Talk:Jill Stein/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Edit request from Kenzul, 23 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} The article says: Stein was elected to the Town Meeting Seat, Precinct 2 (N. Waltham, Middlesex County

That should read: Lexington. Precinct 2 is in Lexington.

Jill Stein was a founding member of Massachusetts Coalition for Healthy Communities in 2003. http://www.masschc.org

Kenzul Kenzul (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Kenzul (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Partly done: Changed Lexington per source. The other needs a reliable secondary source. -Atmoz (talk) 02:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

removed links regarding run for governor

I looked at the external links and see 3 were from 2010...given she is not running for governor I thought it best to cut these links..I'm pasting here if someone disagrees and wants to review merit.

• Green party hopeful taps anger Boston Globe, February 9, 2010
• Candidate Interviews: Jill Stein WBUR, October 27, 2010
• Green Change Endorsement GreenChange.org

If you are helping to build this page please check examples of external links on other candidate websites if you want to add more per their example Pbmaise (talk) 12:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Principle position, 4-Point "Green New Deal"

Stein's principles are directed towards voters of every political party and independents:

1. The right to a job at a living wage.

2. The transition to a sustainable, green economy.

3. A financial sector serving Americans.

4. Citizen empowerment.

In Stein's words: "We don't need to run America like a business or like the military. We need to run America like a democracy."

More comprehensive positions

It is not possible to post on Wikipedia the entire platform of the Green Party. However, since Stein was running within that party, for position she may hold in accordance with the party, that are not listed below see the full party platform can be seen by following the link in the External links section below

Stein advocates for the creation of a "Green New Deal". The objective being:

• To employ "every American willing and able to work."

• To protect our waters, improve our fisheries, and conserve our agricultural soils and forests for future generations.

• To reduce our reliance on fossil fuels by working towards sustainable energy and advocate renewable energy including geothermal, wind, and solar power.

• To bring about real changes that foster energy conservation. By encouraging States to look at examples like Hawaii, where all new homes have solar hot water heaters and existing homeowners get $1,500 rebates. Or, to help motivate States to stop businesses from air conditioning the outdoors in attempts to lure customers walking past.

• Protecting existing infrastructure is important. However, investing in improvements like fuel-efficient rail transit and well planned and justifiable mass transit that will move millions of people per day, will help prevent us from being doomed to sit in [Traffic congestion|traffic jams]] or suffer TSA pat-downs.

• Whenever logical, spending on roads must incorporate the concept of "complete streets”. This means room for bike paths and people who go on a good, old-fashioned walk. The single greatest thing we can do to promote and protect families, is to encourage them to put the gadets down, get outside, and get some exercise.

• Farm subsidies, and the way we spend them can have a profound impact. Both major parties seem bent on cutting them.

However, this is one clear example where wise spending in one department of government can provide savings in another. In just the Department of Defense alone, estimates are that their medical costs associated with excess weight and obesity was $1.1 billion. In another study, the estimated cost to our nation for obese individuals is $8,365 and $6,518 annually for women and men. Multiplied times millions this means monies wisely invested in a more green and regional based agriculture growing healthier foods is a good idea.

Funding the Green New Deal

The initial cost of the Green New Deal would be funded by various mechanisms, including:

• Taxing the type of Wall Street speculation that encouraged billionaires to profit, bet against homeowners, and helped conceal the problems leading to the that mortgage meltdown.

• Rooting out those that utilize tax havens to conceal earnings.

• Questioning the deductions that allow the super-rich to pay a lower tax rate than an ordinary worker.

• Reducing the massive number of people that sit at home and falsely claim disability insurance and other benefits so they can drain billions of dollars from the pocket of the ordinary hardworking citizen. Getting people like this back into the work force creates a double effect as they are now contributing to society instead of taking away.

• Reducing medical insurance fraud has been talked about and talked about. As long ago as 1992, estimates this type of fraud cost Medicare $100 billion dollars. The long term rental of things like wheelchairs for $800 when they retail for just $350 is shameful. In 2009 alone, Medicare spent $8 billion dollars on durable medical equipment. Given figures like these someone is lining their pockets well at the expense of people that really need care.

• Reducing the role of lobbyists that convince doctors to switch patients to more expensive, and in some cases less effective, drugs in the name of drug company profits.

• Reigning in the endlessly increasing military spending fueled by influence peddling and donations to super PACs

Historical basis for positions

Stein cited the success and positive economic effects of the New Deal projects of the 1930s as the basis for her Green New Deal strategy. A study by Dr. Phillip Harvey, Professor of Law & Economics at Rutgers School of Law helped provided academic evidence it is a good solution.Pbmaise (talk) 12:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Request photo upload

I attempted to upload this photo, which I feel is preferable to one currently being used in the main infobox, using the Flickr tool. I have never used this tool before, and it seems simple enough, but for some reason I couldn't get it to upload and don't have time right now to fool with it anymore. If someone else agrees that that's a good photo, and knows how to work the Flickr tool, please upload and add to the page. Thanks.--Green4liberty (talk) 16:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 June 2012

Hello this is Michael Johnson, Social Media Director for Jill Stein's Presidential campaign. We were interested in changing Dr. Stein's picture on Wikipedia to one provided by the campaign. [1]

If you would like to reach me, my email is the idealvoice@gmail.com. Thank you and have good day! Please remove your email address 69.95.181.12 (talk) 16:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. I wish to bring some issues about this to your attention:

• Wikipedia Policies - WP:COI means that you can't request this as you are associated with them
• The image isn't open source

These are the main two reasons. Thanks for your request, Mdann52 (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Mr. Johnson is within the guidelines for COI compliance in making this request. That said, as pointed out by Mdann52, the image has to be open source to used in the article. Also, consensus may be needed if the selection of the image is disputed.--JayJasper (talk) 18:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I got a new photo up from when Jill came through the Bay Area, but she needs a more professional one for being a presidential candidate. Also, she should have more than one for the head shots on various pages, like the other candidates. GreenIn2010 (talk) 02:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Suggested clarifications to position statement

I took a stab at cleaning up the position statement section and breaking apart the run on paragraph. Below I have added links and cross links. There is a second section in the article called Principle position, 4-Point "Green New Deal"...this section reads very concise and well. Somewhere the two should be grouped together for better flow. I want to drive traffic to this site way up soon. If someone wants to grant me permission to do so then I will do this tomorrow my time zonePbmaise (talk) 13:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Please review with any party person or person herself before placing these suggestions into the article using cut and paste.

I plan to improve Jill Stein's Wikipedia page by updating the 2012 Presidential Campaign section to include her confirmation as the Green Party's nomination for President. As of June 6th 2012, Jill Stein has officially clinched the presidential nomination for the Green Party, with her press release bolstering “Voters will not be forced to choose between two servants of Wall Street in the upcoming election…now we know there will be a third candidate on the ballot who is a genuine champion of working people”. Also, I intend to add a little background information on why she chose to run for president that cites a positive response she received in a mock presidential election at Western Illinois University this past fall. Additionally, I plan to add a section dedicated to the criticism she pokes at President Obama because she has been very vocal about the disagreements she has with how Obama is running the United States. I also intend to improve the page by expanding on Stein's activism, such as her commitment to support the ideals of the Occupy Wall Street Movement. Under the “Positions” section, I intend to expand on the Green New Deal part by adding interesting details and quotes Stein has made regarding her plans. For example, Stein described how she would deeply reform the health care industry’s system of providing care reducing wasteful spending, while implementing a single-payer system that provides affordable health care for all people. Furthermore, I will add a statement on how Stein’s Green New Deal for America begins with an Economic Bill of Rights, an older idea supported by both FDR and Martin Luther King Jr. Overall, I firmly believe that Jill Stein’s Wikipedia page will be significantly better after my edits have been added.(PeterAnthonyRU (talk) 19:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC))

Federal court ruling of January 31, 2012

What is this sentence talking about? Someone should clarify this and add a link to the relevant case.

Additionally, she is not vulnerable should the Federal court ruling of January 31, 2012, prove to pose serious problems to those who do receive massive donations. [38]  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.148.97 (talk) 04:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC) 

Edit request

First sentence under the Politics ==> Positions section should refer to "Franklin Roosevelt's" New Deal, not "Teddy Roosevelt's".

Bpilkerton (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect date of graduation from Harvard/Radcliffe

My wife graduated from Radcliffe in 1973, and did not recognize Dr. Stein. She also was not listed in Class of 1973 reunion books, so we went to the Harvard Alumni Directory, and found her graduation year was 1972. The incorrect date seems to have been from the Green Party webpage, so I'm surprised Dr. Stein herself did not catch it!

Her bio on her campaign site and her VoteSmart profile (click on "Education") also has her listed as Harvard '73.--Green4liberty (talk) 19:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Someone should check directly with Harvard.

Political positions

I think much of the information removed in this edit should have been reworded to reduce the appearance of bias, rather than completely deleted. Several items worth noting, such as her work with Occupy Wall Street, or her position on Super PACs & campaign finance reform, were sacrificed. Other candidates like Mitt Romney or Gary Johnson have entire pages dedicated to their positions. If we don't have enough content to form a similar page for her, then I would think everything we do have belongs in this article. If there is disagreement on that, then I think a Political positions of Jill Stein article should be created, even as just a stub, where some of the information posted above could be incorporated. It's also interesting that this late in the game her campaign does not have an article, but Virgil Goode, who's polling at about the same level and is on fewer ballots, does (and a rather good one, at that). 68.58.63.22 (talk) 06:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that there should be a "political positions" section in this article, and a separate campaign article for Stein. If have the time, I may get both started.--Green4liberty (talk) 15:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, look - Jill Stein presidential campaign, 2012.--Green4liberty (talk) 16:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Green4liberty, glad to see that work. Now Jill needs a decent image for her other pages. This one does not reflect who she actually is -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jill_Stein_speaking.jpg GreenIn2010 (talk) 18:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

LGBT categories?

This article is currently in Category:LGBT rights activists from the United States and has been tagged with {{WikiProject LGBT studies}}, but there's nothing in the text of the article about LGBT issues whatsoever. Is that an oversight? If there's something to say to explain that category and template, it should be added to the article; if not, they should be removed. Robofish (talk) 21:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Jill E Stein

Please add middle name to lead. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 16:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

My mistake, misread source. What is the middle name? 12.153.112.21 (talk) 18:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 October 2012

Today's update about Dr. Stein's arrest is missing "was arrested" or something similar. LimeyTart (talk) 23:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks like it's been fixed. RudolfRed (talk) 00:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Removed edit request on singular collective noun "couple": US English is Wikipedia standard. Sorry Wportre (talk) 15:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 October 2012

Under Early Life

In the 1970s, Stein studied psychology, sociology, and anthropology at Harvard University and from their (Should be there) attended Harvard Medical School Bkr2110 (talk) 20:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks like it's been fixed. RudolfRed (talk) 01:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I am the one who is responsible for that elementary fail. Thanks for the correction. Sbrianhicks (talk) 05:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Arrest mention in introduction

I was wondering if mentioning the arrest of Jill Stein and her running mate in the introduction of this article is inappropriate. I would question the motivation behind such an edit, which draws immediate attention to an embarrassing moment, her arrest, before quietly revealing that it was due to activism. I think at the very least this section should be reworded, though I don't think it's necessary to include in the introduction anyway; is this an encyclopedia or a tabloid? --Burstroc (talk) 15:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the statement from the lead, as it is already mentioned in the body of the article. Also, the mention of a singular event which received only marginal press coverage in the intro section runs afoul of WP:UNDUE & WP:LEAD.--JayJasper (talk) 19:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The mention of it is important as it was a common campaign point, in her willingness to go against the system when it is wrong. As of the bias in the phrasing, that does need to be dealt with. --184.58.97.253 (talk) 17:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Endorsements

Why does everyone keep screwing with the endorsements? All the other 2012 campaign articles list all the endorsements but on Stein's article, users keep removing them. If a person endorsing Stein has a Wikipedia article, they should be listed under endorsements. Sbrianhicks (talk) 00:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Richard Stallman endorsed her. Reference: http://hackerpublicradio.org/eps.php?id=1116 About 70 minutes in. 86.5.253.180 (talk) 15:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

CITATION 44

Can you fix citation 44? It's a dead link. It takes away from her credibility.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.253.34.165 (talk) 02:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jill Stein. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141019035142/http://greenpapers.net/jobs-for-all-with-a-green-new-deal/ to http://greenpapers.net/jobs-for-all-with-a-green-new-deal/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Sources for infobox religion?

I am going through the entire list of all forty candidates for US President in 2016 (many now withdrawn) and trying to make sure that the religion entry in the infobox of each page meets Wikipedia's requirements.

Here are the requirements for listing a religion in the infobox (religion in the body of the article has different rules):

• Per Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 126#RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes: "the 'religion=' parameter and the associated 'denomination=' parameter should be removed from all pages that use Template:Infobox person. Inclusion is permitted in individual articles' infoboxes as a custom parameter only if directly tied to the person's notability. Inclusion is permitted in derived, more specific infoboxes that genuinely need it for all cases, such as one for religious leaders." Please note that if nobody has bothered to mention religion in the body of the article, that is strong evidence that the subject's beliefs are not relevant to their public life or notability.

• Per WP:BLPCAT: "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources" ... "These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements". The "relevant to their public life or notability" clause should be interpreted as follows: Would this individual be notable for his/her religion if he/she were not notable for running for US president? Are we talking about someone who is notable for being religious, of someone who is notable who also happens to be religious?

• Per WP:CAT/R: "Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion." In other words, if someone running for US president has never publicly stated on the record that they belong to a religion, we don't take the word of even reliable sources on what their religion is.

• Per WP:LOCALCON, a local consensus on an article talk page can not override the overwhelming (75% to 25%) consensus at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes that nonreligions cannot be listed in the religion entry of any infobox. That RfC has a handy list of religions and nonreligions to avoid the inevitable arguments about what is and what is not a religion. Everyone who !voted on the RfC saw that list and had ample opportunity to dispute it if they disagreed with it.

The forty candidates are:

Extended content

Source of list: United States presidential election, 2016 Name: Farley Anderson: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do. Name: Jeb Bush: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism Religion name mentioned in Body? Yes, but all links cited are dead. Discuss on article talk page. Name: Ben Carson: Infobox Religion: Seventh-day Adventist. Clearly meets all requirements for inclusion, nothing to do. Name: Darrell Castle: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do. Name: Lincoln Chafee: Infobox Religion: Episcopalian. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed. Name: Darryl Cherney: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do. Name: Chris Christie: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Catholic.[2] Discuss on article talk page. Name: Hillary Clinton: Infobox Religion: Methodist. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Methodist.[3] Discuss on article talk page. Name: Ted Cruz: Infobox Religion: Southern Baptist. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Southern Baptist.[4] Discuss on article talk page. Name: Sedinam Curry: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do. Name: Carly Fiorina: Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Christianity. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed. Name: Jim Gilmore: Infobox Religion: Methodism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed. Name: Lindsey Graham: Infobox Religion: Southern Baptist. Religion name mentioned in body, but citation fails direct speech requiement.[5] Discuss on article talk page. Name: James Hedges: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do. Name: Tom Hoefling: No Infobox, nothing to do. Name: Mike Huckabee: Infobox Religion: Southern Baptist. Clearly meets all requirements for inclusion, nothing to do. Name: Bobby Jindal: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as "Evangelical Catholic."[6] Name: Gary Johnson: Infobox Religion: Lutheranism. Religion name mentioned in body, but citation is a dead link. Discuss on article talk page. Name: John Kasich: Infobox Religion: Anglicanism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Christian[7] but citation doesn't have him specifying anglicism in direct speech. Discuss on article talk page. Name: Chris Keniston: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do. Name: William Kreml: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do. Name: Gloria La Riva: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do. Name: Lawrence Lessig: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do. Name: John McAfee: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do. Name: Kent Mesplay: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do. Name: Martin O'Malley: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, comes really close to self-identifying[8] but I would be more comforable if we could find a citation with unambigious direct speech. Discuss on article talk page. Name: George Pataki: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed. Name: Rand Paul: Infobox Religion: Presbyterianism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed. Name: Rick Perry: Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Evangelicalism. Religion name mentioned in body, but this page is a classic case of what happens when you don't follow the self-identification rule. Someone took a reference that says "Perry now attends Lake Hills Church more frequently than he attends Tarrytown, he said, in part because it's closer to his home"[9] and assigned him as being a member of Lake Hills Church based on that slim evidence. Discuss on article talk page. Name: Austin Petersen: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do. Name: Marco Rubio: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, but this page is a classic case of what happens when you don't follow the self-identification rule. Someone took a reference that says "Rubio... attends Catholic churches as well as a Southern Baptist megachurch."[10] and assigned him as being Roman Catholic based on that slim evidence. Discuss on article talk page. Name: Bernie Sanders: Infobox Religion: Infobox religion already decided by RfC. See Talk:Bernie Sanders/Archive 13. Name: Rick Santorum: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body. Many citations about him being catholic, but I couldn't find a place where he self-identifioes using direct speech. Religion name mentioned in body, Name: Rod Silva (businessman) No Infobox, nothing to do. Name: Mimi Soltysik Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do. Name: Jill Stein Infobox Religion: Reform Judaism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed. Name: Donald Trump Infobox Religion:Presbyterian. Infobox religion already decided by RfC. See Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 1#Donald Trump Religion Name: Scott Walker Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Evangelicalism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as "born-again Christian".[11] Discuss on article talk page. Name: Jim Webb Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Christianity. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed. Note: Citation in infobox fails self-identification requirement.

My goal is to determine whether Wikipedia's requirements are met for the above forty pages, and to insure that we have citations to reliable sources that meet the requirements.

You are encouraged to look at and comment on the other pages, not just this one.

Please provide any citations that you believe establish a direct tie to the person's notability, self-identification in the person's own words, etc. Merely posting an opinion is not particularly helpful unless you have sources to back up your claims. I would ask everyone to please avoid responding to any comment that doesn't discuss a source or one of the requirements listed above. You can. of course, discuss anything you want in a separate section, but right now we are focusing on finding and verifying sources that meet Wikipedia's requirements. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Removing religion from infobox

Previously, I asked for citations showing that this page meets Wikipedia's requirements for listing religion in the infobox and in the list of categories. I also did my own search. There do not appear to be sources establishing compliance with the rules for inclusion, so I have removed the religion entry and categories. It appears that this page does not meet Wikipedia's requirements, so I am removing religion from the infobox and categories. Editors are encouraged to add properly sourced religion information to the body of the article, subject to WP:V and WP:WEIGHT.

As a reminder Here are the requirements for listing a religion in the infobox and categories (religion in the body of the article has different rules):

Extended content

Per Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 126#RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes: "the 'religion=' parameter and the associated 'denomination=' parameter should be removed from all pages that use Template:Infobox person. Inclusion is permitted in individual articles' infoboxes as a custom parameter only if directly tied to the person's notability. Inclusion is permitted in derived, more specific infoboxes that genuinely need it for all cases, such as one for religious leaders." Please note that if nobody has bothered to mention religion in the body of the article, that is strong evidence that the subject's beliefs are not relevant to their public life or notability. Per WP:BLPCAT: "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources" ... "These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements". In the context of politicians and political candidates, there is a strong consensus in discussion after discussion that The "relevant to their public life or notability" clause should be interpreted as follows: Would this individual be notable for his/her religion if he/she were not notable for running for US president? Are we talking about someone who is notable for being religious, of someone who is notable who also happens to be religious? Per WP:CAT/R: "Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion." In other words, if someone running for US president has never publicly stated on the record that they belong to a religion, we don't take the word of even reliable sources on what their religion is. Per WP:CATDEF: "A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define in prose, as opposed to a tabular or list form the subject as having -- such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc. (Emphasis is in original) Per WP:DEFINING: "Biographical articles should be categorized by defining characteristics. As a rule of thumb for main biographies this includes: standard biographical details: year of birth, year of death and nationality [and] the reason(s) for the person's notability; i.e., the characteristics the person is best known for. For example, a film actor who holds a law degree should be categorized as a film actor, but not as a lawyer unless his or her legal career was notable in its own right [...] a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. For example: "Subject is an adjective noun..." or "Subject, an adjective noun,...". If such examples are common, each of adjective and noun may be deemed to be "defining" for subject. If the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining. [...] Often, users can become confused between the standards of notability, verifiability, and "definingness". Notability is the test that is used to determine if a topic should have its own article. This test, combined with the test of verifiability, is used to determine if particular information should be included in an article about a topic. Definingness is the test that is used to determine if a category should be created for a particular attribute of a topic. In general, it is much easier to verifiably demonstrate that a particular characteristic is notable than to prove that it is a defining characteristic. Per WP:LOCALCON, a local consensus on an article talk page can not override the overwhelming (75% to 25%) consensus at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes that nonreligions cannot be listed in the religion entry of any infobox. That RfC has a handy list of religions and nonreligions to avoid the inevitable arguments about what is and what is not a religion. Everyone who !voted on the RfC saw that list and had ample opportunity to dispute it if they disagreed with it.

Note: this page has not been singled out. I asked for citations on all forty candidates (some now withdrawn) for the 2016 US presidential election. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2016

I guess the person who write this sentence is not native speaker.

Stein has expressed that it is reasonable to be skeptical of mandatory vaccinations, arguing in favor of reducing vaccination rates.

The original source is

"I think dropping vaccinations rates that can and must be fixed in order to get at the vaccination issue: the widespread distrust of the medical-indsutrial complex."

She says dropping vaccinations rates must be fixed. If you look into the source you can easily see it.

Unbiasedsource (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

This is where she suggests that it is reasonable to be skeptical of mandatory vaccinations: "According to the most recent review of vaccination policies across the globe, mandatory vaccination that doesn't allow for medical exemptions is practically unheard of. In most countries, people trust their regulatory agencies and have very high rates of vaccination through voluntary programs. In the US, however, regulatory agencies are routinely packed with corporate lobbyists and CEOs. So the foxes are guarding the chicken coop as usual in the US. So who wouldn't be skeptical?" Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:58, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

On a second read of the quote about "dropping vaccinations rates", I see now that she could also be saying that dropping vaccinations rates are symptomatic of a problem of distrust. I'll correct it (check the page after five minutes). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:58, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  22:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Inaccurate Characterization of "Brexit" opinion...

Article contains a factually incorrect statement that Stein was "in favor of the UK leaving the EU." No where in the cited source is that opinion ever expressed by Stein or tied to Stein. On the contrary, Stein is quoted in the article as stating she was in favor of the UK remaining in the EU, and working to fix problems with the EU that led to anti-EU sentiment: "Before the Brexit vote I agreed with Jeremy Corbyn, Caroline Lucas and the UK Greens who supported staying in the EU but working to fix it, because the EU has many problems. They also recalled the problems that existed before the EU between European nations. The EU was created to fix those problems. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckrachmer (talk • contribs) 17:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

She has completely changed her official statement on her website (without indicating that she made changes). There is a screenshot of what her official statement looked like when I edited it into this page here: http://www.forwardprogressives.com/green-party-jill-stein-busted-cover-up-praise-bigotry-driven-brexit/

So yes, the wiki page should reflect both her immediate reaction and subsequent reversal. Thanks for pointing it out. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jill2016.com/stein_calls_britain_vote_a_wake_up_call

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

phrasishly phrase phrasing

why "has been described as the presumptive nominee"? For the other two, it simply says "is". 174.19.179.9 (talk) 22:35, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't know. Maybe there are other candidates out there who are still vying for the Green Party nomination? I wouldn't be opposed to labeling her as the presumptive nominee without the "has been described" part. clpo13_(talk) 19:19, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

That's the whole point, thanks. She meets the definition of presumptive nominee. 174.19.218.191 (talk) 19:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Removing religion from infobox

Previously, I asked for citations showing that this page meets Wikipedia's requirements for listing religion in the infobox and in the list of categories. I also did my own search. There do not appear to be sources establishing compliance with the rules for inclusion, so I have removed the religion entry and categories. It appears that this page does not meet Wikipedia's requirements, so I am removing religion from the infobox and categories. Editors are encouraged to add properly sourced religion information to the body of the article, subject to WP:V and WP:WEIGHT.

As a reminder Here are the requirements for listing a religion in the infobox and categories (religion in the body of the article has different rules):

Extended content

Per Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 126#RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes: "the 'religion=' parameter and the associated 'denomination=' parameter should be removed from all pages that use Template:Infobox person. Inclusion is permitted in individual articles' infoboxes as a custom parameter only if directly tied to the person's notability. Inclusion is permitted in derived, more specific infoboxes that genuinely need it for all cases, such as one for religious leaders." Please note that if nobody has bothered to mention religion in the body of the article, that is strong evidence that the subject's beliefs are not relevant to their public life or notability. Per WP:BLPCAT: "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources" ... "These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements". In the context of politicians and political candidates, there is a strong consensus in discussion after discussion that The "relevant to their public life or notability" clause should be interpreted as follows: Would this individual be notable for his/her religion if he/she were not notable for running for US president? Are we talking about someone who is notable for being religious, of someone who is notable who also happens to be religious? Per WP:CAT/R: "Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion." In other words, if someone running for US president has never publicly stated on the record that they belong to a religion, we don't take the word of even reliable sources on what their religion is. Per WP:CATDEF: "A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define in prose, as opposed to a tabular or list form the subject as having -- such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc. (Emphasis is in original) Per WP:DEFINING: "Biographical articles should be categorized by defining characteristics. As a rule of thumb for main biographies this includes: standard biographical details: year of birth, year of death and nationality [and] the reason(s) for the person's notability; i.e., the characteristics the person is best known for. For example, a film actor who holds a law degree should be categorized as a film actor, but not as a lawyer unless his or her legal career was notable in its own right [...] a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. For example: "Subject is an adjective noun..." or "Subject, an adjective noun,...". If such examples are common, each of adjective and noun may be deemed to be "defining" for subject. If the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining. [...] Often, users can become confused between the standards of notability, verifiability, and "definingness". Notability is the test that is used to determine if a topic should have its own article. This test, combined with the test of verifiability, is used to determine if particular information should be included in an article about a topic. Definingness is the test that is used to determine if a category should be created for a particular attribute of a topic. In general, it is much easier to verifiably demonstrate that a particular characteristic is notable than to prove that it is a defining characteristic. Per WP:LOCALCON, a local consensus on an article talk page can not override the overwhelming (75% to 25%) consensus at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes that nonreligions cannot be listed in the religion entry of any infobox. That RfC has a handy list of religions and nonreligions to avoid the inevitable arguments about what is and what is not a religion. Everyone who !voted on the RfC saw that list and had ample opportunity to dispute it if they disagreed with it.

Note: this page has not been singled out. I asked for citations on all forty candidates (some now withdrawn) for the 2016 US presidential election. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2016

I guess the person who write this sentence is not native speaker.

Stein has expressed that it is reasonable to be skeptical of mandatory vaccinations, arguing in favor of reducing vaccination rates.

The original source is

"I think dropping vaccinations rates that can and must be fixed in order to get at the vaccination issue: the widespread distrust of the medical-indsutrial complex."

She says dropping vaccinations rates must be fixed. If you look into the source you can easily see it.

Unbiasedsource (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

This is where she suggests that it is reasonable to be skeptical of mandatory vaccinations: "According to the most recent review of vaccination policies across the globe, mandatory vaccination that doesn't allow for medical exemptions is practically unheard of. In most countries, people trust their regulatory agencies and have very high rates of vaccination through voluntary programs. In the US, however, regulatory agencies are routinely packed with corporate lobbyists and CEOs. So the foxes are guarding the chicken coop as usual in the US. So who wouldn't be skeptical?" Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:58, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

On a second read of the quote about "dropping vaccinations rates", I see now that she could also be saying that dropping vaccinations rates are symptomatic of a problem of distrust. I'll correct it (check the page after five minutes). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:58, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  22:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jill2016.com/stein_calls_britain_vote_a_wake_up_call

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

phrasishly phrase phrasing

why "has been described as the presumptive nominee"? For the other two, it simply says "is". 174.19.179.9 (talk) 22:35, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't know. Maybe there are other candidates out there who are still vying for the Green Party nomination? I wouldn't be opposed to labeling her as the presumptive nominee without the "has been described" part. clpo13_(talk) 19:19, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

That's the whole point, thanks. She meets the definition of presumptive nominee. 174.19.218.191 (talk) 19:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Requested edit

Can someone edit into the quote in the article the following links.

"apartheid, assassinations, illegal settlements, blockades, building of nuclear bombs, indefinite detention, collective punishment, international law." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.54.196 (talk) 21:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I edited most of it in. I did not edit in the assassinations and int law wiki-links as it is unclear that she was referring to those particular things. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I am undoing this change. Per MOS:QUOTE, "As much as possible, avoid linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader." --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. I wasn't aware of the rule. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Editor moves Stein quote to chronologically inaccurate place

This is how SteveStrummer wants one part of the page to look:

• "Stein has put great emphasis on attracting Bernie Sanders supporters to her campaign.[2] She has, for instance, claimed to have a 99% match with Bernie Sanders (and 91% match with Hillary Clinton) on ISideWith, a political quiz on political stances.[105] Bernie Sanders has urged his supporters to vote for Hillary Clinton, noting 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."[106][107] Stein says that the political changes desired by Sanders supporters transcend party interests, and that the Democrats could never fully deliver on them anyway: "[Y]ou cannot have a revolutionary campaign inside of a counter-revolutionary party".[2]"

I want it to look like this:

• "Stein has put great emphasis on attracting Bernie Sanders supporters to her campaign.[2] She has, for instance, claimed to have a 99% match with Bernie Sanders (and 91% match with Hillary Clinton) on ISideWith, a political quiz on political stances.[105] Stein says that the political changes desired by Sanders supporters transcend party interests, and that the Democrats could never fully deliver on them anyway: "[Y]ou cannot have a revolutionary campaign inside of a counter-revolutionary party".[2]" Bernie Sanders has urged his supporters to vote for Hillary Clinton, noting 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."[106][107]

My explanation is simple: SteveStrummer's version gives the false impression that Stein's quote is responding to the Sanders quote, when it is not. Stein's quote precedes his. This is not a major issue but I'd rather see the confusion avoided. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

With this edit, I introduced Stein's regular rejoinder to calls for support of a compromise candidate, i.e. Clinton. She has made this same point over and over in the campaign. Its inclusion here is entirely accurate as a "reply" to the Sanders comments, even if it's not strictly chronological. Moreover I believe it's important to let Stein's perspective have the last-word emphasis, here in her own article. SteveStrummer (talk) 19:16, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2016

For some reason I cannot edit this article.

I would suggest changing the caption in the photograph (at the top of the 'Career' section) from "Stein at a protest against coal" to "Stein at a protest against coal mining" or "Stein at a protest against coal-powered energy production".

Although the world seems full of wacky politicians, I'm sure Dr Stein does have any kind of grudge against inanimate, non-sentient minerals!

98.122.20.56 (talk) 05:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Done — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 19:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Editors continue to remove inconvenient content and context

One editor keeps removing this content: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jill_Stein&type=revision&diff=732731583&oldid=732664753

• I'm fine with removing Chait's characterization of Stein's plan. Chait is just a journalist and op-ed writer, not an authoritative or reliable source. I didn't add the content and I'm fine with removing it.
• However, deleting the mention that Jill Stein is a 91% match with Hillary Clinton (https://twitter.com/drjillstein/status/742450334556028928) is just whitewashing. It is perfectly fair to describe the picture that she posted.
• Deleting an op-ed by a political scientist (writing for Washington Post's political science blog) mentioning Stein specifically and clarifying the impact of third-party candidates according to the political science literature is also just whitewashing.This is the kind of content that is all over the pages of Trump, Clinton, Pence and Kaine. There's no reason why expert opinion should be removed from this page.
• I don't understand what relevance if any the editor thinks Hillary Clinton's 'Lucifer' numbers have.

Pinging other regular editors to this page and other politicians' pages for feedback: User: Neutrality, User: VictoriaGrayson, User: Activist, User: Volunteer_Marek. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. I completely agree with Snooganssnoogans.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:49, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Snooganssnoogans. Skuldt is a scholar, and her piece, published on the Washington Post's highly regarded political scientists' group blog, directly addresses Stein's likely impact. Skuldt essentially says that according to a large body of social science research, Stein has no realistic chance of winning and possibly could be a spoiler. This seems directly relevant and nonspeculative, and the weight given to it (two sentences) is proportional. Therefore I think it's perfectly fine to mention it both here at Jill Stein and at Jill Stein presidential campaign, 2016. Neutrality^talk 05:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

There is a mistake in the results of CNN poll

"A CNN poll (released on 1 August 2016) showed that 13% of Sanders supporters would vote for Sanders" should say "A CNN poll (released on 1 August 2016) showed that 13% of Sanders supporters would vote for Stein" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.227.216.247 (talk) 07:53, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I will correct it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 07:54, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Editor removes reliable secondary sources about candidate's claims (inconsistent with other politicians' pages)

User 'Namiba' removed this content (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jill_Stein&type=revision&diff=732364499&oldid=732364235) without a substantive reply to my reasons for inclusion. The crux of the issue is that the factual accuracy of and context behind candidates' claims are covered on all major politicians' pages, yet this editor wants to remove all such content on Jill Stein's page. See some examples from other politicians' pages:

• I can count at least four statements that received a "false" or "pants on fire" (use ctrl+F) from PolitiFact on Hillary Clinton's page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Hillary_Clinton. There are plenty more fact-checks on there that challenge Clinton's claims (just check every mention of Factcheck.org, PolitiFact, Washington Post fact-checker etc. and you'll see plenty of claims being pushed back on)
• Mike Pence's page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Pence. At a first glance, I can see the New York Times challenging Pence's claims about Iraq. I can also see the page reflecting the inaccuracy of Pence's claims about climate change.
• Donald Trump's pages are replete with sources challenging his claims (if I had to list them, I'd spend all day doing so). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump#Political_positions + https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Donald_Trump.

Please restore this content. There is no reason why this page should be cleansed of 'inconvenient' material that exists on all similar pages. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Namiba is right. You are confusing "X is true" with "People are concerned about X". 174.19.157.210 (talk) 19:21, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Who are you (I don't see any edits in your past before you showed up in this talk)? This is context that was brought specifically up by the reliable secondary sources (if they make note of it, then surely this wikipedia page should). As you can see on the other politicians' pages, they are full of this kind of content (do you dispute that?). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:30, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I've restored the neutral point of view to the article. It is about Dr. Jill Stein's positions, not Forbes or the Washington Post's commentary. It doesn't matter what other articles have. Perhaps those need to have NPOV restored as well. Moreover, the obsessive focus on her scientific position, which bare little weight on her presidential campaign, is a definite problem.--TM 12:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

The edits that you removed clearly do not violate NPOV (e.g. (1) see the "Fringe theories and pseudoscience" exception for one, (2) adding context and clarification from reliable secondary sources is always acceptable) and have been reached by consensus on the other politicians' pages, so you're going against consensus (you're not even arguing that you aren't) and not citing the rules correctly. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Snooganssnoogans.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I, too, agree with Snooganssnoogans. We are not a campaign brochure. If a candidate says X — and then reliable secondary sources (mostly journalists and academics) say that "candidate is wrong; X is actually inaccurate," then we can and should note the discrepancy. There is a right way and a wrong way to do this, and of course we need to be careful to hew to the sources, give appropriate weight, etc.: but this does not mean that any criticism or pushback should be excised from a candidate' bio page — particularly when a candidate's statement advances a conspiracy theory, a fringe claim, or the like. Neutrality^talk 05:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

FWIW I agree with Snoogans, too. I am also an anon editor, and that doesn't give me any less right to comment here than the previous anon editor. However, Snoogansnoogans is right - we should address the facts. We don't necessarily need to present it in such an in-your-face manner though. Simply stating something like, "despite scientific consensus overwhelmingly contradicting her claims", with a citation should do. There's no need to go into an overly-long explanation - leave that to a separate article on Wikipedia, or put it into an article about fringe, debunked theories or pseudo science. --98.122.20.56 (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Stein's relevant experience

A recent New York Times article describes Stein as a "physician". I came to this article to see if she's had any relevant work experience at all. As far as I can tell from the article, Stein has held exactly one government position: She was "a town meeting representative" in the Town of Lexington, Massachusetts. It seems to me I shouldn't have had to dig through the article for this information. It also seems to me the article might put this information into some sort of perspective. It might mention, for example, that, as the Lexington website puts it, "the legislative function is performed by a representative Town Meeting comprising roughly 200 elected Town Meeting Members", and that, since the population of Lexington was 31,394 in the 2010 census, Stein represented approximately 157 constituents (in contradistinction to the 319 million constituents she'll represent if she's elected President of the United States). TheScotch (talk) 10:03, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Editor again removes clarifying content and context for spurious reasons

This editor removed an article from the New York Times' academic Upshot blog which put the polling data into context: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jill_Stein&type=revision&diff=733432172&oldid=733425524

The editor removed it for the reason that "This is an article about Stein, not polling." That explanation does not stand up. First, polling data is covered on both Clinton and Trump's pages in the corresponding subsections. Second, such polling data is clarified with informed commentary and context from reliable sources. Third, the editor chose to leave all other text on polls, which suggests that this is insincere and attempt to whitewash.

Keeping the content in is entirely consistent with the standards on other politicians' pages, and with consensus reached on these talk pages. Pinging regular editors again to quickly settle this disruptive editing: User: Neutrality, User: VictoriaGrayson, User: Activist, User: Volunteer_Marek, User: Gouncbeatduke . Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:04, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I've re-added the text ("Historically speaking, support for third-party candidates tends to decline closer to the election") back, with an additional source, the Washington Post, such that our two sources are:

• Aaron Blake, A new poll has Trump in fourth — behind Gary Johnson AND Jill Stein — with young people, Washington Post (August 5, 2016) ("Third-party candidates tend to poll better before Election Day than they actually perform on Election Day. If history is any guide (and it has not always been one this election cycle), support for Johnson and Stein will ebb over the next three months.")
• Josh Katz, Can Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Nominee, Swing the Election?, New York Times (August 4, 2016) ("Since 1968, all of the major third-party candidates have seen their polling averages decline closer to the election. ... Jill Stein, the Green Party's presumptive nominee ... is polling in the low-single digits and is a long shot to make the debates.")

It seems to me that

(1) the sources are high-quality and mention Stein by name;

(2) the weight given to the content (one sentence) is proportionate; and

(3) the information provided is valuable historical context to the reader (especially for the reader unfamilar with U.S. political history) and is not overly speculative.

(4) the wording is factual and does not express a particular point of view.

The additional Washington Post that I added will, I hope, allay any concerns. Neutrality^talk 20:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

FYI

I have removed two claims (one of them in the lead section) cited only to a graduate student's personal blog on Blogspot, which is obviously not a reliable source. It should be noted that the claims were not correct, or were at least not quite correct:

• The lead section claimed that Stein had more votes than "any other female general election candidate" in 2012. - Not a true statement. Stein may have received more votes than any other female general election presidential candidate but Dianne Feinstein received far more votes (7.2 million+) in the 2012 Senate election in California.
• The body claimed that Stein's 2012 performance made her "the most successful female presidential candidate in U.S. history" — that statement is very dubious because it is not restricted to general elections; Hillary Clinton's received far more votes in the 2008 primaries than Stein did in the 2012 general election. Perhaps Stein has received "the highest number of votes of any female presidential candidate in a general election," but that is very different from being "the most successful."

--Neutrality^talk 21:12, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Is the tone truly encyclopedic in this article?

I'm sorry, but as currently written this article does not strike me as NPOV. Would it be possible to tone it down a bit so it doesn't sound like an extended campaign flyer? Just a thought. ::04:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)Rousse (talk)

Completely agree. This is a puff piece about someone whose entire political achievement is getting elected to a town council, with less than a thousand votes. Would Wikipedia stand for this if I wrote an article about my mayor? With a long discussion of his views? No. Wikipedia is frequently abused by people with an agenda - and no matter how much people might protest this woman is simply not notable. Catherinejarvis (talk) 23:28, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Jill Stein earned more votes for President in the 2012 general election than any woman ever. She has been interviewed by every journalistic outlet in the country multiple times. She is notable.--TM 12:40, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Namiba adds the supposed position of another candidate

I can't revert. This edit clearly has no business on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jill_Stein&type=revision&diff=734304767&oldid=734304253. There are two problems:

(i) Trump's and Clinton's pages don't compare and contrast their positions with those of other candidates. After all, the pages are about those individuals, not other people. (ii) The editor adds a statement from 2008 without adding her current position on the subject. This suggests that the editor has insincere intentions.

Please revert. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:16, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Editors also involved on Ajamu Baraka's page

For information, I would note that several of those involved here are also very active on her running mate's page (in particular Snoogansnoogans, Neutrality, and VictoriaGrayson). Cf. Ajamu Baraka There is currently an NPOV dispute on that page, concerning the inclusion of ad hominem attacks from articles titled:

• "What if the Green Party Stopped Being Kooky and Started Getting Real?"
• "Friends Don't Let Friends Vote for Jill Stein" (Tablet Magazine)
• "Stein Campaign Says Running Mate Didn’t Realize He Was Talking to and Being Republished By Holocaust Denier" (Gawker)

Anyone interested in Wikipedia neutrality is urged to look into the matter further.

Also, it is worth noting that User:Neutrality has been cited in an article at the Atlantic as the most prolific editor of Tim Kaine's page in the week preceding his nomination (30K of adds that week).

The Wikipedia page of Virginia Senator Tim Kaine [...] has seen 62 edits on Friday alone. There have been almost 90 edits over the past week. Many of them originate from a user called Neutrality, a longtime Wikipedia editor who has made more than 110,000 edits to the encyclopedia. SashiRolls (talk) 01:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

---

Is there any point in your continued efforts to cast ridiculous aspersions not only on myself, but on other editors? Give it a rest. Neutrality^talk 01:24, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the point is to warn people concerning this activism, using verifiable and reliable sources. You say I'm casting ridiculous aspersions on you. You have the right to respond: do you deny any of the items exposed above? If not, in what way are the claims made ridiculous? SashiRolls (talk) 09:55, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

In addition, it is worth noting that Neutrality has fought to remove a harmless introductory summary of Baraka's work published at TeleSUR, though he received the support of only one person (also an activist lobbying for inclusion of the ad hominem atttacks) at the Reliable sources noticeboard SashiRolls (talk) 10:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

For the first time, I decided to try to add more neutral language to the page, eliminating terms like "rhetoric" and "highly critical" which indicate an authorial point of view and within minutes Snooganssnoogans reached his daily three revert WP:3RR limit for this page.

An excellent example of biased editing is his revert of the following edit:

Stein later changed edited her official statement on the result outcome(without indicating so on her website), saying clarifying that "Before the Brexit vote I agreed with Jeremy Corbyn, Caroline Lucas and the UK Greens who supported staying in the EU but working to fix it."

In her original post, Stein had not indicated her position prior to the referendum; in the edited version she did. This is, by any standard, a clarification of her position not a change of position. The effort to slow down cleanup of the article has been duly noted. SashiRolls (talk) 11:55, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

You've done your best to turn Ajamu Baraka's page into a mess. Now you're here to rewrite text in the most pro-Stein fashion. You've again implied that everyone who does not describe your favored candidates in the most laudatory terms must have insincere intentions, so I guess we can expect that you've come here to turn this page into a mess as we ll. It is more descriptive to say that someone quickly deleted a tweet rather than just deleted it. 'Highly' is used several times on both Trump's and Clinton's pages. Your recommended edit on Brexit is ludicrious. The statement was drastically different between the two versions. First version was highly critical of the EU, considered Brexit a victory and said not a single nice thing about the EU or said anything that could be interpreted as supportive of the UK staying in the EU. The second version scrubbed the most pointed criticism of the EU, removed the statement that this was a victory and added that she supported the UK staying in the EU. Readers can decide for themselves whether this change is a "clarification" or Stein flip-flopping. Editors should not describe it unless reliable secondary sources can be found. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:09, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I've taken the time to reread her two statements carefully (that is why this comment is later than the following one). In neither post does she speak about having a post-referendum position on whether Britain should stay in Europe or leave Europe, contrary to what you assert. Indeed, readers can decide for themselves on the truth of your assertions above. The main difference between the two statements is that she indicates that prior to the referendum she supported the position of Corbyn & the Greens and makes clear that she will continue to support them. SashiRolls (talk) 12:52, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

You have made 4 reverts in the last half an hour, sir. 11:53 (deletion of content), 11:25, 11:24, and 11:22. This is a violation of the WP:3RR rule. SashiRolls (talk) 12:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

The intention was to do those reverts in one edit (as can be seen from how I reverted those edits over a short period). I'm not skilled enough to revert several edits at once. I don't think I violated the spirit of the rule. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:20, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

You wished to revert an 11:34 edit at 11:22? I'm confused. SashiRolls (talk) 12:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

This is the 11:34 edit that was deleted: Stein has made unequivocally clear that she does not believe that vaccines cause autism, comparing the media frenzy around the issue to the birther issue used against Obama.

All reverts except that one was intended to be part of the one revert. "Stein has made unequivocally clear that she does not believe that vaccines cause autism" should be dropped. Her clarified position is "I'm not aware of any evidence that vaccines cause autism." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Editor reinterprets Stein's clear Brexit statements

SashiRolls has already shown him/herself to have the worst reading comprehension I've ever encountered on wikipedia, and is now here to turn this page into a garbled mess. Stein in no unclear terms talks about Brexit favorably in her original statement, calling it a "victory" and saying absolutely nothing that can be interpreted as being in favor of the EU or the UK leaving the EU. SashiRolls has now rewritten and reinterpreted Stein's meaning to whitewash her original statement.

after violating the WP:3RR rule, you have now violated the WPP:NPA rule as you have done on the other page. SashiRolls (talk) 15:52, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

This is what the sentence correctly looked like: "Having initially spoken in favor of the UK leaving the European Union in her official statement on the referendum outcome, Stein later changed her official statement (without indicating so on her website), saying "Before the Brexit vote I agreed with Jeremy Corbyn, Caroline Lucas and the UK Greens who supported staying in the EU but working to fix it."

correctly? please. Again, nowhere does she indicate that she supports the UK leaving or staying in the union. Stating that something is a victory for those who oppose EU austerity policies is not saying that she is in favor of the UK leaving the EU.

This is SashiRolls removing any and all substance from her remarks, adding instead a bunch of weasel words: "Having initially expressing understanding concerning the Brexit vote because of the European austerity policy, Stein later clarified her position, adding that "Before the Brexit vote I agreed with Jeremy Corbyn, Caroline Lucas and the UK Greens who supported staying in the EU but working to fix it."

another violation of the WP:NPA policy in this and the following paragraph. SashiRolls (talk) 15:52, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

She did not just "express understanding". She did not "clarify" the statement. This is getting ludicrious.Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:58, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

She expresses understanding, she did not call for Brexit... "The austerity policies pushed aggressively by the EU bankers in the wake of the 2008 economic collapse has harmed the economies of European nations. It has also led to the kind of divisions between the working class and immigrants that fueled the Brexit. The increase in anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim and anti-refugee sentiment expanded because of the EU's economic policies, and was a key driver in support of the UK's departure from the European Union." SashiRolls (talk) 15:52, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

The page is now in better condition, in my opinion. I hope it is easier to read than it was when I arrived and appropriate weight is given to the different positions. As things stood, we had two factual errors unsupported in the source material (Jill Stein did not indicate that she thought the UK should leave the EU, nor did she say that she did not believe "issues" with vaccines had not been addressed, just before a quote showing what she actually said), many formulations showing authorial interpretation, undue weight being placed on minor sources (tweets) and on, decontextualized citations (the Wifi in schools discussion in particular, in which no mention was made of the fact that Stein was discussing the drive to computerize kindergarten education), unnecessary repetitions, impossibly long paragraphs, etc. I have humbly tried to improve both the style and neutrality of the entry. I do think that Snooganssnoogans might consider stepping back from this page for a while, as I had no intention of irritating him by cleaning the page up in terms of style and neutrality. SashiRolls (talk) 15:52, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

NPOV template

The NPOV template is being added to this page.SashiRolls (talk) 11:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Zero reason to add this template. You just add it to any page where the consensus is against your ludicrous edits. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

another personal attack. SashiRolls (talk) 19:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Editor is ruining this page with nonsense. Please revert.

Pinging regular editors to this page and other politicians' pages again to quickly settle this disruptive editing: User: Neutrality, User: VictoriaGrayson, User: Activist, User: Volunteer_Marek, User: Gouncbeatduke, User: SkepticalRaptor. SashiRolls and Namiba have in a series of edits over the day added a bunch of nonsense and ridiculous interpretations of statements. It's getting difficult to count all the nonsense that needs to reverted at this point (I've reached my 3RR quota). The last few edits dubiously interpret her wi-fi statement and describe them in vague terms (nobody knows the term "wireless fidelity", the wi-fi statement falls under 'science' not 'education'). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

The edits are so ridiculous and extensive that they should be reverted in whole until the user gets consensus for them on the talk page. The page is now a mess. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Is this yet another personal attack?  :( SashiRolls (talk) 15:53, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree these edits are not following Wikipedia policy, as is the usual case with SashiRolls. See the talk page of Ajamu Baraka for example.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. No discussion of the relevant points above; nothing, just a global revert/rollback, reinserting two factual errors, leaving dated information, reverting to text which refers to Jill Stein's statements as "rhetoric". This is Wikipedia neutrality? I guess we know what the worth of wikipedia is. Will file a dispute for what it's worth to see if we can have any faith in the neutrality of these pages or if official wikipedia policy is to bully editors making good faith edits and do nothing about repeated personal attacks. SashiRolls (talk) 19:17, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

When not to remove NPOV template

A template should not be removed if any of the following applies:

1. When the issue has not yet been resolved;
2. When there is ongoing activity or discussion related to the template issue;
3. When you do not understand the issues raised by the template;
4. When you simply disagree with the template (seek consensus first);
5. You have been paid to edit the article or have some other conflict of interest.

1, 2, & 4 definitely apply. I suspect 3 does as well, because you didn't have the time to look into the changes, reading the sources carefully as I did. As for 5, only you can know that. SashiRolls (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the word "rhetoric" anywhere in the revision I reverted to. I also performed a search via CTRL+F.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Very strange, you rolled back all of my edits and yet the word "rhetoric" which I had changed somehow also disappeared since yesterday [12] (ctrl-f)

Could I ask for the wiki version of the page prior to your rollback that I can store it on my own personal mediawiki during the dispute process please (or are my hours of work just lost forever?) (I have mediawiki installed on my own server for my students.) I can provide an email address for that purpose, if there is a private way to communicate. Thank you. SashiRolls (talk) 19:58, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I didn't rollback all your edits. Please me more careful with your accusations.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

But you did roll back a significant number of my edits, which seems to be against wikipedia policy (I just learned this in fact, looking through the page of someone who thanked me for posting the following section "Censored material")

Please keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

Rollback should never be used to edit war. Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.

from Rollback and reviewer granted

Why are you risking your rollback and reviewer status to prevent correction of erroneous information on this page? Please understand, I have no desire for you to get in trouble, I'm only looking for neutrality. SashiRolls (talk) 00:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I didn't use the rollback function at all.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 01:07, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

OK. I guess it was a manual cut and paste rollback then (here). Like I said, I'm not looking to cause trouble, I'm looking for honest responses to my questions below (the purpose of the talk page as I understand it is to reach compromise positions.) You stated below that none of the references cited were reliable sources, and yet 5 of the 6 were already contained in the article. In fact, I agree with you regarding all of the sources on the Brexit question: the fact that she edited her page does not seem to me to be a scandal, especially given that the only significant change was to make clear that she shared the position of the UK Greens and Corbyn prior to the vote (i.e. Remain). Normally, on a talk page, there is some negotiation, an attempt to find a compromise solution, and yet I haven't seen much effort to reach consensus on the part of the three editors who have voted so far. Could I ask you to be more specific, please, as to what specifically you find as being wrong with my edit, since clearly it's not a question of "reliable sources" since I introduced only one source. Thank you for participating in a constructive way in an effort to reach consensus. SashiRolls (talk) 01:20, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Field cricket Gryllus pennsylvanicus

...

Twitter & Reddit sourcing

Just to follow up on Snooganssnoogans's most recent edit in light of recent discussions, is it generally considered good practice to be adding tweets to politician's webpages? (I think I have understood that the consensus above (as well as on the Reliable sources noticeboard) is that this is generally not a good practice, since it is difficult to establish what is notable and what is not. SashiRolls (talk) 19:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC) Do other editors consider that this particular tweet is "notable" enough to be included on her page, and if so why?

"On 12 August 2016, the day when US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces captured Manbij from ISIL, Stein tweeted an apology to Syrians, "To Syrians who escaped Manbij because of U.S.-led forces, I'm sorry our weapons terrorized you for two years."

I personally don't think this is particularly notable, she's just pointing out that the weapons the US brought into the region fell into the hands of ISIS and that she feels bad about that fact. SashiRolls (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Footnotes 95, 98, 99, 100, 105, 107, 112, 135, 140, 147, 156, 167 are either Twitter or Reddit. SashiRolls (talk) 19:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with primary sources. For politicians who are not covered extensively in reliable sources, it may be necessary to use primary sources. I do think that tweet is notable, and that it reflects her take on US support for rebel groups in Syria, something which the positions section has not yet reflected. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

The tweet should therefore be restored. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Inaccurate Characterization of "Brexit" opinion...

Article contains a factually incorrect statement that Stein was "in favor of the UK leaving the EU." No where in the cited source is that opinion ever expressed by Stein or tied to Stein. On the contrary, Stein is quoted in the article as stating she was in favor of the UK remaining in the EU, and working to fix problems with the EU that led to anti-EU sentiment: "Before the Brexit vote I agreed with Jeremy Corbyn, Caroline Lucas and the UK Greens who supported staying in the EU but working to fix it, because the EU has many problems. They also recalled the problems that existed before the EU between European nations. The EU was created to fix those problems. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckrachmer (talk • contribs) 17:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

She has completely changed her official statement on her website (without indicating that she made changes). There is a screenshot of what her official statement looked like when I edited it into this page here: http://www.forwardprogressives.com/green-party-jill-stein-busted-cover-up-praise-bigotry-driven-brexit/

So yes, the wiki page should reflect both her immediate reaction and subsequent reversal. Thanks for pointing it out. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

So yes, the wiki page should not contain a factually incorrect statement that Stein was "in favor of the UK leaving the EU." as it still does because of your active refusal to let that be changed on "your" page.SashiRolls (talk) 08:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

A Young Turks host is not a reliable source

This has been pointed out to SashiRolls before, yet she/he posts the TYT host's proclamation again to the article. Why is it so difficult to just add "In a later interview ([insert date]), when asked [insert question asked by Young Turks], Stein answered "no"". Why add a bunch of spin from questionable sources?

Cenk Ugyur spoke at the Democratic National Convention. Actually, he makes no procalamation. There is an interview with Jill Stein that you do not want in the article. Remember you do not WP:OWN the article. This is not spin: it's what she said, as anyone can verify. If you (or anyone) disputes it, be humble, as I have been, and add a tag, as I have done.SashiRolls (talk) 15:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

The user also added a Snopes source that doesn't mention Stein's position on autism at all, showing again that the editor has horrid reading comprehension and persists in adding nonsense to the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I was moving too quickly and have corrected the error. I have separated the Snopes article from the autism question. It responds to the article immediately preceding it about having an anti-vaxxer in the White House. SashiRolls (talk) 15:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Peace

It would a mistake not to have this title on a Jill Stein page. I've watched the video on Russia. I am not certain that she mentions human rights in Russia, (please check for yourself if it's important), but she does mention peace, and reducing military spending. I apologize to those people who needed to slow me down. (I made a mistake as I was editing and was stopped, appropriately, by the Buddhist bot, though some things could perhaps be restored). I'll go edit my life page for a while and let cooler heads continue (or not). Peace is necessary for communities to work well (wi-fi powered or no). Happy editing. SashiRolls (talk) 20:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't seem neutral

Compared to other third party candidates this election, particularly Gary Johnson's, this page does not seem neutral. It contains whole paragraphs about Duverger's Law and how third party candidates affect elections, with little mention of Stein. None of this is on any other third party candidate's page, and it certainly doesn't appear on Gary Johnson's. That doesn't seem fair at all. It also links to articles with titles like "Friends Don't Let Friends Vote for Jill Stein" and overanalyzes every single issue in ways that do not appear even on Gary Johnson's, or even Hillary's page, such as when Stein has edited a Twitter post. And when Stein has been asked point-blank to clarify issues, such as when the tv show The Young Turks asked her point blank about vaccines, these sources are never used: https://www.facebook.com/TheYoungTurks/videos/10153832109549205/ Instead, the entry about vaccines on her page quotes other people talking about vaccines and how candidates should (or should not) approach them with little mention of Stein. It just seems that the page was written to discourage people from voting for Stein instead of being written in a neutral way such as the Gary Johnson page. Caladonia (talk) 14 August 2016 (UTC)

---

Thank you for the response above Caladonia, we're trying to take the page back from its current "owner", but there seems to be active opposition to there being a neutral page on Jill Stein on wikipedia. If you want to help, I would encourage you to sign your comment (permalink) and vote in the Request for Comment below. To see the full extent of the censorship, you may wish to see the section "Censored material" here. There is also comment on this issue at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, and I have likewise posted the issue to the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard though it has not yet received comment there. Thanks again!SashiRolls (talk) 08:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Caladonia, as someone who has edited on Trump's main article, Clinton's main article, the positions article of Trump, the positions article of Clinton, Pence's main article and Kaine's main article, let me assure that context behind positions and claims are all over those pages and there is nothing inconsistent between Stein's page and those pages (just see all the fact-checks, inputs by relevant academics, context provided by reliable news sources and so forth). If anything, those pages contain more critiques and damning context than this article, due to the extensive coverage those politicians have received. I have rarely if ever edited on Johnson's page, so I can't vouch for it. See the talk on "Editor removes reliable secondary sources about candidate's claims (inconsistent with other politicians' pages)" from this page where I substantiate those claims. Regarding the TYT interview, as I've stated before, I'm fine (and probably everyone else is) with saying "In a later interview ([insert date]), when asked [insert question asked by Young Turks], Stein answered "no"". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Actions speak louder than words dear Snoog, if you're fine with it, then please do it!

Could you also indicate why you are opposed to adding that she compared the media frenzy around the question to the birther issue which had been used against Barack Obama in 2008? After all, Wikipedia does have a "birther" page, so there is pretty clear precedent for writing about this sort of smear campaign on Wikipedia. I appreciate any effort you will make to discuss the issue below after having deleted the content without comment several times now. SashiRolls (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I can add both. Give it two minutes. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

My 1001st post is thank you. I'm turning over a new leaf. Thank you very much.  :)

Any comment on the other issues raised, like the undue weight given to Duverger's law here? (I did specifically note that the POV of this section was contested before the article was vandalized, based on the solid logic above.) SashiRolls (talk) 18:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Duverger's Law has already been discussed and settled on the talk page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

ps: ctrl-f  ;) SashiRolls (talk) 21:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

This is addressed in "Editors continue to remove inconvenient content and context". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Should some or all of the material listed in the previous section (censored material) be restored? SashiRolls (talk) 21:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Oppose None of the sources are WP:RS.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

The only new source is #2 (a video of Jill Stein speaking (which would seem to me to be a very reliable source concerning what she actually said)). In fact one of the sources of video (as noted above) is the same as the one currently cited, except that it is not embedded on the site "The World According to Matthew" (with the added spin of the Matthew in question) but goes directly to the source (video posted by Safe Teach for Schools. So it would seem you might be saying that the sources currently contained in the article are not WP:RS? SashiRolls (talk) 22:23, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Oppose (i.e., exclude all). The excluded text doesn't improve the article and in some cases is confusing, misleading, inaccurate. Neutrality^talk 22:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

which cases? This one? clear contradiction between wiki voice and citation SashiRolls (talk) 22:23, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, comment is allowed on this page (updated my vote to take a picture) ^^ SashiRolls (talk) 23:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Oppose (i.e., exclude all). For all the reasons I've already expressed. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I sincerely thank you for not attacking me personally this time. SashiRolls (talk) 22:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Oppose Unreliable sources should not be used. While Stein is not the best known candidate, there are sufficient reliable secondary sources for use in the article. TFD (talk) 01:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, though I do not understand it. (note that with the exception of the video on vaccines I added no sources, so you seem to be suggesting that the sources already in the article should be eliminated?) SashiRolls (talk) 05:11, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Oppose people on HRC's payroll need to eat, too; we cannot risk having their children starve. Have some compassion. 174.22.231.109 (talk) 03:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. You're right; I'm being heartless. ^^ SashiRolls (talk) 05:09, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Oppose (i.e., exclude all). For reasons already stated above, including "confusing, misleading, inaccurate." Gouncbeatduke (talk) 01:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

But, as above there is not one single concrete response indicating what is "confusing, misleading, or inaccurate". Could you be specific please? Thank you. SashiRolls (talk) 08:39, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I would like to add here one of the most balanced perspectives I read during the discussion of another Request for Comment on Stein's running mate's page (without attribution, but with a link to the discussion): "RfCs are supposed to be discussions to reach consensus, not votes, correct?" Cf. RfC discussion SashiRolls (talk) 11:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

In this spirit I would like to particularly thank TFD for their careful comments on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, which I will link to but not cite (as I don't want to inadvertently misrepresent the views presented there). I will note that the Snopes article on the question qualifies as "False" the claim that "Green Party presidential candidate Dr. Jill Stein has stated that she opposes the use of vaccines." noting that "We contacted Dr. Jill Stein's campaign for clarification on her position regarding vaccinations, and while we did not receive an immediate response, Stein shared our article and tweeted to proclaim that 'of course I support vaccinations'". This is in contrast to the current text in the Wikipedia article which seeks to muddy the waters. SashiRolls (talk) 12:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

---

To sum up what I've learned so far, both VictoriaGrayson and TFD think that the unreliable sources (that were in the article before my reverted edit and continue to be in the article after my reverted edit) should not be there. Snooganssnoogans has just added yet another tweet to the page. Based on what I've read above from TFD, tweets should not be considered WP:RS since they are primary sources? Thank you all for taking the time to participate in a debate on the talk page; this is helpful, because it helps people have confidence that there are no Conflicts of Interest at play seeing how forthcoming people are in their comments and that the principles espoused are uniformly applied by those who revert. I apologize for being so slow to understand... Could anyone be more specific in their comments regarding the censored material above, what exactly is wrong with it? VictoriaGrayson? I'm afraid the last IP voter doesn't seem too convinced of our wikipedian neutrality, which is honestly sad :( given that we do so strive for Neutrality that some of us have even written it into our usernames. Let's show the world that wikipedian spirit!! SashiRolls (talk) 15:20, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Primary sources are not necessarily unreliable, but their use presents two problems: we are not allowed to interpret them but must use the interpretations provided in secondary sources and we need secondary sources to establish their significance. TFD (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, I very much appreciate your response, TFD! (I suspected you might be the one to answer.) To return to the example of the only source that I actually added to the page, what is your opinion of its use?

Stein has made unequivocally clear that she does not believe that vaccines cause autism, comparing the media frenzy around the issue to the birther issue used against Obama.

I identified this as an independent source which is both a primary source regarding what Jill Stein said, but a secondary source given the comments of the interviewer (and Cenk Uygur at the end of the video), who both say that her statement is unequivocally clear. My use of her comment about the "birther" scandal seemed to fit the definition of appropriate use of a primary source given at Wikipedia... "Primary sources may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source."

What do you think? SashiRolls (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

The Young Turks is not by any stretch a reliable source. That one of their hosts thinks that she's been unequivocally clear on the issue does not add anything to the article. The article already has extensive coverage of Stein's comments on vaccines, and context and clarification by reliable sources, such as Washington Post and the Guardian. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:11, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

You are showing that you are completely biased with your statement given the video in question (below), you realize. Any (un)educated person can see that Cenk Ugyur's interpretation of Jill Stein's "no" when asked "Do you believe vaccines cause autism?" is directly supported by the primary source (Jill Stein being interviewed saying "no" to this question). This is very similar to your argument for misreading her statements concerning Brexit above (here and here). I mean no disrespect by saying this, I am merely calling a cat a cat, as we say in French.SashiRolls (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

When a candidate has clarified her position on an issue (there is a whole paragraph in the article outlining her public statements on vaccines - which are far from being unequivocally clear), we should generally not rely on simple "yes" or "no" answers, and say this "makes it unequivocally clear". I would be fine with adding a simple "In a later interview ([insert date]), when asked [insert question asked by Young Turks], Stein answered "no"". The only who misread her Brexit statement is you. As I've said before, the worst reading comprehension I've ever encountered on wikipedia. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

OK. So you agree that this is a Reliable Source and that in fact you do NOT "oppose all". Thank you. Next, concerning your personal attack concerning Brexit. You have stated that I have the worst reading comprehension you have ever encountered on Wikipedia. This is an assertion that should be easy to prove. You claim Jill Stein stated she was in favor of the UK leaving the EU in her original statement (here and here as well as in your prose on her page). Could you please provide textual evidence for that claim, so that others can see how bad my reading comprehension is. Thank you for your time. SashiRolls (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I have repeatedly explained it. I have zero interest in rehashing this discussion with you, which will go nowhere. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:07, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Gryllus pennsylvanicus

Please note, what is requested is not an explanation, but textual evidence that justifies your call for a reversion of my edit. I know that you cannot provide it, because she says nothing of the kind. I understand that you, personally, could have misunderstood what she wrote, because she talks about a victory for those who oppose austerity, but nowhere does she say that she was in favor of the UK leaving the EU, as I and another user have pointed out. Yet, you called for a reversion and User:VictoriaGrayson complied. Then, you, User:VictoriaGrayson, and User:Neutrality all voted explicitly against correcting your error as well as including the citation you now admit has a place on the page. What's up with that Snooganssnoogans? We're supposed to all be care-bears making the world a better place with our impartial edits, aren't we? SashiRolls (talk) 18:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

The edits you just did (referencing the talk page) are a perfect example of your horrid reading comprehension and disregard of consensus. This is presumably why everyone opposes your edits in their entirety. Give you tentative support for one small edit and you run away with it (citing support) and turn the article into a mess again. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:34, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, "your beach" as Fletch said years ago while having a gun held to his head. If you are intent on ensuring there is an anti-Stein bias on her wiki page, requiring people to request your "approval" to make changes (because you have Victoria Grayson & Neutrality backing you up for whatever their personal reasons), that's your business... I know when I am beat. I'll be contacting some admins concerning your personal attacks, and I'll leave it at that. It's obvious wikipedia tolerates WP:COI, with certain requirements, and ordinary bias. I admit that I am not patient enough (since I am not paid to edit) to continue this effort. Congratulations. You win.

The edit to which you objected, in the interest of full disclosure, lest anyone think you are correct that I am distorting the verifiable truth about the citations in any way (I was toning down the current undue prominence given to the polemical citation in a 100 word squib written about a tweetstorm)...

In a short article discussing these tweets at Forbes, Emily Willingham described Stein's statements on vaccines as "using dog whistle terms and equivocations bound to appeal to the “antivaccine” constituency". In a later interview, at the Green Party convention, Stein stated that she did not believe that vaccines caused autism, and compared the media frenzy around the question to the birther issue which had been used against Barack Obama in 2008.SashiRolls (talk) 19:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Inaccurate Characterization of "Brexit" opinion...

Article contains a factually incorrect statement that Stein was "in favor of the UK leaving the EU." No where in the cited source is that opinion ever expressed by Stein or tied to Stein. On the contrary, Stein is quoted in the article as stating she was in favor of the UK remaining in the EU, and working to fix problems with the EU that led to anti-EU sentiment: "Before the Brexit vote I agreed with Jeremy Corbyn, Caroline Lucas and the UK Greens who supported staying in the EU but working to fix it, because the EU has many problems. They also recalled the problems that existed before the EU between European nations. The EU was created to fix those problems. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckrachmer (talk • contribs) 17:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

She has completely changed her official statement on her website (without indicating that she made changes). There is a screenshot of what her official statement looked like when I edited it into this page here: http://www.forwardprogressives.com/green-party-jill-stein-busted-cover-up-praise-bigotry-driven-brexit/

So yes, the wiki page should reflect both her immediate reaction and subsequent reversal. Thanks for pointing it out. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

So yes, the wiki page should not contain a factually incorrect statement that Stein was "in favor of the UK leaving the EU." as it still does because of your active refusal to let that be changed on "your" page.SashiRolls (talk) 08:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

A Young Turks host is not a reliable source

This has been pointed out to SashiRolls before, yet she/he posts the TYT host's proclamation again to the article. Why is it so difficult to just add "In a later interview ([insert date]), when asked [insert question asked by Young Turks], Stein answered "no"". Why add a bunch of spin from questionable sources?

Cenk Ugyur spoke at the Democratic National Convention. Actually, he makes no procalamation. There is an interview with Jill Stein that you do not want in the article. Remember you do not WP:OWN the article. This is not spin: it's what she said, as anyone can verify. If you (or anyone) disputes it, be humble, as I have been, and add a tag, as I have done.SashiRolls (talk) 15:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

The user also added a Snopes source that doesn't mention Stein's position on autism at all, showing again that the editor has horrid reading comprehension and persists in adding nonsense to the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I was moving too quickly and have corrected the error. I have separated the Snopes article from the autism question. It responds to the article immediately preceding it about having an anti-vaxxer in the White House. SashiRolls (talk) 15:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Peace

It would a mistake not to have this title on a Jill Stein page. I've watched the video on Russia. I am not certain that she mentions human rights in Russia, (please check for yourself if it's important), but she does mention peace, and reducing military spending. I apologize to those people who needed to slow me down. (I made a mistake as I was editing and was stopped, appropriately, by the Buddhist bot, though some things could perhaps be restored). I'll go edit my life page for a while and let cooler heads continue (or not). Peace is necessary for communities to work well (wi-fi powered or no). Happy editing. SashiRolls (talk) 20:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't seem neutral

Compared to other third party candidates this election, particularly Gary Johnson's, this page does not seem neutral. It contains whole paragraphs about Duverger's Law and how third party candidates affect elections, with little mention of Stein. None of this is on any other third party candidate's page, and it certainly doesn't appear on Gary Johnson's. That doesn't seem fair at all. It also links to articles with titles like "Friends Don't Let Friends Vote for Jill Stein" and overanalyzes every single issue in ways that do not appear even on Gary Johnson's, or even Hillary's page, such as when Stein has edited a Twitter post. And when Stein has been asked point-blank to clarify issues, such as when the tv show The Young Turks asked her point blank about vaccines, these sources are never used: https://www.facebook.com/TheYoungTurks/videos/10153832109549205/ Instead, the entry about vaccines on her page quotes other people talking about vaccines and how candidates should (or should not) approach them with little mention of Stein. It just seems that the page was written to discourage people from voting for Stein instead of being written in a neutral way such as the Gary Johnson page. Caladonia (talk) 14 August 2016 (UTC)

---

Thank you for the response above Caladonia, we're trying to take the page back from its current "owner", but there seems to be active opposition to there being a neutral page on Jill Stein on wikipedia. If you want to help, I would encourage you to sign your comment (permalink) and vote in the Request for Comment below. To see the full extent of the censorship, you may wish to see the section "Censored material" here. There is also comment on this issue at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, and I have likewise posted the issue to the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard though it has not yet received comment there. Thanks again!SashiRolls (talk) 08:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Caladonia, as someone who has edited on Trump's main article, Clinton's main article, the positions article of Trump, the positions article of Clinton, Pence's main article and Kaine's main article, let me assure that context behind positions and claims are all over those pages and there is nothing inconsistent between Stein's page and those pages (just see all the fact-checks, inputs by relevant academics, context provided by reliable news sources and so forth). If anything, those pages contain more critiques and damning context than this article, due to the extensive coverage those politicians have received. I have rarely if ever edited on Johnson's page, so I can't vouch for it. See the talk on "Editor removes reliable secondary sources about candidate's claims (inconsistent with other politicians' pages)" from this page where I substantiate those claims. Regarding the TYT interview, as I've stated before, I'm fine (and probably everyone else is) with saying "In a later interview ([insert date]), when asked [insert question asked by Young Turks], Stein answered "no"". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Actions speak louder than words dear Snoog, if you're fine with it, then please do it!

Could you also indicate why you are opposed to adding that she compared the media frenzy around the question to the birther issue which had been used against Barack Obama in 2008? After all, Wikipedia does have a "birther" page, so there is pretty clear precedent for writing about this sort of smear campaign on Wikipedia. I appreciate any effort you will make to discuss the issue below after having deleted the content without comment several times now. SashiRolls (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I can add both. Give it two minutes. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

My 1001st post is thank you. I'm turning over a new leaf. Thank you very much.  :)

Any comment on the other issues raised, like the undue weight given to Duverger's law here? (I did specifically note that the POV of this section was contested before the article was vandalized, based on the solid logic above.) SashiRolls (talk) 18:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Duverger's Law has already been discussed and settled on the talk page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

ps: ctrl-f  ;) SashiRolls (talk) 21:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

This is addressed in "Editors continue to remove inconvenient content and context". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Should some or all of the material listed in the previous section (censored material) be restored? SashiRolls (talk) 21:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Oppose None of the sources are WP:RS.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

The only new source is #2 (a video of Jill Stein speaking (which would seem to me to be a very reliable source concerning what she actually said)). In fact one of the sources of video (as noted above) is the same as the one currently cited, except that it is not embedded on the site "The World According to Matthew" (with the added spin of the Matthew in question) but goes directly to the source (video posted by Safe Teach for Schools. So it would seem you might be saying that the sources currently contained in the article are not WP:RS? SashiRolls (talk) 22:23, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Oppose (i.e., exclude all). The excluded text doesn't improve the article and in some cases is confusing, misleading, inaccurate. Neutrality^talk 22:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

which cases? This one? clear contradiction between wiki voice and citation SashiRolls (talk) 22:23, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, comment is allowed on this page (updated my vote to take a picture) ^^ SashiRolls (talk) 23:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Oppose (i.e., exclude all). For all the reasons I've already expressed. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I sincerely thank you for not attacking me personally this time. SashiRolls (talk) 22:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Oppose Unreliable sources should not be used. While Stein is not the best known candidate, there are sufficient reliable secondary sources for use in the article. TFD (talk) 01:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, though I do not understand it. (note that with the exception of the video on vaccines I added no sources, so you seem to be suggesting that the sources already in the article should be eliminated?) SashiRolls (talk) 05:11, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Oppose people on HRC's payroll need to eat, too; we cannot risk having their children starve. Have some compassion. 174.22.231.109 (talk) 03:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. You're right; I'm being heartless. ^^ SashiRolls (talk) 05:09, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Oppose (i.e., exclude all). For reasons already stated above, including "confusing, misleading, inaccurate." Gouncbeatduke (talk) 01:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

But, as above there is not one single concrete response indicating what is "confusing, misleading, or inaccurate". Could you be specific please? Thank you. SashiRolls (talk) 08:39, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I would like to add here one of the most balanced perspectives I read during the discussion of another Request for Comment on Stein's running mate's page (without attribution, but with a link to the discussion): "RfCs are supposed to be discussions to reach consensus, not votes, correct?" Cf. RfC discussion SashiRolls (talk) 11:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

In this spirit I would like to particularly thank TFD for their careful comments on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, which I will link to but not cite (as I don't want to inadvertently misrepresent the views presented there). I will note that the Snopes article on the question qualifies as "False" the claim that "Green Party presidential candidate Dr. Jill Stein has stated that she opposes the use of vaccines." noting that "We contacted Dr. Jill Stein's campaign for clarification on her position regarding vaccinations, and while we did not receive an immediate response, Stein shared our article and tweeted to proclaim that 'of course I support vaccinations'". This is in contrast to the current text in the Wikipedia article which seeks to muddy the waters. SashiRolls (talk) 12:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

---

To sum up what I've learned so far, both VictoriaGrayson and TFD think that the unreliable sources (that were in the article before my reverted edit and continue to be in the article after my reverted edit) should not be there. Snooganssnoogans has just added yet another tweet to the page. Based on what I've read above from TFD, tweets should not be considered WP:RS since they are primary sources? Thank you all for taking the time to participate in a debate on the talk page; this is helpful, because it helps people have confidence that there are no Conflicts of Interest at play seeing how forthcoming people are in their comments and that the principles espoused are uniformly applied by those who revert. I apologize for being so slow to understand... Could anyone be more specific in their comments regarding the censored material above, what exactly is wrong with it? VictoriaGrayson? I'm afraid the last IP voter doesn't seem too convinced of our wikipedian neutrality, which is honestly sad :( given that we do so strive for Neutrality that some of us have even written it into our usernames. Let's show the world that wikipedian spirit!! SashiRolls (talk) 15:20, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Primary sources are not necessarily unreliable, but their use presents two problems: we are not allowed to interpret them but must use the interpretations provided in secondary sources and we need secondary sources to establish their significance. TFD (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, I very much appreciate your response, TFD! (I suspected you might be the one to answer.) To return to the example of the only source that I actually added to the page, what is your opinion of its use?

Stein has made unequivocally clear that she does not believe that vaccines cause autism, comparing the media frenzy around the issue to the birther issue used against Obama.

I identified this as an independent source which is both a primary source regarding what Jill Stein said, but a secondary source given the comments of the interviewer (and Cenk Uygur at the end of the video), who both say that her statement is unequivocally clear. My use of her comment about the "birther" scandal seemed to fit the definition of appropriate use of a primary source given at Wikipedia... "Primary sources may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source."

What do you think? SashiRolls (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

The Young Turks is not by any stretch a reliable source. That one of their hosts thinks that she's been unequivocally clear on the issue does not add anything to the article. The article already has extensive coverage of Stein's comments on vaccines, and context and clarification by reliable sources, such as Washington Post and the Guardian. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:11, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

You are showing that you are completely biased with your statement given the video in question (below), you realize. Any (un)educated person can see that Cenk Ugyur's interpretation of Jill Stein's "no" when asked "Do you believe vaccines cause autism?" is directly supported by the primary source (Jill Stein being interviewed saying "no" to this question). This is very similar to your argument for misreading her statements concerning Brexit above (here and here). I mean no disrespect by saying this, I am merely calling a cat a cat, as we say in French.SashiRolls (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

When a candidate has clarified her position on an issue (there is a whole paragraph in the article outlining her public statements on vaccines - which are far from being unequivocally clear), we should generally not rely on simple "yes" or "no" answers, and say this "makes it unequivocally clear". I would be fine with adding a simple "In a later interview ([insert date]), when asked [insert question asked by Young Turks], Stein answered "no"". The only who misread her Brexit statement is you. As I've said before, the worst reading comprehension I've ever encountered on wikipedia. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

OK. So you agree that this is a Reliable Source and that in fact you do NOT "oppose all". Thank you. Next, concerning your personal attack concerning Brexit. You have stated that I have the worst reading comprehension you have ever encountered on Wikipedia. This is an assertion that should be easy to prove. You claim Jill Stein stated she was in favor of the UK leaving the EU in her original statement (here and here as well as in your prose on her page). Could you please provide textual evidence for that claim, so that others can see how bad my reading comprehension is. Thank you for your time. SashiRolls (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I have repeatedly explained it. I have zero interest in rehashing this discussion with you, which will go nowhere. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:07, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Gryllus pennsylvanicus

Please note, what is requested is not an explanation, but textual evidence that justifies your call for a reversion of my edit. I know that you cannot provide it, because she says nothing of the kind. I understand that you, personally, could have misunderstood what she wrote, because she talks about a victory for those who oppose austerity, but nowhere does she say that she was in favor of the UK leaving the EU, as I and another user have pointed out. Yet, you called for a reversion and User:VictoriaGrayson complied. Then, you, User:VictoriaGrayson, and User:Neutrality all voted explicitly against correcting your error as well as including the citation you now admit has a place on the page. What's up with that Snooganssnoogans? We're supposed to all be care-bears making the world a better place with our impartial edits, aren't we? SashiRolls (talk) 18:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

The edits you just did (referencing the talk page) are a perfect example of your horrid reading comprehension and disregard of consensus. This is presumably why everyone opposes your edits in their entirety. Give you tentative support for one small edit and you run away with it (citing support) and turn the article into a mess again. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:34, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, "your beach" as Fletch said years ago while having a gun held to his head. If you are intent on ensuring there is an anti-Stein bias on her wiki page, requiring people to request your "approval" to make changes (because you have Victoria Grayson & Neutrality backing you up for whatever their personal reasons), that's your business... I know when I am beat. I'll be contacting some admins concerning your personal attacks, and I'll leave it at that. It's obvious wikipedia tolerates WP:COI, with certain requirements, and ordinary bias. I admit that I am not patient enough (since I am not paid to edit) to continue this effort. Congratulations. You win.

The edit to which you objected, in the interest of full disclosure, lest anyone think you are correct that I am distorting the verifiable truth about the citations in any way (I was toning down the current undue prominence given to the polemical citation in a 100 word squib written about a tweetstorm)...

In a short article discussing these tweets at Forbes, Emily Willingham described Stein's statements on vaccines as "using dog whistle terms and equivocations bound to appeal to the “antivaccine” constituency". In a later interview, at the Green Party convention, Stein stated that she did not believe that vaccines caused autism, and compared the media frenzy around the question to the birther issue which had been used against Barack Obama in 2008.SashiRolls (talk) 19:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC)