Talk:Fani Willis

Wikipedia

Article Intro

Is there really any objection to adding one sentence to the lead about her being tossed off the Trump case for conflict of interest? MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Propose something a change to the second paragraph here.
Something better than what you last edited into the article "She was later dismissed from this case over concerns of impropriety and conflict of interest."
Stating that she was removed from the case for a conflict of interest isn't good enough because it lacks context. TarnishedPathtalk 05:19, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
Better how? All the context is in the body of the article. She was tossed because of a conflict of interest, its really not that complicated. MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 18:23, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
I'm okay with one sentence in the lead to discuss her removal. The edit I objected to had doubled the size of the lead.  Muboshgu (talk) 18:35, 4 February 2025 (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 nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:37, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Fani Willis image

@TarnishedPath I've reverted your revert of the image. Perhaps impromptu was the wrong word, in my editing note regarding. To be clear: the image that was used is too informal to use for an official, in my opinion. I had changed it to the most formal image among those available, and also added the image from which it was cropped (that you mentioned) into the body of the article. If you disagree with the change, this is the place to discuss what is suitable. Unfortunately, her official portrait has not been uploaded, which would be a further improvement. Thank you, Lindenfall (talk) 18:29, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

The image you changed to is already in the body of the article. We don't need it twice. Obtain consensus for your change. TarnishedPathtalk 02:48, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Again, the fuller image was merely added by me at the same time, as context for the cropped one. The previous image that was used is too informal to use for a government official, in my opinion, and I certainly invite others to weight in.Lindenfall (talk) 17:52, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
None of the options are great. I'm fine with the old image or the new one without the blurred background. I oppose the cropped and blurred version, which is too offputtingly artificial. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:39, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
I agree very much with the cropped and blurred versoin being offputtingly artificial. It is jarring. I've restored to the 2024 image, partly for that reason and partly because the full image of the cropped and blurred image is in use in the body. TarnishedPathtalk 23:09, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
@TarnishedPath: Is it in use in the body? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:08, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
@Firefangledfeathers, my apologies. It was in the article, but when I reverted back to the status quo infobox image, I inadvertently removed the image from the body. I've added it back in. TarnishedPathtalk 12:16, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the picture was a few months ago, but the current one is very unflattering and should be changed. Not to say unflattering pictures should be absent from Wikipedia articles, but I don't think the current picture supports the content of the article. As @Lindenfall says it's too informal. I also think the current picture was chosen to portray the District Attorney in a negative, scheeming, and mischevious manner. For those reasons it should be changed. Hjks7121 (talk) 19:49, 17 September 2025 (UTC)