
- 3. Is it high enough resolution
- I understand that you are most focused on issue #3, while I'm giving equal weight to all three. In any case, we should try to reach consensus here rather than edit warring over the infobox image. If we can get a lot of input I'm happy to go with the consensus decision.
- Since my edit was the first one, I don't see why we should change it in the meantime (until we reach consesnus). CompleteAnonymity (talk) 09:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- I think a move that could neutral this is just putting up the regular official portrait. Although old, it'll prevent arguments against most people. Then when consensus in reached, we can edit the lead image to the ones wanted by Wikipedians. Jetwindy (talk) 01:24, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
- I don't agree. There is consensus on those other pages to use newer images. Can you directly address any of the points made above?
- Can you respond to the Sanders or Trump images being updated to be non-official portraits that are more up to date?
- What is your argument for the regular official portrait? The fact that they are so out of date was deemed not good enough for other senate politicians. CompleteAnonymity (talk) 15:20, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
- What about this one from cspan?
- https://ximage.c-spanvideo.org/eyJCdWNrZXQiOiJwaWN0dXJlcy5jLXNwYW52aWRlby5vcmciLCJrZXkiOiJGaWxlcy85NGUvMDAxLzE3NDgxNjU1NDVfMDAxLmpwZyIsImVkaXRzIjp7InJlc2l6ZSI6eyJmaXQiOiJjb3ZlciIsImhlaWdodCI6NTc2LCJ3aWR0aCI6MTAyNH19fQ== CompleteAnonymity (talk) 15:39, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
- Or this one: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Senator_Richard_BLumenthal_-_United_States_Congressional_Delegation_visit_to_Israel_on_October_22,_2023.jpg#file CompleteAnonymity (talk) 18:54, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
- Im sorry for not being active because of doing other stuff. The one you texted to me on 18:54, 26 June 2025 (UTC) is the one that is good. Jetwindy (talk) 22:14, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
- Great! happy we got here in the end CompleteAnonymity (talk) 21:59, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- We should always try to use official portraits especially if their appearance hasn't changed hardly at all which Blumenthal's hasn't a random open mouth mid speech photo with distracting elements like a microphone and another person's ear being visible is not a good main photo need to use his portrait unless we could find another recent photo that can be cropped that atleast looks like an official portrait with him looking into the camera with mouth closed Putitonamap98 (talk) 21:44, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
- > We should always try to use official portraits
- I don't think that applies if the official portrait is over 10 years old, and the person is a current public figure, unless there is no other choice. CompleteAnonymity (talk) 09:42, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with @Putitonamap98 that the default should be official portraits. Other photos can be included in the body in the appropriate. Current members can update their portrait at the start of any Congress. Don Beyer did this I think a couple years ago? And this is an encyclopedia, not news. The goal is not to have the most recent photo but the photo that best represents the subject (not the topic of the WP:RECENTISM essay but same principle applies). That said, this is probably worth opening a discussion about at the Teahouse or somewhere else to get a wider community perspective. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 22:31, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- We should always try to use official portraits especially if their appearance hasn't changed hardly at all which Blumenthal's hasn't a random open mouth mid speech photo with distracting elements like a microphone and another person's ear being visible is not a good main photo need to use his portrait unless we could find another recent photo that can be cropped that atleast looks like an official portrait with him looking into the camera with mouth closed Putitonamap98 (talk) 21:44, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
- Great! happy we got here in the end CompleteAnonymity (talk) 21:59, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- Im sorry for not being active because of doing other stuff. The one you texted to me on 18:54, 26 June 2025 (UTC) is the one that is good. Jetwindy (talk) 22:14, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
- Or this one: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Senator_Richard_BLumenthal_-_United_States_Congressional_Delegation_visit_to_Israel_on_October_22,_2023.jpg#file CompleteAnonymity (talk) 18:54, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
- I think a move that could neutral this is just putting up the regular official portrait. Although old, it'll prevent arguments against most people. Then when consensus in reached, we can edit the lead image to the ones wanted by Wikipedians. Jetwindy (talk) 01:24, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
- I think the test for photos is:
- You reverted my edit on Richard Blumenthal for the new lead images, but they are low in resolution but I understand why you are changing it. But I would suggest hopefully finding a picture that is newer than the official portraits, but comparable in resolution to the official portrait. Thanks! Jetwindy (talk) 15:53, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the vote Wordreader - I ended up changing the lead image as no one had responded to this talk in a month, and figured that the established precedent covered the updated image, which you've now seen! Cheers! CompleteAnonymity (talk) 10:36, 9 May 2025 (UTC)