Jump to content

Talk:Jill Stein/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Political Positions of Jill Stein

I was completely involved in this RfC, and so anyone can feel free to revert if they take issue with this closure, but I don't think anyone will, and I would like to stop bots from bringing people here to comment on a forgone RfC. The fork article in question has been deleted per AfD, and the editor who started this has been topic banned from this article. Nothing more to do here. TimothyJosephWood 12:39, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Now that a "political positions of" page has been created -- in accordance with Wikipedia practices for Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, and Gary Johnson -- 2 questions arise:

1) How should the "political positions" -- duplicated verbatim at Political positions of Jill Stein -- section of this, her biography, page be slimmed down for appropriate weight?

2) Should there be a moratorium on edits to this section, in preference to edits on her political positions page?

SashiRolls (talk) 16:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

As a courtesy, pinging users who have worked on this talk page: @Andy M. Wang:, @Gouncbeatduke:, @Snooganssnoogans:, @The Four Deuces:, @Tryptofish:, @Namiba:, @MrX:, @SteveStrummer: @Masebrock:, @Clpo13:, @Hugetim:, @Timothyjosephwood:, @Namiba:, @Jethomas5:, @AlejandroMS:, @MelbourneStar:, @GreenIn2010:, @VictoriaGrayson:, @Meatsgains:, @DrFleischman:, @JayJasper:, @Caladonia:, @AndrewOne:, @NatGertler:. Not pinging any users who have not, nor any of the IP users who have intervened. SashiRolls (talk) 19:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments from interested Wikipedians

  • 1. Nothing should be done about the political positions section of Stein's main article. It is shorter than the positions sections of Tim Kaine and Mike Pence's (Pence's positions are placed under his time as congressman and governor) main articles. I also question the wisdom of creating a separate article for Stein's political positions, seeing as how they fit neatly into her main article and are not particularly extensive (the newly created Stein positions article is for instance almost ten times smaller than Trump's and Clinton's, and two-thirds the size of Johnson's positions article).
  • 2. No. Like every other positions section of any other candidate, editors should be able to edit Stein's. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Not talking about an edit ban, but an informal moratorium based on best practices (as seen on other candidate's pages).SashiRolls (talk) 17:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • No. It's very questionable whether this spin-off article would survive AfD (if nominated, I would support deletion, as a spin-off article is unnecessary), and even if a sub-article spin-off was proper, there is no basis whatsoever for a "moratorium" on adding or removing content. Neutralitytalk 16:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Go ahead and go on the record nominating it then, neutrality. SashiRolls (talk) 17:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Indeed I just have. Neutralitytalk 22:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • No - This article (for a candidate polling at ~ 3%) is not nearly large enough to justify a spinoff article in my opinion, and some might perceive it as a WP:POVFORK. - MrX 16:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
It is the same size as the article for Johnson precisely because of the political positions page, which [User:Snooganssnoogans|Snooganssnoogans] has noted is smaller than Gary Johnson's. It is not a WP:POVFORK insofar as the political positions page is a snapshot of the current version here. SashiRolls (talk) 17:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Add para(s) to give biographical aspect of it, and otherwise just highlights. Below the header put links to Green Party and [[Political positions of Jill Stein] but make the body about a four-paragraph level similar to the example of Marco Rubio. Add a para or two to put in the BIO history and overview, then a para of oneline fore what are sections here, and a closing para. I suppose you could look at John McCain or the bullet-style of Sarah Palin as other ways this has gone. Markbassett (talk) 02:29, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  • No comment with respect to the size, but a moratorium seems like an exceptionally silly idea. We are supposed to reflect what reliable sources say, giving due weight to all significant, non-fringe positions. The sources change from day to day. Locking the article down on one version is a very ill-conceived idea. Vanamonde (talk) 05:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

AfD

I've nominated it for AfD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political positions of Jill Stein. Editors are encouraged to weigh in there. Neutralitytalk 22:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - just passing through collecting links for the AE that Tryptofish has filed against me. Thanks to those of you who have reacted either here or at neutrality's call for deletion. I never expected such a war for what seems to me such a common-sense move. SashiRolls (talk) 22:36, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for comments

The consensus is to exclude the proposed text. Editors found the material to be excessive for a biographical article and possibly appropriate for an election article. Cunard (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the following text be included in the article (this is the context: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jill_Stein&oldid=735538215#2016):

  • Sanders has called upon his supporters to vote for Clinton, saying that the United States is not a multi-party parliamentary system and that "you're gonna end up having a choice. Either Hillary Clinton is going to become president, or Donald Trump."[1][2] In July 2016, Trump stated that a vote for Stein would be good for him: "I think a vote for Stein would be good — that’s the Green Party. Because I figure anyone voting for Stein is gonna be for Hillary. So I think vote for Stein is fine."[under discussion][3] According to political scientist Amanda Skuldt, third-party candidates stand no chance of winning the 2016 election due to Duverger's Law, which suggests that the electoral system in the United States has a law-like tendency towards a two-party system.[4] Skuldt argues that recent third-party candidates have chiefly had a spoiler effect: splitting votes between candidates with similar ideologies and causing a strong opponent of both to win, as when Ross Perot split the Republican vote in 1992 and Ralph_Nader split the Democratic vote in 2000.[4]

References

  1. ^ "Sanders warns his supporters against choosing a third party". Washington Post. Retrieved 2016-07-26.
  2. ^ "Alex Seitz-Wald on Twitter". Retrieved 2016-07-26.
  3. ^ Neidig, Harper (2016-07-28). "Trump: A vote for the Green Party helps me". Retrieved 2016-07-28.
  4. ^ a b "Could a third-party candidate win the U.S. presidency? That's very unlikely". Washington Post. Retrieved 2016-08-02.

Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Include. All the sources mention Stein or the Green Party by name, except Sanders who is clearly alluding to the Green Party. Given that outreach to Sanders supporters and even to Sanders himself (offering him the ticket) has by all accounts been a major part of Stein's campaign (and is a dominant theme in the preceding paragraphs in this article), it's hard to argue that it's irrelevant to the 2016 race section to mention Sanders' rationale for not supporting Stein. Trump's statement about the third party candidate is clearly relevant as part of the campaign. It is the one time that a candidate of the two major parties has spoken about the Green Party. Hard to argue that it's undue, especially when the preceding sections are about Stein's thoughts on the two major party candidates. The academic research being cited is clearly relevant for context and facts about the issues that Stein, Sanders and Trump are addressing. This content also currently exists on Gary Johnson's page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Exclude 1) You were asked to seek consensus about your revert, not about this question. Your reversion here was to undelete the section "On Third Party Chances" against current consensus, based on my reading of the talk thread which you don't seem to be doing. Could you reformulate your question to include the Chomsky quote on Lesser Evil Voting that has as much place in the question as Trump or Sanders. Nobody but you has disputed the Chomsky quote. Thank you. SashiRolls (talk) 14:29, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
? If you want to include the Chomsky quote (which you yourself added and then deleted, and which nobody has expressed support for), create your own request for comments. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Exclude This article is about Jill Stein, not the Green Party or their 2016 presidential campaign. And if we are going to provide opinions, we need to balance them. For example, while Duverger's law says that in a first-past the post system, there will only be two viable parties, the U.S. is the only country where that holds true. Ironically Duverger said that in the two party system there would be no difference between the two. Each would position itself in the middle of the spectrum in order to maximize electoral appeal. TFD (talk) 15:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
This is for the 2016 section in Jill Stein's article. Should her 2016 presidential campaign be covered or not? You think it's undue to mention that Sanders chose to support Clinton after two paragraphs of Stein reaching out to Sanders supporters and Sanders himself? If you can find an article by a political scientist that says that Duverger's Law doesn't apply to the US presidential race, you should add it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Obviously the campaign should be mentioned but the detail is excessive, particularly the commentary when we have not established the weight of the various opinions. Patrick Dunleavy, Professor of Political Science and Public Policy at the London School of Economics and Political Science, says "But the fact that one country appears to offer strong support to Duverger’s Law is not in itself very helpful, since the USA has many other features that might conduce to the same effect – including a Presidential system, the absence of socialism, a political plutocracy, an absence of much limits on campaign spending and political advertising, etc."[1] TFD (talk) 16:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Dunleavy argues that the US political system is conducive to a two-party system (the same argument as by Skuldt) but that other reasons might be at play other than Duverger's Law, including the Presidential system. Note that the author does not comment on US presidential contests, and does not talk about the chances of third party candidates in US presidential contests. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
He does not argue that the U.S. is conducive to a two party system, but that it might be. And of course it might be, because it has an effective two party system. But if the application of Duverger's law to the U.S. is questionable, why mention it in this article? TFD (talk) 17:12, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
He pretty clearly argues that the US is conducive to a two party system (did you seriously read that with the take-away that Dunleavy believes that GOP and Dems "might" dominate the 2016 Congressional election rather than that they "will" dominate the 2016 Congressional election?). Nowhere in the piece does he address the presidential race and whether Duverger's Law applies there, so it's not right to say that the application of Duverger's Law to the 2016 presidential race is questionable. He even mentions the presidential system as one factor that could explain the two-party system. The proposed text is also specific in that this is Skuldt's argument. If there are academics who don't believe that the US system is conducive to a two-party system or attribute other reasons for the two-party system, you should feel free to add those to the article (though they have to make references to Stein and the Green Party). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:29, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
For other reliable sources that mention Duverger's Law in the context of Stein, see NY Times[2] and Christian Science Monitor[3]. So this is not some fringe and non-academic theory that's getting undue weight. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Saying that the U.S. has a two party system and saying it is conducive to a two party system are different things. According to Duverger's law for example, the UK is conducive to a 2 party system, yet 11 parties won seats in the last election and third parties accounted for 1/3 of the votes cast. And stricly speaking, your other sources do not "mention Duverger's Law in the context of Stein," they mention it in terms of the U.S. election and third parties, and mention Stein. The NYT article for example is called, "Can Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Nominee, Swing the Election?" While it might be appropriate to mention that there are obstacles to a third party candidate, you're taking it into excessive detail about a theory that probably is not relevant. Anyway the most common reason for the lack of third parties in the U.S. is the lack of ideological diversity. TFD (talk) 18:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
I dare you to find any other quotes by Sanders, Trump or political scientists about Stein. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
It would be trivially easy to find quotes from other political scientists about Jill Stein. Cornel West would be a place to start. Masebrock (talk) 17:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
West is not a political scientist. He neither has a PhD in poli sci nor has he published any poli sci research. I look forward to seeing a long list of quotes, seeing as how it's "trivially easy" to find them. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
True. But anyway, I'm not letting you set the goalposts. Restricting quotes to only political opponents and PhD political scientists is silly. There are plenty of notable people who have quotes about Jill Stein. Including a list of quotes about a political figure must be done with deliberate caution as not to be seen advancing a POV. Which is why I think at this point, with so much controversy over this page, it is a very bad idea. Masebrock (talk) 17:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Cornel West has a PhD in philosophy. The foundational texts of political science are written by philosophers. These are not mutually exclusive fields. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8806:2500:E00:A975:4399:F190:6534 (talk) 22:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: Factually inaccurate and misleading claims

The consensus is against restoring the text discussed in the RfC without significant rewording and reworking to comply with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. SashiRolls and The Four Deuces mentioned the text is inaccurate for not reporting that Jill Stein was accurately citing what a scientist accurately said. The Four Deuces noted that the criticism of Jill Stein is not that she was wrong but that she discussed a worst-case scenario and omitted the best-case scenario. Other editors recommended condensing the text and opening a more clear RfC. Cunard (talk) 23:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As is the case when candidates make factually inaccurate claims, Wikipedia allows content from reliable sources to correct those claims. The Political positions of Donald Trump [4] and Political positions of Hillary Clinton[5] are full of this kind of content (just ctrl+F "PolitiFact", "Factcheck.org", "false" and so on). There is therefore no reason to remove the the content in bold which has caught attention by RS and been corrected:

  • Stein accepts the scientific consensus on climate change, calling it a "national emergency".[1] Factcheck.org and the Washington Post fact-checker have however found that Stein has exaggerated the extent of projected global sea level rise due to climate change.[2][3] She has described the Paris Climate Agreement as inadequate, saying it will not stop climate change.[1] She has proposed to override the agreement and create a more effective one.[1]
  • Stein has argued that the cost of transitioning to 100% renewable energy by 2030 would in part be recouped by healthcare savings, citing the experience of Cuba when it lost Soviet oil subsidies and Cubans experienced improvements in health outcomes.[1] The Washington Post editorial board argued that "she improbably cited Cuba’s experience", noting that Cubans "became healthier because they could no longer afford to smoke or drink alcohol and because so many involuntarily lost weight."[4]

It is not a violation of neutrality (as Wukai claimed when he removed this content) to correct false and misleading claims that candidates make in support of their positions. Should Donald Trump's false claims about climate change be allowed to stand without correction? If not, why should Stein's? If Clinton can't be allowed to make false claims about healthcare costs, solar energy, charter schools etc., why should Stein be allowed to make misleading health claims about her energy plan? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b c d Cite error: The named reference :03 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ "Stein Over the Top on Sea Level Rise". www.factcheck.org. Retrieved 2016-08-26.
  3. ^ "Jill Stein just went way overboard on sea level rise". Washington Post. Retrieved 2016-08-26.
  4. ^ Board, Editorial (2016-08-25). "Jill Stein's fairy-tale candidacy". The Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2016-08-26.


A more neutral POV would be expressed on the first point by paraphrasing the following paragraph:

Due to the threat to our coastlines from the combined effect of sea level rise and potentially more potent hurricanes, we might indeed be looking at managed retreat from coastal regions like Miami and New York City on a timeframe of 50 years,” he added. “But it wouldn’t be because of inundation of these regions. It would be because the cost to insure property would become prohibitive given the greatly increased coastal risk.

It is also worth noting that Hansen has, indeed, released a paper speaking of more significant sea-level rises than previously predicted. The article also mentions the 2016 Global Change Report which says that "in the context of risk-based analysis, some decision makers may wish to use a wider range of scenarios, from 8 inches to 6.6 feet by 2100."
The problem with your text is that it assumes bad faith and does not mention that she is citing Hansen. (the so-called "father of climate change awareness"). Stein is alerting her listeners to a very real problem that is accepted by the scientific community. I certainly have no objection, personally to a toned-down version of your claim, just that you assume her good faith, rather than assuming she is "misleading" people and being factually (cf. crystal ball) inaccurate.
I'll look into your second question when I have a moment, but on first glance citing the POV word "improbably" is reproducing WaPo POV uncritically. I believe that the editor who deleted this content was acting in good faith and that it needs significant reworking before it could be said to be neutral POV. (ps: having had my contributions (relatively modest as compared to the volume of your own) copy-edited by that editor, I would like to point out that his/her copy-editing skills are excellent and that I do believe you also reverted a good bit of his/her CE work as well. SashiRolls (talk) 17:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Malformed RFC - SashiRolls... I think you've misentered ... this is listed at WP:RFC/A as if it were an RFC but reads as if you intended to respond to an earlier RFC but missed. It's not clear to me which RFC you're trying to respond to. Just sayin, this is a misaddressed lost commetn here ... Markbassett (talk) 00:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
This is not my RfC. My next RfC will be on whether the redundant wifi section should be deleted, since the topic is already covered in Education. This is Snooganssnoogans's request for comment, and I seem to be the only one to have commented so far. How is it malformed? I had trouble getting to it, but there are some buggy things going on... like the fact that the talk page references "A Young Turk Host is not a reliable source" for the 2010 call for article deletion. (??) SashiRolls (talk) 01:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


Pinging other users: @Tryptofish:, @Snooganssnoogans:, @Masebrock:, @MrX:, @Iazyges:, @Clpo13:, @The Four Deuces:, @DrFleischman:, @VictoriaGrayson:, @Gouncbeatduke:, @The Four Deuces:, @Clpo13:. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I do not think we need to have an RfC over every dispute. RfCs are best for simple disputes that editors can readily understand. The section is indeed poorly worded. Saying that Stein "accepts the scientific consensus on climate change" is prejudicial because it implies that so scientifically illiterate that it comes as a surprise that she would "accept" anything that scientists said. The FactCheck.org story is a little confusing. Stein accurately reported what a scientist said and what the scientist said was accurate. Sea levels will rise by yards "as soon as 50 years from now." Or they could rise to that level as late as 150 years. The criticism is not that Stein was inaccurate but that she mentioned a worst case scenario without mentioning the best case scenario. So long as we stick to what FactCheck.org actually said, it should be alright to keep.
I think a better way to present the Washington Post story is to mention that that they attacked her and provide their reasons but remember that op-eds are not reliable for facts so better phrasing is required. Stein's comparison with Cuba btw has some validity. The elimination of non-renewable energy would increase the costs of high-fructose corn syrup, which would have an effect on obesity. As The Washington Post says, "Sugar taxes [another way to increase the cost of high fructose corn syrup] "are about nudging people from destructive behavior in a way that’s both economically efficient and less coercive than many alternatives.... Relatively small decreases in the projected obesity rate over the next couple of decades could produce billions of dollars in savings on treatment...."[6]
TFD (talk) 01:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
RfCs are needed because SashiRolls is incapable of discussing edits in a reasonable fashion, following any sort of consistent standards and following through on the discussions. T this is the only way to avoid editwarring. The wikipedia pages of Trump, Pence, Clinton and Kaine all word the candidates' positions on climate change as either "accepting the scientific consensus on climate change" or rejecting it. I don't see how you can see it as prejudicial: it shows both that climate change is real and that Stein accepts it. Would you rather it just said she accepted climate change? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 08:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Comment, malformed RfC. It would help to have a clearer question, or otherwise unambiguous statement as to what you’re asking the community to comment on. If I read correctly, the intention may be something like, “Should the bolded text remain, as it is reliably sourced, gives due weight to criticism of her positions, and is consistent with the way other articles on candidates of the 2016 U.S. Presidential election are being treated?” “Should the bolded text remain?” might be better still, and let the community help define why or why not. However, those aren’t quite the questions asked. The way this is phrased, it becomes fairly easy to give a reply of, “This is not the article on Donald Trump so question one doesn’t apply. Clinton is not directly making claims in the article about Hillary Clinton, but in any event this article is not about Hillary Clinton.” I’m fairly sure those replies aren’t on point to the OP’s concerns, whether agreeing or disagreeing with those replies. But I could be wrong. LaughingVulcan 12:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Support inclusion of fact-checks. I'd also note re: the second bullet that it's not clear if the source for the claim that Stein accepts the scientific consensus on climate change really supports that conclusion. Its a somewhat fuzzy phrase, and removing it would remove the ambiguity about which part of the sentence the "however" in sentence immediately after is meant to cast doubt on. Chris Hallquist (talk) 22:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Autism Speaks

I have read that Stein is pro Autism Speaks, and generally not good for autistic people, but I wasn't able to find any good sources after a quick search. Benjamin (talk) 06:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Doubtful; see #call_for_copy_editing_help, above.--Elvey(t•c) 21:48, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Vaccines and Mercury

I see the page is much improved since August; what a hatchet job it was. I propose changing the "Vaccines and Mercury" headline to "FDA Regulation and Vaccines." She gave a great example of Vioxx being known to have serious side effects but the FDA greenlighting the drug anyway/later being sued over it - after being asked about her position during a recent TYT Town Hall Q&A. It is a good supplement from Dr. Stein herself clarifying her views on the negative effects of the revolving door between lobbyists/FDA and its effect on public health/safety regarding medications, vaccines, GMOs, etc. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWnX-sVdego&feature=youtu.be&t=58m16s — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.230.47 (talk) 05:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Youth rights

Stein has come out in support of lowering the voting age to 16. I added this to the article, and it was deleted and I was accused of vandalism and threatened. I propose adding it to the article. Necropolis Hill (talk) 03:08, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Added back. Note: Placing Trump with Drumpf may not be vandalism, but I think it is disruptive.--Elvey(t•c) 09:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Wait, I didn't do that. All I did was edit the "electoral reform section and added that she supports lowering the voting age. I didn't do the other stuff. Why is it showing that I did? Necropolis Hill (talk) 10:22, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Haha, oops. Blame John Oliver. I have his "make Donald Drumpf" Chrome extension. I guess it changed "Trump" to "Drumpf" when I was editing the article, and the browser thought I was doing it the article. [1] Necropolis Hill (talk) 10:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnpO_RTSNmQ

Stein's official position on GMO safety

Stein's official position on GMO safety reads in part:

Respected public-interest scientific organizations reject the claim that GMOs have been proven safe. An editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine entitled “GMOs, herbicides and public health” stated that new developments “suggest that GM foods and the herbicides applied to them may pose hazards to human health that were not examined in previous assessments.”
The Union of Concerned Scientists has raised concerns about the difficulty finding reliable health and safety research on GMOs due to the biotech industry’s efforts to suppress research on its products.
Physicians for Social Responsibility has raised similar concerns: “The FDA doesn't conduct safety testing on GMO crops and doesn’t require independent testing. The only testing done is by the same biotech corporations that develop the crops. Moreover, these corporations severely restrict scientists from conducting independent health or environmental safety research, making it extremely difficult to get unbiased investigation”.
The World Health Organization classifies glyphosate, the herbicide in Roundup, as a probable human carcinogen. Herbicide residues, including glyphosate, are found in treated GMO foods that are sold in grocery stores.
38 countries have banned the cultivation of GMOs, including France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Finland, Wales, Switzerland and many more.

Her in-line citations are not included above, but they're at the link. How much of this should we include in the article? Seems like, given it's about her, we should balance the view presented in wikipedia's voice with her voice, so that readers can make up their own minds. Any reasons not to include this? Include more? Less? --Elvey(t•c) 20:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that we already do present Stein's GMO views pretty prominently, in that three of the four paragraphs of that section are devoted to quoting what she has said. Perhaps we could substitute better quotes from her, for the quotes presented now, but that depends on the specifics. And if we need to add a better link to her current political stance, as a citation, that would be a very good idea. Pretty much everything in green font above was discussed very specifically at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms, and rejected by the community in favor of the consensus language that cannot be altered without a new RfC or a decision at WP:AE, so we cannot say any of it in Wikipedia's voice, and we cannot quote it without rebutting it. So, for your suggestion of presenting her views and then presenting the rebuttals in Wikipedia's voice, we would be talking about a lot of rebuttal, and I think that it would end up being so lengthy relative to the rest of the page that it would become undue weight. Given the amount of now-archived discussion from just a month or so ago about this section of this page, I'm not seeing a compelling reason to change it drastically. The section also has a hatnote linking to the page on GMO controversies, where there is greater detail on the controversies, so readers can also see the arguments there. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Content RfCs cannot bind future content editing decisions and the closing administrators did not pretend they did. What they have decided is that discretionary sanctions are in effect in eleven articles and may include this article. Ironically the agreed wording in the RfC is expressed in unscientific terms: "There is a scientific consensus that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food...." Actual scientists generally using phrasing such as "there is no evidence."
Furthermore, per neutrality, we should not coatrack in sources that are not about Stein at all. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that does not provide original research and any comments about the veracity of Stein's claims should be taken from sources about her.
The best approach is to say what her position is. Readers do not come here to read about the GMO debate and it is not our role to propagandize readers to one side of the issue or the other, at least in our role as Wikipedia editors. Readers who are interested in the debate can follow links to articles about GMO. I note too that the overemphasis on the safety debate drowns out other reasons for opposition to GMOs. Politicians may for example support labeling because that is what people want. People may also oppose GMO because of the huge government subsidies they receive, government imposed tariffs against non-GMO imports, their reliable on fossil fuels and toxins, their use as cheap food for inhumanely raised factory farm animals, their use in cheap junk food leading to obesity, etc.
TFD (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Whatever your novel reading of the Discretionary Sanctions, I agree with you that readers do not come here to read about the GMO debate, and that we should present Stein's position. What aspects of Stein's position on GMOs would you like to add, that isn't already on the page, and how would you word it? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
What do you think is novel about my reading of discretionary sanctions. And could you please state exactly what you mean rather than using sarcasm, which does not help the discussion and is irritating. TFD (talk) 01:27, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I wasn't being sarcastic, and I was really asking you to suggest content. The DS do not allow for local page consensus to override the RfC language. What irritates me is to have to keep dealing with the same issues over the GMO case (not just with you, of course), over and over again. What I mean exactly is that we should not use this page to rehash the GMO debate (as readers do not come here to read about it), that we should instead focus on Stein's positions, and that I think the page section already does focus on her positions. But if you want to change how we present her positions, I am asking you for specific wording, instead of carping at me. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
None. Her position is already clearly stated in the article - the justifications she presents for that position are already dealt with elsewhere, as well as by the reply of critics. The suggestion that "we should balance the view presented in wikipedia's voice with her voice, so that readers can make up their own minds" is just false balance. --tronvillain (talk) 14:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
With all due respect, what? None (or perhaps nearly none) of this, her official position, is in the article:
Respected public-interest scientific organizations reject the claim that GMOs have been proven safe. An editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine entitled “GMOs, herbicides and public health” stated that new developments “suggest that GM foods and the herbicides applied to them may pose hazards to human health that were not examined in previous assessments.”
The Union of Concerned Scientists has raised concerns about the difficulty finding reliable health and safety research on GMOs due to the biotech industry’s efforts to suppress research on its products.
Physicians for Social Responsibility has raised similar concerns: “The FDA doesn't conduct safety testing on GMO crops and doesn’t require independent testing. The only testing done is by the same biotech corporations that develop the crops. Moreover, these corporations severely restrict scientists from conducting independent health or environmental safety research, making it extremely difficult to get unbiased investigation”.
The World Health Organization classifies glyphosate, the herbicide in Roundup, as a probable human carcinogen. Herbicide residues, including glyphosate, are found in treated GMO foods that are sold in grocery stores.
38 countries have banned the cultivation of GMOs, including France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Finland, Wales, Switzerland and many more.
(Personal attack removed)
--Elvey(t•c) 09:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
In what sense do I seem to be answering for TFD? I literally just answered the initial question: none of that is her position, it's her justifications for her position. And I have exactly one account: this one. You? "Please provide a direct answer." --tronvillain (talk) 12:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Warning

I've just removed some content that fails verification. It claims to quote (using quote marks) from a HuffPo article that it doesn't actually quote from. Editors are advised to review the discretionary sanctions warning at the top of this page. Such disruptive edits should not be tolerated. The source represents one partisan's position, not multiple "critics" as claimed. Besides the author Chris Sosa is an ex-Hillary Clinton staffer, and given the HuffPo's RS issues in general...--Elvey(t•c) 21:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Please see the CNN source. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
An improvement. Doesn't excuse the disruptive editing though, does it?.--Elvey(t•c) 23:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Then don't edit disruptively. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
smart alec, eh? I'm not the one who violated BLP by re-introducing false, defamatory information about Jill Stein into the article. You should be blocked right now for that. I've been told you'll be defending yourself at WP:Asomething regarding that soon.--Elvey(t•c) 04:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
You really don't seem to grasp the situation here. I told you before, discretionary sanctions are headed your way. 75.172.216.205 (talk) 04:29, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Editors who are trying to figure out what is going on here, or who want to understand the "not in citation given" tag that Elvey added to the GMO section, can see User talk:Tryptofish#Inappropriate talk page comment, edit summary & revert and incivility. I propose removing the tag. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

The new failed verification tag already points to the discussion Trypto is so <cough> helpfully pointing editors to. It doesn't work at the moment because Trypto broke the pointer by editing my comment on his talk page. Which warrants a {{Uw-tpv4}} warning, but I'm not going to bother. I do encourage users to check it out. Trypto is being uncivil there. Trypto is violating BLP by introducing false, defamatory information about Jill Stein into the article, as explained there. Notice that Trypto proposes removing the [failed verification] tag, but hasn't even responded to to my question on his talk page asking why he removed it the first time. You ought to, Trypto. It's only the fourth time I'm asking. --User:Elvey|Elvey]](t•c) 04:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
The first link you tagged with "failed verification" there specifically says "Her platform calls for a moratorium on GMOs in foods 'until they are proven safe' ", immediately followed by "A recent report published by the European Union reviewed dozens of studies of genetically modified organisms and concluded they were no more dangerous than conventionally bred strains", which is clearly a criticism of her position. Similarly, the other link you tagged says "The US Green party presidential candidate Jill Stein has come under fire for supposedly ‘anti-science’ statements relating to the risks of vaccines, genetically modified crops and electromagnetic fields from Wi-Fi." Assuming, that is, that your tag placement was after the reference it was referring to, as shown in the placement section of the template documentation. --tronvillain (talk) 13:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
As Tryptofish is well aware, the study said that there is "no evidence," which is how scientists usually express their opinion. And of course actual peer-reviewed review studies have come to a different conclusion. Also, we are not supposed to introduce sources that have nothing to do with Stein, per coatracking. Furthermore it is misleading to suggest that opposition to U.S. government subsidized GMOs is biased and allowing producers of non-GMO products to say there are non-GMO is unscientific. TFD (talk) 15:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Tronvillain is correct, thanks. I've been very patient with the complaints raised here, in spite of the numerous personal attacks directed at me. Everything being complained about here has already been discussed at Talk:Jill Stein/Archive 3#GMOs and Talk:Jill Stein/Archive 3#GMOs and pesticides. I'm quite comfortable with the edits that I have been making, but if anyone feels otherwise, the appropriate dispute resolution noticeboards are that-a-way. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

So Tryptofish, the CNN source is good, but what about the Chris Sosa, ex-Hillary Clinton staffer HuffPo source which is still in use, as noted in my OP? I'm quite comfortable with the edits that I have been making, but if anyone feels otherwise, the appropriate dispute resolution noticeboards are that-a-way.--Elvey(t•c) 09:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
There is a difference between what is a reliable source for statements of fact, and what is a reliable source for a person's opinion. I would not necessarily cite that source for events that happened, but it is an appropriate source for an opinion, and that is how it is used. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Article should include Jill Stein's comments on Wi-Fi

Stein's comments on Wi-Fi have received extensive coverage in reliable sources and are clearly a political position: (i) she says that children shouldn't be subjected to wi-fi and (ii) appears to express support for how wi-fi is regulated in Europe. Her Wi-Fi comments were removed from the page by an editor claiming that anything not in a candidate's platform should not be included as a political position, which is patently ridiculous and inconsistent with much of the other content on this page and the content on other politicians' pages. This Wikipedia article is not meant to be an advertisement of the candidate or mirror of her campaign website. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it's relevant information. Elvey should also take note of WP:EDITCONSENSUS ([7], [8]). A lack of talk page consensus does not necessarily mean a lack of consensus altogether. clpo13(talk) 16:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Far from doing that, the article reads more like an attack page. I suggest if we mention her position on wi-fi, we tell the whole story as recounted in the source rather than cherry-pick the worst parts. That includes of course that the Green Party platform "calls for universal access to broadband Internet." TFD (talk) 16:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
You're free to add any political position you want to the page. Don't be surprised that fears that Wi-Fi are scrambling children's brains (Stein), evolution is a hoax (Pence) or climate change is a hoax (Trump) get more attention than whatever run-of-the-mill science policies these candidates happen to have. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
There's no consensus for this attack section to be in the article. It's not just the post-removal lack of consensus that supports my edit. There's also the WP:UNDUE hurdle. Some links to our articles on publication bias and other bias and irreproducibility issues in science would be useful in context. --Elvey(t•c) 21:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
....and it's been quietly added back in despite the obvious lack of consensus, in a discretionary sanction-violating move by Snooganssnoogans, who was recently warned at AE/DS for another discretionary sanction-violating edit. Didn't even include "calls for universal access to broadband Internet." compromise suggested by TFD which would have made the DS violation less clear-cut. Snooganssnoogans, I suggest a self-revert before someone reports you to AE/DS.--Elvey(t•c) 16:28, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
By all means, report me. There's absolutely no opposition towards the inclusion of Stein's Wi-Fi health claims besides you (see older talks, as well as this one). There are some vague complaints about the state of the Jill Stein page in general (TFD's comment), but it has absolutely nothing to do with whether Stein's position on Wi-Fi is a legitimate inclusion or not. Your complaint regarding weight was unfounded in the first place but has certainly been thoroughly met in my subsequent edits, given that numerous reliable sources have focused on this issue (incl. NPR, WaPo, Guardian) and I added them in my new edits. I met TFD's call for full context behind Stein's remarks by adding a clarification from her website, as well as her clarification from the LA Times editorial board interview. If Stein also has a position in favor of "universal access to broadband Internet", you can add that if you want and if reliable sources confirm it. There's nothing stopping you. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans denies that TFD's "Far from doing that, the article reads more like an attack page." indicates "opposition towards the inclusion of Stein's Wi-Fi health claims". TFD would you mind clarifying whether you supported Snooganssnoogans' original addition, and also let us know whether you support the revised one? --Elvey(t•c) 11:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

"Smear" claim: unreliable sourcing problems, weasel words, weight issues

I agree with @Snooganssnoogans: (diff) and @MelbourneStar: (diff) that the sources used for the "smear campaign" text are completely unreliable (see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources):

  • RT America is widely acknowledged to be a Russian propaganda outlet (it has been described as such in feature articles by the Columbia Journalism Review, see here, and the New York Times, see here). An unsigned RT piece is clearly improper as a source.
  • This opinion blog post on Inquisitr.com is also unreliable. Inquisitr is a low-quality, marginal source, best known as a news aggregator/clickbait outlet. In any case, the post bears a prominent disclaimer: "The following article is entirely the opinion of Caitlin Johnson and does not reflect the views of The Inquistr." The commentator does not appear to be a notable one.
  • This piece by Jeffrey St. Clair in CounterPunch is, like Inquisitr, also opinion commentary (and a quite marginal one at that), and insufficient to make a claim in Wikipedia's own voice. Of the three pieces, St. Clair is the only one that might possibly be citable, but only with in-text attribution and on the t Jill Stein presidential campaign, 2016 page, not in this article. See below.

The wording is also classical weasel wording: "Comments of such commentators are seen as a media smear campaign against Jill Stein..." The natural question is by whom? It's unacceptable.

I also object to the "smear campaign" text on WP:WEIGHT grounds. This sort of back-and-forth, if any, belongs at Jill Stein presidential campaign, 2016, and not at this biographical article. And, if included even on that article, we need to carefully attribute the claim using in-text attribution, see WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV/WP:INTEXT. (For example, we might be able to say "Jeffrey St. Clair says X...").

--Neutralitytalk 16:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not getting any more involved here, but to call RT a propaganda outlet based on that statement (and not a discussion at the relevant WP:RS/N) is wrong. NPR has been called out as a propaganda voice, yet we still use it. The text never used "Wiki's voice", and directly attributed the discussion to RT — as is appropriate. It seems very out of line with policy to censor this because you do not like the source.Distrait cognizance (talk) 16:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
May I also remind you of WP:Systemic bias and WP:Global. This text should be restored. Distrait cognizance (talk) 16:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
No. The academic and journalistic sources out there explicitly acknowledge RT to be a propaganda outlet. This has been brought up repeatedly on both talk pages and the noticeboards. Your reference to NPR is a false equivalence. NPR (like the BBC) is a high-quality source, widely respected and editorially independent of the government. RT is not.
The reference to "systemic bias" is nonsense. I am completely fine with sources from anywhere in the world - but they must be reliable and high-quality (i.e., meet the WP:RS standard). RT does not, especially in this context.
And yes, the text did use Wikipedia's voice, in the following text: "Comments of such commentators are seen as a media smear campaign against Jill Stein..." Neutralitytalk 16:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
What are you on about? The text was:

Comments of such commentators are seen as a media smear campaign against Jill Stein to misrepresent her views by CounterPunch and RT-America,[...]

That can hardly be interpreted to be in Wikipedia's voice, and if that was the only objection then there is even more reason to include it. I'm just taking NPR as an example because there has been far from any "wide spread condemnation". It is Russian state owned, yes, and that might be an important caveat to include when citing it, but that doesn't make it unreliable, take it to WP:RS/N. Before you do get any consensus there, it is de facto reliable per WP:RS. WP:NPOV is not the same as unreliable, and neutrality it something we strive for, not something we demand of our sources. We do not remove content because we don't like it. Distrait cognizance (talk) 16:58, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
The fact that it is state-owned does not itself make it unreliable. Its proven history of serving as an outlet for disinformation, propaganda, and extremist conspiracy theories does makes it unreliable. This is recognized by multiple sources:
  • Marcel H. Van Herpen, Putin's Propaganda Machine: Soft Power and Russian Foreign Policy (Rowman & Littlefield, 2016), pp. 72-73: "From 2009 onward....Anchors of RT programs...did not hide their explicit anti-American views. RT also started inviting representatives of marginal, often extreme right antigovernment groups, who were presented as "experts." One of these groups was the so-called 9/11 truthers, people who believe the 9/11 attacks were not the work of al-Qaeda terrorist by a US government conspiracy. .... Another group was the "birthers," people who doubted--against all evidence--that President Obama was born in the United States and denied that he was eligible to be US president....The same penchant for conspiracy theories was revealed in the RT program he Truth-seeker, which suggested that the US government was behind the attack on the Boston Marathon."
  • New York Times (here): quoting experts that explicitly identify RT as a Russian propaganda/disinformation outlet: "'We mean everything from internet trolls to propaganda and misinformation spread by media companies like RT and Sputnik' ... RT often seems obsessed with the United States, portraying life there as hellish."
  • Wall Street Journal/Institute of Modern Russia (here): "RT's signature blend of propaganda and tinfoil-hat conspiracy theorizing ... Welcome to Vladimir Putin’s disinformation matrix. RT is merely one part of the Kremlin’s aggressive media effort, as a new Institute of Modern Russia report shows."
  • Peter Pomerantsev, "The Kremlin's Information War" in Authoritarianism Goes Global: The Challenge to Democracy (eds. Larry Diamond et al/: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016), p. 180: expressly identifying RT as a Russian disinformation outlet
  • Salome Samadashvili, Muzzling the Bear: Strategic Defence for Russia's Undeclared Information War on Europe Wilfried Martens Centre for European Studies, p. 31: "One of Russia’s main tools for disinformation is the cable TV channel Russia Today, which is also known by the more neutral name RT....In addition to fabricating news stories, the RT editorial line systematically portrays the US as a land of corrupt capitalism, social injustice, imperialism, militarism, colonialism and consumerism. Rather than inform or persuade the audience of Russia’s point of view, RT's sole purpose is to confuse..."
You are also incorrect that there is some "presumption of de facto reliability" — there is no such presumption, and in fact the reverse is true: the editor proposing the source must establish reliability. Moreover, editors are under no obligation to start conversations about sourcing problems at RSN. Article talk pages work just as well, and in fact typically conversations go from talk to the noticeboards. Neutralitytalk 17:23, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  • How about having a single sentence in the GMO section, sourced to these sources or at least some of them, saying that "some commentators have praised Stein's positions on GMOs"? As long as we still cite the same mainstream sources as criticizing her positions, that would actually add some balance. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely not. Some commentators also praise Holocaust denial, climate change denial, creationism etc. That doesn't mean we should water down critiques of anti-scientific and anti-intellectual positions. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Why on Earth do we have an editorial by a non-notable non-expert praising Stein's position on GMOs? The editorial looks unhinged. The author says that we are "Knowingly feeding our infants, whose brains are still forming, a neurotoxin" and that Hillary Clinton "would lead us blindly into toxifying our own babies". So we are seriously going to give false equivalence to a settled scientific issue and promote pseudoscience rhetoric? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm guessing that you are talking about the editorial that I just added? [9] For one thing, in no way are we saying that the editorial is correct. It's abundantly obvious to readers that this is one citation (and it was the only one I could find at the time!), whereas there are numerous cites for the criticism, so there's no "equivalence". I think editors have a choice here: we can have a battle over every pixel on the page, or everyone can just be a bit more willing to compromise. Is it really so horrible to point out one commentator who praised Stein's position? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
I do think it's horrible. it gives credence on Wikipedia to Stein's ridiculous, unsubstantiated claims re GMOs. It gives the impression that there are reasonable people on both sides on the issue, and that one side isn't making unsubstantiated claims that don't line up with current scientific knowledge. What's next? "Some commentators have praised Trump's position that climate change is a hoax", "Some commentators have praised Pence's position that evolution is a hoax" and so on just to appease trouble-making editors? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
I hope you can see how I'm fielding your comments here and completely opposite comments in the talk section just below. No it's not like "Some commentators have praised...". It's "Although her position has been praised, commentators have criticized..." (emphasis added). If one sets aside the settled scientific issues, and looks instead at issues about the regulation and economics and labeling of GMOs, there are reasonable people on both sides. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

After another editor agreed with you and reverted me, I've reduced it to a footnote (the last cite in the long list of commentator cites). [10] Is that better? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

That was reverted too. Kudos for taking a less extreme position here, Tryptofish. Re others' comments:
IMO, RT is a reliable source for RT's opinion, which is what it was used for and besides, it is often appropriately used as a reliable source (for things that aren't about its funder).</serious>
We shouldn't allow ridiculous, unsubstantiated claims; I'm off to speedy Flat Earth Theory per WP:IAR policy. </sarcasm>--Elvey(t•c) 16:43, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
(A) No it's still there, not reverted. It's a footnote. (B) I'm not taking extreme positions. I'm editing for WP:NPOV. That's why some of my edits lean towards one "side", and some of my edits lean towards the other. It follows that POV pushers will see some of those edits as good and the other edits as bad or "extreme". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
I'll take your word on it. Glad to hear it. That's how I edit too. Hopefully you can AGF as I do when I hear you say that. I expect no less. I remove bias introduced by true believers / fundamentalists, though this causes me to be in conflict with those who need to support one side as much as they can. --Elvey(t•c) 11:34, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

"Environmentalists are pro-GMO"

I removed a paragraph saying that environmentalists oppose Stein's views on GMOs, since it implied there is a consensus among environmentalists in support of GMOs. It is more correct that GMO advocates have tried to spin GMOs are good for the environment since it is a more efficient method of producing food. Ironically, current GMO products are mostly used for animal feed, high fructose corn syrup, cooking oil and biofuel, rather than replacing grains eaten by humans. TFD (talk) 15:01, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Or it might be more correct to say that some environmentalists support GMOs - there clearly isn't a consensus as there is in the science. Still, I don't know that it is at all ironic - crops would be used for animal feed, sugars, cooking oil, and biofuel regardless of whether they were GMO or not, so if GMOs reduce environmental impact it's still a net benefit to the environment. --tronvillain (talk) 15:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Bo Gardiner (not her real name) calls herself an environmentalist, and she is apparently an environmental scientist, but all her writing is about politics and the only environmental content is criticizing Stein's policies. I can't find any evidence that she ever had any prominence in the environmental movement. So calling her an environmentalist is unsupported by reliable sources.
Certainly if we assume that people should live on a diet of hamburgers, french fries and coke, then GMO might be more environmentally friendly. But mainstream environmentalists generally advocate a reduced reliance on animal protein and certainly do not advocate direct and indirect subsidies to meat and sugar consumption.
TFD (talk) 16:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
What does her real name have to do with anything? Not that I have any idea how you established that. Never mind, found it: "Bo Gardiner is the nom de plume of an environmental scientist and humanist organizer." --tronvillain (talk) 17:24, 26 October 2016 (UTC); edited 17:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
The relevance is that we do not know who she is, so we cannot know if she is an environmentalist or anything else about her except what she has written. Bo Gardiner is described as a nom de plume in Patheos,[11] the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science[12] and other sites that carry her writing. She does not say where she got her degrees or name any employers except the EPA. TFD (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Last time I checked, there were no real qualifications or requirements for being an environmentalist other than supporting some portion of the vaguely defined environmental movement, but I suppose the whole thing could be solved by adding it to the "commentators" section instead of referring to environmentalists. --tronvillain (talk) 17:49, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Fortunately we do not have to decide who is or is not an environmentalist but we can rely on how people are normally described in reliable sources. Unfortunately reliable sources do not mention Bo Gardiner. If we just say she is a commentator, then we should mention what her views are and why she is significant. Should we really say, "A blogger whose identity we cannot confirm and used to be a flying saucer and Christian fundamentalist advocate before she began blogging against religion, particularly Isam, questioned Stein's environmental credentials." TFD (talk) 18:17, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. Though I suppose you'd also have to add "supposedly" before the "used to" there. *chuckle*--tronvillain (talk) 18:57, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I think it was appropriate to remove it. If something like that were to be added back, I think the best thing to do would be to attribute the opinion to a particular individual or source, and say that the criticism was on environmental grounds. That way, we would not be suggesting that all environmentalists share a single opinion about GMOs. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:15, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, User Bo Gardiner 1's addition was fundamentally flawed and so needed to go. --Elvey(t•c) 11:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2016

She has described quantitative easing as a "digital hat-trick" or "magic trick that basically people don't need to understand any more about than that it is a magic trick".[137]

The first quote is in the source, the second is presented as quote but is not in the given source. Move the footnote to show it only verifies the first one:

She has described quantitative easing as a "digital hat-trick"[137] or "magic trick that basically people don't need to understand any more about than that it is a magic trick".[137]


184.101.231.113 (talk) 08:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for catching that mistake and pointing it out. You are correct that the second quote was not in the source cited. However, I looked around and found another source (transcript of her own words in an interview) that does contain both quotes, so I simply changed the source cited to that one. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:26, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

RFC on everything?

Do I really need to launch an RFC to get this to stick? [13]. Covering up the connection is justified how???--Elvey(t•c) 07:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

What are you referring to? You linked to a really minor edit in a citation. Assuming that was a mistake, it might be a good idea to post whatever the thing you're concerned about is at Biographies of living persons noticeboard or another relevant noticeboard first (depending on the issue). I think WP guidelines technically recommend getting input from relevant projects or noticeboards before an RFC anyway. —PermStrump(talk) 18:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
To have IAC's The Daily Beast instead of The Daily Beast in the website field? I'm highly skeptical that you could get a consensus for that - it's clearly not the name of the website. --tronvillain (talk) 20:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
I support the omission.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
I mistyped my edit summary: it should have been "and" rather than "an", but otherwise, yes, it is pretty over-the-top to have tried to insert the corporate ownership into the citation. I'll also point out that I left the link to The Daily Beast, even though we do not commonly link that sort of thing in citations. It's time to drop the stick. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Plagiarism

For info, the current Wikipedia text is a verbatim citation of the IAC's The Daily Beast article by free-lance writer Yashar Ali and as such is a copyright violation. While I am currently under the effects of a topic ban because of my significant role in eliminating bias from this page (where stein was compared to a gorilla for months), I would argue that protecting Wikipedia against copyright violations is an important enough task as a member of the Wikipedia community to warrant WP:IAR. It is also worth noting that there has only been one report, the one published by the Daily Beast. Politico 's passing paragraph, like the NJ Today.net's passing paragraph, like the Plain Dealer 's passing paragraph all refer back to this article; while Market Watch assigned a regular fiscal policy reporter to their article on the smear campaign. He noted in his article that "(t)he Daily Beast is among the family of web sites owned by IAC/InterActiveCorp. IAC, +0.67%, where Chelsea Clinton, Hillary Clinton’s daughter, is a board member." The text which has been plagiarized from the free-lance writer: "According to the financial-disclosure form she filed with the U.S. Office of Government Ethics on March 30, 2016, Stein and her husband, Richard Rohrer, have investments (with the exception of real estate) valued at anywhere from $3,832,050 to $8,505,000". If the editor wishes to use the citation, Yashar Ali should receive in-text attribution, of course. SashiRolls (talk) 23:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


That one sentence has now been fixed. I also want to note that this comment was written by SashiRolls, who has been topic-banned. :Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I reverted your changes. Simply rearranging the words does not make less of a copyright violation.--TM 11:07, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
What a load of bullshit. Please re-write the text then so that it is not a copyright violation, yet maintains the accurate information (owned by her and her husband, the sum, when the info was released and to which institution it was released). I look forward to seeing your suggested changes, Namiba. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
User:Snooganssnoogans, Don't be a jerk.--TM 11:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Do you have any intention to re-write the text so that it conforms to *your* standards of copyright violations or do just intend to re-insert a clear-cut copyright violation and add a badge of shame to the article just because you find the information in it upsetting to your cause? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:36, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I have rewritten the section in a way that should sufficiently avoid close paraphrasing issues regarding copyright. I would remind those involved that copyright violations are a serious matter and should be removed or rectified immediately in cases where the violation is clear and the source can be pinpointed. In these cases, individuals should not wait to debate preferred wording, so much so that removing clear copyright violations is an exception to the three revert rule.

If anyone takes issue with my wording, they are free to suggest changes here and gather consensus. However, the violating material will not be restored. TimothyJosephWood 12:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

  • The language was introduced in this edit: [14], and regrettably, no one noticed the problem throughout a lengthy discussion that included an RfC. The language in the edit was "According to the financial disclosure form that she filed with the United States Office of Government Ethics on March 30, 2016, Stein and her husband, Richard Roher, have investments (with the exception of real estate) worth anywhere from $3,832,050 to $8,505,000, most of which are in mutual funds or index funds." The language in the source is: "According to the financial-disclosure form she filed with the U.S. Office of Government Ethics on March 30, 2016, Stein and her husband, Richard Rohrer, have investments (with the exception of real estate) valued at anywhere from $3,832,050 to $8,505,000." [15] Yes, that is a direct violation of our policies on copyright, just as the original posting in this talk section was a violation of a topic ban, and the subsequent edits back-and-forth, until Timothyjosephwood actually fixed it, as well as the bickering in this talk section, were pure WP:BATTLEGROUND. As far as I can tell, there is no other language currently or previously in that paragraph of the page that presents problems with plagiarism. We are less than a week away from the election, so I would rather not take anyone to WP:AE, but I ask that everyone please be careful about such stuff, and please stop treating this page like a battlefield. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I do not see why it is important. Is it unusual for a retired Harvard educated doctor to have 4-8 million in index funds? Is it significant when compared to what Hillary or Trump have? TFD (talk) 23:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Please see: #RfC: Should Jill Stein's investments in the same industries that she's calling for total divestment from be included in the article?, just above. That's just the sentence that was copied from the source. But I don't think that the amount of money is the topic of the paragraph on the page here, nor the reason for inclusion. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:29, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I did not agree to close the RfC and note it was closed before uninvolved editors had a chance to comment and the vote was 4-4. I thought the point of the story was to smear Stein, but instead it is just trivia. TFD (talk) 23:41, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, I didn't close it (not that you said that I did). I guess you could take it up with editor who made the close. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
@Tryptofish: @The Four Deuces: An 'uninvolved editor' can close an RFC without the people involved agreeing to do so. I closed it rather quickly because the article is about a 'current event', a question was raised about if the subject was even 'ripe' for an RFC, and it seemed rather clear that the consensus opinion was to simply 'mention' it at significantly less length.... with nearly a dozen people already commenting, that was unlikely to change over time, and this is a subject where anyone is unlikely to care even a week from now. I think the current text is indeed better... it mentions the issue, without stretching it into something bigger than it actually was treated as by the media.
As far as copyright issues, I'd suggest that everyone read the article on substantial similarity... simply rewriting a source in 'your own words', while expressing the same thoughts and ideas, does not avoid a copyright violation. This is, unfortunately, a common problem on Wikipedia, where people simply rewrite text to avoid being a 'direct match' all too often. Reventtalk 09:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Revent, on the face it, I'm not sure substantial similarity is applicable when the content in question is sufficiently short that it could be directly quoted without issue re: copyright. At that level, rewording or quoting is a stylistic decision. However, copying verbatim without quotes or attribution clearly would not be. TimothyJosephWood 12:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
@Timothyjosephwood: I was mainly mentioning it because the 'I rewrote it to make it ok' argument was made above, and it's something that people do somewhat frequently when the text is much longer. When the text is this short, it's indeed somewhat moot, I just think it's something more people should be aware of... too many additions to articles are 'rewritten' versions of extended sections of text, IMO. Reventtalk 13:23, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
@Revent: About the close, I entirely agree with you about the procedural aspects, and I also agree with the substance of your close. I thought it was quite helpful. I simply mentioned it because TFD was raising the issue, but it is TFD's concern, not mine. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:15, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I want to note that the copyright violation was (based the diff TFD posted; I still haven't looked.) by Snooganssnoogans. Who, instead of apologizing, deflected attention by attacking multiple other users, etc. warned. --Elvey(t•c) 00:33, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I should probably just say thank goodness that the election will be over in just a bit more than 24 hours. And I certainly agree that editors need to take the copyright policy seriously. But I feel the need to point out that this "warning" is not only redundant with comments already made above, but that there are also some issues of the pot calling the kettle black. In the opening post of this talk section, [16] (subsequently redacted), you said: Each of the editors who placed the copyvio in the article shall be warned, as though there were numerous editors engaged in nefarious violations. And yet, you edited that very content before another editor pointed out the copyvio, without you noting or correcting the copying problem: [17], and you likewise commented in the RfC about it, without noting the copying: [18]. And you are also "attacking multiple other users, etc." It's time to stop treating this page like a battleground (but I said that already, didn't I?). --Tryptofish (talk) 00:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Oh boy. Untrue, trollish retaliatory finger pointing by willfully, unrepentantly uncivil editor. The only activity I see that seems nefarious is your incivility and trolling defense of your buddy; that is all. Your diffs don't actually show any copyvio or attack by me! We are done here. Drop the club.
Sadly, and more importantly, still no sign the copyright violator intends to take the copyright policy seriously. --Elvey(t•c) 18:04, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Should Jill Stein's investments in the same industries that she's calling for total divestment from be included in the article?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the following text be included in the article?

  • Through mutual funds or index funds, Stein invests in energy companies (such as Exxon, Chevron, Duke Energy, Conoco Phillips, and Toho Gas), the financial industry (including big banks like JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, and Deutsche Bank), pharamaceutical companies (such as Pfizer, Novartis, Johnson and Johnson, and Allergan), tobacco companies (such as Phillip Morris and Marlboro) and defense contractors (such as Raytheon). Explaining why she held investments in industries that she has been critical of, Stein said, "Like many Americans who hold retirement accounts, pension funds, or who invest in the American economy," the statement begins, "my finances are largely held in index funds or mutual funds over which I have no control in management or decision-making. Sadly, most of these broad investments are as compromised as the American economy—degraded as it is by the fossil fuel, defense and finance industries." Asked why she did not invest in socially responsible index funds or clean energy funds, Stein said that she had "not yet found the mutual funds that represent my goals of advancing the cause of people, planet and peace".[http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/26/jill-stein-s-ideology-says-one-thing-her-investment-portfolio-says-another.html} Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


  • Include - Stein's investments, confirmed by herself, merit inclusion. Not only do they point to conflicts of interest but illustrate major hypocrisy, as she is advocating for total divestment from some of these industries while she personally invests and profits on these industries. The text includes her own justification for these investments, so it's fair to her in that regard. Besides her inability to act on her political positions in her own life (which is relevant to the section on her political positions), her justification for these investments also include a clear political position, as she's suggesting that the US economy is so compromised that it's virtually impossible to invest in it without undermining one's own ethics (?). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Apologies. I'm not the most well-versed in Wikipedia rules. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Include, but probably shorten. First of all, I am disappointed by the edit summary of the edit that removed the material, where it was described as something like the Clinton-controlled media. We don't need conspiracy theories as editing rationales. That said, the content is encyclopedic and relevant. Simply saying that she has investments in mutual funds without discussing how these investments relate to her campaign positions and without including what she, herself, said about it, is inadequate. However, the passage need not go on for so long, per due weight. I would leave out the lists of company names. Just say: "...in energy companies, the financial industry, pharamaceutical companies, tobacco companies, and defense contractors." Naming all those individual companies does come across as driving home the point excessively. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
That's fair. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Exclude The information is sourced to an op-ed and hence fails rs. The author, Yashar Hedayat was recently on the Clinton campaign, raised $100,000 for her in 2008 and now is chief of staff for the mayor of San Franciso, and writes under the pseudonym Yashar Ali (Ali is is middle name.) The presentation of the material in this article is clearly presenting a a view that it is hypocritical for an opponent of corporations to invest in them. In order to present opinions we need to explain who presented them and the degree of attention they have received. I suggest in this case the opinion is from Clinton loyalists and has received no attention. Wikipedia is not the place to promote partisan campaign talking points that have been ignored by mainstream media. TFD (talk) 17:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
It's an article, not an op-ed (though the Daily Beast, like Vox, skirts the line between articles and opinion pieces). The piece is clearly revealing new information, so it's a piece of journalism, not an opinion piece. Stein has furthermore confirmed that all the information is correct. The mainstream media is not going to cover the daily events of a candidate who will barely break 1% on Nov 9, so finding multiple mainstream sources for *anything* on the Jill Stein has been a hassle. That said, it was brought up by NJToday.net[19], Politico[20], the Plain Dealer[21], MarketWatch[22]. It's frankly incomprehensible how it cannot be considered pertinent that a candidate calling for total divestment from fossil fuels happens to invest in them and profit on them herself. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:02, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
If anything, that the candidate herself feels compelled to release an extensive statement on the story (confirming its accuracy) should show that its notable and merits inclusion. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
It's an op-ed. The writer has no academic qualifications, has never worked as a journalist, derives his income from an inheritance and worked as an unpaid volunteer on the Clinton campaign and considers Bill and Hillary Clinton to be his "friends." He also was involved in a Clinton Foundation project. He has been successful in getting a number of highly partisan publications to publish his writings, all of which are attacks on Clinton opponents. Is that the type of "journalism" you rely on? TFD (talk) 20:09, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Assuming that all of the things you said are accurate, despite all of that, he uncovered new and highly salient information about Jill Stein; information that Stein confirmed was accurate and information that she found necessary to release an extensive statement on. That's a good piece of journalism. Working on the assumption that your objections were based on the fact that no mainstream media covered this story, does coverage by the mainstream media sources mentioned above mean that you no longer to the inclusion of this material? If you accept that the information is correct, and that mainstream media sources have covered it, surely there is no reason left to oppose it? That the individual who broke the story dislikes Stein or is a partisan (assuming your info is correct) has no bearing on anything if the info is correct and notable. If that were the case, no information uncovered by Wikileaks or Judicial Watch would be acceptable for inclusion on any of the Clinton pages, which is surely not a position you hold? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Assuming we did include it, we would need to explain why it is significant and who complained about it. By comparison we pointed out that Clinton's use of a private email server was criticized by Republicans who saw it as illegal. We then point out that she was cleared by the independent director of the FBI. RS is not the only policy for inclusion which is why you have consistently opposed the inclusion of negative information about Hillary Clinton. There is also neutrality and no OR. TFD (talk) 20:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
There are no problems with NPOV or OR, and you know it. Just earlier this day, I fought to include material that reflected poorly on Clinton on one of her articles, so you should stop talking nonsense about me and my intentions. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, they are and I will eplain below. TFD (talk) 22:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Exclude per TFD. Going further, Chelsea Clinton is on the board of directors of the Daily Beast and as such it is obviously inflammatory.--TM 17:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Namiba. Is the information in the article incorrect? If Stein herself confirms the accuracy of the report, how can you say it's unreliable? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:02, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Updating my comment above: I still say "include but shorten", but I now want to add the following. Do not cite to the Daily Beast source, given its contentious nature. Do cite to the other sources (or at least some of them) that are listed above: NJToday.net, Politico, the Plain Dealer, or MarketWatch. This being the case, the arguments to exclude on the basis of the Daily Beast source are moot. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
If the information in the article is correct (which the Stein campaign confirms it is), then there is no reason to exclude the source. Mother Jones, Buzzfeed and Fox do excellent stories from time to time, despite doing a lot of nonsense journalism as well. When those sources do good journalism and produce verified information, it should be fine to cite them. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:26, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Meh. There's no reason that we have to include it, either. Not worth arguing over, and not necessary. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Over at Talk:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016, Snooganssnoogans wrote, "Postpone decision [to include Clinton's "deplorables statement"] for one or two weeks to see if the thing has legs. [21:48, 12 September 2016][23] Can they provide any reason why this article should be treated differently? Also, I find it irritating that I am asked to respond to an RfC aupported by an unacceptable source and when I point that out am asked to comment on additional sources. Before starting RfCs, please have the courtesy to provide all your information upfront. It's wearing out editors by continuing to through out stuff until we all get tired and go home. TFD (talk) 20:25, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
For big campaigns and candidates which have thousands of stories produced daily about them, we need to pick and choose what is actually salient enough to include. For stories that are not obviously important, postponement is valid. For candidates that barely get any coverage (and why should they, seeing as how this particular candidate is fighting to break the 1% mark), waiting to see if a story has legs is meaningless, given that no mainstream media sources could care less about anything associated with the Stein campaign and there's absolutely no way to discern if something is important or unimportant by waiting. If it gets covered at all by mainstream reliable sources (see above), that's good enough. The importance of the content should be clear to any editor; just plain common sense should be used here. Excluding this would be like excluding news reports that a candidate regularly smokes marijuana while the candidate at the same time advocates to imprison others for using marijuana. It's inexplicable that you would fight this. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Re your comments about OR and POV above. It is OR to say that Stein is hypocritical for owning shares in pharmaceuticals, tobacco companies and banks. That is an opinion and needs to be sourced, and the fact that you make the implication with out stating it explicity just makes it innuendo. If we source the criticism, we need to say who it comes from, which in this case is someone who worked on the Clinton campaign. We then need to establish per NPOV the degree of acceptance of this opinion in order to "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Even if you were unaware of Wikipedia policies, it should be obvious to you that that it is not neutral that all your contributions to 2016 campaign articles are taken from Clinton talking points or Clinton campaign workers. TFD (talk) 22:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Responding to this nonsense: (i) I have never proposed to add text to the article stating that Stein is "hypocritical". The proposed edit is up there for all to see. It is as straightforward as can be, reflecting the language from both the Daily Beast story and the other mainstream media sources, and with the majority of the content being Stein's own clarification. (ii) There is no opinion being presented here; only journalism that Stein has confirmed is accurate. (iii) What a load of bullshit. Is there something about being a Jill Stein supporter that demands that you have to be a crackpot conspiracy theorist feverishly dreaming up CTR shills all around you? This is the only talk page where I see this bullshit thrown at me. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:16, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
No you do not want to "say" that Stein is hypocritical, you merely want to imply it, which is worse. Otherwise you would have inserted into Clinton's article that she the same information. Clinton invests in a Venture 500 index fund and therefore has roughly the same diversification as Stein. And of course she has similar positions to Stein on global warming, tobacco, banks and pharmaceuticals. But why point out those industries and not all the industries, unless you are implying there is something wrong with investing in them for someone with Stein's positions? TFD (talk) 23:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Clinton has not argued for a total divestment from fossil fuels, chastised others for paid speeches to the very same firm she invests in, railed against big pharma's influence (even going as far as casting doubts on the FDA's ability to approve safe medicine) and credited security competition and conflict to the pernicious influence of defense contractors. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Clinton has a climate change plan that involves less reliance on fossil fuels,[24] has a "no one is too big to fail or too big to jail" plan for reining in the banks, plans to rein in pharmaceutical companies price-gouging,[25] even supported a sugar tax.[26] Yet she has more money invested in these companies than Stein. BTW there is a lot of alleged hypocrisy in Clinton's positions. Why eo you always try to minimize them and put in negative information about Stein? I suppose it is because you favor Clinton, but you appear to make that lose your objectivity. TFD (talk) 03:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
This comment should be disregarded or given low weight by the closer of this RfC. This IP editor has made only two edits total, and only one of those in the past year. More importantly, there are many straight-news (i.e., non-opeds) that report the story. Neutralitytalk 03:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Exclude - lacks prominence in coverage and lacks significant impact to life or campaign.
  1. First, this is not widely covered outside so not deserving of coverage by guidance of WP:DUE. It is waaaaaaay down in the nits and kind of WP:FRINGE. Even the position was not previously mentioned and is not topically large in relation to the larger BLP themes or to the coverage given what is here. It relates to section 4.4, Energy where even para 5 (pipeline protest) is at the level of having gotten national radio, paper, and TV coverage -- which this didn't. In a Google doublecheck for relative prominence, she gets 6 million hits -- her and Exxon only 56 thousand (many re global warming) --- her plus exxon plus divestment is only 8 hits . I got only: one college paper here reported it was said in April; then 6 months later this dailybeast item; one [27] rawstory] followup; one marketwatch.com saying it's a "smear" where beast undisclosed tie to Clinton; one is an aside of [huffington] reporting Sanders and O'Malley and she pledge no energy funding.
  2. Second, this lacks significance in context of BLP. The story seems to have made no evident impact to her life or campaign. If it were a life-changing change like felony charge or ccrippling car wreck -- or magically made her win the election -- that would be different. But this ... when we get to the "so what?" part, where's it been shown making a difference to her ???

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Include, but probably shorten per Heterodidact and Tryptofish. This is worth a short mention, but considers of weight compel us not to unfairly dwell upon it. The comments above that oppose inclusion based on the Daily Beast should not really be considered because — as was pointed out above — this was covered by multiple sources, including straight-news pieces in Politico, the Plain Dealer, MarketWatch, etc. Neutralitytalk 03:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


An early closure of this seems appropriate, given the 'timeliness' of the subject. The consensus is to include a significantly shorter version of the proposed text, that mentions the issue without giving it undue weight. Listing the specific companies seems, in particular, to be stretching the text to give undue weight.

For the record, the 'vote' was (1) include, (3) include and shorten, (4) exclude, with one exclude vote discounted due to a trivial edit history. Reventtalk 11:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

BLP violation, wording, location

Investments

Regarding this edit, if anyone would like to discuss changes to this content, they are welcome to do so here. However, we do not make a habit of unilaterally overriding content that was included via RfC. TimothyJosephWood 18:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Timothyjosephwood is re-inserting unacceptable BLP-violating wording. Problematic sources and location too. She didn't invest significant money directly, let alone anything close to $8.5MM in "those" industries. She bought S&P 500 index funds; reliable sources don't claim more than $3,832,050 in investments at all. They certainly don't claim all her investments went into those industries. BLP issues, wording and location need be worked out here on the talk page before reinsertion.
Propose:
location: where this topic was covered initially.
content:
Stein's financial disclosure, filed in March 2016, indicated that most of her investments are in broad stock market-tracking index funds such as S&P 500 index funds and a Clinton supporter noted that these funds invest in part in industries that she had previously criticized, such as energy, financial, pharmaceutical, tobacco, and defense contractors.[1]{that's it. 1 sentence.}
Though nominally WP:BLP means it wouldn't be an WP:EW issue for me to do so, I would rather someone else (User:Revent?) remove the BLP violating content ASAP.--Elvey(t•c) 19:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Schroeder, Robert (October 28, 2016). "Green Party's Jill Stein defends Big Oil fund investments after 'smear attack'". MarketWatch. Retrieved November 1, 2016.
Simply reflecting negatively on an individual does not constitute a BLP violation. The claim is sourced. The content does not go beyond what the source says. Both were reviewed by the community in an RfC and the decision was to include based on the source provided.
If you have sources that disagree with the one provided, feel free to link to them so they may be discussed. However, your personal conviction that the source provided is wrong, or that the content included is "unacceptable", does not constitute a BLP violation. TimothyJosephWood 19:17, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
You grossly misrepresent my argument. The claim is NOT sourced. The content does go beyond what the source says, and speaks in wikipedia's voice. You have been warned. The RFC did not propose approval of the BLP-violating language I removed, and the result did not approve it. --Elvey(t•c) 19:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Have you read the source? TimothyJosephWood 19:31, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Good, so you admit that the RFC did not propose approval of the BLP-violating language I removed, and the result did not approve it. Yes, I read the source. It doesn't say or imply that she invested anything close to $8.5MM in "those" industries. You seem to want the article to be deceptive - to state that she did just that. No? --Elvey(t•c) 19:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I've put back the text from revision 747294293 - the source does not say that the entire amount of her investment was in those industries, it makes quite clear that the investments were in mutual and index funds, that themselves invested in those industries 'among others'. Since the mentioned funds track the S&P 500, it's fairly easy to establish that substantial portions of her investments are not in those industries... about a fifth would be in IT companies, for example. Reventtalk 19:47, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Alright, so apparently this is an issue of wording and not a world-ending BLP violation destined for litigation. This works better if the situation is approached from a slightly different angle such as: the current wording implies this, however the source specifies the other, and the wording should be adjusted thusly.
I have tweaked the wording to be more clear. Unfortunately, unless I'm mistake, 747294293 was the original COPYVIO issue. Of course this wording can be further tweaked if it's not sufficiently clear.
For future reference, try to reply to the thread someone starts when they revert, since now it looks a bit like I started a new thread accusing myself of violating BLP. Also, editing other's comments should generally be avoided for just this type of reason. TimothyJosephWood 19:54, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
@Timothyjosephwood: Yes, I kind of realized (after I reinstated it) that I might have accidentally readded the copyvio, and was looking at rewriting it. The issues, as I see it, are not giving the matter undue weight, and being factually accurate... we don't know 'exactly' what companies those funds invest in, but the constitution of the indexes gives a pretty clear indication that a significant portion (around half, at least) is 'not' in those industries. Reventtalk 20:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
I just took out the 'first' mention of the list of industries... since they are mentioned in her 'response' quote, listing them twice is redundant. Frankly, the 'issue' is more that she invests in industries she has criticized, even if indirectly, not 'which'. Reventtalk 20:25, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
@Snooganssnoogans: since they apparently have an opinion. I will say that the quote leaves some ambiguity as to whether it is referencing the degradation of the country or that of the investments. Maybe there is another alternative? TimothyJosephWood 20:40, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
I think that listing the industries is helpful, because the quote only refers vaguely to a subset of them, so it is more precise to list them all. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
@Tryptofish: It's more precise, but frankly which industries in particular is rather irrelevant to the point being made. All in all, however, this is incredibly trivial in the context of a biography... it was an attack made by a journalist with political connections that was ignored by most of the media, and only merited mere mentions by those who cared. She was criticized for holding the exact investments (index funds) that financial advisors tell everyone to invest in. Reventtalk 21:25, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Good enough for me. Either one is fine. TimothyJosephWood 21:34, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
(Revent, I'm watchlisting here, although I'm getting close to losing interest.) My response about the industries is that, by listing them, we give a clearer picture of the industries that she has criticized. Leaving them out could make a reader wonder exactly which market sectors they were. And listing them does not really affect anything about POV. It's just information. Anyway, for me, the wording as of permalink is fine with me, and does not strike me as worth further fine-tuning. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Can folks comment the wording I proposed above? Silence = consent? And the BLP violation is still there. --Elvey(t•c) 23:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

One marketwatch news article commenter points out:

"Sorry this is a big nothing burger. Index funds match a broad index. They are an investment in the overall market economy without bias. There is no 'decision' made on individual companies. If big oil collapsed, the index would still be there. No one invested in an index fund is supporting the actions of each individual company that may be listed within that index. To claim that is just stupid. There are companies within indexes that are actively working against each other.
Trying to pin this to her (or anyone) as a scandal, really just shows the ignorance of those who are accusing her. "
My comment is that I agree with what appears to be the consensus in this discussion, that, per another editor above, Simply reflecting negatively on an individual does not constitute a BLP violation. The claim is sourced. The content does not go beyond what the source says. Both were reviewed by the community in an RfC and the decision was to include based on the source provided. Silence does not equal consent in this case. More like the rest of us getting tired of having to repeat ourselves. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Why are we promoting her comment on Castro

Castro was a brutal dictator who savagely killed thousands. Jill Stein naively tries to revere him as some sort of warrior for justice. If this article is going to post about her right to make such an uneducated and idiotic comment then you might as well discuss the backlash she got from others who actually know what Castro did. If you want to make this article balanced and unbiased you might as well talk about how that recent comment was met with extreme backlash on Twitter. I guess it turns out that some people with PhD's are not as smart as initially thought. Many people who actually lived under Castro's tyranny are happy that hes dead. Stein is not only a partisan leftist but also was never really in a position to live under a Castro regime so she doesn't have an informed perspective on this like others do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.126.60 (talk) 20:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

We're really only "promoting" it because it's a transparent example of her cluelessness, which is the subconscious theme of most of that section. 73.114.35.227 (talk) 21:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

The page shouldn't recite GMO fear-mongering from Stein's website verbatim

Most of the 'Pesticides and GMOs' section now consists of claims made by Stein about how the science rejects that GMOs have been proven safe. She's making very specific claims that are not examined by reliable sources or put in the context of overwhelming scientific consensus. It's completely undue weight and of questionable accuracy to have almost the entire section be campaign rhetoric by Stein about what this or that scientific authority supposedly says about the issue, only to briefly at the end cite reliable secondary sources which say that she is talking nonsense. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:29, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's very much WP:UNDUE and sort of WP:QUOTEFARM. In a few days, all this will blow over, so for now I prefer to just let it go. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:34, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

By now, some time has passed. So I would like to ask: would editors be OK with shortening the GMO section by deleting the lengthy quote of the campaign policy position? The quote is still going to be summarized in the text, and there is no similar quote for any of the other campaign positions, which makes it odd that we would have this particular quote here. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Now that the election is over the Clinton party line has shifted from villainizing Stein to praising her. I think we should avoid either extreme as violations of NPOV and briefly summarize her position: she supports GMO labeling, does not support approving new GMO products and wants to phase them out. TFD (talk) 05:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

The page shouldn't have fear-mongering attacks on Stein. But as it does, she should at least be allowed a defense in her own words

Snoog: Hogwash. Half of the section is spent on critical commentary. One critical sentence has EIGHT footnotes, all of which you insist need to stay in the section, which seems entirely unreasonable. No she's not. Not true. She cites hyperlinked reliable sources to back the specific claims that are made. Also, what the arbcom case has ruled is scientific consensus is stated in the section: "the scientific consensus [] is that existing GM foods are no less safe than foods made from conventional crops" (It just occurred to me - isn't ArbCom not allowed to make content decisions?) For those who don't recall: I tried to add a much longer section laying out the pro-GMO scientific consensus according to arbcom but it was removed - by __?__.
Calling her position nonsense, even on this page, is a BLP violation. I happen to disagree with much of her position on GMOs (though TFD makes an interesting point about what GMO crops turn into!). But the person who looks foolish is not her when someone claims that even the straight up facts that she lays out are "nonsense". She must at least be allowed a defense in her own words; we have consensus on that. Plus the article is supposed to be about her, after all. --Elvey(t•c) 03:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
note - calling someone's views nonsense is NOT a BLP violation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.63.109 (talk) 00:27, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Is there any reason why we are concentrating on showing that Stein is unscientific when the Clintons have Dr. Mark Hyman as an advisor and Hillary Clinton arranged for him to meet with the Secretary of Health and even said that vaccines may cause autism? TFD (talk) 04:29, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Is there any reason why you referred to Jytdog? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I was confusing this with another discussion and now changed my posting. My question is though why are some editors trying to show that Stein is unscientific yet not doing the same for Clinton. TFD (talk) 19:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Just read this article for the first time and am quite stunned at the way this bio is being reported. I removed the see also notes...unless it's some new policy that we will be putting "see global warming article" on Pense and Trump's article, etc., and on and on covering the hundreds of other article that will need some work... Gandydancer (talk) 14:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
If those "see also"s carried some sort of POV, you would have a point. But they do not. They are purely informational. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
I think the election campaign has attracted an attempt to malign Jill Stein, led by pro-Clinton columnists, who were worried that she would take votes away from Clinton. Now that it is over, I hope we can re-write the article in a neutral manner. TFD (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
I know that you were not implying this but, anticipating what some other editors might claim, my own editing interests in this page arose purely from my editing interests in science, and not from any political interests. I just wanted to be unambiguous about that point. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Could someone please point me to the section of the talk page where it was decided that it's a good idea to provide "informational" advice in our articles? Should Vandana Shiva and Prince Philip now get informational notes regarding Vandana's stance on GMs and Philip's stance on several medical practices that Wikipedians have decided are pseudoscience? Obviously not, and you'd think we'd be even more careful with this article that concerns politics and that we'd be extra careful to not show bias. A very dark day indeed for Wikipedia. Gandydancer (talk) 00:39, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Tryptofish, that's probably why this article reads in a peculiar way. Science was not an issue in this presidential campaign year and science was only a small part of what Stein talked about. Your never explain why you think it so important to point out where you think Stein gets science wrong, while ignoring Clinton's unscientific statements. It seems anyway your main area of interest in science in public discourse is GMO products, and Clinton comes closest to your position. TFD (talk) 06:30, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I have not heard back from Trypto, but looking back I see that he added the see also notes on August 20. I will wait a tad longer, but if he does not bother to respond I will again delete this "purely informational" help for our readers. If Trypto can show me other similar bios that contain "purely informational" links, I will reconsider my position. Gandydancer (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, you are hearing back from me now. I log out and sleep overnight. Please let me make it clear, first, that I do not advocate providing "'informational' advice". I advocate providing information, period, because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. There is nothing in providing those links that gives "advice" to our readers, that tells the readers to reach or not to reach a given conclusion. There is nothing POV about providing links to those other pages. If editors want to add reliably sourced information that indicates favorable things about Stein and science, I strongly support adding that.
I've never advocated anything about what the Clinton page should say about her positions on science – if you claim that I've said otherwise, please provide diffs. The fact that I edit this page (having come here because I noticed that the Discretionary Sanctions from the ArbCom GMO case were being violated) does not obligate me to edit some other page in order to pass some sort of "loyalty test". WP:OTHERSTUFF. And I most certainly do not edit political pages with respect to GMOs to advocate for my "position", or to benefit candidates who come "closest" to it. I edit according to the sources.
It's really very simple: there are a ton of sources about Stein's positions on scientific issues, and many of them are cited here. If editors are concerned that this results in an imbalance on the page, there's an easy solution. Find and cite reliable sources that advocate in support of Stein's scientific positions. In fact, I looked very hard to find such sources with respect to GMOs. All I could find was the opinion piece by Sandra Eagle [28], and I fought hard to have it included on this page (currently cite 197), even when other editors objected to it. If you can find more such reliable sources, I'll support them. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I'll repeat what I said already: If Trypto can show me other similar bios that contain "purely informational" links, I will reconsider my position. I've been here for ten years and I've never seen a bio with links such as the ones you have added. Perhaps I've missed them. Can you please refer me to a few bios that have similar links. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 21:14, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I've been away from Wikipedia for about a week, so I'm just responding now, thank you for being patient. I'm not that involved in bio pages, but a quickly-found example of what you ask for is at Barack Obama#Environmental policy. Please also note that Donald Trump#Climate change contains an in-text link to Scientific opinion on climate change, and Donald trump#Comments about fringe theories links (piped to "unfounded notion") to MMR vaccine controversy. I'm friendly to moving the links on this page from hatnotes to in-text links, if you feel that would help. But I'll repeat that what I said above is that WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a good argument. The issue that matters is what the links accomplish as part of the content of this page. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I know you have "never advocated anything about what the Clinton page should say about [Clinton's] positions on science," which is why I said you were "ignoring Clinton's unscientific statements." It does not make any sense that as someone interested in science you chose to single out a minor candidate while ignoring a major candidate who said she does not know if vaccines cause autism, now supports GMO labeling and possibly thinks that we are not being told the truth about the Roswell UFO incident. Is there any reason you chose to write about Stein and ignored Clinton? TFD (talk) 04:40, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Again, I'm not obligated to edit other pages just because another editor tells me to. If there are problems at the Clinton page, I encourage you to correct them, as opposed to demanding that I do it for you – or making a personal attack against me, that I supposedly have a political agenda to my editing. (If you believe that the Clinton page violates the consensus from the GMO RfC, please do tell me about that, and I will make it my business to look into it, but if the page just talks about her political position on labeling, that's not a violation.) There is a very simple reason why I was drawn to editing this page. I have followed the edits of editors who were parties to the GMO ArbCom case (to my knowledge, they have not edited the Clinton page), and I observed that one such editor made an edit to this page that violated the DS, so I came here and corrected it. That's it. Please focus on the content of this page, rather than on your speculations about my supposed motivations. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
TFD, in my opinion this article is absolutely shameful. I honestly had no idea that things had gotten this bad here on WP. One more example is a whole headed section on homeopathy, while she actually calls it bunk. I'm going to remove that section. Gandydancer (talk) 13:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I looked in the "Education Section" but there is no mention of how she obtained a "medical" degree. It's all politics.

The subject line says it all. Who writes these articles on Wiki?

That section is about her political positions. Her education and early career is further up. Please read more carefully next time. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Arrest Record? ===

Can someone include a list of her arrests in her life? Isnt that pertinent information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.136.201 (talk) 20:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Historical achievement

I would like to add that Jill Stein won the most votes of any woman who ran for president in 2012 (preceding Clinton in 2016). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.100.214.179 (talk) 09:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Trump President Preference

This section has no reason to exist. The topic I removed has very little to do with Jill Stein's political positions. She was running for president herself. That section seems to only be there to scapegoat her for Clinton's loss. If not, we should add similar sections to everybody on who had an opinion on who should be president. It isn't constructive. 6,000+ characters on comments she has made regarding the presidency isn't constructive to exist. Seems like another hit piece to me. If not, I'd advise adding similar topics to Gary Johnson and other third parties HRC Supporters wrongfully blame for her loss. Chandler (talk) 06:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I removed this section. It's a synthesis of various statements made by Stein none of which actually state what the author is trying to prove. Save it for your blog.--TM 14:11, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
While it's probably undue to have such a long section on the issue, it's not a BLP violation to include the well-sourced public personal political opinions of a public politician. It's a BLP problem to say Steven is a schmuck., but it's not a BLP violation, on an article about Jane, who's running for office against Steven, that In 2016 Jane said to the Washington Post, "Steven is a schmuck." TimothyJosephWood 15:04, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
At no point did Stein indicate a preference for Donald Trump. The whole section takes innuendo and cherry picked half truths to make a false claim and a violation of BLP.--TM 15:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, won’t … Hillary has the potential to do a whole lot more damage, get us into more wars, faster to pass her fracking disastrous climate program, much more easily than Donald Trump could do his.
This is not wikt:innuendo. It's not even figurative language, and is a direct quote. If you don't like the title, or the presentation, or if you would like to make an argument from another policy which applies, like WP:UNDUE, there's nothing wrong with that. But don't edit war over this citing BLP, because I'm informing you now that it isn't. If you disagree, I would suggest you ask for outside input at WP:BLPN before you continue to revert. TimothyJosephWood 15:18, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

This section has a very important reason to exist: it explains a major driving political strategy of the Green Party that does not emerge in any of the topical subsections. Namiba's criticism comes down to 2 things: 1) agenda questioning, and 2) claims the quotes don't characterize a political preference for Trump over Dems. As for (1), a Google search on my name shows I'm a Dem supporter. A Wikipedia search on Namiba shows an inclination toward Greens and socialism. So be it, but Namiba, let's drop the disingenuous pretense I'm the only one here at risk for bias. The goal must be to set aside bias and document history honestly via facts. Period. As for (2), there was no argument put forth, so it's difficult to respond. The quotes speak for themselves; I genuinely don't see how anyone can argue there isn't a pattern of Green Party preference for GOP over Dem. No similar pattern of quotes showing a preference the other way around is possible, so it's not cherrypicking. People tend to reject the reality of this Green preference because it's so counterintuitive, given that the Green platform is far closer to Democratic than GOP platforms. If Stein's preference didn't square with Green Party history, more skepticism would be justified, but it precisely matches Green Party historical tradition and statements by other GP leaders. Let's look:

Ralph Nader frequently said publicly in 2000 he wanted Bush to beat Gore, and in 2015-16 expressed clear preference for Trump:

Examples of quotes

Nader, 2000 http://www.outsideonline.com/1837851/ralph-nader-2000-campaign-interview

[Q:  If someone put a gun to his head and told him to vote for either Gore or Bush, which he would choose?] Bush… If you want the parties to diverge from one another, have Bush win.

Nader, 2000 https://books.google.com/books?id=hbxL3A-pWagC&pg=PA84#v=onepage&q&f=false

[Q:  Does that mean you would not have a problem providing the margin of defeat for Gore?]  I would not — not at all.  I’d rather have a provocateur than an anesthetizer in the White House. 

Nader, 10/20/2000 http://articles.latimes.com/2000/oct/21/local/me-40021

If it were a choice between a provocateur and an ‘anesthetizer,’ I’d rather have a provocateur. It would mobilize us.

Nader, 5/7/2000 http://commondreams.org/headlines/050800-03.htm

[Q:  Would it bother you that…Al Gore lost the election?]  No, not at all… There may be a cold shower for four years that would help the Democratic Party… It doesn’t matter who is in the White House.  [Q:  Would [Al Gore] not be better on [environmental and consumer] issues than George W. Bush?]  …No… regulatory agencies under Clinton/Gore are as bad or worse than under Reagan/Bush…

 

Nader 8/10/2015: http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/2015/08/10/ralph-nader-trump-is-nightmare-for-republican-party.html

The two party tyranny that blocks voter choices and dominates the political scene on behalf of big business needs to be broken up and Trump is the one to do it.  It takes a billionaire. Ross Perot got 19 million votes as an independent candidate in 1992.  And Trump has every possibility of doing the same, and by the same token, opening up opportunities for multi-party systems; more voices, more choices… He is with the progressives on challenging the rigged trade agreements…  it's a breath of fresh air… By being brazen, Trump is punctuating the progressive agenda -- the progressive critique of big business, Wall Street over Main Street… I’ve always said the only people who can break up a two party tyranny that stifles the voices of small parties and independent candidates are billionaires, and we got one called Trump.

Nader, 5/13/2016 http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/2015/08/10/ralph-nader-trump-is-nightmare-for-republican-party.html

"But in an interview with U.S. News, Nader expressed more positive thoughts about Trump's candidacy than Clinton's. The liberal activist says Trump has brought some important issues to the fore. "He's questioned the trade agreements. He's done some challenging of Wall Street – I don't know how authentic that is. He said he's against the carried interest racket, for hedge funds. He's funded himself and therefore attacked special interest money, which is very important," Nader says... When asked what positive contributions Clinton has made to the 2016 campaign, Nader called her a "corporatist, militarist Democrat... She's going to win by dictatorship."

More quotes from Stein proving the point:

Stein, 7/10/2016 https://store.counterpunch.org/dr-jill-stein-episode-48/

It's outrageous that she's not being prosecuted and indicted… More Clintonism is not the answer to Trump.  It's very important that we actually stand up, and if we have to take some hits, we take some hits, but we've got to build our power…

Stein, 10/19/2016 https://youtube/0j5owObX-Po?t=36m42s

[Q:  I just want to ask Jill if she will take her name in battleground states so she doesn't turn it over to Donald Trump.]  Steve, are you okay with nuclear war?  How are you going to feel if we go into nuclear war?

More quotes from Stein's running mate, Ajamu Baraka:

Baraka, 10/18/2016 http://www.theroot.com/articles/politics/2016/10/ajamu-baraka-green-party/3/

Donald Trump has somewhat of a commitment to lessening tensions between say the U.S. and Russia than we’ve seen from the Clinton campaign.

Baraka, 10/29/2016 https://twitter.com/ajamubaraka/status/792419481955872768

I'm more concerned about another 8 years of neoliberal policies than I am with Trump. It's our duty to fight to build a real alternative.

Baraka, 11/2/2016 https://twitter.com/ajamubaraka/status/793964157477462017

Even Trump knows that the #TPP will undermine the US economy & empower the elite's control over governments.

I believe the same pattern exists in other elections, but haven't done all the necessary research yet. I'm on board with Timothyjosephwood's suggestion this section may be too long. I'm not sure how to do it, but the answer is probably for me to make a standalone page, "Green Party's Historical Preference for Republicans Over Democrats", with a brief synopsis here that links to it. Bo Gardiner 16:33, 24 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bo Gardiner 1 (talk • contribs)

This probably needs some mention in the article, but the wall of text proposed is massive overkill. See WP:DUE. The proposed edit also misuses primary sources by synthesizing a position out of them. VQuakr (talk) 18:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
VQuakr, I already proposed a way to deal with the length issue; could you please respond to that? Next: if a third-party candidate and running mate repeatedly give numerous reasons why we'd be better off with Party A in power than Party B, please explain how stating: "This candidate prefers Party A in power to Party B" isn't documenting a position but is "synthesizing" a position. Or perhaps another way of addressing this is: if your objection is to the word "preference", what would be a more correct characterization of these comments? I'm honestly trying to understand. Please also explain why a candidate's own words aren't a satisfactory source for a candidate's position to you. Thank you. Bo Gardiner 18:59, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
A stand-alone article would have the same issues regarding WP:DUE and sourcing. If you are interested in expanding WP's coverage of the Green Party, I suggest starting at Green Party of the United States and proposing section splits once sections have been expanded enough to merit stand-alone articles. Obviously, the topic of this article is Stein, so your statements here about other candidates seem rather irrelevant. Your proposed title above probably fails WP:POVTITLE, but that's not really an issue for this talk page, either. For your second string of questions, have you read WP:SYN and WP:PRIMARY? They answer your questions. Use secondary sources to interpret the significance of tweets and interview responses; don't do that yourself. VQuakr (talk) 20:33, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree with other editors, that the section as it existed should not be on the page, because of WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH. I also think that it's reasonable to try and see whether it might be possible to present some of the material much more concisely and without trying to make a point in Wikipedia's words. I just made an edit along those lines: [29] – does that work better? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:45, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Seems a reasonable start; certainly more palatable from a WP:DUE standpoint. Is there a 2nd secondary source that could be added to show compliance with our policy of proportional coverage? VQuakr (talk) 20:33, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
I just added a second source. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Snopes notes that she clarified her position in a tweet on Nov 2. Would inclusion of either the snopes article or the tweet help to neutrally describe her position? VQuakr (talk) 21:21, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't have a strong opinion either way. Hopefully, other editors will. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:30, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
The Snopes article addresses whether Stein has officially endorsed Trump, which of course she did not, which would make no sense. It does not address the point here: that she repeatedly states that Clinton is worse than Trump. Adding the Snopes article to this section in the interest of "balance" would incorrectly suggest it addresses or contradicts the preference point. If you want a section on whether Stein ever officially endorsed another candidate, it would belong there; but since no one is seriously making that claim, it seems unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bo Gardiner 1 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
No, the Snopes article says more than that. To quote: "In fact, Stein in no way endorsed Donald Trump or opined that 'Donald Trump is better' — rather, she said she wouldn't 'sleep well at night' if either Trump or Clinton were elected, asserted that both candidates were 'promoting lethal policies,' and averred it was 'fortunate [that] we have another choice other than these two candidates.'" VQuakr (talk) 00:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Serious problem here: that Snope comment was published before most serious Green quotes that Trump is better, so does not apply. The result is a seriously misleading exercise in false equivalency to artificially make Stein and Greens neutral on GOP vs Dems, which is utterly false, as pointed out by many respected writers. I don't know how to move forward from this, but as it stands what we have is an effort to rewrite history to protect Stein and her party. I request input from others here to as to how I can attempt to address this appropriately and fully within Wiki guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bo Gardiner 1 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I think Jill Stein would've preferred she be president, hence why she was running. I really don't see what the point of this section was. Should we then find vague statements from every third party candidate to try to illustrate how we would like people to show who they had as a preference for president? Bernie Sanders also ran for president, and despite being favored against during the primaries, he had a preference for Hillary Clinton to be president. Should there be an entire section on "who he had a preference for"? Let's find imply things Gary Johnson said as well. It all seems ridiculous. Also, trying to link the green party to having a "preference" of one party over the other will show bias as well, as it's purely opinion. That's even more unnecessary of an article. If the Greens adamantly preferred one party to the other, it wouldn't exist in the US. Chandler (talk) 09:02, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I've made the opening of the section more neutral, and added an additional quote from the politico interview. The current version seems unbiased to me. An entire section or page on alleged political party preferences from the Green party seems completely pointless. Again, if they all preferred one or the other, the Greens wouldn't even bother in the US. A party that fully prefers another one doesn't run candidates president against a preferred party especially with how much the Greens and libertarians discuss breaking the two party system in the United States. Chandler (talk) 10:01, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

These Stein articles are way too long

Reading the unsigned post above, in which someone says she won more votes for President than any woman before Hillary Clinton, the obvious reply is, "So what?" Stein received just barely one percent of the vote in 2016, and a third of one percent in 2012. Despite the (out of proportion) publicity she gets, she has basically achieved nothing in politics outside of a town council race. She got last place in the Massachusetts Governor's race as well. Yet she has this very lengthy article on her positions as if she has influence, plus two separate articles on her Presidential campaigns that went absolutely nowhere. I know she has supporters, but let;s get real. This article is way too long for someone who was rejected by 99% of the voters. I question whether she is notable enough for any article on Wikipedia, let alone three. Editors should take a breath and seriously consider what needs to remain here, then significantly trim the article so it does not read like a fan page. Asburyparker (talk) 21:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jill Stein. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Small edit needed

Under the "Early activism and political career" section in the Campaign finance reform section, there is a ... when "when ..." that is grammatically incorrect. The when outside the double quotes should be removed Justaguynamedryan (talk) 03:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

 Fixed, good catch! Eden5 (talk) 04:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Russian facebook ads

Namiba has now removed reporting by reliable sources (not the first time that this user whitewashes this page) that a firm affiliated with the Russian government purchased ads touting Jill Stein in the 2016 presidential campaign[30]. Namiba's edit summary is "If the Stein campaign didn't purchase it, it is inappropriate", why is a bizarre revert rationale. The text is reliably sourced and the RS refers to Jill Stein extensively. Wikipedia covers what reliable sources report. Namiba's own feelings about the newsworthiness of the revelations are irrelevant, given that actual news outlets are covering this. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I've also removed the remaining sentence in that section, and as a result, the entire section. The source for that initial sentence has a trivial mention of Stein in an article otherwise completely unrelated to her: "...seeking records relating to dozens of other people including Russian President Vladimir Putin, numerous other Russians, and even Green Party candidate Jill Stein." --tronvillain (talk) 15:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
That's in part because Namiba removed a second source cited for that statement[31]. Here's also the Hill on the committee's request for documents relating to Jill Stein[32]. I assume that you will now restore the text with these sources? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:45, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
That second source appears to have nothing to support the sentence in question. I'll have a look at the new one. --tronvillain (talk) 16:00, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Might be worth adding, but you'd want to make it clear that you're not trying to imply anything about Stein's involvement, and link to Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections with the main article template. Or maybe see if it's worth adding in the main article first.--tronvillain (talk) 16:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
I think mentioning it is giving undue weight. There is nothing to indicate that Stein herself was involved. It is especially inappropriate in this article. It might be worth mentioning in the article on the campaign itself.--TM 17:55, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
I am tending towards this opinion. Gandydancer (talk) 19:39, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Good points. It does seem undue to have it in her biography, so Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections or possibly Jill Stein presidential campaign, 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tronvillain (talk • contribs) 19:47, September 27, 2017 (UTC)
I think that we have to err on the side of caution with anything that implies, but does not prove, wrongdoing on a candidate's part, so I think that it's best to leave it out, at least here. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Jill Stein. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:01, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jill Stein. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:2015 RT gala dinner in Moscow, general Flynn next to President Putin.jpg

File:2015 RT gala dinner in Moscow, general Flynn next to President Putin.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a non-free use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

-- Marchjuly (talk) 04:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Solid Waste Action Committee removed?

Why has this early accomplishment been removed form her page? As mentioned previously in this article and other articles the committee was mentioned in publications and was one of her early local government involvements. Shouldn't this be included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.47.212.54 (talk) 10:56, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Stein v Cortes in Pennsylvania related to election reform, where prevailing accomplished a marked improvement in the elections system, requiring future elections to have paper vote record for auditing. -Inowen (nlfte) 03:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

NBC "editorialization"

An editor clipped a direct quote from NBC News in two, claiming that the later part was "editorialization" (bolded part was removed) and constituted a BLP violation[33]:

  • "There’s nothing in the reports to suggest that Stein was aware of the influence operation, but the Massachusetts physician has long been criticized for her support of international policies that mirror Russian foreign policy goals."

The content is obviously not a BLP violation. NBC News is a RS, and is a perfectly good source for noting that Stein's foreign policy mirrors Russia's. The editor also removed a description of RT and Sputnik as Russian "state-owned" media networks, even though the RS literally describe them as such. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:10, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I removed "Russian state propaganda networks" as descriptors for RT and Sputnik. This is non-neutral language. We do not describe western European and North American news sources as "American/Canadian/British state propaganda networks" and neither should be describe RT and Sputnik. NBC's assertion that Stein has "long been criticized...Russian foreign policy goals" is clear editorialization on their part. It's not clear who has long criticized Stein, nor are any sources given to document this criticism. Let's keep the language neutral and avoid bias on behalf of either Stein or the news outlets criticizing her.--TM 14:30, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
You removed both "Russian state propaganda networks" and "Russian state-owned networks". If you're prepared to follow the RS's wording, you should restore the latter wording. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:36, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
:It is incorrect to attribute to NBC News instead of the reporter whose name appears on the article, Robert Windrem. So I changed the intext attribution. I wonder though if we are providing improper weight to his opinion. The implication is that the Russians supported Stein because she is pro-Russian, but that really would not matter since she had no chance of winning and the objective, as stated in Windrem's article, was to ensure the election of Trump. Furthermore, it's weasel wording. It implies that the only reason Stein for example would oppose the wars in the Middle East was that Russia did. Was that what Mueller concluded? TFD (talk) 20:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I started a discussion on the NPOV noticeboard.[34] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Deceptive quote

The editor SashiRolls added a deceptive snippet quote from a former FEC head to the article, while ignoring the full remarks (which are in bold): "The short answer is that I believe Stein’s spending is likely compliant with FEC rules. The somewhat longer answer is that for many years the FEC has allowed candidates and political parties to get away with pretty much anything in the context of recount accounts, so the restrictions on those accounts, to the extent there can even be said to be restrictions, are a complete mess."[35]

The deceptive quote should be removed ASAP or the full quote added. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

In situation one (shorter answer), Stein is compliant. In situation two (longer answer), she -- like everyone else who has to pay legal expenses related to compliance requests -- is compliant. Please don't abuse the bold, it just heats up the planet. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 19:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

We cite the news outlet, not the reporter

This is not complicated. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:08, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Awilley, can you please instruct SashiRolls to stop edit-warring text into the article? I've started a talk page discussion and posted a warning on the user's talkpage four days ago, yet he has now repeatedly edit-warred this back into the article[36]. I can't revert anymore because of WP:3RR. Note that I'm seeking to restore the long-standing version. He is seeking to change the long-standing version, yet refuses to abide by WP:BRD. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Do you have any source other than Charles Davis for this story? If not, he needs to be attributed as he was a free-lancer who no longer works for the muck-raking Beast. As you know he has a bit of a reputation... and his claim that there was something untoward about all this is denied by several specialists in the article. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 19:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Is this an acceptable compromise, saying that "Charles Davis, writing for the Daily Beast reported that..." ? ~Awilley (talk) 19:38, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
No, it is not. Wikipedia should not attribute reporting to individual reporters. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
According to "What information to include," they should. If you have an alternative policy or guideline, could you please cite it. TFD (talk) 20:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
That's a guideline for how to write a citation. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:34, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
The guideline includes In-text attribution, which is "is the attribution inside a sentence of material to its source." That's what we're doing here. "This is done whenever a writer or speaker should be credited, such as with quotations, close paraphrasing, or statements of opinion or uncertain fact." Now if you have a policy or guideline that says authors of articles should not be mentioned in text, please provide it. TFD (talk) 21:18, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Actually Sashirolls is correct. Stories are reported by reporters and reported in The Daily Beast not by it. However we should not use in text citation for facts unless our sources do. If something happened say it happened. If someone wants to know where we found a fact that's what footnotes are for. TFD (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't mind compromising as long as we don't follow Davis' transparent editorializing in the wiki-text. If we stripped it down to fact rather than innuendo, e.g. replacing

In May 2018, Charles Davis, writing for the Daily Beast, reported that approximately $1 million of the original $7.3 million had yet to be spent and that there remained uncertainty about what precisely the money had been spent on.
* Russia Probe
Two months later, the same Daily Beast journalist reported that Stein was spending the recount money on her own campaign's legal fulfillment obligations due to probes related to Russian interference in the 2016 election. A former FEC associate general counsel said he "believe[d] Stein’s spending [wa]s likely compliant with FEC rules[.]"

...

In March 2019, her spokesman David Cobb told The Daily Beast that Stein had "fully cooperated with the Senate inquiry."

with the significantly shorter

In May 2018, approximately $1 million of the original $7.3 million had yet to be spent.
* Russia Probe
Stein reportedly spent some of the recount money on her Presidential campaign's legal fulfillment obligations. These were linked to Senate probes into potential Russian interference in the 2016 election. A former FEC associate general counsel said he believed Stein was "likely compliant with FEC rules."

...

In March 2019, her spokesman David Cobb said that Stein had "fully cooperated with the Senate inquiry."

I'm not sure why there seems to have been a desire to push The Daily Beast into these paragraphs. I know that people like to add links and references to their favorite media outlets and it's true that "told the Newspaper that" is a bit more de-credibilizing rhetorically than "said", but otherwise who knows why The Daily Beast was squeezed 3 times into 6-7 sentences. In any case, as long as we stick to the facts and leave aside the embellishments, the rollover ref is fine, no need for inline citation and no need to unnecessary promote the Daily Mail/Mirror/Spot & co.🌿 SashiRolls t · c 21:34, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
The May piece by the Daily Beast, at least, received significant coverage in secondary sources. I don't think it's odd to devote one sentence to it and then another to a followup. Of course, we might want to look at those secondary sources for hints on how to word it. (Note that even though we have secondary sources, we should still in-line attribute it to the Beast, since it's what they do.) --Aquillion (talk) 14:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, JS was never prosecuted as the en.wp entry (deceptively) suggested here? let's not use language from a click-baity Daily Beast headline to claim she was. In the article at least it is clear she was not being prosecuted. Perhaps you have a better source than the headline for the claim you added that this money was used for "her legal defense" rather than compliance, SS? 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 03:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC) 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 03:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

The text does not state that she was prosecuted for anything nor does it suggest it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Fact: neither *defend* nor *defense* are in the article, whereas both *comply* and *compliance* are. As often, you are basing your spin on the clickbait headline. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 03:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
I see that no comment has been made concerning whether we should source to the headline or to the body of the text before the editwarring has resumed. Shall we seek a third opinion before wasting time with an RfC? Third opinions are welcome. (Actually, just for the record Snoogans are you saying you think it's ok to source the wiki-text exclusively to the headline?) Here is the article again [37], in case anyone wants to search for "compliance" (1 relevant occurrence), "comply/complied" (1 2 relevant occurrences), "compliant" (1 relevant occurrence), "defense" (1 occurrence, the headline), "defend" (2 unrelated occurrences). I also don't think either of the Charles Davis pieces pass the 10 year test but reasonable people might conceivably disagree. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 01:57, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm not wedded to the 'legal defense' language. As far as I'm concerned, saying she used the recount money on legal fees related to Russia probes is perfectly fine. What is not fine is your edit which makes it seem as if she was forced to use money donated to her for the purposes of a recount on legal issues related to the Russia probe. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:18, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm afraid that's due to the use of the words "comply", "compliant", and "compliance" in the original, which do indicate a degree of obligation, don't they? More generally, what about the 10-year test? Do you really think these articles pass? (they are pretty clearly muck-raking since the experts Davis interviewed all say she did nothing wrong even if one of the three does lament the state of FEC regulation). 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 02:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
I think we need to remove the two articles for the above reasons. I'm sure you disagree. In the meantime, I'll add more neutral wording and remove the bluelinks to the Daily Beast and the opinion bits, as TFD suggested above. We should stick to the facts so we don't need to cite the source in-text. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 03:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid there's not much scandal left once you read the text carefully and sift through all the innuendo for the facts. But now that we've gotten it down to the facts I suppose it can be kept. In the first article, Davis mentions quite clearly that the Center for Responsive Politics says that recount money can be used for "post-election litigation". 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 03:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I have worked very hard to try to accomodate your desire to document this element of the post-campaign in an NPOV way with your chosen (in my view very partisan) sources. I would appreciate if you would read en.wp policy on gaming the consensus-building process before you make another wholesale revert of my hard work. Otherwise, I'm afraid this is going to be added to the list that will be going to ArbCom. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 04:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
I really don't understand why you wanted me to add in the experts. They all say (in different ways) that outside of personal expenses, candidates can do what they want with recount money. I think the only thing that talking about the experts he consulted adds is to show in wiki-text just how much Davis wanted to find something untoward about it... in fact, I may just delete that part. There is nothing more "nuanced" about what the experts say. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 05:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
I discuss this here[38]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
I think the coverage by secondary sources shows that this is considered enough of a scandal to get a paragraph, but we should probably consider what those secondary sources focus on in terms of how we word it. I also somewhat object to the rewording of the Russia probe paragraph; if we're going to section it should obviously start with the Senate report. The details about New Knowledge and the Internet Research Agency aren't so important; certainly, though, the NBC News quote about concerns stemming from her policies aligning with Russia is important, since it helps explain why there was an investigation in the first place and one of the reasons why it's being covered Cutting that quote in half and only covering the parts that favor her obviously isn't WP:NPOV. I don't think the what-happened-to-the-money paragraph needs to be split with half of it in the Russia section; it makes both that part and the Russia section harder to read, and ultimately that last note about where the money ended up is more relevant to the recount than the Russian investigation. --Aquillion (talk) 14:22, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Welcome to this page Aquillion. I'm sorry to say I've had to modify some of your first edits to it. I'd like to explain why in the spirit of BRD.
1) you say that the coverage is wide enough to suggest this is a scandal, providing two references written on the 31 May 2017 in metro.us and theweek.com which recycle Charles Davis' story the day after it was published. (diffs) I have removed those low-quality sources as they are just part of the amplification of the buzz of the story published the day before at the Beast.
2) I notice that you reinstated multiple mentions of the Daily Beast in wikitext. I do not believe that we need to be promoting a commercial entity in this way. As has been said above, by wiser contributors than I, best practices are to extract the facts so that it is not necessary to promote news outlets in wiki-text, but simply use them in the footnotes.
3) I notice that though you posted in the TP section "legal defense implies prosecution" after it had been agreed that "legal defense" (sourced only to the Beast headline) should be abandoned in favor of a more accurate NPOV phrasing, you restored the POV phrasing against the emerging consensus.
4) I notice that you restored a long quote from NBC News, introducing it with the verb "noted". I would ask that you revisit WP:SAY for best practices on introducing long quotes. Since you are new to this page, you are probably unaware that this quote has already been discussed (by people wiser than I) who argued persuasively that all that follows "but" in that quote is an opinion and should be marked as such. (Actually saying that JS's policies mirror Russian foreign policies seems to me a particularly propagandistic way of expressing the idea that there is some overlap in her anti-war stance and Russia's desire not to have NATO in its backyard.) You may agree with the opinion expressed that Jill Stein's anti-war policies align with Russian policies, but that does not make it less of an opinion.
5) I fundamentally disagree with you about the importance of mentioning New Knowledge, insofar as they are the ultimately the authors (cf. authority) of much of what you wish to include. It is essential that authors be identified so that we know on whose authority en.wp entries are written. This is also why I updated the pseudonym of the author formerly known as Kat Hatz (and now known as Smart Ass Dem-inist) for the Medium post that was added by SecretName101 on 30 July 2017 to source a claim (here).
Just out of curiosity, what brought you to this page today? Was it being discussed somewhere?
I've reverted my changes as you can see, because I overlooked the change in rules and got confused by a new person getting involved. The totality of the proposed improvements I will be making once the rules permit page improvements can be seen here. Please discuss anything you have a problem with. Again, I'm very curious how you found this page just now. Could you explain that please? 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 20:02, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

1RR now in effect

Please be mindful. El_C 05:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I have self-reverted in order to respect the new rules. I always get confused when people start working together against changes being made. My apologies. I just realized now that I can't make these improvements. It's strange that some of these sentences have been reverted to exactly the same state 12 times now, despite the agreements on the TP that we should not be sourcing language to a headline. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 21:16, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
@El C: can you confirm that I have the right to update the text as I did here about Mother's Day? As far as I can tell, it has not been touched by anyone since 2017. I'm not sure why Kat Hatz changed their name, but they did... and I'm not sure why Jill Stein's right to response to this (once) recentist criticism was never added. Again, my apologies for thinking that today was a new day, just because I'd slept. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 21:27, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Politician

Why does the intro not label Jill Stein as a politician?Rich (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

As far as I know, she has never held any political office. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Jan 2019

Towards the end of the article, it is mentioned Stein doesn’t intend to run for president in 2020 as of Jan 2019. Jan 2019 is now over a year ago, and the presidential race has begun. She’s not running. Should the phrase be removed from the article?

Ma nam is geoffrey (talk) 14:18, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

M.D.

As she is a doctor, and received a medical degree, shouldn't Jill Stein, M.D. be in the first paragraph? Yoleaux (talk) 23:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The first sentence says she is a physician. TFD (talk) 23:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Effect on Battleground States

Why is there no similar paragraph going over the effect Gary Johnson had on Battleground states in his page like there is here?

"Stein played a significant role in several crucial battleground states, drawing a vote total in three of them — Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania — that exceeded the margin between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.[70]"

How is this unbiased? This paragraph has no relevance. Cax117 (talk) 06:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Lead

User:Snooganssnoogans, why did you revert my edit? The article is tagged as needing a longer lead and nothing I wrote is controversial.--User:Namiba 14:15, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

ballotpedia

@JG4236: You added a ref named "ballotpedia" to the article, but with no definition. Could you please either fill in the source or remove the reference? -- Fyrael (talk) 20:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jill_Stein/Archive_4&oldid=1161952711"