Talk:Susan Collins

(Redacted).

(Redacted) Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 20:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

This is completely inappropriate and I probably should have removed the section instead of responding to it. Implying that she has a condition is a BLP violation. Your original research is not required here. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I removed it. 331dot (talk) 21:21, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Greetings,

(Redacted)

Thank you for your time, but not for your over-reaction in redacting my sincere query, Wordreader (talk) 22:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

If you have public, independent reliable sources that document the medical conditions of Senator Collins, then offer them. Your own analysis is original research and a WP:BLP violation. No, we would not mention any person limping if reliable sources do not call attention to it. 331dot (talk) 23:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I think this section needs to be removed. Talk pages are not for speculation about living person's medical conditions, no matter who they are. If you have reliable sources, then edit the article. This is not the place for chit chat speculation about a person's health. Use social media for that. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I've deleted the BLP violation. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:46, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

And issued a 72 hour block. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:49, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Greetings, @Muboshgu -- As you likely know by now, Collins herself has finally admitted to having essential tremor; it has been obvious to the rest of us that she had a neurological condition of some sort. As she says, it is a benign condition and was nothing for her to be ashamed of. I know that YouTube is not considered a reliable source, but here she is herself stating so on camera for your perusal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXLz_YV_mdQ

I had merely asked if there was information on her disorder. You could have said "No" without over-reacting.

Thank you for your attention, Wordreader (talk) 13:42, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

I didn't overreact. I responded to a WP:BLP violation. You didn't "merely ask" for information, you insisted it as though you were her doctor. Now, four years later, the situation is different. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:47, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Wordreader "been obvious to the rest of us" is under no circumstances whatsoever grounds to post speculation as to an individual's medical condition on Wikipedia. A reliable source, such as is now available, is sufficient. I don't think you appreciate how seriously we must take WP:BLP. 331dot (talk) 14:28, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Sentence in lead as it relates to Dobbs v Jackson and Justice Kavanaugh

The sentence in the lead: "She attributed her vote to her false belief that Kavanaugh would not support overturning Roe v. Wade..." is what I want to talk about. It's not that Senator Collins convinced herself that he wouldn't overturn Roe, like the article seems to portray (or how Donald Trump convinced himself the 2020 election was stolen by fraudulent means, which is an entirely different matter), from the sources that I had seen, then-Judge Kavanaugh, when asked, had told Senator Collins that Roe was "settled law". I think in this instance, she was just a bit gullible, and in that case I would understand why she would feel misled. However, the Collins-Kavanaugh meeting took place on August 21, 2018; Roe was not overturned until June 24, 2022. It's not like Kavanaugh was actively planning to overturn Roe or any other landmark decisions, he probably didn't know what the future on the Supreme Court would hold for him. The same applies to Gorsuch (whose nomination was more than five years ago at this point), Barrett (who Collins voted against), and any other nominee for the Supreme Court. Unknown0124 (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

"learned his lesson"

Google "learned his lesson" and it's all Susan Collins at the top results.
This expression should be in the article 2600:1012:B003:8B1B:4818:47D:D51C:7051 (talk) 17:38, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

"learned his lesson"

Google "learned his lesson"and it's all Susan Collins in the first results. This quote is becoming her legacy. It should be in the article. MBUSHIstory (talk) 17:40, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

MBUSHIstory, can you provide some of these sources and recommend the specific text to add to it so the community can evaluate the proposal? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:27, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Infobox Portrait

I think we need to change the infobox portrait. Although Collins hasn’t had a new portrait in over a decade, she has certainly aged a bit and changed her appearance too. We had this same discussion w/Tammy Baldwin and ultimately resolved it with an official image she used from recently, though not a portrait. What do you guys think, though?? Dancingtudorqueen (talk) 22:03, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

We would need to see the image; is it a work of the federal government? Her official Senate portrait is easy to use as works of the federal government are in the public domain. 331dot (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Moderate

The main article says Collins is generally regarded as a "moderate Republican," but the most common description of her by Republicans is as a "RINO" who often votes with Democrats at key moments. This article, in other words, is written from the point of view of Democrats, but the article should be neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.27.38 (talk) 21:16, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

You're slightly incorrect- articles should have a neutral point of view, not "be neutral". As all sources have biases, any bias in sources will be reflected in Wikipedia. Sources are presented to readers so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves as to bias and other factors. You are free to read an article and disagree with everything presented, we don't claim that it's the truth.

It is difficult to respond to a general grievance. Please detail the specific passages that you find problematic and explain how they do not accurately summarize the sources/sources provided, or provide more current sources. That would include if you have sources that describe how other Republicans may not view her as a Republican. The ironic thing with your statement here is that many Democrats view Collins as only voting with them when it doesn't matter. 331dot (talk) 08:46, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Factual error on Susan Collins' page

• What I think should be changed: "On June 29, 2025, Collins voted to pass the One Big Beautiful Bill Act."
• Why it should be changed: It should be removed because it is factually inaccurate that she voted for final passage of the bill. The reference cited currently is about a cloture vote.
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

2600:4040:254D:D300:B4C4:2FA2:9800:5A98 (talk) 23:25, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

References

• She voted to pass it out of committee. We all know how the game is played.....they didn't need her so she voted no on the final bill. 331dot (talk) 23:38, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Not done for now: Can you make a specific edit suggestion for what it would be replaced with? Likeanechointheforest (talk) 14:20, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Looks like someone fixed this. ~2026-27450-84 (talk) 18:20, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

murkowski should have capital M

There's one occurrence on this page of "murkowski" with the m not capitalized. I thought I would fix it; but either Wikipedia has changed its rules about non-Wikipedians doing editing, or this page has some special restrictions -- I didn't see anything to click on that would let me do editing. So someone should fix this typo. ~2025-41294-19 (talk) 03:22, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done Peaceray (talk) 05:40, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Lead is too long

The lead is too long. Six paragraphs. The last two paragraphs, in particular, have a lot of stuff that could be left to the article body. ~2026-27450-84 (talk) 18:22, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree it's a bit long. You're welcome to have a go at shortening it! Marquardtika (talk) 16:24, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Headshot Change Inappropriate

An official headshot should not be replaced with a lower quality image simply because it is more recent. LawRunner22 (talk) 16:20, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Not to say that I agree or disagree with you, but Sen. Collins does look different today than from her official picture. 331dot (talk) 16:28, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Virtually every other US senator has their official portrait as their headshot, including some from the early 2010’s (Amy Klobuchar, Patty Murray, etc). Changing this one to a more recent, low quality image during an election cycle for Collins is inappropriate. LawRunner22 (talk) 16:34, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Generally with living people the image should be as current as possible, though quality does certainly factor into it. One reason official Senate photos are used is because as works of the federal government they are compatible with Wikipedia's copyright. 331dot (talk) 18:14, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

That’s sort of talking around what I’ve noted as being the reasons for why the change is inappropriate. I understand that Wikipedia follows copyright laws. What’s inappropriate is changing a high quality, official portrait of US senator from 2014 to a low quality, unflattering photo from 2023, when almost every other senator has their official portrait (many from earlier than 2014) or a comparably high quality photo as their wiki headshot. This specific, asymmetric treatment of Collins (during an election cycle, no less) appears biased. An editor with permission should revert the change, or find a higher quality / more recent image that follows copyright. LawRunner22 (talk) 21:12, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

The fact that this fell on the election cycle makes me rethink my decision. I'll change it back. Nurken (talk) 21:25, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

(ec) If you want to chase down the other 99 senators to take current pictures of them, feel free. I'm talking about the article in front of me and not others I have not examined. My point is that it's often easier to use a photo from the government, but we aren't necessarily restricted to doing so. Generally a current picture is more beneficial. I'm not saying the current photo is better, only that it's not completely unreasonable. 331dot (talk) 21:25, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

FYI, folks such as Bernie Sanders don't have their official portraits used if its severely out of date to the degree of them being noticeably different from their current selves (see his official portrait from... 2007). I think Collins may barely meet the threshold. — Knightoftheswords 22:54, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

There is also Chris Coons, Mike Crapo, Elizabeth Warren, and many more in the House as well I bet. I don't see why we cannot do the same for Collins. Especially during an election year, I think a Wikipedia page should be accurate and up to date, that includes what they truly look like. JerikoLagazo (talk) 01:51, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

It’s worth nothing that non-official portrait headshots of senators is the exception, not the norm, and many are as old or older than Collins’, as I’ve already noted. And too, it’s not really truthful to say Collins doesn’t look like her 2014 picture, it’s mostly just that it’s a flattering picture of an elderly woman, as all official portraits of public officials (elderly or not) tend to attempt to be. That all said, the main problem with the headshot that it was changed to prior to the revert was that it was much lower quality than the official portrait. A similar quality, more recent picture would be fine. And that’s what senators like Sanders or Coons have; high quality pictures (and I will say, not unflattering) that are nevertheless not official portraits. LawRunner22 (talk) 01:57, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

• noting at the start there, not “nothing”

LawRunner22 (talk) 01:58, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

2nd Infobox Image change request

I believe the current image is way outdated. If Collins had retired I’d agree keeping the current photo however since she isn’t I propose we ought to change it. Plenty of images have been uploaded. But I made a discussion on this to avoid edit warring. Please lay down your thoughts here. Fixingthelies2025 (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2026 (UTC)