Talk:Jon Ossoff/Archive 1

Untitled
redirect makes no sense — Preceding unsigned comment added by FideKoeln (talk • contribs) 17:10, February 17, 2017 (UTC)
 * The redirect makes sense as a plausible search term. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Distinct page makes more sense I guess. You are welcome to help improve it --FideKoeln (talk) 13:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Continues to get more news coverage, so worth including as distinct page, working on improving it --Anupamtree (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Cites as source a page that debunked the claim?
The article parrots Ossoff's claim that he "he drafted and managed legislative initiatives that passed the House and Senate." One source for this claim is the campaign itself. The other is from a Politifact article which largely debunks his claims to foreign-policy experience as "half true." The use of the plural ("initiatives") suggests that this was a normal role for Ossoff, but Ossoff was only a legislative correspondent, a role normally for replying to constituent questions. In fact, Politifact found a single legislative initiative -- a resolution, not an act -- that Ossoff could have had a role in. And that resolution did not pass the Senate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.207.250.13 (talk) 17:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion
I would like for an admin to restore this as a redirect, per my first edit. It's not a notable topic for a standalone page, but it's a reasonable search term for a topic that may become notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Close challenge
I have requested review their close "I am curious as to your reasoning here. There seems to be a pretty strong consensus that NPOL does apply in this case (8 delete or redirect and protect) vs 4 Keeps of which one is the SPA author and one is two are revived dormant account s . Even discounting that the consensus that NPOL applies seems overwhelming. Thank you." as the initial step in deletion review. Jbh Talk  15:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm with you. How does this subject meet GNG when most of the coverage is of the election, not the candidate in the election? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * For a close challenge that is pretty much irrelevant. What is at issue is the assessment of the consensus which existed at the time of the closing which seemed to be clearly that the article should be redirected and protected until/unless he wins per NPOL. The close seems to me to be a failure to properly assess the existing consensus ant to rather be a super-vote. NW has not edited since the close so I will wait until tomorrow to open a deletion review so they have time to respond to my inquiry on their talk page. Jbh  Talk  18:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Consensus is not a vote. It should be tied to the better policy argument. Moreover, the vote was 4-8. I would suggest that if anything, it should be relisted to allow more editors to take part.Casprings (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Here are two of the keep votes:
 * "Keep Favored candidate on the democratic side, leading the polls, and generating national press, endorsements, and fundraising."
 * "Strong Keep Mr. Ossoff is a notable public figure and the upcoming election will be a major event in American politics. He clearly now meets criteria #2 of WP:POLITICIAN."
 * There's no good policy argument there. The first one cites "national press" but it's not the in depth type required for GNG. For the second, again the coverage is about the election and transient, not GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:11, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Note :I have opened a deletion review on this topic.  Jbh  Talk  13:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Citation format
Since and I disagree on this, I thought we should discuss it on the talk page and seek consensus. I agree that anything with strong national ties should have the date format for that country, but I don't see the point in doing so for citations. Is it really necessary to say that an article was accessed on "March 28, 2017" versus "28 March 2017"? Looking at MOS:RETAIN, I don't see the point in deliberately changing all of the citation formats to one particular form. Werónika (talk) 21:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This is silly. Yes, date formats need to be consistent throughout the page, and that includes citations. The page was created in mdy format, and it already had the use mdy dates template at the top. This an article about an American subject, and so the mdy format should be used throughout per MOS:DATETIES. Why would you undo the edit? If you "don't see the point" in changing citation dates, why would you feel that you needed to change them back? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * the majority of the dates were in mdy format already, surely if we're following MOS:RETAIN then we should make them all into mdy format?  Quasar G  t - c 21:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I changed them because I didn't see the need to make them? No big, I was just curious what the protocol was (since some of the articles on my watchlist use a variety of different formats). I'm fine with either one, so you know. Good to talk to you! :) Werónika (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Parents and Religion
Is the information about his parents' religion and having a Bar Mitzvah really necessary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.167.118.42 (talk) 10:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reason to remove it, it's well referenced and was quite a large part of his early life, I'd imagine.  Quasar G  t - c 13:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Basic information about public figures' parents and religion is generally included in Wikipedia pages for people if it's reliably sourced. As long as it's presented neutrally and not given undue weight, it should be fine. V2Blast (talk) 10:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC) I find it odd that it says he "was raised Jewish". It should simply say he is Jewish, if such a reference is to be made.  I am tired of the implication that Judaism isn't practiced.  We don't all practice religion the same ways, but doesn't make it any less who we are.

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2017
add "President Donald J. Trump comented on the election by tweeting ' The super Liberal Democrat in the Georgia Congressioal race tomorrow wants to protect criminals, allow illegal immigration and raise taxes!' Congressional was misspelled in original tweet 2601:CB:1:E730:2960:BB17:85B3:F744 (talk) 21:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ –  Quasar G  t - c 22:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2017
Controversy Jon Ostroff doesn't live in Georgia's 6th Congressional district, which makes this special election unique. He stated here he resides outside the district he is running for: http://beforeyoutakethatpill.com/blog/2017/02/25/jon-ossoff-admits-he-doesnt-live-in-georgias-6th-congressional-district/. He has been accused of carpetbagging for this omission. 50.194.134.25 (talk) 22:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ❌ – the article already mentions this: he currently lives with his girlfriend ten minutes south of the 6th District. A more reliable source than a blog is required if we are to describe it as a "controversy".  Quasar G  t - c 22:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Quasar - - that should be a better source. I agree a blog isn't sufficient. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.194.134.25 (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ❌ It's legal for him to run in Georgia's 6th while not living in the district. The Hill article confirms he doesn't live in the district, but does not suggest it's a "controversy" of any sort. It doesn't include charges of carpetbagging. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2017
Add an image of Ossof to the page (possibly this one?). UpperJeans (talk) 13:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ❌ Images can't be uploaded unless they're freely available. There's no indication that this image isn't copyrighted. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2017
I wish to add the following picture to the main profile box ; Kkuchnir (talk) 02:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Image is currently tagged under WP:CSD for incorrect licensing. Please re-open the request once this has been resolved. —   IVORK  Discuss 02:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jon Ossoff. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170222084607/https://electjon.com/news/2017/1/4/jon-ossoff-announces-congressional-bid-in-georgia to https://electjon.com/news/2017/1/4/jon-ossoff-announces-congressional-bid-in-georgia

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2017
63.224.187.67 (talk) 23:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC) Jon Ossoff
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 00:00, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2017
Include relevant image in biography: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jon_ossoff_campaign.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markd315 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Infobox photo
Why has the photo in the infobox been reverted to the current version? It seems blurry and unprofessional. Much better photos exist, is there any reason not to use them? --205.208.114.45 (talk) 18:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, they're protected by copyright. If you can find a non-copyrighted image, feel free to upload it to commons. —  Quasar   G.  19:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Unless you can find an non-copyrighted image, it's this one or no image at all. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Content added by SPA account
All of the content in the "Investigative journalism" section was added by an SPA account in April. It in no way meets our verification or reliable sourcing standards. Let's start with the first sentence, which says "Since 2013, Ossoff has been managing partner and CEO of Insight TWI, a small business based in the UK which produces investigations targeting corrupt officials and organized crime for international news organizations." The sources are a link to the "Contact Us" page of the company and an article in the Independent which mentions neither corrupt officials, organized crime, or international news organizations. Then we have a bunch of cite bombing about films produced by the company. And none of these sources even mention Ossoff. This Al Jazeera source doesn't. And this Al Jazeera source doesn't even mention the company, Insight TWI, so it's unclear what the connection is supposed to be. Then we have some self-sourcing to the Insight TWI page, some IMdB sourcing, oh, and a citation to a Tweet of Ossoff's. This is the type of content that might be appropriate for an article on the company, if such an article existed. But here it is just an out-of-place filmography that seems clearly to have been added to the article by someone with a close association to the article subject. It is not encyclopedic or well-sourced at all and should be removed. Marquardtika (talk) 18:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , agreed that the first Al Jazeera source mentions the company but not Ossoff, and the second mentions neither. We should upgrade that sourcing. But I do not agree that we should throw out the baby with the bathwater. Here's one source we can use. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:05, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Please do upgrade the sourcing. The fact that we're currently using the "Contact Us" form of a company website as a reference is pretty nuts. We should of course cover his career but I think the content currently in the section is all bathwater and no baby. Might be best to start from scratch. Marquardtika (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

The article says that Jon Ossoff opposes defunding the police, but in his radio interview he said that he supports it
The article says that he opposes defunding the police, but in his interview he said that he supports defunding the police. The article needs to be corrected. Yurivict (talk) 02:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * He doesn't say that. This source, which is a small audio clip of a radio interview Ossoff gave, says he thinks "funding needs to be on the line" but the context is unclear, and it's unclear what "funding needs to be on the line" means. Marquardtika (talk) 03:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What is the difference? "funding needs to be on the line" means that he is for defunding. Yurivict (talk) 04:46, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's entirely without context. What does "funding needs to be on the line" mean? And the source is insufficient. We have Axios from a week ago saying "Answering a series of questions about his views on specific policies pushed by progressives, Ossoff said he does not support the Green New Deal, Medicare for All, expanding the Supreme Court, defunding police or abolishing ICE." Marquardtika (talk) 16:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Is a better photo available?
There is something off-putting and unnatural about the current one (to the point that it doesn't resemble how he looks normally). If I recall correctly, the previous one wasn't particularly good either. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * hi. take a look at the photos on Flickr of him that we could use (there are some CC videos on YouTube but their search filter for licensing seems to be completely non-functional) -- they're all from one event. not many good ones. switched the current one in from this horrible one but maybe one of the others is better. DemonDays64 (talk) 01:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Could we replace it with this? This was proposed earlier on this page, but there was apparently a copyright dispute at the time. The file seems to be CC and it looks like the speedy deletion was cancelled. The video it was pulled from looks to be marked as Creative Commons. Do you figure we can use it now? Chillabit (talk) 21:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Reverted, per WP:BRD. In my opinion, the above is quite an awkward picture. While the photo's resolution is high-quality, the facial expression isn't great and the "better lighting" isn't any better; ...the photo especially clashes when next to his opponent's picture on the 2020–21 United States Senate election in Georgia page. Paintspot Infez (talk) 00:15, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess it's subjective, I don't mind the rollback. I uploaded this to the Wikimedia Commons if that'd be better. It's from a more recent interview. EDIT: I guess you may want a ping. Chillabit (talk) 03:52, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Might actually be a better photo! what do you think? Paintspot Infez (talk) 01:26, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, I went ahead and changed it to File:Jon_Ossoff_on_Showtime.png. DarthFlappy 23:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Please keep the image to what DarthFlappy has changed it to until his senate office releases his official portrait. I don’t want there to be a pointless edit war to change his photo to another below average photo of him with just a few days until he is sworn into office. ~ Fluffy89502 (talk) 22:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the photo on the official Senate website is significantly better. At this point, the Senate still hasn't released an official portrait, but this photo should be updated to be at least in line with the one on his Senate page that his campaign has provided. We can update it again later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lakshya97 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * See many other comments on this talk page, such as the rather frustrated, which explain that that photo is not freely licensed and so can't be used. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:11, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, but aren't there any better free photos we would be open to changing this to where the lighting is superior? Lakshya97 (talk) 22:15, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Feel free to peruse what we've got in commons:Category:Jon Ossoff and suggest a change if you'd like. Though I'd recommend starting a new discussion if you do so, to garner more engagement—you're currently adding to a discussion that hasn't been active in several months. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:19, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Description of father's career
This is typically included in Wikipedia biographies in the early life section more often than personal life where it is appearing on this page. RichardBond (talk) 23:26, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * A high-quality reference is required per WP:BLP. And please use an edit summary when you edit. --Hipal (talk) 02:59, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Filmography
Adding TV appearances of a politician to his "filmography" doesn't make sense for me. BasileusAutokratorPL (talk) 00:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * He is a filmmaker in his real-life job --FideKoeln (talk) 04:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

We don't mention TV appearances of pure filmmakers either (I mean the last 2 entries, that is Deadline: White House and New Day). BasileusAutokratorPL (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Merge Early Life & Personal Life sections
Can/should these sections be merged? I believe there's an overlap, as his "Personal" section covers who his parents are, which would generally go under "Early". The only "Personal" fact that'd warrant not going under "Early" is his marriage. -- Tytrox (talk) 08:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

This has been done. -- Tytrox (talk) 11:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Degree
In the UK, a Master of Science degree is abbreviated to a MSc rather than MS. Should the education field in his biobox use MSc given this was awarded by a UK university? Drerac (talk) 11:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 January 2021
On the 9th line (office), "Georgia" links to a disambiguation page. It should link to Georgia, not Georgia. BazingaFountain42 (talk) 14:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

In the U.S. Senate section, Results subsection it says that Ossoff declared victory on Jan. 6, 2020. That should be Jan. 6, 2021. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:CD40:3DB0:F4E6:BC7C:651B:EAA1 (talk) 15:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Better source for birth date?
If he wins, an official source will be forthcoming, but is there anything better than what we have at present? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Protocol determining seniority of two senators elected in the same election.
Whoever changed the seniority protocol to say "that it runs alphabetically." Please stop. Alphabetical order does not determine seniority in the United States Senate of two candidates elected to the Senate in the same election cycle, and the previous article used as the source is not factual.

Per official Congressional rules:

"Of the two Senators from a State serving at the same time, the one who was elected first--or if both were elected at the same time, the one elected for a full term--is referred to as the "senior" Senator from that State. The other is referred to as the "junior" Senator.

This is taken from the official House Rules on the house.gov website. Source: CRS Guide to Legislative process in the House — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crsbcn (talk • contribs) 01:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn't there be the (rare?) case of electing both senators to unexpired terms? In this case, however, Ossoff was running for full term, and he has won that minus 17 days. Notice that the Senate is divided as equally as possible into 3 groups, and for each state, the 2 senators are in different groups. Carlm0404 (talk) 07:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Re: recent edits
Regarding the recent edit changing the reason for Ossoff being senior to Warnock from alphabetical by last name to full term/unexpired term citing the House Rules Committee's website as the source, I could find nothing on either the House Rules Committee's website or Senate Rules Committee's website to support that. On top of that, even though something has been found on a US House website in support of that claim, that is not how the American system of government works because that is not how the British system of government works. In the British system of government, on which the American system of government is modeled, the rules of each chamber of the legislature are binding only on that chamber. Therefore even though the cited source for full term/unexpired term rather than alphabetical by last name is "labeled" CRS (Congressional Research Service), it CANNOT be used for articles relating to the US Senate and the edit that stated thusly MUST be changed back under V, NPOV, and NOR --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion
This RfC should be closed as it is premature. There isn't a difficult to resolve debate on this topic. There's one editor who changed some content and was reverted with sound reasoning. Jdphenix (talk) 14:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Why is this an RfC? It doesn't look like it's been discussed yet? For most article disputes, RfCs are useful after normal talk page discussion fails to find a resolution or when outside opinions are needed. They should also be framed neutrally rather than argue for a particular position. See WP:RFC. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 14:38, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed., please see WP:RFCBEFORE. This does not mean that you cannot continue discussing the matter, however. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 19:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Speaking of edits, what's up with all these photo bombs? 146.115.139.82 (talk) 05:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the IP may be asking why there seems to be lots of requests asking to add an official Senate portrait. It looks to me like most of them are from one editor which may be the reason. Nil Einne (talk) 06:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree this clearly isn't fit for an RfC yet. Also, I don't understand the User:Bigpoliticsfan's point in any real way. Why would a CRS document, which specifically refers to the US Senate, somehow not apply to the US Senate? The OP's point about the House and Senate rules being separate and only binding on the specific house they originate from may be relevant if this was a document that described the rules of the House only but it's not. This is some sort of general guide which refers to the rules in both bodies of Congress. The fact it's on some House website doesn't change any of this. In fact, as the OP noted, it seems to have been prepared by the Congressional Research Service, which means the body preparing it was neither the House nor the Senate but a body working to support the entire US Congress, i.e. including the Senate, so .So, I don't  understand why they even refer to the House it was the  since it is weirdly the Congress wide/Senate+House the CRS they seemed take issue with in their response , not it  the document being on the House website. Personally I'd greatly prefer better secondary source or two, especially one that actually refers to Ossoff. Nil Einne (talk) 06:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC) 11:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * agreed. this is a misinterpretation of policy and of the cited sources. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 06:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Add IPA?
The article currently states to not add an IPA directly after Ossoff's last name ("It's pronounced exactly how it's spelled, no need for IPA") but there are multiple ways to say his last name (for example, the "O" at the beginning of his last name could be pronounced as long or short). I propose that IPA should be added. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 19:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Indeed. It was originally there, but was removed by one editor. There's many ways it could be mispronounced. A reader could easily assume it's pronounced "OH-soff" or "OSS-iff" instead of the correct "OSS-off". Reverted back. Paintspot Infez (talk) 23:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Seniority
Isn't he a junior senator not senior? Chloe0303 (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

No — he was elected to a full six year term, which ends in January 2027. Warnock was elected to complete the senate term of Johnny Isakson, which ends in January 2023. By length of elected service Ossoff will be the Senior.

Also, neither of them have even been sworn in yet. Crsbcn (talk) 21:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Picture Change
I feel like since Jon Ossoff is now a senator, the picture should be replaced with the picture on the senate.gov website. The current picture makes him just look like an advocate, not a politician. Ltothel (talk) 05:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC) ❌ the licensing on that is clearly invalid and it will be deleted. There will be a much better free image somewhat soon. DemonDays64 (talk) 05:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Stop changing the photo to the one from the Senate website
It (File:Senator Jon Ossoff.png/File:Jon Ossoff Senate photo.jpg) is a copyvio that will be deleted shortly. DemonDays64 (talk) 23:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The photo keeps being changed, mostly by IPs at this point. Is page protection an option? Lennart97 (talk) 13:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * good idea, maybe try to get it at WP:RPP please. DemonDays64 (talk) 16:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Request submitted, let's see what happens. Lennart97 (talk) 16:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Semi-protected for two weeks. Lennart97 (talk) 09:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * It has been three months and that is still the only official photo of Jon Ossoff available. Can someone please tell me why it shouldn't be changed to the photo on the official Senate website instead of what it is now? WingsOfBone (talk) 01:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


 * the headshot it kept getting changed to was in many articles from before he was elected so the copyright is definitely held by someone else. The one on the homepage of his site has him in a mask, the current one has terrible lighting and stuff but it's the best we have that's free. Forbes reporter Andrew Solender on Twitter said he asked Ossoff's spokesperson about it and they said a portrait will be out soon. DemonDays64 (talk) 03:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I was not aware it had appeared previously on other articles before it was on his Senate page. WingsOfBone (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Two things about the lead section
Lennart97 (talk) 00:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm quite certain that this sentence doesn't make sense: one of a handful of federal elections surrounding the 2018 wave election in which the Democrat underperformed Hillary Clinton. Who underperformed... what? What does Hillary Clinton have to do with it? I don't understand, and none of this is mentioned in the main body of the article.
 * Ossoff being the first Jewish senator from Georgia is mentioned twice in the lead: first ...as well as the first Jewish member of the Senate from Georgia... and shortly after ...and the first Jewish senator from the state. I'm not sure which of the two mentions to keep and which to remove.
 * Alright, I've taken care of it myself by removing the underperformed Hillary Clinton sentence and the first of the duplicate first Jewish senator sentences. Still curious what Hillary Clinton was supposed to have to do with anything, though. Lennart97 (talk) 13:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The text was insert by User:Bernspeed [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jon_Ossoff&diff=prev&oldid=999332512 here], you could ask them if you're dying to know. Nil Einne (talk) 15:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2021
74.108.223.90 (talk) 03:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC) Official photo
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. Bestagon (talk) 04:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Name
Is he known as Jonathan, Thomas, or Jon? We should say (known as Jon Ossoff) because we this was done elsewhere. Bernspeed (talk) 15:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Jon Ossoff is this person's WP:COMMONNAME. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 08:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 2017 (67) Jon Ossoff FOR CONGRESS (34502915333).jpg

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2021
Change Senator Ossoff's picture to his official Senate portrait. That is all LeSoleilRoiUSA (talk) 13:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: And what exactly is the file name of this official portrait as updated either here or to commons? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't see an official Senate portrait at Commons. I did find an image holding itself out as the official portrait, but a quick search shows that the image isn't official. —C.Fred (talk) 18:49, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The portrait (seen here) has been repeatedly uploaded and deleted because it is not freely licensed. We can't use it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Potentially better photo but in a mask
Hi, I found this file just now, and while he's wearing a mask in it, there is much better lighting. Should it be switched? For what it's worth, he has I guess been seen by way more people wearing a mask, as for essentially the whole 2020 campaign masks were and the whole time since he was elected have been, of course, worn by people everywhere and him with as far as I know no exceptions. DemonDays64 (talk) 02:08, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the photo where his entire face is visible should be retained as the lead photo, despite the poorer lighting. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * How about this photo? It's the one from the Congressional Biographical Directory, so I can't see that there any copyright issues with it.


 * Billmckern (talk) 22:03, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is a good one. Also general precedent for politicians is to use their political photo. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:15, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * if there are no objections, I'll crop that photo and use it (the current cropping is wider than we tend to use). Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 00:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:15, 21 March 2021 (UTC)


 * OK then. Billmckern (talk) 02:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, referencing the above discussion, has anyone made the change that swaps the current photo out with this official photo? If not, can we swap the photo in? I don't mind doing it myself, but wanted to check to see if people are on board with updating it. There shouldn't be any copyright issues here, I think. Lakshya97 (talk) 21:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It was done and then reverted by User:DemonDays64 with the summary "clearly false copyright". It looks like it is now being sussed out at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jon Ossoff (US Senator from Georgia) 2021.jpg, so we should probably hold off for a result. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:52, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Well put GW. There is no harm in waiting to see the outcome of that discussion. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Better to have a lower quality photo than one with half his face covered. Trillfendi (talk) 23:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Could this image be used? (See below)
I’m referring to this image—

Jon Ossoff (US Senator from Georgia) 2021 (cropped).jpg

—which is being used on a number of other articles at this point and is said to be Ossoff’s official portrait. Psherman122 (talk) 20:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * that file should probably be deleted, as the file it was a crop of was deleted (though, with pretty poor reasoning imo). Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 03:31, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I think Jon Ossoff (US Senator from Georgia) 2021 (cropped).jpg should be used because although Ossoff doesn't have an official Senate photo, this looks most like a political portrait. In the current image, he is not even looking into the camera.Jgtrevor (talk) 23:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2021
I would like to request that Jon Ossoff's photo be changed to something more professional, like one of the portraits he's done, or a photo similar to Raphael Warnock's. NarutoElectoralCount (talk) 07:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Please provide a more professional image that has no copyright issues and is free to use. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Warnock's official portrait is up on his senate.gov web page. Ossoff's isn't, whether that be because it isn't ready or he has just opted not to post it. Either way, there is no directly-comparable photo of him to use. —C.Fred (talk) 17:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ossoff's office has stated in an e-mail to me that they do not have one yet but it will become available as soon as they do. Connormah (talk) 05:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2021
GeorgiaFlorida (talk) 20:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC) This is his official photo make it the photo File:Ossoff Official.jpg
 * Yes check.svg Done This congress.gov page lists the photo as "Courtesy U.S. Senate Historical Office" ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)