Talk:Carmela Conroy

Notability statement for AfC review

Based on present sourcing, Carmela Conroy appears to meet WP:GNG and WP:BIO through multiple independent, in-depth, reliable publications:

• A four-page feature profile in GT Magazine (Lahore), October 1–15, 2011, pp. 84–89.
• Extensive contemporary coverage during the Raymond Davis case, including reporting from Dawn and The Express Tribune.
• Substantive treatment in two commercially published works:
  • Raymond Allen Davis, The Contractor (BenBella Books, 2017), with multiple chapter references.
  • Steve Coll, Directorate S (Penguin Press, 2018), pp. 470–472.
• Regional political coverage in The Spokesman-Review during her 2024 U.S. congressional campaign.
• UW Law Alumni Magazine profile (2011) detailing career and graduate study.

These constitute multiple independent secondary sources with significant depth and analysis, beyond routine announcements, consistent with WP:GNG and WP:BIO. All citations are formatted and verified. RiverHouseWriter (talk) 20:41, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Lead image selection

The article historically used the subject’s official State Department portrait as the lead image. That image was recently replaced with a different photograph. I restored the earlier portrait, but my edit was reverted with the summary “possible vandalism.” Since restoring a previously used image is a good-faith content edit, I wanted to raise the question here before any further changes. The previous image was an official portrait associated with Conroy’s diplomatic service, while the current image appears to be a different photograph whose source and context are not clear from the article. Because this is a biography of a living person, it would be helpful to reach consensus about which image is most appropriate for the lead position. For context, the reverting editor has also contributed to the article of Michael Baumgartner, who is Conroy’s opponent in Washington’s 5th congressional district race. I mention this only to suggest that outside input from uninvolved editors may be helpful in determining consensus. RiverHouseWriter (talk) 00:05, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

 RESPONSE TO THIRD OPINION REQUEST

---

CSP3945, anything to add?  — MWFwiki (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

It is generally considered standard to use recent photos for articles of living people, especially when older photos are out of date and they are still actively involved in public life, such as Conroy who is currently running for political office. The current portrait is only two years old and comes from a debate between her and her opponent in her previous run for office, which is relevant to her current activities, as she's currently running for the same office against the same opponent. The State Department portrait is from 2011—it's 15 years old. The 2024 portrait is not the highest quality however, especially compared to the official portrait from 2011. I think it would be wise to use the 2018 photo on Flickr if quality is preferred.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Celebration_of_America%E2%80%99s_Independence_Day_in_Lahore_(5914294025).jpg

I'm not sure it's relevant that I've made contributions to Michael Baumgartner's page. I have made contributions to many different politicians' Wikipedia pages, especially those of Washingtonian politicians which seem to be very stub-heavy. For context, RiverHouserWriter's account's only edits are Carmela Conroy's page and other edits related to Carmela Conroy. CSP3945 (talk) 22:49, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. However, the current (2024) image, as you say, is not great. We should prefer the most recent and highest-quality image which appropriately shows the subject. I would say that the image should meet all of these criteria in order to be considered for use, particularly as the lead image. Which would make me lean towards utilizing the State Department portrait. However, I agree that a 15-year-old photograph is not recent, though it is technically the next "most recent". Also of consideration; I feel that it is not of encyclopedic value to feature a picture of a living subject whom doesn't appear the same as said picture, anymore. That being said, the quality of the current photo is not great. The Flickr photo was uploaded in 2018 but it was also taken in 2011, so, it's not any more recent than the "official portrait" photo. I will review image use policy and guidelines to see if there is any better guidance on this.

RiverHouseWriter, you yourself appear to be a single-purpose editor, so I would tread carefully when casting aspersions. Merely editing two pages of subjects that happen to be political opponents does not in and of itself constitute some form of bad-faith editing. There needs to be, well, bad-faith editing, non-neutral editing, or otherwise policy violations in order to accuse someone of improper behavior; Without such evidence, casting aspersions and failing to "assume good faith" can lead to sanctions against you. That being said, I would not call your edit "vandalism."

If either of you feel there are policies, RfCs, or etc, that support your position let me know. Otherwise, I will get back to you both and render an opinion. P.S.: There's no other images of her, I'm assuming?  — MWFwiki (talk) 00:37, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

After much thought and consideration, I am actually leaning towards utilizing RiverHouseWriter's preferred picture. It's a clear (purpose-taken) headshot at the peak of a professional career and avoids any copyright issues and/or claims of neutrality concerns. Courtesy-tagging @CSP3945.  — MWFwiki (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Fair points. Thank you for the tag. CSP3945 (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

CIA Medal

Just a quick question — @RiverHouseWriter where did you find the images of Conroy's CIA medals? It's listed as your own work. Do you know Conroy personally? Did you find the image online? I'm rather curious of this. CSP3945 (talk) 16:20, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeahhhhhhh, that's slightly suspicious.  — MWFwiki (talk) 21:19, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

@RiverHouseWriter; to elaborate on my above-reply: We need a response from you, as we have a situation that is one of four possibilities:

• You lied about/mislabled the copyright status/provenance of the images in-question
• You personally know Conroy, even if it was just in-passing or just to take photographs, which constitutes an undisclosed conflict of interest. Even if you contend that you photographed her medals without her knowing, we have to assume you met her. This, along with your editing here, would constitute a fairly severe COI-violation.
• You are Conroy, in which case your editing here would constitute a very severe COI-violation.
• You are editing Wikipedia with very limited knowledge on our policies (I suppose you could combine this point with any of the three, above)

 — MWFwiki (talk) 22:56, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I photographed the medals myself and uploaded the image as my own work. Ms. Conroy allowed me to photograph them, which is why the Commons file is listed as “own work.”

I do not have a personal relationship with Ms. Conroy. I am not editing on her behalf and have not received any compensation for editing Wikipedia.

If any additional clarification would be helpful on the Commons file description page, I would be happy to add it. RiverHouseWriter (talk) 23:15, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Alright. RiverHouseWriter, you have an "apparent" conflict of interest (COI), bordering on an "actual" COI. For Wikipedia's purposes, it matters little whether it is "apparent" or "actual." Notices have been placed here — on this Talk page — and on your userpage disclosing the apparent/assumed COI. If you ever wish to customize your userpage, you must keep this notice relatively prominent. You cannot "hide" or "bury" it.

As far as continued editing on this page, please review WP:COIEDITING. Considering you did not disclose your COI, you a very strongly discouraged from editing this article. You may make edit requests on this Talk page.

If you understand and acknowledge all of this, then I feel we can leave it at that. Assuming CSP3945 doesn't wish to take it further; They have every right to take this to COIN. I will say, the fact that you have been (almost) exclusively editing Conroy's article is concerning.  — MWFwiki (talk) 00:40, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Understood. I will follow the guidance at WP:COIEDITING and use the talk page for any edit requests related to the article. RiverHouseWriter (talk) 01:33, 15 March 2026 (UTC)