Talk:Jill Stein/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Nazi

A quick comparison yesterday allowed me to verify what I suspected: of the candidate's pages Jill Stein's is the only one to contain the word Nazi. Twice.

Originally, the citation containing this word was massively truncated and no context was given. I improved the context by paraphrasing the beginning of the article and added reference to the 2015 film Fascism, Inc. which provides important context for the use of the word "Nazi" (highlighted in blue) on a political candidate's page. I believe this is often referred to as the Godwin point...

Of course, it is true that Stein & Baraka are two of the few politicians talking about fascism, white supremacy and the rise of right wing groups in Europe & in the US.

Wukai has claimed that adding a link to a film that gives context to Jill Stein's remarks is OR (here). The same argument should be used about the most recent sentence Snooganssnoogans added in GMO (his revert of my "better source tag" here without adding a better source on pesticides), and about the sentence that has been fought over giving "needed" context (from "Green party candidate Jill Stein accused of 'anti-vaxxer' sympathies") on the current state of science concerning vaccines and autism (despite the fact that Jill Stein's entire section on autism in "In Harm's Way" contains not one single word about vaccines)...

Either the deleted content (film) concerning the relationship between neo-liberalism and neo-fascism should be restored or I would ask Wukai to type out the whole citation of the off-the-cuff interview that has been truncated in order to add the word Nazi to Stein's page without trying to understand that she's talking about ( IG Farben (which became Sanofi Pasteur, Basf, Bayer, etc...) ) SashiRolls (talk) 22:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Saving the deleted context here for the time-being: "Aris Chatzistefanou's documentary Fascism, Inc. provides historical context for these comments."

References

There is absolutely zero reason for this article to note that Stein's argument mirrors that of some random youtube documentary. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Not a random documentary, but a documentary that is directly relevant to the discussion of neoliberalism and neofascism, made by a notable director who crowd-funded this video. The director is notable (he has a wikipedia page and an IMDB page and has worked with the likes of Slavoj Žižek and Naomi Klein).

The film barely has a 100 votes on IMDB. I can't think of a clearer example of both undue weight and original research. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

It has not been released in the US. It has a 20 or 25 to 1 like/dislike ration on youtube and over 80,000 views there (between the long and short version). It is the follow-up to Catastroika and Debtocracy. I thought you would be happy to see that the systemic bias tag was removed from this page in which you have invested so much effort, Snoog. Peace. SashiRolls (talk) 12:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Snooganssnoogans that there is no reason for this article to note that Stein's argument mirrors a fairly obscure documentary. This article is (or at least should be) a biography of an individual, not a musing on "neoliberalism and neofascism." The fact that the director or the documentary may be notable for other reasons is beside the point, Neutrality^talk 13:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

How then do you propose balancing the inappropriate weight given to Nazism on the page without giving context to the well-known argument Jill Stein is citing? Note the "musings" on "neoliberalism and neofascism" were introduced by the editor who added the quote through (very) partial citation. SashiRolls (talk) 13:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

SashiRolls: You should immediately self-revert your reinsertion of the content here. You are the only editor to support this content, and two editors - myself and Snooganssnoogans - have expressed clear, policy-based objections to this content. It is absolutely unacceptable for you to edit-war to shoehorn into the article that completely strays from the article topic. See WP:BRD. Neutrality^talk 13:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I do not think either of the quotes put Stein in a bad light, are out of context or need explanation. TFD (talk) 19:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Science: Newest elimination of balancing material

@Iazyges: You asked about edit-warring. There is documentation in the Talk thread in the section "Unhack this page", which describes the reverts in a 2 week period. I, personally, have tried to minimize the number of reverts I have used and have rarely if ever had to reach the daily maximum of 3RR.

A perfect example of the sort of edit warring that has been going on is the deletion of the second balancing sentence below. Since the goal of the wiki-essay on science would seem to be to show that Stein has dangerous ideas about science, direct evidence that scientific experts have praised Stein's work relating pesticide use to problems of child development is inconvenient. Rather, the article prefers to rely on business and economics editors (Cf. Jordan Weissmann quote in GMO / Pesticides) instead of actual scientists discussing her work.

I would ask that Neutrality undo his reversion of the content in green below (or better just copy/paste from here as I've added the direct link to the text by the 6 experts. It provides balance to the CNN/Huffington Post journalism by providing evidence concerning senior members of the scientific community's view on Stein's published work on science. Granted, it may be necessary to add the word "Nevertheless" to indicate that there are two different views being presented...

In the 2016 election, Stein was criticized in several media outlets for holding what CNN termed "out-of-the-mainstream" views on a number of science-related topics. The peer-reviewed report she co-authored with Physicians for a National Health Program in May 2000 ("In Harm's Way: Toxic Threats to Child Development") was praised by six experts on public health.

References

The references for neutrality's reverts are here and here. SashiRolls (talk) 00:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Likewise, I see that both Snooganssnoogans and Tryptofish have removed my "better source needed" tag without addressing the concern that neither of their references have any scientific credentials. As such, I am restoring the hard work I've done to read through the scientific reports authored by Jill Stein. These reports have a clear place in any discussion concerning her views on science. The preventive measures taken by Tryptofish to spin away from criticism of Stein's views towards claims that she is pandering will be acknowledged by putting the endorsements first and the smear campaign second. SashiRolls (talk) 02:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Did you see what I said in earlier talk before I made that edit? If you persist in claiming that I am "spin"ning instead of simply editing in good faith, or continue referring to living people as "Jordy", you should expect to find yourself brought before administrators. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

This is WP:SYNTH. Her prior work on public health issues is not a "political position." This material should appear under the section dealing with her prior career. Neutrality^talk 03:04, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Your claim that this is not a "political position" is rebutted in the link (which it might be worth noting you haven't had much time to read in the 10 minutes since I posted it (assuming you weren't sitting on the page waiting for me to edit):

"The authors of In Harm's Way have done a masterful job of assembling a vast amount of information, and organizing and presenting it in a forceful and clear fashion. The sociopolitical analysis may be the most important part of the book. I hope it is widely distributed and read." Herbert L. Needleman MD Professor of Psychiatry and Pediatrics University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

"Balancing a passionate commitment to children's health with a careful presentation of scientific evidence, In Harm's Way is a wake-up call. It shines a light on the potential role of toxic chemicals in several increasingly common neurodevelopmental disorders, including ADHD and autism. It points out that current regulations offer little or no margin of safety. Those of us in the health professions, our patients, and policy makers need to pay close attention." Howard Frumkin MD DrPH, Chair Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Rollins School of Public Health Emory University Atlanta, Georgia

SashiRolls (talk) 03:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

No - in context, you are trying to use the paper as a way to "rebut" the criticism that she holds anti-science views. That's classic WP:SYNTH. Neutrality^talk 03:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

You are correct about that, I agree. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, so you agree that it is related to her political positions. Good. Now, the rules regarding "synth" are: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." Has my text done either of these things? I really don't think so. I have rebutted the criticism only by pointing out the lack of credentials of those criticizing. The section we are editing, as a reminder, is Political Positions > Science. The sources state that the reports take political positions concerning "current regulations [which] offer little or no margin of safety." SashiRolls (talk) 03:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Having these two sentences (which don't have anything to do with each other logically) right next to each other directly violates the restriction on "combining material from multiple sources to ... imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources," that conclusion being that any criticism of anti-science views is incorrect. Once again, this is classic WP:SYNTH. Neutrality^talk 03:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Nope: the logical inference -- if there is one -- is that scientists are the best judges of science. I have repeatedly asked for a reference from a scientist directly relating to JS's views on sciences. Tryptofish said he had a whole host of them (here). Yet we still have the same young political reporter, and the business/economics editor. A WP:Synth claim (logical inference) would be that there is a smear campaign afoot. That claim is directly made by Jill Stein in her interview at the Green Party convention and is not contained in this introductory section. That claim has also been made on this talk page by several editors, although the word has not always been used. Cf. Talk:WOW SashiRolls (talk) 04:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

You are referring to where I said that there are plenty of scientific sources that reflect the mainstream scientific position, not that scientists go around commenting about Stein, and you are trying to make it sound like I said that there are sources where scientists express political positions about Stein, which I did not say. However, there is absolutely noting wrong with journalists reporting that scientists say such-and-such. There is no reason for anyone to do scientific research about Stein's political positions, when the scientific research has already been done.

You also mischaracterize Stein et al's book as "peer reviewed" in the way that scholarly publications in scientific journals are peer reviewed. And the scientists you refer to as endorsing the book are quoted as blurbs by the publisher. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

You are wrong. You have twice deleted the word "peer reviewed". Why are you so adamant in refusing to admit that this publication was peer reviewed (both in 2000 and 2002)? SashiRolls (talk) 00:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

What you are saying is WP:ABF. I was going by what was cited in that section at the time that I said it. There was nothing to indicate that it was republished in a peer-reviewed journal in 2002, until I added the cite to that section. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I think we should rephrase the description. CNN did not criticize Stein, it said she had been criticized by her "mainstream opponents." That would be Clinton, who doesn's know if vaccines cause autism and Trump, who thinks climate change is a hoax. The other source is an op-ed by a member of the Clinton campaign who of all things is a PETA supporter. (Since most GMO is used for animal feed, it is hard to understand why he thinks government should subsidize it.) If we accurately describe the source of the criticism and Stein's reply, that should provide adequate neutrality. TFD (talk) 16:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

That's a very good idea. I agree. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Strange that your edit did nothing of the kind. SashiRolls (talk) 00:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

No, I made exactly that edit. You just are not paying attention. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Should the following two sentences -- one about the fundraising email, the other a quote from Chris Hedges -- be included or excluded from the section on Stein's 2016 presidential campaign?

There is a clear consensus to exclude both sentences. Cunard (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

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

---

Should the following two contested sentences -- one about a Stein fundraising email, the other a quote from Chris Hedges -- be included or excluded? (Discussion for each is separated). Neutrality^talk 23:38, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

As a courtesy, I am pinging the following logged-in users who have weighed in on recent prior discussions on this page: @Gouncbeatduke:, @SashiRolls:, @Snooganssnoogans:, @VictoriaGrayson:, @The Four Deuces:, @Tryptofish:, @Namiba:, @Masebrock:, @Clpo13:. Neutrality^talk 23:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Sentence 1: Fundraising email

The first sentence at issue is the following, cited to a piece in Tablet magazine:

In an August fundraising email, the Stein campaign cited a website poll (an unreliable measure of public sentiment) as indicative of a coming "big jump in Jill's numbers".

References

• Probably exclude. Although I would not be too upset if this stayed in — and this incident was a little strange — this doesn't seem like worthy of inclusion in a biography. Perhaps this would be better suited for Jill Stein presidential campaign, 2016. Neutrality^talk 23:38, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude. Not biographical, but well-suited to the campaign page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
• Neutral. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude. Sentence as written is a vehicle for POV. The article being republished by Truth Jihad is a strong sign that it should be considered suspect. [2]SashiRolls (talk) 00:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude. Her citation of this poll is not notable, the only source reporting it is an obscure opinion article. Masebrock (talk) 03:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude Seems like POV pushing. Iazyges (talk) 21:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude. A bunch of reasons. Failed verification, not neutral, not biographically noteworthy, and not noteworthy even in the Stein campaign article. Random missives from politicians' electoral campaigns that don't receive substantial news coverage are simply not encyclopedia material. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude. Summoned by bot. Seems trivial and POV. If there are more sources I might reconsider. Coretheapple (talk) 14:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Sentence 2: quote from Stein supporter Chris Hedges

The second sentence at issue is the following, cited to an interview in Democracy Now!:

Concerning the Left, internationally, Chris Hedges spoke of the long view in his debate with Robert Reich concerning the quadrennial election: "We have to remember that 10 years ago, Syriza, which controls the Greek government, was polling at exactly the same spot that the Green Party is polling now—about 4 percent. We’ve got to break out of this idea that we can create systematic change within a particular election cycle."

References

• Exclude. Not a close call. This overlong quote from Hedges (an endorser of Stein) falls into the category of "generic promotional punditry" that isn't helpful in a biographical article. This strained comparison to Greece hasn't been made by any other commentator of note. We already mention briefly that Hedges is a supporter of Stein (under "Endorsers"). I see no reason why we should shoehorn a long quote from him into this article. That would be akin to including a laudatory quote from, say, Barney Frank or David Brock on the Hillary Clinton biography about the brilliance of Clinton's campaign strategy or something. It just wouldn't belong. See also WP:QUOTEFARM. Neutrality^talk 23:38, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
• Neutral, leaning exclude. I don't feel strongly about this, because it seems to me to be a positive statement about Stein, or at least about her approach to politics, but it also seems more about the campaign than about the person, and it is a bit long. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude. For the reasons outlined by Neutrality. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
• Include the idea. This sets up the following Chomsky quote about election cycles, since they use exactly the same words. In order for Greens to be on the ballot locally in many states, they must run candidates for governor, president... and so the bit about "election cycles" is the most important (in my view). Concerning Syriza, Podemos, Corbyn, etc., just as the article mentions a rise in right-wing parties in Europe (or would if the argumentation concerning the Nazi quote weren't improperly truncated) it could also mention the rise of left-wing parties in Europe (Podemos, Syriza, Sinn Fein, les insoumises / FDG, Corbyn labor, ...) I hope this is a sign that there will be more open discussion in the months to come. Thank you for asking both questions, neutrality.SashiRolls (talk) 00:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude As Neutrality said, this is "generic promotional punditry." Masebrock (talk) 03:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude. This isn't about Jill Stein so it has no place in a biography about her. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude. Summoned by bot. Seems trivial and not sufficiently relevant to the subject matter. Coretheapple (talk) 14:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

---

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

Electoral campaign history

The section on Electoral campaign history is very misleading. The implication is that this is the history of her campaigns for positions that she got elected to. It ought ot be called something like Failed Electoral bids. Except I guess she got elected to tow council, of a very small town. That one could be in its own section.14:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.35.48 (talk)

WP:SYNTH on Assange

In the morning (10am) of the 23rd of August an op-ed was published in the Hill. Later in the day (5pm) a story on the Saudi leaks was published by AP. However, in wiki-voice, Snooganssnoogans writes

After an investigation by the Associated Press found that Wikileaks had exposed personal data of everyday Saudis, including health and crime records, Stein called Julian Assange a "hero" and wrote an op-ed praising Wikileaks. In the op-ed, she wrote, "On that note, one of the strangest developments this year has been seeing journalists attack WikiLeaks for doing what journalists are supposed to do: reveal the unvarnished truth to the public. WikiLeaks has done us an invaluable service by shining a light into the dark corners of power where corruption and wrongdoing fester."

References

The first part of the citation has been removed, though of course something can/should be said about the questionable tactics employed by Wikileaks concerning the redacting of private info. As it stood however the sentence was demonstrably false based on publication dates as minimal fact-checking would have shown.SashiRolls (talk) 14:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

You're correct to remove the first part of the first sentence. I assumed Pink News had gotten its dates correct without checking. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

On second glance, she tweeted praise for Assange and Wikileaks after the AP's revelations. So while it's incorrect to say that she wrote the op-ed after these revelations, the rest is correct. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

The article is standard smear and has been shown to be unreliable because they didn't do a basic fact check. The two tweets you added make no mention of Saudi Arabia, the second mentions neither Saudia Arabia nor Assange. What do you think, Neutrality? Still ardently opposing WP:SYNTH and editors using (actually restoring!) a source after admitting it was unreliable? Smells like vandalism, no? SashiRolls (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

No, it's a content dispute, not "vandalism." Must you continue to be sarcastic and condescending to all you meet?

I agree that the first sentence should be dropped since the source doesn't refer to Stein. The Stein quote is also unnecessary long. I would favor a straightforward summary, e.g.:

Stein has hailed WikiLeaks as "having done us an invaluable service by shining a light into the dark corners of power" and has praised the group's founder Julian Assange as a "hero." Assange has in turn praised Stein, and spoke (via video from the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where he has been granted asylum from sexual-assault allegations) at the 2016 Green Party convention at which Stein was nominated. (cites to Stein's op-ed, a David Cobb interview with Assange, a CNN article about Assange/Stein, and a UPI article about Assange/Stein).

I agree that Pink News about Wikileaks' privacy violations should be dropped. If there are additional news sources/information that comes to light (i.e., Stein is asked directly about privacy issue and responds), I would include that if it were a reputable source). Neutrality^talk 18:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

That's a fair compromise. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Neutrality. I do think that Assange's warning you cite above that the attacks against Jill Stein were going to go the roof should be included. Not sure on the other hand why the alleged sex crimes (for which he hasn't yet been tried (or possibly even charged, though I'm not sure about that, I'll check)) would be relevant to Jill Stein's BLP page (unless you cite the part where she addresses that question in her op-ed...) SashiRolls (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

References

I think it is unencyclopedic to have extensive quotes. We should just state the person's positions. Direct quotes are almost always subject to interpretation and their use questions whether the person stating them actually holds those positions or are just pretending to. We had the same discussion on the Green Party's platform on GMOs. It too was subject to interpretation. TFD (talk) 19:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Should the article discuss a crowd-funded YouTube documentary or include a quotation from Chris Hedges stating that "the Democratic Party is one of the engines for ... proto-fascism," or include similar content?

There is a clear consensus to exclude this material. Cunard (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

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

---

Should the article include the following sentence (or any similar content), referring to a YouTube video that describes itself as a "crowd-funded documentary on the rise of neo-fascism in Greece and Europe," and quoting from Chris Hedges stating that "the Democratic Party is one of the engines for ... proto-fascism" as follows (see diff/context? Neutrality^talk 16:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The same argument about liberalism leading to fascism has been advanced both by Aris Chatzistefanou in Fascism, Inc. and by Chris Hedges in his debate with Robert Reich: "[T]hese neoliberal policies, which the Democratic Party is one of the engines for, have created this right-wing [...] proto-fascism. You can go back and look at the Weimar, and it was very much the same."

References

Comments

• Exclude this sentence and all similar content. This is ridiculous, irrelevant, unencyclopedic, unreliable, undue weight, fringe content. The documentary exists on YouTube, was created as a "crowd-funded documentary on the rise of neo-fascism in Greece and Europe," and has little or nothing ato do with Jill Stein or her candidacy. The same is true of the Hedges quote. It is truly regrettable that SashiRolls — in the face of no support from other editors, and a substantial amount of opposition from other editors — has been willing to edit-war to restore this clearly unsuitable material. I really regret the necessity of moving to formal processes like RfCs at the insistence of SashiRolls due to his/her refusal to meaningfully engage or listen to other editors. Neutrality^talk 16:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Courtesy-pinging users: @Tryptofish:, @Snooganssnoogans:, @Masebrock:, @SashiRolls:, @Iazyges:, @Clpo13:, @The Four Deuces:. Neutrality^talk 17:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Also @VictoriaGrayson:, @Gouncbeatduke:. Neutrality^talk 18:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

@Neutrality: Hm, I wasn't aware edit warring was involved, what was the extent of this edit warring? Iazyges (talk) 22:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment The text supports Stein's comments, "The answer to neofascism is stopping neoliberalism. Putting another Clinton in the White House will fan the flames of this right-wing extremism. We have known that for a long time, ever since Nazi Germany." I do not think any addition should be made to her comments unless they are directly about what she said, and not just supporting a the same view. That applies to all her comments. TFD (talk) 17:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude - I explain my thinking in talk above. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
• Include The text supports Stein's comments and allows the uninitiated to explore an argument that Stein was only able to sketch in a few seconds and which had been further abridged until I paraphrased the beginning of the quote. Obviously a 1:20 documentary goes into a great deal more detail showing how industrialists (both German and American) profited from the Second World War. The point of an encyclopedia (especially one permitting hyperlinks) is to suggest paths for further learning, and not simply to highlight "Nazi Germany" in blue. Regarding the attacks and accusations, I understand what is behind them and so will ignore them. At least we've gotten some of the BS off of the page, a neutral point of view will likely not be possible with the people who have been occupying the thread 24/7 since late June. I thought that the purpose of Wikipedia was to provide links to information that people might not be aware of, but it seems that it is to influence elections through half-quotes (nb: there was no mention of the fact that JS is referring to the rise of fascism internationally until I restored the beginning of the citation, so as it originally existed on the page, the quote made little sense (except to those who happen to have studied history and who know about the links between the industrialists and the fascists) and is meant to make JS appear "fringe". It is indeed interesting that there is still nothing on the page about climate change in the section called "science". But, I suppose that only the Greens can be blamed for that, one can't expect those who are against Stein to provide a balanced view of the Green party platform. SashiRolls (talk) 18:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude Not appropriate on a biographical page. Masebrock (talk) 18:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
• Absolutely oppose inclusion: Completely coatracky and non-neutral. This is a biography of Jill Stein, not a debate over the validity of her views. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude - It's inappropriate to use sources in this manner. A self-published fringe documentary is not an appropriate BLP source at all. The content in question is not biographical, and is a clear example of WP:COATRACK.- MrX 23:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude Stein and Baraka agree on policy but phrase things differently. White people in America for example do not call black people "Uncle Tom." There is no point in contrasting Stein's speaking style with Baraka's unless it becomes an issue covered in mainstream media. TFD (talk) 19:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your input on the Stein/Baraka question TFD. I hope that your opinion will count despite being under a resolved RfC rather than the current one. I agree that this was a lose-lose question no matter how she answered, and that it's a question of "dialect" as Stein suggested. SashiRolls (talk) 20:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

---

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

GMOs

I want to make sure that editors of this page are aware that the page section about GMOs (just that section, not the entire page) is under Discretionary Sanctions. Here is an explanation of those sanctions:

Click "show" to see Discretionary Santions
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

--Tryptofish (talk) 17:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Fantastic. It would be great if the vaccines section could also be put under discretionary sanctions. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

To my knowledge, ArbCom has not done that for vaccines, although there are some more general DS in place for pseudoscience, which I think might be a stretch here. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Tryptofish This is way beyond my Wikipedia knowledge. You seem to know the rules; what's your take on the very recent edits to this article where a user is promoting pseudoscience on the dangers of Wi-Fi and vaccines, and deleting corrections from reliable sources? I'm hamstrung by the 3RR rule, so can't stop those edits without the threat of being sanctioned myself for edit-warring. This article is full of these kinds of nonsensical edits. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, there's no easy answer. It really comes down to WP:NPOV. Because this page is a WP:BLP, it is appropriate to express Jill Stein's views as she expresses them. But any subsequent material, written in Wikipedia's voice, should on the one hand not simply read like a point-counterpoint rebuttal, but on the other hand, it should indicate the science per the preponderance of mainstream sources rather than what is WP:FRINGE. Rulings from ArbCom are not really about content, so much as about conduct, so they won't give you much in the way of rules about what the page should or should not say. If there is a consistent pattern of POV-pushing, you can ask at WP:AN for administrators to keep an eye on the page (I'm not an administrator), and I know that administrators have, in general, been keeping watch on pages about the 2016 election. If you do that, it would be best to say that you are not looking for anyone to be blocked, because it is a content dispute, but that you would like admins to watch for uncooperative editing that is POV. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Stein clarified her position on the GMO moritorium, that it would apply to "new genetically modified organisms being introduced into our ecosystems...."[3] No scientists question that new GMOs should be tested for safety, but the main controversy is GMO labelling, which Obama has banned but Clinton supports, sort of, at least at some point.[4] TFD (talk) 22:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I added her clarification (though her platform still calls for a moratorium without specifying that it applies to new GMOs) per your source. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Tryptofish: Some clarification: It's not the party platform, but Stein's platform (candidate platforms are not the same as those of parties). I don't particularly mind removing the quotes but we generally keep them on politicians' pages to make it clear that it's the candidates' own wording (the CNN source that we cite uses the quotes in the same way, most news does when describing politicians' positions) and to clarify what the difference between the old and new positions are. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

This is not gotcha journalism. We should explain what she meant as reported in secondary sources, rather than pounce on words that could be misinterpreted. I edited the para. TFD (talk) 00:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Are you joking? The page should ignore what her official platform states? The page should only state what you interpret her meaning and "true position" to be? When candidates are vague and/or the stated positions conflict, we should mention both of the stated positions, not what some random editor interprets her truest position to be. That's at least the standards applied to Trump (despite the vociferous objections of some users to interpret his truest position like you do with Stein), Kaine, Clinton and Pence. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

See "No original research": "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." It is not my interpretation but what appears in the CNN story. TFD (talk) 00:43, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

My apologies about my error about the platform, but I see that it has been fixed. I support the changes TFD made, because it remains clear what her position is. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:50, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

There's one sentence on GMOs in her platform and the section quoted it. There's zero room for misinterpretation and misuse. The Washington Post even cites her platform position on GMOs here, making no mention of a moratorium on "new" GMOs (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/07/29/jill-stein-on-vaccines-people-have-real-questions/). The CNN source also says that she wanted a moratorium (new GMOs not mentioned) and then added that Stein later clarified that it applied to new GMOs, which is completely consistent with how the section used to look. So you're the one picking partial bits from the CNN source, misleading readers. If Stein, like Trump, is making up policy as she goes alongr, the page should reflect that, not have editors pick the stated positions of hers that they like the most and exclude those they don't. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

While you are saying that there is "zero room for misinterpretation," the CNN article says that the Green Party would not have a moritorium on existing GMOs. If you feel that Clinton is the best candidate, then you should accept that an article and fair representation of each candidate will serve her better than her supporters misrepresenting her opponents. TFD (talk) 01:49, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I have not read the CNN source, but if it says that the Green Party says A, Jill Stein's platform says B, and Stein later clarified it to C, and the source also presents A, B, and C as being different from each other, then it would be appropriate to cite it as saying so. If it does not present A, B, and C as related in that way, then we should leave the section as it is. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:56, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

CNN refers to it as a clarification A of her proposal B. I don't see why the section can't say something along these lines: "Stein's official platform calls for "a moratorium on GMOs and pesticides until they are proven safe" (cite: her platform + the Washington Post story that mentions this part of her platform). She later clarified that her proposal would entail a moratorium on "new" GMOs and that she would "phase out" GMO foods currently being grown (cite the CNN source)". On the pages of other politicians, we usually run through candidates' history of statements on an issue if they are vague and contradictory. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:16, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

The CNN source says (i) she "has called for a moratorium" on GMOs (without specifying "new" GMOs) + (ii) "Stein clarified her GMO moratorium proposal, telling CNN Wednesday" that a moratorium should be on "new" GMOs. The first part is referring to her platform, the second is CNN asking her about the moratorium and Stein proceeds to present a moratorium on "new" GMOs. So Stein's platform presents one policy position and Stein later presents a seemingly different position when questioned by CNN. Note that never does she specify that existing GMOs would be allowed. This kind of nuance is important: there is a difference between wanting to ban existing GMOs and ban new GMOs. If you don't want to use her platform directly, you can source the WaPo article that I linked to which cites her platform (presuming that you're actually interested in presenting her position on the issue). The last sentence of yours is nonsensical and not substantive. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I am not arguing that your interpretation is incorrect, merely that policy does not allow your version because it relies on your interpretation. I have posted the issue to NORN. If you respond there, please bear in mind that the issue is not whether you think there is a contradiction between the platform and what Stein said, but whether stating that is consistent with OR policy. TFD (talk) 03:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Could you add this as a third possible version: "Stein's official platform calls for "a moratorium on GMOs and pesticides until they are proven safe" (cite: her platform + the Washington Post story that mentions this part of her platform). She later clarified that her proposal would entail a moratorium on "new" GMOs and that she would "phase out" GMO foods currently being grown (cite the CNN source)"? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:23, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Why not just present her position? "The witness said it was 100 degrees that day. When questioned, he clarified that it was 100 degrees Fahrenheit." Would it not be more straightforward to just say what he meant? The only reason one would mention the clarification is to imply that the witness meant it was 100 Celsius. If you want to imply that Stein has changed her position or is now misleading the public, that is original research. TFD (talk) 09:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, what is on the page now is sufficient. I'm not hearing that the sources are arguing that it was some sort of change of position, in the sources' opinion. The only change I would like to see is to remove the WP:SCAREQUOTES around "phase out", because "phase out" is not a sufficiently unusual phrase that it would need to be placed as a direct quote; the effect of the punctuation is to imply that phasing out is somehow a questionable goal. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:01, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans|Snooganssnoogans do you believe that Path(e)os > Atheist > Danthology is a reliable (or notable) source?

Notice

I just made this revert: [5]. I want to make it very clear to editors that the content that I reverted violates the Discretionary Sanctions linked above, because it alters the language that was established in the community RfC about GMOs. Editors must not make up alternative language, and doing so will result in Arbitration Enforcement. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

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

---

Interesting. I notice that in the RfC on GMO there is a list of pages to which it applies, not including any BLP and certainly not this one.

"The following pages are affected by this RfC":

List of pages

Genetically modified food controversies (lead and health section) Genetically modified crops (lead and controversy section) Genetically modified food (lead and health and safety section) Genetically modified organism (controversy section) Genetically modified canola (controversy section) Genetically modified maize (controversy section) Genetically modified soybean (controversy section) March Against Monsanto (background section) Regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms (lead) Biotechnology (agriculture section) Denialism (genetically modified foods section)

Even given that fact, I do not believe that that my edit (which actually includes information contained on the page Regulation of genetically modified organisms in the European Union) violates the adopted proposition 1 on the RfC page cited above. The edit in question was simply to state (with appropriate references [6] that several European countries have moved to ban GMO (an uncontroversial statement that is included in proposition 1 of the RfC (though the specific countries are not listed). If any experts on the question would be willing to take the time to weigh in on Tryptofish's interpretation, I would very much appreciate it, as I'm very curious about the use that is being made of the threat of Discretionary Sanctions to discourage anyone who wishes to provide context on Jill Stein's BLP page. Pinging some administrators who have signed the RfC on GMOs in an effort to verify whether Tryptofish's interpretation is correct: @KrakatoaKatie:, @Nakon:, @Deor:. I thank you very much for your time and am really sorry that it has been necessary to trouble you with this question, which seems fairly straightforward based on the list above and the fact that my edit did not violate "proposition 1" as far as I can see. But I did want to take the threat seriously as I have no wish to damage Wikipedia by providing balance on a BLP page. SashiRolls (talk) 22:17, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I want to make note of three things. First, although I put this general information here on the article talk page, I also put the appropriate template notice at SashiRolls' talk page. Second, the closing statement of the RfC includes: and on other articles on genetically modified food safety, broadly construed which makes it apply to the GMO section of this page. Third, this was not a threat, nor is it an effort to prevent context. In addition, since the three closers were pinged, I feel that I ought to also notify The Wordsmith, Coffee, and Laser brain, as the supervising administrators. I did not anticipate that SashiRolls would respond this way here, and I am sorry to be involving all of you at an article talk page, instead of at SashiRolls' talk or at AE. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

In the meantime, if to satisfy the requirement you wish to add proposition 1 in its entirety I would have no problem with that, of course. What bothers me is the selectiveness of the citation of the proposition (i.e. no mention of the the fact that some countries have opted out of GMOs entirely) SashiRolls (talk) 23:12, 27 August 2016 (UTC).

Editors discussed adding it in its entirety above. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:12, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Where? I just reread the section and still don't see it, but I'm sure that I could be mistaken given the scattering of comments on this issue. SashiRolls (talk) 11:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Guys, this is an AE issue. We simply determined consensus and closed the RFC. We're not involved in enforcement. Katie^talk 01:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• I second this. The RFC is over, I'm not the GMO dad and neither are the other admins involved in the RFC. If you think the consensus was broken, work it out amongst yourselves. If it can't be resolved to everyone's satisfaction, we have an entire noticeboard specifically dedicated to handling alleged violations. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 03:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your input! SashiRolls (talk) 11:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both, and as I said, I saw no reason to even have this discussion or to involve you admins in it. It's really simple: the notice above is informational, not a threat, and not a reason for anyone who disagrees with the past decision to grandstand over it. If editors work this out here, no problems. If not, then we will go to WP:AE. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

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

GMO content discussion, continued

This is a page about Jill Stein. It is not a page about the entire GMO controversy. There is no reasonable rationale for a lengthy passage, with very lengthy footnotes, to review the entire topic here. Thus, there is no need to reproduce the RfC language here. There is already a "see also" hatnote at the top of the section, directing to Genetically modified food controversies, where all the details can be found. And any attempt to paraphrase the RfC language in other words is impermissible. The sources criticizing Stein are worded in terms of the science about GMOs, not about governmental regulation. Thus, it is SYNTH to use information about countries that restrict GMOs to refute criticisms of Stein's statements about science. An editor asked for scientific sources in addition to the sources from the Washington Post and Slate, and these sources were provided. So you cannot have it both ways, by moving those cites elsewhere and then complaining that the Washington Post and Slate sources are not sufficient. Does anyone here other than SashiRolls think that those two sources, accompanied by the science sources, are inadequate? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Please stop removing the better source needed tag! the three subsequent refs have nothing whatsoever to do with Jill Stein, their addition as buttressing the argument of the op-eds is WP:SYNTH). The titles of the op-eds should be enough to convince anyone that they are not NPOV. I added the whole proposition, which you deleted in your second revert in a 24-hour period in this section (28 AUG 16:52 (removing proposition 1), 27 AUG 20:51 (removing reference to example of other countries... contained in proposition 1). I think this should be included in any report you chose to make...— Preceding unsigned comment added by SashiRolls (talk • contribs) 17:49, August 28, 2016 (UTC)

I have started a separate section about the op-ed sources below. Sources may have a POV if they are cited for their opinions; WP:NPOV applies to how we present those sources. I just got through saying that there will be no need for AE if editors do not violate the DS, so you need not complain about a supposed "report [I] choose to make". The revert I made yesterday was an accepted exception, because it removed a violation of the DS ruling, so I am still in compliance with 1RR. If you would just dial back your assumptions of bad faith about me and everyone else editing here, you will find that we really are not adversaries. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Delete the "On Third Party Chances" Section

The Third party chances section has nothing to do with Stein and seems to be pretty biased. it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torinvlietstra (talk • contribs) 15:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

agreed. SashiRolls (talk) 01:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

It was SashiRolls's unwise decision to create a subsection for the content. It used to be part of the 2016 race section where it made sense and was relevant to the 2016 race. It should be place there again. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, that section does not belong in this article, per WP:COATRACK.--JayJasper (talk) 15:40, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Jay Jasper and Torinvlietstra seem to me to think that the section AND the content of the section do not belong in the article.

Clarify how it fits WP:COATRACK. It seems to fit perfectly with the exceptions to WP:COATRACK: "An article about an astronaut might mostly focus on his moon landing. A moon trip that took only a tiny fraction of the astronaut's life takes up most of the article. But that does not make it a coatrack article. The event was a significant moment in the subject's life, and his main claim to notability. A reader is not misled by the focus on the moon trip... Material that is supported by a reliable, published source whose topic is directly related to the topic of the article, is not using the article as a coatrack." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:44, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Key phrase of the last sentence you quoted (emphasis mine): "published source whose topic is directly related to the topic of the article ". As previously noted, the sources do not directly address Stein per se as a topic. Thus, WP:COATRACK applies, per my reading of it. Or perhaps WP:SYNTH is more appropros. Bottom line: the entire section was about an electoral analysis, not about about Jill Stein, the actual subject of the article.--JayJasper (talk) 16:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm unsure which articles you're referring to. Maybe 30-60 minutes ago, I deleted the Chomsky article that SashiRolls added because it failed to refer to Stein or the Green Party (was that the article that you were concerned about). I also moved the rest of the section up where it now is in better context. All the articles mention Stein or the Green Party by name, except Sanders who is clearly alluding to the Green Party. Given that outreach to Sanders supporters and even to Sanders himself (offering him the ticket) has by all accounts been a major part of Stein's campaign, it's hard to argue that it's irrelevant to the 2016 race section to mention Sanders' rationale for not supporting Stein. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I must admit that this edit had escaped my attention when I commented previously. Thank you, I believe your revisions have sufficiently resolved the issue.--JayJasper (talk) 16:37, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Great to hear. Sorry about that, I should have clarified that I had just tinkered with the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

agreed, thanks to all involved.SashiRolls (talk) 19:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Consensus in this section would seem to be that the section AND its content do not belong on Jill Stein's page. Am I wrong?JayJasper, Torinvlietstra, and myself. Snoog tricked me with his description. Did he trick you too? SashiRolls (talk) 00:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Here's how Snooganssnoogans described his change on the talk page: "removed the 'on third party chances' section, put the content in context. The Chomsky text does not mention Stein and appears to be on some random individual's blog, so I don't see how it's notable enough for inclusion.)" which led us all to believe that the content had disappeared (as it looked like it had in the diff linked to above). But no, it just landed back in the previous paragraph. Consensus in the last two section was ignored. again. I do appreciate Snooganssnoogans using the SAME argument I used against keeping the Bernie Sanders quote in the first place -- Jill Stein is nowhere mentioned in the quote. Imitation is the most sincere from of flattery after all.  :) When the other quotes goes, Chomsky goes. I don't see what you've got against Chomsky... could you explain why he wouldn't be notable on a page about a Left politician? SashiRolls (talk) 00:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Again, your reading comprehension is awful. The user above you objected to your preferred version (the creation of the subsection, the contextfree and confusing placement of text, and the ridiculous Chomsky mention), but expressed approval of my re-organization of the material. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:39, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I beg to differ. "Bottom line: the entire section was about an electoral analysis, not about about Jill Stein, the actual subject of the article." SashiRolls (talk) 00:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Are you thick or just fundamentally dishonest? One comment down, the users says that my "revisions have sufficiently resolved the issue". I mean, wtf? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Thick-skinned? Apparently. ^^ SashiRolls (talk) 02:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

not so thick-skinned I guess. I feel the need, in the end, to strike out your personal attack. SashiRolls (talk) 13:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Incidentally, the idea for regrouping the references was the result of the talk page sections "Wow" and "Doesn't seem neutral" and takes account of the (in my view correct) point of view that much of this page should be on the 2016 presidential campaign page (expressed by several people above). Failing further comment to the contrary, the section seems to me ready for deletion, as there are about 6-8 who seem to feel differently than you do Snooganssnoogans. SashiRolls (talk) 01:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Undue weight accorded to journalists in this article?

I did a comparison of Clinton, Trump, Johnson and Stein's BLP pages based on the frequency of the search terms "when asked" and "answered". The result for the larger pages was: HRC (1, 0), Trump (3, 0) and for the smaller pages it was Johnson (0, 0), Stein (7, 4). I wonder if this doesn't show more weight being given to those questioning Stein than to Stein's policy statements? Alternatively, it may simply show the more significant role played by one editor (who, unless I'm mistaken, introduced all of these occurrences of when asked & answered) on this page. SashiRolls (talk) 12:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The main articles of both candidates are ram-packed with political positions, which has necessitated a considerable trimming. For instance, a back-and-forth between Trump and a journalist will after the trimming just be a description of Trump's positions as supported by a large number of reliable sources. The political positions articles for the candidates do more detailed back-and-forths between the candidates and journalists. There is less of it on Clinton's page because she has extensive policy platforms and a long history of taking positions on a large number of issues, so there is less need to cite interviews for her position on a given topic. That's not the case with Trump and Stein who do not have extensive and comprehensive platforms on their websites and a long history of taking positions and being covered in large reliable sources.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Hillary_Clinton: "Asked" occurs 15 times, "answered" 7 times.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Donald_Trump: "Asked" occurs 41 times, "answered" 11 times, "response" 8 times. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Could I suggest then that you call for a page split to mirror this practice for Clinton/Trump of having their political positions separated from their BLP page? SashiRolls (talk) 14:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

There is no need for a separate positions article for Stein, as the positions section in her main article (this article) is relatively small. Tim Kaine and Mike Pence, for instance, have longer positions sections in their main articles without having separate positions articles. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Eric Draitser and MintPress News - unreliability of source

I have removed commentary attributed to Eric Draitser, writing in "Mint Press News." This website is not a reliable or well-regarded source of commentary, not is Draitser a noteworthy commentator.

"Mint Press News" is known for advancing "crazy conspiracy theories" (see here, from Foreign Policy magazine) and was referred to by the NY Times as an "an obscure Internet news service" that misattributed an article to a reporter and "refused 'repeated demands' to remove her byline."

In sum, this is very low-quality commentary that we just shouldn't use per WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT. Neutrality^talk 01:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's fair. I was trying very hard to accommodate it after the other editor added it, but it really amounted to special pleading in Wikipedia's voice. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

MintPress News is not a reliable source. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Hmm... the Draitser article was also picked up by RT, which is sufficiently notable and non-fringe to be mentioned in the article in wiki-voice... SashiRolls (talk) 01:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

No, RT is not a reliable source; it's Russian propaganda. The Columbia Journalism Review identifies it as "The Kremlin's propaganda outlet" (see here); Politico as "Putin's propaganda network" (here); and the New York Times identifies it as part of a propaganda/disinformation network (here). Neutrality^talk 16:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

---

I have taken the liberty of adding the title of, and a reference to, the article you do not wish to appear in the wikipedia article, responding to CNN's biased questioning, which was mirrored by this Post article (i.e. no-one asks "why" he called Obama a name...) SashiRolls (talk) 06:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

References

The MintPress piece is about a CNN interview with Chris Cuomo, whereas this page sources the information to the interview at the Washington Post. Even if one were to accept Draitser as refuting Cuomo, it would be WP:SYNTH to say that he also refuted the Post. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

SashiRolls deletes Stein's response to NATO Baltic question, changes Brexit text (for the 3rd or 4th time AFTER having had his/her RFC rejected). Please revert.

SashiRolls deleted Stein's answer to the question of what she believed NATO's role to be in protecting the Baltic states from Russian aggression. She answered, "At this point, I’m not prepared to speak to that in detail". To remove that from the page of a presidential candidate is malpractice.

On August 13 2016, SashiRolls proposed a re-wording of the Brexit section that was overwhelmingly opposed. Since having had his/her RFC from 13 August 2016 rejected, SashiRolls has repeatedly changed the text in the Brexit section in ways that were rejected in the RfC. It's incredibly tiring to have to deal with this again and again. Because SashiRolls does so many ridiculous edits, I'm of course unable to revert any more due to the 3RR rule. Please fix. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

personal attack stricken. SashiRolls (talk) 14:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

The direct citation is as follows:

The vote in Britain to exit the European Union (EU) is a victory for those who believe in the right of self-determination and who reject the pro-corporate, austerity policies of the political elites in EU. The vote says no to the EU’s vision of a world run by and for big business. It is also a rejection of the European political elite and their contempt for ordinary people

The current wiki-text is not editorializing, whereas the previous text was (cf. diff) SashiRolls (talk) 14:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

The previous text was based on a RS description of her official statement. I'm not going to rehash this argument with you on a weekly basis, especially since you're not even responding substantively to previous points that were raised. Your RfC was rejected, give it up. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Concerning the Baltic, the editorializing embellishments were removed and the heart of the argument was added. The statement that JS was not planning to discuss the issue at great length is only central if we are seeking to discredit JS, which is generally not the point of a BLP page. Cf. your original framing of her citation as mentioned above, but reproduced here for clarity:

"At this point, I’m not prepared to speak to that in detail, but I will say that coming out of the fall of the Berlin Wall and the expansion of NATO and the unification of Germany that we made a very clear commitment that NATO would not move one inch to the East, yet we certainly have. I would only note that there’s provocation going on here on both sides and that it’s very important for us to have a diplomatic approach to this.

In my book, this is not NPOV to take the introductory and concluding bits without the argument... SashiRolls (talk) 14:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

If you want to include the quote in full, fine. I snipped it because it was redundant. If you feel it's crucial, go ahead and add it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Pinging other users: @Tryptofish:, @Snooganssnoogans:, @Masebrock:, @MrX:, @Iazyges:, @Clpo13:, @The Four Deuces:, @DrFleischman:, @VictoriaGrayson:, @Gouncbeatduke:, @The Four Deuces:, @Clpo13:. It's impossible to edit this page when Sashirolls keeps sabotaging it with disingenuous edits that go against reason and rules. I'm constantly hamstrung by the 3RR rule while SashiRolls repeatedly reverts, goes against consensus and violates discretionary sanctions. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I would rather not be invited to an edit war. Editors here are subject to discretionary sanctions, so I would urge everyone to discuss edits and reach some level of consensus for any new material or major changes to existing material.- MrX 12:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

What MrX said. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Ehrenfreund and Weissmann

This continues from #GMO content discussion, continued, above, but I guess it's worth opening a new section, given the extreme tl;dr of this talk page, unfortunately. The Pesticides and GMOs section of the page includes the sentence:

Max Ehrenfreund in the Washington Post and Jordan Weissmann in Slate have written that Stein's position on GMOs contradicts extensive scientific study.

References

In my opinion, the "better source needed" tag is unjustified. The sources are entirely sufficient to support the material. There is a "see also" at the top of the section that points to Genetically modified food controversies, where one can find sources from scientists. It is unreasonable to argue that journalists cannot report what is known from published science, or to argue that we must have sources from scientists who talk about Stein by name. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

There's absolutely no reason for the "better sources needed" tag. Wasn't this resolved or should've been resolved in the discretionary sanctions section above? Can SashiRolls repeatedly reinsert this when he's the only one favoring this and when the section is under discretionary sanctions? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. The simplest thing at this point is to establish a consensus here, that the sources are sufficient. (If I had a nickel for everything that "should have been resolved" in the GMO disputes, I'd be a very wealthy fish. ) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

The op-eds are clearly insufficient to establish such a strong claim. As one of the two points out, Obama, has recently signed a bill requiring GMO labeling into law. I don't understand why you would object to noting that several European countries have laws refusing GMOs on their national territory.SashiRolls (talk) 18:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

It is in no way a strong claim to say that there has been extensive scientific study indicating that GM foods are no more dangerous than conventional foods. If Ehrenfreund and Weissmann were actually asserting something extraordinary, then my position would be very different. But they aren't, and the GMO RfC determined that saying that GM foods are no more dangerous is a well-established thing to say. It's no different than quoting a journalist who said that someone who questioned evolution or questioned climate change was going against extensive scientific research. We would not insist that only a scientist could say it.

Labeling, like other forms of government regulation, is not the same thing as the science about GM food safety. That might sound like a picky distinction, but Wikipedia has spent close to two years arguing about it and finally arriving at a consensus that the science and the regulation are not the same thing. If Ehrenfreund and Weissmann had said that Stein was wrong because the regulations she favors are contrary to regulatory practice, then it would be fine to rebut them by citing all the jurisdictions that in fact do make such regulations. But Ehrenfreund and Weissmann chose instead to argue that Stein's positions go against the science, so it is SYNTH to say that, because various governments restrict GMOs, Ehrenfreund and Weissmann were wrong about the science. (Also, a fair discussion about GMO regulation would have to include governments that allow GMOs, as well as those that restrict them. It's misleading to only list the ones that restrict them.)

Let me offer an alternative suggestion. How about adding an op-ed that supports Stein's position on GMOs? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:56, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Both Ehrenfreund and Weissman were referring to Stein's proposed moratorium on GMOs. However, Stein's position is about new GMOs and of course there is scientific consensus that new GMOs must be tested. Here we see the difference between opinion pieces, whcih are not reliable sources for facts and reporting. A reporter would contact the Stein campaign for clarification of her position and report what they said or at least say no reply was forthcoming. Also, neither of these writers are scientists. Ehrenfreund has a degree in English while Weissman has a degree in journalism. The EU report did not say GMOs were no more dangerous than conventionally bred strains. That's not how scientists talk and there are other review studies that are less certain. "Identifying reliable sources (medicine)" cautions against using non-expert sources for medical claims. TFD (talk) 19:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Stein also supports phasing out existing GMOs, so that's not quite accurate. Op-ed writers are not reliable sources for conducting or interpreting scientific research, but they can be perfectly reliable in summarizing what scientists have announced. And in this case, it's something completely well-established, so all they are summarizing is in the same league as saying that scientists agree that there is climate change. And we have a community consensus about what Wikipedia must say about safety and scientific consensus on GMOs. Also, this isn't strictly a medical claim, and if you want to be strict about it, then we have to remove pretty much all of Stein's positions about scientific issues. She's a physician, not a research scientist. But if we can say that Stein's opinion about a scientific issue is A, then we can say that someone else's opinion about that scientific issue is B.

Anyway – I just added two more opinion sources to that section, that agree with Stein about GMOs and pesticides. One of them is even from Weissman! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate you adding the article in which Weissmann retracts the paragraphs and paragraphs he wrote about pesticides. This shows that his one-line assertion concerning GMOs is not to be trusted either. The other source you added is obviously not a RS for science claims either. For someone who has participated in these debates on GMO and who is presumably familiar with the arguments, I'm really surprised that these are the best references you can find for a collective project to improve this page by providing balance. SashiRolls (talk) 22:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

You are welcome. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I see you deleted his retraction. One might wonder why... Content to restore another day:

Weissmann has since retracted one part all of his criticism on pesticides, but not his criticisms unsourced sentence about GMOs.

References

SashiRolls (talk) 23:56, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Seriously, what's the point of discretionary sanctions when SashiRolls can repeatedly delete and change the text for ridiculous reasons? The editor just deleted the WaPo source under the BS reason that it did not find that Stein's claims were contradicted by extensive study (it cited an EU report reviewing dozens of studies and AAAS). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

SashiRolls now reverted the content again for the second time in less than an hour. He cited 'no reason provided' even though I provide the reason both here in the talk and in the edit summary. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

User: Bishonen, isn't this a violation of the discretionary sanctions that the GMOs section[7] is currently under? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the mind boggles, although I'm confident that we will work this out in time. For now, I want to point out a serious problem with a part of SashiRolls' language in his edit. He he wrote of Weissmann: "and subsequently retracted his most detailed criticism on her scientific views". That is a misrepresentation of the source, as anyone reading the source can clearly see. What Weissmann actually says is that he stands by almost all of what he previously said, but is retracting one specific point ("one mean thing" in his title): that Stein was incorrect in saying that there was evidence that neorcortinoid insecticides might play a role in honeybee deaths, when in fact there is some evidence supporting that possibility. Those insecticides are not the pesticides that were developed for use on GMO crops, and his retraction has nothing to do with GMOs, and he says that he stands by what he said about GMOs. And it was only one part of his criticisms about pesticides, as well. So it was just one part (was it "most detailed"? did Weissmann say that? no) of the part of his piece dealing with pesticides. Those are the facts. (In my long-reverted edit, I wrote that he agreed with Stein about this point, and that was accurate.) But the current language misrepresents the source as being a retraction of the GMO criticism, and misrepresents the source as being an extensive retraction. And what's more, particularly with the removal of the Washington Post source, it makes the passage become pretty much an attack about how supposedly bad Weissmann is. And Weissmann is a living person, so that is also a violation of WP:BLP. As I said, the mind boggles. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Tryptofish, since we do not know why Stein wants to phase out GMO, it is original research to say that it is for safety reasons. As you are well aware, there are many reasons for opposition to GMOs. Also, MEDRS does not say that it's okay to use op-eds for health claims. And while it could prove a distraction in this article, review studies in academic sources have concluded that there is no consensus on the safety of GMO products currently sold. Ironically the sources making the connection to climate change denial are funded by the same people who fund climate denial websites. TFD (talk) 13:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

TFD, if you look at the source (from CNN) that is cited for the sentence about Stein and GMOs, it contains a direct quote from Stein in which she talks about her reasons, and she say explicitly that her concerns are about food safety. Following a question about "health concerns about GMOs", she said: "We should have a moratorium until they are proven safe, and they have not been proven safe in the way that they are used." I think that makes it clear that Stein, in her own words, bases her call for a moratorium on health safety. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I hadn't read this yet and will admit I hadn't thought about BLP issues that much concerning Weissmann, given the attacking tone of both his original article and his retraction, I would've thought him reasonably pachydermy himself. But yes, I did go slightly too far, he does indeed maintain the vast majority of his positions from the previous piece. A friend of a friend being a (lowly) journalist at Slate, I once fired off an angry letter to him for writing a hackjob on a politician, asking him about quotas. His response did not reassure me. Anyway... both you Tryptofish and you TFD may well find this squib at Food and Chemical Toxicology' interesting. Granted I found it via Reporterre (in English, promise), and granted it could be sour grapes, but peer review really does seem to depend on who your peers are (or in this case become)... SashiRolls (talk) 21:24, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Tryptofish, she also says that the moritorium applies only to "new genetically modified organisms." So again no reason is provided why existing GMOs would be phased out. Policy states, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." Suppose tests prove to her satisfaction that GMOs are safe? Do you think that she would end the phase out, which she has not promised to do? She is also opposed to the use of pesticides, subsidies to factory farming and the factory farming process itself.[8] The elimination of any one of which would stop currently produced GMOs since they are a form of factory farming, use pesticides and are not viable without substantial government subsidies. But instead of analyzing Stein's views why not just use secondary sources that do that already? TFD (talk) 23:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

TFD, according to what it currently says on the page, she wants to phase out existing GM foods. As for secondary sources, every time I try to add a secondary source from independent journalists commenting on the issue, an edit battleground ensues. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

SashiRolls, both Tryptofish and I are aware of it through discussions on GMO pages. All review studies published in peer-reviewed literature say that there is no scientific consensus that current GMO products are safe and there is consensus that new GMOs cannot be assumed safe until tested. (There is naturally occurring vegetation that is toxic, for example poison mushrooms, and theoretically it is possible to genetically insert the toxin producing traits into currently edible mushrooms. Granted that is unlikely to happen, but the remote possibility would necessitate testing.) There are also prominent activist scientists, such as David Suzuki who have written about the potential dangers of GMO food consumption, although their main objections relate to environment and public policy. TFD (talk) 23:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm certainly familiar with all those discussions, and your wording where you referred to "all review studies" is contradicted by Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms. What it says at that RfC is settled on Wikipedia, and is not open for reinterpretation here, and any effort to make the page say otherwise will lead to a visit to WP:AE. So, bottom line, the GMO section of this page must be consistent with the fact that the scientific consensus is that existing GMs are no less safe than conventional crops. Full stop. And yet, as the page stands now, it sounds like the only person in the whole wide solar system who questions Stein's position is someone who had to retract what he said. And that is a serious violation of policy. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

It would be well for Tryptofish to note that he is the one who deleted the verbatim transcript of proposition 1 from the RfC on GMO. (diff here) Just sayin'. SashiRolls (talk) 17:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Which I have explained multiple times in this talk was because it is silly to have a lengthy passage with even lengthier footnotes in such a short section of this page. But it's not hard to simply not contradict it. Just sayin'. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

First there are no sources that Stein says that currently manufactured GMO foods are unsafe. That is synthesis based on your general impression and not allowed by policy. You know that she supports GMO labelling and thinks that new GMOs should be tested. We do not know why she supports labelling and there is scientific consensus for testing GMO products before they are sold. Hillary Clinton supports both those positions, yet for some reason have chosen to alert the public about Stein's positions, not Clinton's.

I was not aware of the latest of the countless RfCs on GMOs. But to be clear, I did not say "all review studies" say that there is no scientific consensus but "all review studies published in peer-reviewed literature." And no, RfCs are not binding across all wikipedia articles, they are only relevant to the articles involved when they are written. In any case, the recent RfC was not closed with a conclusion. The latest review study published in peer-reviewed literature was Domingo & Bordonaba 2011,[9] and similar studies were written by Domingo in 2000 and 2006. Their conclusion was that there was insufficient testing. The fact that you disagree with their conclusions is irrelevant, you need to find a review study in peer-reviewed literature that supports your position. You are taking the same position as global warming deniers - ignoring the peer-reviewed literature and using sources published outside it to present a different view of the scientific consensus.

TFD (talk) 18:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I've already quoted to you from the CNN source where Stein talks about the safety of current GMOs. The page does not say that they are "safe" or "unsafe". It quotes secondary sources who criticize what Stein says, and attributes those criticisms to the sources. It just happens that the criticizing sources agree with the scientific literature. As for Domingo, there have been multiple authoritative reviews since 2011, and even Domingo published a new review this year in which he changed his position. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Implications of this discussion for the Vaccines section

I'm seeing rampant logical errors in the discussion in this section, and it has gotten me thinking about how the assertions made here would apply to the page section about Vaccines. That section contains the following sentences:

• In an interview with the Washington Post, Stein stated that "vaccines have been absolutely critical in ridding us of the scourge of many diseases," and said that "[t]here were concerns among physicians about what the vaccination schedule meant, the toxic substances like mercury which used to be rampant in vaccines. There were real questions that needed to be addressed. I think some of them at least have been addressed. I don’t know if all of them have been addressed."
• In response to a Twitter question about whether vaccines cause autism, Stein first answered, "there is no evidence that autism is caused by vaccines," then revised her tweet to "I'm not aware of evidence linking autism with vaccines."
• In a later interview, Stein answered "no" to the question "do you think vaccines cause autism?"

Clearly, each of these passages deals with medical/health related content (actually in a more directly medical way than the GMO content does). And in every case, the content is sourced to Stein's own statements.

I'm thinking about proposing that we put "better source needed" tags after each of these passages, based on the reasons given for such tags above. Here's why.

Sourcing for health claims of this nature is governed by WP:MEDRS. MEDRS requires secondary sources (essentially, review articles by authorities independent of the primary study) from scientific or medical journals for such material, and it is common practice to delete such material when sourced only to primary sources. But Stein is a primary source! And the sources are either news stories or things like Twitter posts! If editors above are to be believed, we cannot source Stein's opinions about medical/health issues that way, because better sources are needed. We really need some peer-reviewed scientific review articles, written by scientists independent of Stein, in which they describe her claims about vaccines and health.

Right? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd rather see someone rework the section for concision actually. It remains a bit bloated. ^^

In other news, did anybody see that Stein tweeted about Harambe a few days ago? I think we may have to have a Harambe section, including her tweet [10] about how the media are so much less gaga about her visit to Baltimore than her tweet [11] about the poor gorilla. Pinging @Snooganssnoogans: as a courtesy, in case s/he'd like to get the ball rolling. If not, I'll think about how best to approach it with neutrality. SashiRolls (talk) 21:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

In other news? Let's talk about this news. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

We do not need MEDRS sources for what someone said, we only need them if we are (in Wikipedia's voice) making factual statements about their comments, in which case we need sources that have evaluated those comments. The reason for that guideline is that we do not want anyone to rely on what they read here to take actions that could damage their health, either by consuming unsafe products because we have told them they are safe or taking cures we claim are effective which could deter them from seeking proper medical attention. Explaining someone's views is not the same as endorsing those views. The manner of presentation of Stein's views in this article makes her appear equivocal on whether vaccines cause autism, which is repeating an insinuation by Clinton supporters without explicitly saying so. While that may be good politics, it is certainly not good writing. TFD (talk) 23:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

You need a MEDRS source for Medical claims, not for statements of a person's opinion. 'Jill Stein does not think vaccines cause autism' is not a medical claim, only a statement of the person's personal view and perfectly fine to have a primary source. 'Vaccines do not cause autism' sourced to Jill Stein would require a secondary MEDRS compliant source. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

HOORAY!!! So we do not need MEDRS sources for somebody's opinion, so long as it is attributed! Glory be! And I assume that this does not mean that we do not need MEDRS sources only for Stein's opinion, but we do need them for anyone else's opinion. There's noting in WP:BLP that says that. So, that means that we don't need scientific sources for an opinion expressed by Ehrenfreund, or by Weissmann either! So what was up with all those "better source needed" tags about those sources? Surely, we do not set differing standards based upon a preferred POV? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

You can so long as it is attributed and presented as an opinion. The current text reads, "Jordan Weissmann, Slate's business and economics editor, wrote in July 2016 that Stein's position on GMOs contradicts extensive scientific study." So I suppose we are not saying that Stein's position contradicts extensive scientific study, but that a Weissman says it does. But the text is confusing. What does Weissman find unscientific about Stein's position? That she thinks new GMOs should be tested for safety or that existing GMOs should be phased out? Or more likely, that he misinterpreted her position as being that existing GMOs could be unsafe? TFD (talk) 18:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

It's difficult keeping track of this discussion but I'd just like to note that there is a WaPo article and a Guardian article specifically about Stein's GMO position and both of those articles say that the research contradicts her GMO safety claims. The WaPo article was deleted for spurious reasons by SashiRolls at one point, and the Guardian piece was at some other point also dropped. So it can't be that everyone is misinterpreting Steins' GMO comments except you. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I cannot find that in The Guardian and Washington Post articles presented as sources for this article. To which articles are you referring? TFD (talk) 19:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm just delighted that we have established that sources written by journalists can be cited for those journalists' opinions, so long as we clearly attribute those opinions to the persons who expressed them, and not say it in Wikipedia's voice. And that it is consequently inappropriate to slap "better source needed" tags after such citations on the basis that we must cite opinions to MEDRS-compliant sources. So let's be clear about that. That being the case, I will gladly add more sources, and also make the text clearer about what, exactly, the sources are saying. And anyone who has any uncertainty about what we may or may not say about GMOs should carefully read and understand WP:GMORFC, because it is not just another RfC, and it is not open to negotiation here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

While the RfC closed with consensus for 1., it is not binding on the 11 articles listed there or anywhere else. What is binding is the discretionary sanctions which apply to the 11 articles and "other articles in the subject area." Note that AE determined that Bernie Sanders was not a topic relating to GMO broadly interpreted. ARBCOM has no power to resolve content disputes. So it's a total red herring. TFD (talk) 22:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

No, it is explicitly binding, according to the DS. Anyone who wants to test it at AE can do so at their own risk. But the three closers very clearly ordered via DS that the language is binding, and can only be changed via very specific processes. My recollection of the AE case about Sanders (if we are talking about the same case) is that it depends on the nature of the content. But the page section here is explicitly about GMOs. The DS apply to that section, not the rest of the page. (But American Politics 2 applies to the entire page.) ArbCom did not attempt to resolve a content dispute. ArbCom enacted DS. Administrators decided under those DS to make an RfC result binding in specific ways. And the community decided the RfC. Those are the processes, and again, test them at your own risk. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

PS: If anyone is unsure about the meaning of "Discretionary Sanctions" in the closing statement at the top of WP:GMORFC, it is explained at WP:GMORFC#Rules (bullet point 10 of 12) that the consensus language itself is made mandatory as a DS. I hope that clears that up. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

The wording is "The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed." It was asked at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms whether Bernie Sanders, the leading opponent of GMO in the Senate was "person[] involved in these topics." The answer was no. You were involved in the request. The person who was topic banned from GMO and wanted to insert negative information about Sanders, now argues against inserting negative information about Hillary Clinton, who is a GMO proponent. TFD (talk) 17:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

It's getting to where this discussion is becoming off-topic, and I've commented at your talk. Was I involved in it? Actually, I was the filing party for the case, as well as the editor who proposed the RfC, so yeah, I have some familiarity. Editors can make edits to this page as they choose, but they will do so at their own risk if they follow TFD's advice. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Section on Education/Quantitive Easing

The quote from Jill Stein about quantitive easing being something like "a magic trick we don't need to understand" is authentic, but its use here connotes bias against Jill Stein, both in the manner in which it is inserted into this context, and the manner in which it is decontextualized from its original context. Quantitive easing is an economic method the details of which are publicly available online for anyone to read about and understand. The context in which Dr Stein called it a "magic trick" was meant simply to emphasize how effective and good she thought the policy was, whereas the use of the quote here implies that Jill Stein's policy makes no sense. I recommend the quote be deleted here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.167.176 (talk) 16:35, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

That's part of her trying to explain how QE could be used to cancel student debt. If she fleshes out how in more detail, go ahead and add it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

No mention in the education section that she is a Harvard Educated doctor who graduated at the top of her class. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DebbieKat (talk • contribs) 03:29, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the inclusion of this quote could be interpreted as anti-Stein, and should be removed. It serves no encyclopedic purpose. AndrewOne (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

How does Stein's explainer on QE serve "no encyclopedic purpose" when one of her policy proposals as a presidential candidate is to cancel all student debt using QE? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I can't see how it "serves no encyclopedic purpose" — it's a direct statement from the candidate on a policy matter of high importance. Neutrality^talk 18:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

You should read the first comment in this section if you haven't. It explains very well why the disputed sentence is unhelpful. The previous sentence links to the Wikipedia page for quantitative easing, and readers uninformed on this monetary policy can therefore find information about it by clicking on the link. When the controversial sentence is placed where you are pushing for it to be, it (as I said before in a reversion) makes Stein sound incompetent and/or secretive toward the American people – and could thus be regarded as biased against Stein.

Furthermore, I'd like to address your implication (in the explanation of your reversion) that a direct quote cannot possibly make a paragraph biased; that's not true. Whenever Wikipedia presents information in a way that leads readers to a conclusion different from the conclusion one would have gotten from reading sources, the paragraph is not encyclopedic. For example, a section lending undue weight to positive responses may be full of true statements, but it nevertheless gives undue weight to positive responses and is therefore unrepresentative of reality. On the topic of quantitative easing, Stein has not simply said that it's "a magic trick" and that people need not know anything more about the proposal than that. Therefore, if a Wikipedia paragraph leads readers to believe that this is the core of her explanation and that it's all she has offered, it's misleading – regardless of the fact that it's quoting her (or, that is, a single web series appearance of hers). AndrewOne (talk) 18:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

It is interesting to see Snoogans defending inclusion of a Young Turks emission, given that s/he previously opened a section on this page to say it was unreliable. Not sure what to make of that.SashiRolls (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Please, no snark about other editors (or emissions). Just comment on suitability of sources, please. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Sigh. My position has always been that it's fine to include statements made by the politicians themselves when they're interviewed by bad sources (that's why I've added content from Trump's interviews with Breitbart for example on his page), but that it's not OK to let bad sources (such as a Young Turks host or Breitbart) describe candidates and policies. This was made clear to you, yet you can't or won't understand the difference, like with so many other seemingly straightforward issues. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

AndrewOne, simply hyperlinking to QE does not help anyone understand how QE could be used to cancel student debt. I honestly can't comprehend how it would work (nor did Cuomo in the CNN townhall), and I'd be amazed if most people did. Would she end the Fed's independence? Would she appoint Fed board members with this as a litmus test? What would it do to inflation? If the candidate fails to clarify how it would work or chooses to clarify it in the aforementioned language, then that's crucial for understanding how the candidate plans to put the plan into action. If the candidate clarifies it, then that should be added to the text. Following your logic, we would be forced to omit Trump's unwillingness to specify what vetting mechanisms he'd put in place for immigrants and instead just hyperlinking to "vetting" as if that would explain any of it. As it stands, his "Positions" pages thankfully currently mention the numerous ways he's spoken of the immigration issue (quotes), his vagueness and his contradictory language. Should we delete all of that and just hyperlink to "vetting" instead? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Andrew is right, of course. Picking this one quote is clearly a partisan spin to make Stein look like a kooky idiot. 174.19.235.76 (talk) 20:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to add any substantive quote from Stein in that interview where she clarifies how QE would be used to cancel student debt. I look forward to your input. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

That's your responsibility. You want to include material against NPOV, you're the one who has to balance it. 174.19.235.76 (talk) 20:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I did. IIRC, I added the one sentence from the interview where she broaches the issue of how QE would cancel student debt. The burden is on you to show me how I "[Picked] this one quote" from the interview in "a partisan spin to make Stein look like a kooky idiot". Please show me where in that interview she clarifies how QE would cancel student debt, and go ahead and add it to the page. Of course, if you want to add her incorrect statements about how the Wall Street bailout worked (as if that explains the QE for student debt), you can add those and then link to this RS showing how she got her Wall Street bailout analogy flat wrong[12] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

You did not, and saying so again won't make it true. But if you believe Jill Stein only gave one interview on CNN in her life, or even in this election cycle, then I suggest you send the entire article to AfD since Stein is clearly not notable per WP:ONEEVENT. 174.19.235.76 (talk) 20:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't have the time to scour the internet for every statement Stein has made about QE just because you don't like that her position on QE is idiotic. And that burden is not on me, just as it is not my burden to scour the internet for reasonable Trump quotes on climate change to balance his idiotic ones. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

"her position on QE is idiotic" is your assessment and you obviously have the time to scour the internet for the quotes you need to make her look dumb and give it your spin. If you want to write for wikipedia, the burden is indeed on you to find all sources to make it a policy-conform text. If you cannot do that, do not write anything at all. 174.19.235.76 (talk) 20:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Again, seeing that you're so certain that I cherry-picked a quote from that interview: Please find anything by Stein where she clarified how QE would cancel student debt. This should be easy given your certainty that it was cherry-picked. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

No, we'll just leave it out as OP, Andrew, and myself say. I'm not the one who's asking for it to be there. You are. The section covers the topic well, no need to add that quote. 174.19.235.76 (talk) 20:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

How does it cover the topic well? It doesn't explain how it would work at all. And for a simple reason: Stein thinks QE is a magic trick and doesn't clarify in any way how it would work except through inaccurate Wall Street bailout analogies. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Reminds me of Papa Bush on "voodoo economics". I don't think the editor is likely to do that, but if you do happen to run across something, it would be helpful. I for one, am not sufficiently schooled to be able to tell QE1,2,3 from a magic trick (though one that was only recently performed in Europe, also for the banks...)... bref. ^^ SashiRolls (talk) 22:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans,

While you make good points, I continue to agree with 174.19.235.76.

Student debt forgiveness through quantitative easing is not some born-yesterday concept for which Stein should be made out by a Wikipedia paragraph as a fiscally secretive wingnut. The Roosevelt Institute, for example, advocated this method ("The government has an obligation to end this reliance on private actors. A debt Jubilee at least temporarily [...] gives [debtors] space to practice economic autonomy.") long before Stein's 2016 campaign had begun, and Yes! magazine's Ellen Brown argued that the institution of this policy "would represent a significant stimulus to the economy." Brown would later write another article in The Huffington Post (about a proposal by progressive politician Elizabeth Warren). Even though the support of these authors couldn't have been specific to Stein and her 2016 campaign (owing to the dates they were published, of course), they are nonetheless relevant to the issue of reception for this idea.

Let's discuss your Donald Trump analogy. If he were to say simply that he wanted to deal with immigrants via vetting and said in an interview that vetting was "a magic thing that people don't need to know anything more about than that it is this magic thing," it would of course be true that he had said it – but it wouldn't be terribly encyclopedic for a sentence about this quote to appear immediately after the page mentions his support of vetting. It would lack neutrality because of the choice of this particular quote in the location in question.

I will say, however, that the disputed paragraph could retain an encyclopedic tone if the sentence or a variation of it appeared elsewhere. One could also add to the page that reactions to her QE-centered proposal "have been divided" (or something along these lines), since some reliable writers approve of it while others remain unconvinced. Regardless of whether one considers student debt forgiveness through QE to be "idiotic" (as you have made obvious that you do), the fact remains that the idea has been praised and criticized by reliable sources – and an encyclopedia, in its summaries of reception, is supposed to reflect opinion among the sources. AndrewOne (talk) 08:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I see you added a POV section tag to the education section, and I imagine you are concerned specifically about the QE section. I agree that a reference to Debt: The First 5000 Years or Thomas Piketty or to the Economistes atterrés or Yanis Varoufakis would be useful for balance. But I think you're right, Snoogans would be the best wikipedian for the task of writing some balance. I studied up to spar with Tryptofish after all. ^^ Besides, work. But I just wanted to say that I agreed with your assessment and appreciate your work above. Doesn't "increasing the money supply" mean printing money? SashiRolls (talk) 18:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Tryptofish did not come here to spar with anyone. I just want community consensus to be followed with respect to the GMO content. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

☮ SashiRolls (talk) 20:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I've moved the economic argument to economics without change. Does this address your concerns for the Education section, AndrewOne? SashiRolls (talk) 20:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

"In 2007, the monetary base – the amount of money our government printed in its entire 231 years of existence totaled $800 billion. Today it totals $2.8 trillion."

References

Well, Snoogans is actually right. s/he did in fact write "student loans" into the paragraph 3 times in order to include an economic argument in education. That does not mean s/he should not be in this thread seeking consensus. Also Tryptofish's latest edit does not strike me as being constructive. It would appear the stalling behavior continues... SashiRolls (talk) 22:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not done yet. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Reference issues

So, as you can obviously tell in the references section, two references are used a number of times in the article, but the ref names are given but not the links. I mean this is a big issue and, as a person that's not very into politics (I wouldn't be able to detect differences), I was wondering if someone could track down the (missing?) references aforementioned. Thanks! Esmost ^πк 22:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I fixed one. Somebody though it would be funny to rename a reference per the section above. clpo13_(talk) 22:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

lol. Esmost ^πк 23:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. This is fairly not cool. TimothyJosephWood 23:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I fixed the other. The reference was renamed but another instance of it was missed. Should be all good now. clpo13_(talk) 23:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

A reference used 16 times should have a descriptive name like "WaPoArticleCitedSixteenTimes". And then the undue weight given to such an article should be eliminated. SashiRolls (talk) 23:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey, if you want to cut out an interview with the subject, go right ahead. Of course, you'll have to remove any statement left unsourced or find new sources to replace it. clpo13_(talk) 23:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

You...do realize that most of the names on WP are things like "auto1" and "auto2" right? Also everyone involved needs to stop editing WP to make a WP:POINT. TimothyJosephWood 23:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

The Washington Post is not an RS on Jill Stein

And yet one article from that single news outlet is referenced 16 times on this page. I've changed the refname and am waiting for the robot to come correct the references for us. SashiRolls (talk) 22:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Why is it not an RS exactly? TimothyJosephWood 22:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

This is getting to the point of sustained disruption. It is patently ludicrous to suggest that the Washington Post is not a reliable source. Neutrality^talk 22:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree. This is truly ludicrous. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

SashiRolls, if you think The Washington Post is not a reliable source, you shouldn't be editing this article until you have thoroughly read and understood WP:RS.- MrX 22:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

The Washington Post is not such a reliable source that one of their articles should be cited 16 times. This is the same number as the number of negative headlines they ran on Bernie Sanders in less than 16 hours around the time of one the debates. Jeff Bezos-owned paper that notoriously ran 16 stories against Bernie Sanders in a 16-hour period during the democratic primary) Cf. Washington Post Ran 16 Negative Stories on Bernie Sanders in 16 hours (original source: Fairness and accuracy in reporting (FAIR)). SashiRolls (talk) 22:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Seems like you're trying to maybe make an argument from WP:DUE, but may have your policies confused. TimothyJosephWood 22:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sources can and should be judged individually on reliability. The WaPo source in question is an interview with the editorial board. Unless you're suggesting WaPo maliciously edited the transcript of that interview, I don't see how their position on Bernie Sanders has any relevance to this particular source. clpo13_(talk) 22:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Re: this. SashiRolls, have you even read the source in question? WaPo is reporting Stein's positions in her own words. clpo13_(talk) 23:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Sure, as well as the crap op-ed former Bernie-hater Capeheart (who is on the editorial board) wrote about it. This is the Wikipedia neutrality y'all are fighting for? Sad. SashiRolls (talk) 23:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Does any of that bias come across in the interview? The op-ed is immaterial, since it's not being used. clpo13_(talk) 23:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Hmm.. let's see, a white guy asks a white woman what she thinks of a black guy using the term "uncle tom" and presses the point for several question... (and then an article published originally in Mint Press criticizing the same practice is blocked for being so unreliable that it can't even be cited once concerning the bias of an article repeated 16 times which repeats the same practice...) But hey, y'all wanna' edit war, I'll do something more productive and fun. Thanks for the motivation! SashiRolls (talk) 23:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

from WP:Edit warring

"Some experienced editors deliberately adopt a policy of only reverting edits covered by the exceptions listed above, or limiting themselves to a single revert; if there is further dispute, they seek dialog or outside help rather than make the problem worse, i.e., they revert only when necessary. This policy may be particularly appropriate for controversial topics where views are polarized and emotions run high, resulting in more frequent edit warring."SashiRolls (talk) 10:57, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Please note, I have generally only reverted reversions in this article, with some exceptions for trolling. Both of those warring are reverting good faith edits they do not agree with.SashiRolls (talk) 11:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Is this 3 Sept 2016 suppression of external links (which I did not add) to the Spanish version of Jill2016 and to the Green Party platform trolling, since there was no discussion? For FB and Twitter I agree that the WP:ELNO page says these links probably should not be contained on pages. I note that HRC, at least, also has links to her campaign site, of course.SashiRolls (talk) 12:42, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a clue what you're talking about. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I removed the links based on the guideline and common practice. I have no idea why you would call it trolling, but doing so reflects poorly on you. If a subject has an official website, then a Facebook page is of no objective value. More so for a Twitter feed. A non-English website is not appropriate because we are an English language encyclopedia. As I mentioned in my edit summary, the linked articles and interviews should proably be removed, or at least trimmed to the 2-3 most important ones.- MrX 16:42, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

You will note that I did not revert your good faith edits, but just asked if others thought the removal of the links to Spanish version of Jill2016 and to the Green Party platform was trolling, or perhaps more appropriately, warranted. SashiRolls (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:DUE

Regarding this content, which has now been removed at least three times over the course of four days: Content that is predominately about some subject other than the subject of the article should be added to the main article on that subject, and not to this article, about which the sources are predominately not about. TimothyJosephWood 16:09, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

A source that adds a passing but relevant detail about a person can certainly be added, but the content that is added to the article should be directly related to the subject, and not about a tangential subject which may or may not have or deserve its own article. TimothyJosephWood 16:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

vague so true... anything specific you'd like to say about the quality work you reverted? cf. "noyer le poisson" SashiRolls (talk) 17:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The "media access" section is not of much importance. I suppose you could Stein's comments on ballot access to her political position on electoral reform. The attacks on WaPo from ShadowProof and Counterpunch should be removed, as they're not RS. The Chomsky piece on lesser evil voting is sort of relevant but as far as I understand the standards on Wikipedia, we don't add article to BLP unless they mention the candidate or the party that they represent. For that reason and for consistency's sake, it should be removed. If you want to add Chomsky's take, I suppose you can add this Rolling Stones article which presents Chomsky's take in the context of Stein and then Stein's criticism of Chomsky's view[13]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

This is why you oppose moving content to her political positions page, right?SashiRolls (talk) 17:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

A source that adds a passing but relevant detail about a person can certainly be added, but the content that is added to the article should be directly related to the subject, and not about a tangential subject which may or may not have or deserve its own article. TimothyJosephWood 16:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

cf. "noyer le poisson" SashiRolls (talk) 17:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Please let me respond without disruptive vagaries, I've lost 3 paragraphs, several nights sleep and a lot of patience because of your cabalistic behavior. SashiRolls (talk) 17:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

If you are losing sleep over an article, and you have become so stressed over it that you cannot resist engaging in battleground behavior with literally everyone else who has touched it, then you need to seriously consider a nice Wikipedia:Wikibreak. You may find yourself on an involuntary one soon otherwise. TimothyJosephWood 17:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

You know as well as I do that the only reason I am losing sleep is because Tryptofish filed an AE, and neutrality filed against the natural split off page, which all requires lots of writing to defend.... you have participated in increasing this work level. SashiRolls (talk) 17:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

THE ISSUE, minus the surrounding distractions

1) Noam Chomsky citation. This has been on the page at least three weeks, I believe. You have reverted the status quo without commenting on it yet. It was added around the time we finally succeeded in getting y'all to concede that 3rd party chances did not belong on the Jill Stein page. There is no reason on earth why a major left thinker should be censored in his opinion of the stakes at the polls in 2016. While you could argue that it's place under "polls" is inappropriate, it is probably currently in a holding position until I have time to add the Atlantic article and Politico article which talk about how more people vote third party when they know the election is completely not contested in their state. However, there is no reason to go against status quo. So far the only two people who have spoken of Chomsky and Stein in this thread are Snoogans and myself. (ctrl-f to verify)SashiRolls (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

2) Media Access / Coverage. Timothyjosephwood, you define yourself as a neo-liberal on your talk page. Your claim that you twice reverted my content yesterday because it had been reverted "at least three times before" before is false. The grain of truth is that you did delete part of the text in this section ONCE here without seeking consensus for your revert. It was unclear to me then why you would delete a good faith edit adding material from the Al Jazeera journalist who was assigned to cover the Green presidential convention in Houston (2016). Is it because you consider Al Jazeera not to be a reliable source? HRC famously praised the Qatari network back in 2011. If it is because you believe that media access (or the lack thereof) is not important to mention in the section Presidential Campaigns > 2016, I think you are wrong: media access is a major problem for a party not accepting donations from corporations.

So, 1 (one) sentence of the content was reverted ONCE on August 30th, and not 3-4 times as falsely stated. The discussion of access to the debates has never before been deleted, and has long been part of the page (but in "political positions > electoral reform"). Now it has been deleted, since I moved it to this section. The comments on the Washington post are wp:due according to the first line of identifying reliable sources: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered", which is further supported farther down on the same page: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." It has been demonstrated that the Washington Post acted in a biased manner towards Bernie Sanders during the primaries. The articles that you do not wish to appear in the Media Coverage / Access section refer to the exposé of the 16 negative articles the WaPo ran in 16 hours during the primaries. Cf. Manufacturing Consent since you're also deleting Chomsky's comments on the 2016 election in Presidential campaigns > 2016.

3) (from WP:Editwarring)

Some experienced editors deliberately adopt a policy of only reverting edits covered by the exceptions listed above, or limiting themselves to a single revert; if there is further dispute, they seek dialog or outside help rather than make the problem worse, i.e., they revert only when necessary. This policy may be particularly appropriate for controversial topics where views are polarized and emotions run high, resulting in more frequent edit warring.

Substantive comment on the material deleted and not vague sentences that do not refer to the material deleted are what would normally be expected. I am, as I have always been, completely open to dialogue. This talk page is proof of that fact.SashiRolls (talk) 11:07, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

---

WP is a collaborative effort. Working with others is what the project is about. Learning to do so better usually helps toward lightening the load. TimothyJosephWood 17:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

As I have said already: This article is not about third party voting. If you would like to add to or create an article on third party voting, that is perfectly fine. Content added to this article needs to be explicitly about the subject of the article, not about other tangentially related subjects. This is not a newspaper clipping, and it is not intended to give broad commentary on US politics, the merits of the two party system, or the role media plays in elections. It is an article about Stein, and therefore, content added should be about Stein, and content that is not should be removed. TimothyJosephWood 17:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I just want to note that this talk page is an incoherent mess because SashiRolls has been duplicating (I just discovered that he had duplicated my comments (and then deleted one duplication) and also Timothyjosephwood's comments), editing (adding lines into my comment) and re-arranging other editors' comments. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:08, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Your comment was duplicated because of a false manipulation resulting from an edit conflict due to TJW adding vague sentences that he does not demonstrate have any bearing on the specific material censored.

I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say. Just please stop altering my comments. By the way, (i) sign your comments and (ii) stop adding half-finished comments. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:41, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what's going on in this thread, since it's apparently been hacked to death. SashiRolls, stop editing other's comments...at all. TimothyJosephWood 11:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

What is going on is that you are being asked to respond to The issue clearly stated above following the outdent. SashiRolls (talk) 11:28, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Chomsky's comments on the 2016 election in Presidential campaigns ... I believe this is the third time I have said this: this is not an article on the 2016 campaign. You have addressed every possible issue other than the one I have raised. TimothyJosephWood 12:09, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Then you agree with me that the entire "polls" section has no place on this page? SashiRolls (talk) 12:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not discussing anything besides the content you have reverted back into the article...I believe...five times. TimothyJosephWood 12:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I have indeed [s/f]ought to maintain my good faith edit which you and Snooganssnoogans have [s/f]ought to censor by reverting without discussion on multiple occasions. SashiRolls (talk) 12:36, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Offering suggestions - SashiRolls and User:Timothyjosephwood -- I'm thinking

(a) mechanically, WP editing process will go smoother if the Media Access edits are done separate from Chomsky edits, and

(b) regardless of how the Jill Stein edits go, I suggest make a section "Coverage" at Green Party of the United States to show notable coverage events and at the bottom of that section put the sub-issue of Media Access to show the theme of difficulty. I think the minority party does Google as significant mentions of coverage and discussions of having lesser coverage and lack of debate to be considered a topic. I also think the major events that are actually covered will Google higher so should appear first to show extreme respect to NPOV and the issue should be the closing/conclusion since it's a topic and about inherent systematic bias to DUE. That systemic issue is that actual coverage will show in Google, but non-coverage does not Google at all since it's an absence -- it's obvious that they're not on the news as much and not included in debates, but it's only showing when the candidate complains or it's so notable that writers start to mention it. (For example, coverage access has been mentioned this cycle about the point where Libertarian would get in the debate, or over the Republican 'kiddie table' debates.) I think that such a section would also make the "Social Media" section at that article more understandable. Markbassett (talk) 17:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

---

I agree with the multiple editors above that have indicated that this challenged material is unsuitable and should not be added. The objections are very clear, at least in my mind:

The Chomsky quote - from an essay he himself personally posted, not from a published op-ed somewhere - doesn't even appear to mention Stein. It's completely undue and prizes Chomsky's opinion above others, and has very little to do with Stein directly.

The "media coverage" example should (1) be, if anywhere, at Jill Stein presidential campaign, 2016 and (2) suffers from multiple serious problems in text. The statement "the Washington Post has been criticized for alleged bias in covering both Stein's campaign and Sanders' campaign"—cited to opinion essays in "Shadowproof" and "CounterPunch"—is the epitome of a weasel statement and is also a coatrack.

And, on a separate note, SashiRolls continues to edit-war against consensus, and to accuse others of being "censors," etc. It's all extremely tiring. Neutrality^talk 18:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Remove systemic bias tag?

Progress is being made, I think. What needs to be done before removing the systemic bias tag? (The education section remains partial (no mention of Common Core criticism yet, for example.) I'm getting close to finished here on this page (RW time constraints). I hope that others will be around to keep moving it in the right direction... (towards more peace and less war...)

I would love to hear consensus to remove that tag soon, but I think there is still some work to be done. Tried to redirect tag here to reflect progress made, but failed to do so. Thank you to all involved. SashiRolls (talk) 04:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I think there are still some problems with the science section. First, it is weasel-wording to say she "has been criticized for holding what CNN terms "out-of-the-mainstream" views on a number of science-related topics." Also, when we use in-line citations we should refer to the the author who wrote the words, in this case Eli Watkins. And we cannot use headlines as sources. What Watkins wrote was, she "has experienced significant backlash online as she has moved from her base within the Green Party to a national audience."

The vaccine section is too long. What is the point of a whole paragraph explaining that she says vaccines do not cause autism? There is nothing in the Clinton article, although she said, "I am committed to make investments to find the causes of autism, including possible environmental causes like vaccines…We don't know what, if any, kind of link there is between vaccines and autism - but we should find out."[14] A lot of the editors here edit that article.

The criticism in GMO is also confusing. Certainly GMOs are not released until they are found to be safe. Otherwise it is not clear what is unscientific about Stein's position. Support for GMO labeling is not by definition unscientific.

The Wi-Fi section is confusing too. She discusses two issues. The first is that she thinks kindergarten children should spend more time interacting with other children than staring at a screen. There is no science-based rebuttal in the sources, although it is dismissed as unscientific. The other is that WiFi could cause harm. CNN uses a WHO report from 2006 to say that no adverse effects have been found. But currently they say, "Extensive research has been conducted into possible health effects of exposure to many parts of the frequency spectrum. All reviews conducted so far have indicated that exposures below the limits recommended in the ICNIRP (1998) EMF guidelines, covering the full frequency range from 0-300 GHz, do not produce any known adverse health effect. However, there are gaps in knowledge still needing to be filled before better health risk assessments can be made."[15] That is consistent with what Stein said.

I notice too that there is no assessment on whether her views on climate change are unscientific. TFD (talk) 05:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I've tried to address some of the concerns you mentioned, though I don't think I can remove anything, personally. Perhaps an RFC on the Wifi section?  :) SashiRolls (talk) 15:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

GMOs and pesticides

I'm only responding to what TFD raised about GMOs. This was discussed in extreme detail in the GMO RfC. Whether or not GMOs are not released until they are found to be safe is debated in reliable secondary sources. The RfC consensus is that scientists say that new GMOs should not be released until they are tested and found to be safe, and that whether or not this actually occurs depends upon the details of government regulation in a given location, and that this regulation varies very widely. The consensus was also that, although claims that GM foods might be unsafe are widespread in the general public (as indicated by polling), the scientific consensus is that claims of them being unsafe are unfounded. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

On the same topic, I just made this edit: [16]. (That's 1RR for me.) I tried to explain it in the edit summary, but I'm happy to clarify if there are questions. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:23, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I see now that SashiRolls reverted me (that's 1RR for you, too), and I've read the edit summary. Perhaps you could expand a little more on why you feel the content is justified, and then we can discuss that. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

We currently have a paragraph title created by ?? called "GMOs and pesticides" containing a quote by a business and economics editor named Jordan Weissmann, who has "described Stein's position on GMOs as contradicting extensive scientific study, and her position on pesticides as based on a discredited theory." Not sure why you would revert this edit Tryptofish? by mistake or am I missing something? SashiRolls (talk) 20:19, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) OK, thanks for discussing it. No, it was not by mistake. Here are my concerns. First, the source cited is not a particularly good one for scientific matters, as it comes from an advocacy group. (And I am trying to be attentive to the consensus of the community RfC on content about GMOs, where the consensus was against having page sections that leave readers with the impression that there are health hazards.) Second, the source says nothing about Stein, so there is some WP:SYNTH in applying it to her policy. Third, Stein's policy, as I understand it, is primarily about pesticide use on GM crops, as opposed to crops in general (please correct me if I'm wrong). Pesticides are commonly discussed in relation to GM crops, because there are pesticides such as glyphosate that are specifically intended for use on GM crops. But the source never mentions GMOs, and it's about neurotoxic insecticides such as the organophosphates that are not directed at GM crops and were used long before GM crops were even invented. So the source seems unrelated to Stein's position. Also, the discredited theory referred to by the other source is about colony collapse disorder, something not discussed at all in the source you cited. And finally, it seems to me that the quotation is just overlong and WP:UNDUE, especially since it never refers to anything Stein has said. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

This Jordan guy doesn't seem to have a wikipedia page, not sure why he's an authority on science. (note that it's another takedown article (see title) but of somewhat higher quality than the others...) SashiRolls (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I used that source because it is already cited on the page. If you'd like to cite other sources, I've got plenty of them. He's not an authority on science as a primary source about scientific findings, but he is not unreasonable as a secondary source reporting what scientists have widely found. Whether or not one considers it a "takedown", what he concludes is by far the scientific consensus, and it is also a consensus on Wikipedia following the GMO RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

You realize that the author is Jill Stein, right? (or at least one of the 4 co-authors)... if Jordan wants to say negative things about her views on pesticides, we should have a direct citation of what she actually says about pesticides no? SashiRolls (talk) 20:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

No, I did not know that! There was nothing in your edit to attribute it to her, and I don't see her name anywhere in the linked source. But that certainly does change things! I still think we can make it less of a quotefarm, by paraphrasing it and better integrating it into the section. (The other author is Jordan Weissmann, so Jordan is his first name.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't know that paraphrasing is necessary, but if it is... You might also find it interesting to search for "autism" (which is in the chapter) and "vaccines" (which aren't), because this does confirm what she said on the "Young Turks", there was no discussion of vaccines in their treatment of autism in "In Harm’s Way: Toxic Threats to Child Development"...  :) SashiRolls (talk) 21:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I would like for you to substitute one of your better sources. I thanked you for adding it to replace Danthology because it was better written and appeared in a reputable (generalist) news source. (It also rang some bells...) If you have a scientist talking about Jill Stein's published work, please, by all means, add it! You asked me somewhere above to correct you if you were wrong. I'm not an expert on the Green policy concerning pesticides. I am not a member of the party, nor have I had any contact with people who are, except possibly here. I'm here writing (which I hadn't planned to be), because a few weeks ago I wanted to learn something about Ajamu Baraka, whom I'd never heard of. His page (at the time) seemed very biased. Once that page seemed to be less biased, I came here, and unfortunately felt the need to raise hell once again because of what I found. I would much rather let the Green experts write; but seeing that this source material is directly relevant, it seemed to me to be worth adding. Given an atmosphere that has been a bit tense since at least mid-July, I see that not many editors are willing to be bold at the moment, so I'm following up on the tag I added, hoping to soon be able to remove it and let others carry on the work... SashiRolls (talk) 22:08, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I saw the sentence you added about scientific sources, and it certainly is helpful. However, there is a problem in that you basically said something very similar to the consensus language from the GMO RfC, but the outcome of that RfC is that only the exact language is permitted anywhere on Wikipedia (and I think that the exact language would be overly wordy for use here). So we will have to come up with some other way of handling it. I'll give it some thought. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, I have an idea. The Guardian really only talks about vaccines, so it's not a useful cite here. But the Post piece really says the same thing as Slate said. So I think we can revise the sentence that is now attributed to Weissmann at Slate, so that it is attributed instead to Ehrenfreund at the Washington Post and Weissmann at Slate. That way, we aren't just relying on Weissmann as a source, and we can also leave out the sentence that overlaps with the RfC language. I'd also like to revisit the order of the sentences. Because I removed what Weissmann said about pesticides, we don't need to present Stein as rebutting Weissmann, and there is some logic to keeping all of Stein's positions together. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Aren't there enough sources cited (the Guardian cites Scientific American, the WaPo piece cites an EU report and AAAS + Slate) just to state "However, extensive scientific research shows that GMOs are no more dangerous than conventionally bred strains. (cite G, WaPo and S)"? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

There's no problem with having sufficient sourcing. Rather, the problem is that editors have been warring for several years over language such as "no more dangerous". Under the Discretionary Sanctions, we must either use the exact wording from the RfC, or not say it at all.

I observe that SashiRolls has not responded to what I suggested above, but instead just slapped a tag in the section, referring to Mr. Weissmann as "Jordy". Given that what I suggested addresses the concerns over relying simply on Weissmann as a source (and given that we really must bring the page in line with the DS), I feel justified in going ahead with what I proposed. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

We discussed GMOs on the talk page of the GMO article. There is no evidence that GMO products currently available are unsafe, but there is no scientific consensus that there has been sufficient testing. However, the safety issue is only part of the argument against GMOs. They are government subsidized crops (sour corn, soy, beets, cotton, canola and alfalfa) that are mostly used to produce cheap high fructose corn syrup, cooking oil, and feed for factory farmed animals. There are also problems with the reliance on hydrocarbon based fertilizers, lack of genetic diversity and private ownership of crop DNA. The export of government subsidized corn to Mexico impoverished millions of farmers who then entered the U.S. as illegal immigrants. The availability of cheap government subsidized high fructose corn syrup, cooking oils for French fries and feed for factory farmed beef, pork and chicken sold as fast foods has led to an obesity epidemic. It has also impoverished many U.S. farmers. Caribbean sugar producers, who face import tariffs or (in the case of Cuba) import bans, find it hard to compete with U.S. government subsidized beet sugar.

Ironically the people that finance the main pro-GMO website also finance a website that claims global warming is a hoax.

The claim that opposition to GMO is an irrational reaction to science is a strawman argument. There are other reasons for their opposition. It is disingenuous to say that Stein opposes GMO because she does not understand science.

TFD (talk) 05:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you that we should not assert that she does not understand the science, and I sure hope that it does not say that anywhere on the page. The sources that I have seen criticizing her about this say that, in the sources' opinion, she is being disingenuous in disregarding the science that an MD certainly is aware of. We should of course attribute any such opinions to sources, and not say them in Wikipedia's voice. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Tryptofish, this is the only thing that Steven T. Corneliussen says about Jill Stein in his article at Physics Today: "An opinion piece at Slate dismissed Green Party candidate Jill Stein as “a Harvard-trained physician who panders to pseudoscience” concerning genetically modified organisms, pesticides, “quack medicine,” and vaccine efficacy." Please, it is dishonest to include that in the middle of an undifferentiated mass of smear articles, given that he clearly does not agree with the article cited (Weissmann, whose article you are relying on just a bit too much IMO if you're trying to introduce this direct reference to him as a separate reference...) reference to check... If it's important to you to leave the smear articles that's up to consensus, but this is IMO clear misrepresentation of the source (attempting to gain credibility for the smears because it's a more scientific source) SashiRolls (talk) 15:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

You can carry on all you want about it, but what you say here is counter-factual. The author of the Physics Today piece is clearly agreeing with the criticism, not disagreeing with it. And you have been amply warned about the Discretionary Sanctions. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Why do you think that? If I say that Trump calls global warming a "Chinese hoax," I guess you would assume I was clearly agreeing with him. TFD (talk) 21:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Because it's obvious. I'm done arguing about it here. For anyone who wants to keep arguing, WP:AE is that-a-way. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• Lest there be any confusion, yes, the Discretionary Sanctions about GMOs do apply to the Pesticides and GMOs section of this page, per the decision at WP:AE: [17]. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:55, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Ajamu Baraka on Jill Stein's biography page

Should either of the following sentences (in any form) be included on Jill Stein's biography page?

When asked if she considered it appropriate to call President Obama an "Uncle Tom" as her running mate did, Stein answered "I would never do that." When asked if she would make Baraka apologize for calling Obama an "Uncle Tom", Stein said that she would not.

When asked if she agreed with her running mate's reference to the “gangster states” of NATO, Stein answered that she would not use Baraka's language but that "he means the same thing I'm saying".

SashiRolls (talk) 00:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

References

---

• No. This material, added by Snooganssnoogans here, does not seem appropriate to Jill Stein's bio page. Both statements are already present on Ajamu Baraka's page.SashiRolls (talk) 00:28, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
• Yes, include both. Clearly relevant to Stein, bears on her political views and issues of high importance (NATO, U.S. racial relations, views on the current U.S. president), well-cited and framed in a NPOV manner (indeed, these are quotes/paraphrases from the subject directly). This is wholly appropriate to the biography of a political figure. Neutrality^talk 00:36, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
• Courtesy-pinging users: @Tryptofish:, @Snooganssnoogans:, @Masebrock:, @MrX:, @Iazyges:, @Clpo13:, @The Four Deuces:, @DrFleischman:, @VictoriaGrayson:, @Gouncbeatduke:. Neutrality^talk 00:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
• Yes, but in revised form. I've revised it. (No need to ping me; I'm watchlisting.) --Tryptofish (talk) 00:48, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Your revisions were good with me, thanks for those. Neutrality^talk 01:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I think the Uncle Tom comments could be clarified and shortened better than you did. She never says it's inappropriate or disapproves of Baraka calling Obama an Uncle Tom in the WaPo interview when asked point blank (if I recall correctly). She just says that she herself would not use that term and that she would not ask Baraka to apologize. I think both of those are important and need to be mentioned. I think the NATO remarks should be put in the political positions section, as they reflect her attitude on NATO (she's taking a position on a description of the alliance). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

It's OK with me if you go ahead and make those changes. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm holding off on the changes. I'm not entirely sure what the revert rules are, and I don't want to take any risks given SashiRolls's repeated attempts to get me sanctioned or banned. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I approve of that as well (the NATO comment is a political position about NATO, rather than a remark about Baraka personally). Neutrality^talk 01:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I want to add that the reason I am OK with including these comments is that they are both based upon what Stein herself has said, in relation to her positions as a candidate, and the comments received subsequent attention from secondary sources, such as an op-ed in the Washington Post. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Seeing multiple uninvolved editors say that it may be undue, however, I'm having second thoughts. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Both Masebrock and Meatsgains argue that the quotes are cherry-picked, yet these are the very same quotes that the WaPo editorial board and a WaPo op-ed writer chose to highlight from the interview. If their concerns are genuine, they should be put at ease by simply citing (i) the WaPo editorial board's piece on the interview, (ii) Capeheart's op-ed and (iii) the transcript itself. Markbassett essentially argues that a presidential candidate's position on NATO is undue and that her position on race relations and her own VP candidate's inflammatory comments about the President are also undue and offtopic, despite being brought up in her two extensive interviews in reliable sources (WaPo and CNN) and being highlighted by a WaPo op-ed writer. Imagine if Trump or Clinton refused to say whether they disapproved of their VP picks calling Obama an Uncle Tom, you don't think that would end up on their Wikipedia pages and garner reliable coverage by reliable sources as Stein's comments have done? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans - ??? You seem to want clarification of what I said. Think the only points I raised (below) were (a) the line isn't from Jill so OFFTOPIC doesn't belong in her article and (b) UNDUE weight since it's just not been prominent in coverage. That's the WP:WEIGHT guide. If you need me to clarify my words respond here, otherwise cheers. Markbassett (talk) 00:52, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• Yes. Include both. The NATO comment should be under Stein's political positions, as it reflects on her attitude towards NATO. I'm fine with keeping the 'Uncle Tom' comment in the 2016 race subsection of this article (where it currently is). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: How do we evaluate this without the sources? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I've added the source (i.e. the same Jeff Bezos-owned paper that notoriously ran 16 stories against Bernie Sanders in a 16-hour period during the democratic primary) Cf. Washington Post Ran 16 Negative Stories on Bernie Sanders in 16 hours (original source: Fairness and accuracy in reporting (FAIR))

• NoYes with citations If we are going to select particular quotes to highlight out of a large transcript, it needs to be based on actual notability, not assumed notability. The appropriate weight to give a comment is based on the weight it was given in secondary sources. It's not Wikipedia's job to go through politician's interviews with a fine-tooth comb and pick out the parts we personally want to highlight. The most immediate problem of doing this is that while one editor may want to highlight, for example, her comments about NATO, another may find her comments about the DEA to be the most important. Masebrock (talk) 07:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Jonathan Capeheart in a WaPo op-ed and the WaPo editorial board highlighted her NATO comments (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/jill-steins-fairy-tale-candidacy/2016/08/25/3bf8ba1a-6b08-11e6-99bf-f0cf3a6449a6_story.html and the Capeheart op-ed also highlighted her Uncle Tom comments (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/08/26/jill-steins-foul-language-on-race/ She was asked about the Uncle Tom comments both in her WaPo interview and the CNN townhall, so I think it's hard to argue that it's not notable. If she makes comments about the DEA, please add them. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

1) Jill Stein made no "Uncle Tom" comments. 2) The problem that I have with you is the following. You read an article and then cite it partially:

At this point, I’m not prepared to speak to that in detail, but I will say that coming out of the fall of the Berlin Wall and the expansion of NATO and the unification of Germany that we made a very clear commitment that NATO would not move one inch to the East, yet we certainly have. I would only note that there’s provocation going on here on both sides and that it’s very important for us to have a diplomatic approach to this.

For each thing you added from the Post article, this is what you did... and yet you have the support of Wikipedia. In fact, for my own purposes, as one who is writing on Wikipedia bias, you are actually quite helpful, because the tolerance of this sort of action despite a number of administrators being aware of it, and a certain number actually encouraging it, says a lot about Wikipedia. 3)I have included sentences that analyze the situation objectively (notably adding a sentence from Chomsky saying that the holier than thou attitude of those who refuse LEV is dangerous and wrong... it would be interesting for you to try to do the same (include something positive about JS instead of always cherry-picking the negative). But -- again -- you're doing me more good (on a personal level) with your current editing strategy because you're providing me with more material daily.SashiRolls (talk) 12:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced this isn't giving the quotations undue weight. So it was mentioned in two anti-Stein op-eds? For most politicians, that would be considered an unacceptably low amount of coverage to merit mention on their BLP. Masebrock (talk) 02:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

But I'm okay adding it with citations from the two op-eds. Masebrock (talk) 02:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• No to both - Summoned by bot. The quotations, which are cherrypicked from a large transcript, do not belong on her BLP. Adding the quotations gives WP:UNDUE weight. Meatsgains (talk) 18:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Please explain how they're cherry-picked. Both Jonathan Capeheart in a WaPo op-ed and the WaPo editorial board highlighted her NATO comments (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/jill-steins-fairy-tale-candidacy/2016/08/25/3bf8ba1a-6b08-11e6-99bf-f0cf3a6449a6_story.html and the Capeheart op-ed also highlighted her Uncle Tom comments (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/08/26/jill-steins-foul-language-on-race/ She was asked about the Uncle Tom comments both in her WaPo interview and the CNN townhall, so I think it's hard to argue that it's not notable. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• No - seems UNDUE as just not big in her tale, and also OFFTOPIC as it's about comments on what someone else said. Markbassett (talk) 23:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
• Yes – should relevant reliable sources be provided; I concur with Snooganssnoogans: comments regarding NATO ought to be mentioned in Stein's political positions, as it illustrates the subject's attitude towards the afforementioned institution. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 12:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

So far we have four "nos" (see previous RfC where the four deuces added an insightful comment about what white people can say and what black people can say), two unconditional "yesses" and two conditional "yesses" (one of whom had previously voted "no")). This means we need to compromise. After an editor voting "yes" removed the article "'Uncle Tom' and the Pathology of White Liberal Racism" because he considers that "fringe" political sources should not be included (the article is published in a number of places often critical of the mainstream press... stopimperialism, mintpress, even globalresearch.ca), I tried to add the neutral sentence "She was not asked "why" AB used this term." which was said to be "editorializing" by another editor voting "yes". Given that the majority of people have stated that the text is inappropriate as it currently is presented in the article, I will delete it and allow the editors who feel that it is appropriate for inclusion to propose suggestions below for ways in which it could be added which would respect the wikipedia NPOV criterion. We must also keep in mind that the Washington Post and CNN are no more "neutral" than Fox News... and that at least the Washington Post has been explicitly called out for its bias during the primary season by the progressive group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (see above). SashiRolls (talk) 10:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Yes provided that there is sufficient sourcing to demonstrate that this brouhaha (and similar) became a significant thing. Th politics of major media outlets such as the Washington Post have no weight on this, only the status fact that major media have covered a specific brouhaha.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
• Yes to both statements. Summoned by bot. These relate to notable controversies and are relevant to the subject, as well as being reliably sourced. Coretheapple (talk) 12:29, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
• Yes, with conditions. I was brought here by the participation bot. There are additional sources that demonstrate that these statements to the WaPo created a larger (and therefore notable) controversy (ie the CNN town hall appearance etc), so those references should be added and made mention of in the paragraph. There also needs to be some additional context for readers. In the case of the Uncle Tom statement a wikilink may suffice but the "gangster states" demands an additional sentence for clarification -- to the general reader that assertion will just be confusing. A Train^talk 07:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: This RfC is no longer in debate. The two quotes have been contextualized since it was created. I agree with A Train ^{that further context could be provided simply by adding the reference below, but neutrality, Tryptofish, and Snoogannsoogans does not wish to see "Ajamu Baraka, “Uncle Tom,” And The Pathology Of White Liberal Racism" on Jill Stein's page.}

• Comment on 'uncle tom' point - before voicing a yay or nay, I had to work through it somewhat in my head - thought process as follows. I disagree, to start, with how the sentences are framed on the page. With a racist and loaded slur like 'Uncle Tom' included as a quote, but that phrase not coming from her own lips, the inclusion currently (in my view) comes off as a controversy that should be on someone else's biography that was cherrypicked on dropped on the Stein page to cleverly frame Stein as a racist. I don't mean to insinuate that was the intent, just immediate perception from the viewpoint of a reader. But to point: with her response, Stein is obviously in a public image pickle. She can't denounce the racism of her running mate entirely without potentially hurting her own campaign, so she skirts the issue with a vague comment insinuating only that Obama is "out of touch" with African American voters. So what is interesting to readers, from our perspective as writers?

1) Is it relevant that she is skirting a major controversy with her comment? If so, that could be considered relevant, but the text should address that aspect. For example, "She skirted a major controversy when refusing to comment on her running mate's jibe that Obama was an 'Uncle Tom,' instead stating to the press that she thought Obama was out of touch with black American voters.

2) Is her response/viewpoint on Obama the interesting part? If so, we can reword it in a way where we don't need to randomly drop "Uncle Tom" in there, which is distasteful is not necessitated by the coverage. For example, "Asked her feeling about allegedly racist comments made by her running mate about President Obama, Stein responded only that she felt Obama was "out of touch" with African American voters." However, I'm not entirely sure that her viewpoint on Obama is particularly relevant here, although she criticizes the then current administration using him as the reference point when speaking. How she addresses race in her campaign can very well be relevant, but her personal opinion on Obama's public approval with black voters? That very specific point seems, at least in my immediate perception, to be off topic to the narrative of her page. But then, narratives change constantly with new content. Yvarta (talk) 18:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

WOW

Let me just say that I used to have great respect for Wikipedia and even donated, but the tone of this article is outrageous when you get to the 2016 election. You have an entire section called "on third party chances" AND YOU DON'T EVEN PUT HER STATEMENT THERE, despite the fact that she has been asked about it multiple times in interviews and responded clearly. Literally ALL of the quotes are against her, none of it supports her - how is that neutral? Even if the Nadar spoiler myth is true in your mind, how is Trump's opinion a credible source? There isn't a heading that says this on Gary Johnson's page. If you're going to talk about Bernie endorsing Hillary, why don't you mention that afterward, donations to the Green Party skyrocketed? THAT is an indication of a coming big jump in her numbers. http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Jill-Stein-Donations-Up-by-1000-After-Sanders-Endorsed-Clinton-20160713-0030.html By the way, she has also been endorsed by Kshama Sawant.

As for the Harambe poll inclusion...it does not ask Hillary vs. Trump vs. Gary vs. Jill vs. Harambe; Harambe and Jill do not appear in the same question at any time. Also the same poll also reported that 18% of respondents think Hillary Clinton has ties to Lucifer; 21% weren't sure. But I don't see that interesting tidbit on her page when this "poll" came out! In fact, in the question, Trump and Hillary ARE directly competing with Harambe in the poll, not Gary or Jill, and in THAT poll 9% say Harambe or not sure when it's only Trump or Clinton. This poll seems terrible considering that it asks favorability ratings for Harambe but not Gary or Jill. Obviously obfuscated, as someone above mentioned. Then AGAIN you mention the "third party spoiler" idea, casually mentioning that third party support declines as the election draws closer. This should be on the Green Party and Libertarian Party pages, not Jill's.

You put an old quote about wifi under the education section. I have no problem with that, but it doesn't need its own section later in the article. Additionally, you should put it in context and link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IARC_Group_2B_carcinogens which includes wifi under "possibly carcinogenic." She agrees with the World Health Organization and that should be noted.

I find it interesting that you also add context when it suits an anti-stein tone. For example, after her comment on Obama committing war crimes, you don't mention Abdulrahman al-Awlaki. But you do provide a Guardian quote about how anti-vaxxers are against schedule changes when she mentions them. The Clinton bias is especially apparent when there is no mention of Hillary's previous anti-vax pandering in 2007 ("I am committed to make investments to find the causes of autism, including possible environmental causes like vaccines") and yet Jill has an entire section devoted to her "pandering" even though they said the same thing. Vaccines are mentioned nowhere on Clinton's 2008 presidential run page, political positions page, or main page.

The criticism of "11 of 15 are doctors who don't work for pharmaceutical companies" is outright propaganda. There should be the context of the "revolving door" here. Kathryn M Edwards, the current head of that board, "served as a Member of Clinical Advisory Board at NexBio, Inc. since April 2009." So she's "not working for them", she's just a member of the advisory board for a biopharmaceutical company that is being sued by California for fraud. https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/sandiego/news/press-releases/ansun-biopharma-to-pay-more-than-2-million-for-overbilling-the-u.s

GMOs are generally safe, she wants a moratorium on specific, new, unstudied ones. That should be clarified. The 2012 comment on reduced space exploration spending should be on her 2012 page. Frankly, the fact that the Reparations for Slavery is much bigger than even the other unnecessary headings is a case in point that this section is intended to scare people with how "radical" she is. Again, no context that we've given reparations to Asian Americans in the past. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.185.245 (talk) 21:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

"GMOs are generally safe" There is no scientific basis for that claim and there is unlikely to be in our lifetimes. ---Dagme (talk) 01:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Welcome! You are obviously a much more knowledgeable editor than I am on the subject, and I appreciate your comments. Would you be uncomfortable adding two or three sentences to the page itself in the interest of balancing perspective? I'd like to see quality material being added while we're vetting the less solid material. The point of Wikipedia is to acccumulate pertinent info and leads for those who want to learn more about a subject. Not to prechew the Post, Tablet, and yesterday's reddit-tweets for them. Very helpful work, above. Again, thank you. SashiRolls (talk) 22:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree the is one of the most slanted articles I've read. This reads like an attack ad, especially the political positions section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:400:F27D:10D6:5491:DC1D:321D (talk) 00:48, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Why are so many specifics of the campaign here on her personal page and there is almost nothing on her actual campaign page? I started to edit the campaign page but then it is totally redundant with her personal page. The many details about health positions have an obvious tone against her and inoculate readers against considering the page as a neutral source. She is being widely covered in mainstream news, so why are the editors who are typing so many words about anti-vaxxers not doing the most basic citations of the key positions of the campaign? Aside from adding all on the wrong page. GreenIn2010 (talk) 00:49, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

The political positions of all major candidate (Clinton, Trump, Pence, Kaine) are on their main article. The anti-vaxxer comments are being covered by reliable news sources (includ. WaPo and the Guardian), so I don't understand what your point is about mainstream news and the focus on the anti-vaxxer stuff. If you want to add more political positions, go ahead. There's an interesting thing happening here where a string of Green Party-affiliated users and IP numbers complain about there being a dearth of her political positions, yet they can't be arsed to edit in the unspecified missing positions by themselves. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:13, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Sounds more like RationalWiki at the end...(honestly, the difference is slight). If we are to keep the third party spoiler section, Democracy Now! has great interviews I would like to quote from, especially between Robert Reich/Chris Hedges and Kshama Sawant/Rebecca Traister on rejecting corporate duopoly. There should also be discussion of media bias, particularly in the wake of the DNC scandal and DWS's resignation. Stein was literally asked if she believed in God during the CNN Green Town Hall, which seemed planted IMO. As recently as 2012, Gallup polls show that the MOST damaging categories a presidential candidate can be in are atheist (#1), then Muslim (#2!). I hope it wasn't deliberate attempt to turn off centrist voters, but it's hard to believe there's no connection between a question like that and the fact that CNN's parent company is a major Hillary donor. I don't understand why fact like these are dismissed as conspiratorial or unrealistic. Does Wikipedia really believe that CNN wouldn't try to "gotcha" Jill Stein considering that they want Hillary to win? That's naive. Wikipedia should not follow CNN in confusing objectivity with neutrality. It goes against the very principle the site stands for - democratic, unfiltered, objective truth without bias or "top-down" editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.185.245 (talk) 01:09, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

See WP:VNT.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 04:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

"Debbie Wasserman Schultz was forced aside by the release of thousands of embarrassing emails among party officials that appeared to show co­ordinated efforts to help Clinton at the expense of her rivals in the Democratic primaries. That contradicted claims by the party and the Clinton campaign that the process was open and fair for her leading challenger, Sen. Bernie Sanders." The emails specifically mention Hillary's people asking if they could "get someone to ask his belief," as an atheist would turn off Southern voters, so I don't know why you're arguing semantics (for myself truth = verifiable) to defend the exclusion of campaign finance data or correspondence leaks. If you present that email, and then the town hall theism question - on a network with a demonstrated conflict of interest (CNN) - any reasonable person will draw the logical conclusion. My journalism professor explained that if you present all the information and organize it well, you won't unintentionally editorialize; the evidence tells the story. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hacked-emails-cast-doubt-on-hopes-for-party-unity-at-democratic-convention/2016/07/24/a446c260-51a9-11e6-b7de-dfe509430c39_story.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wikileaks-dnc-bernie-sanders_us_579381fbe4b02d5d5ed1d157

That VNT page mentions that Wikipedia's other core value is neutral point of view, and I've already outlined multiple instances of how this article violates that principle by excluding pro-Jill sources to the point of unfairness. Why is Clinton's VERIFIED coordination with DWS to win the nomination not included on her 2016 campaign or main page? It's not even on the page for the Democratic Party presidential primaries 2016! But I can't edit her page...How do we create a Spanish language version of Jill Stein's page? I can write it and I'd like to clean up this one.71.35.185.245 (talk) 10:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

WOW indeed. This is an excellent (albeit partial) summary of what is wrong with this page. 174.19.243.30 (talk) 05:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses reliable sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:13, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

So many problems with this user's comments:

* Stein's comments about the lesser evil etc. is already covered. The campaign pointing to website polls as evidence of a coming lift is also mentioned. Trump's comments are not presented as an authoritative academic source, nor did he speak about Gary Johnson, so I fail to understand why it should be included there. If you have problems with the Gary Johnson page, I suggest you start to edit it. TeleSur is not a reliable source (how come every other user who wants to turn this article into a mess has a history of exclusively editing the pages of the Green Party and/or thinks that Venezuelan state propaganda is a reliable source?). I completely disagree with SashiRolls creating an entire subsection on 'third party chances'. All the content there should just be under the 2016 race subsection. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

* I'm fine with removing Harambe per discussion with one of the IP numbers above. Reliable sources citing academic research to put polling in context is vital. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

* Regarding Wi-Fi, this article quotes Stein and quotes reliable secondary sources. If Stein has updated her views on Wi-Fi, please add that clarification. If reliable sources say that Stein's Wi-Fi concerns are valid, add that also. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

* Both Clinton and Obama equivocated on vaccines in 2008 but have since strongly rejected the view that vaccines could be or are harmful. If you want to add Clinton's 8yr old position, go ahead. If Stein outlines why she thinks Obama is a war criminal, go ahead and add it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

* The Washington Post is a reliable source by any standard. When you say that WaPo is "outright propaganda", yet promote the use of actual Venezuelan state propaganda, it reflects poorly on you. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

* The other candidates' page include positions that precede the 2016 race. If Stein has updated her views on GMOs, reparations and scientific research spending, please update the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I was referring to the "third party spoiler" section, I agreed it should be removed, as it isn't on GJ's page. RT's original source is US Uncut's phone interview with Stein herself. http://usuncut.com/politics/jill-stein-campaign-surge/ But this is exactly what I mean about bias, acting as if CNN supporting Hillary's campaign financially isn't a conflict of interest/isn't worth mentioning...that's clearly not showing the whole picture. Like RT, Fox and CNN exist exclusively as propaganda for their respective parties yet are top primary sources. WaPo is owned by Jeff Bezos, CEO of another known corporate Hillary donor. I can't believe this outrage at the suggestion that these corporations aren't spinning in favor of their preferred candidate - if they are, obviously they won't say that. Regardless, I wasn't questioning the veracity of WaPo's "only 2 of 15 *currently* work for pharmaceutical co." stat, just pointing out that the head of the board is one of the corporate employees and it is very likely that many of the doctors *previously* worked for Big Pharma, as HRC has previously worked for Wal-Mart and is now fueled by corporate megadonors. What I disagreed with was WaPo's (and the page's) implication that most of the doctors not *currently* working for corporations is good enough support to counter Stein's statements about that the revolving door of lobbyists in pharmaceuticals as a conflict of interest, which is what they're attempting to do without reporting how many of them used to work for Big Pharma. It's lazy journalism. More research is necessary to counter Dr. Stein's professional knowledge of corporations hand picking medical professionals to suit their needs. There is historical basis in corporate cronies hijacking health policy, from the tobacco industry to climate change to lead. Snooganssnoogans if you think I'm such an anonymous charlatan, I'll let you fix this mess, as I've seen your condescension on this talk page and have no desire to edit war with a disrespectful mod. I've wasted enough time airing my grievances with this article already, but I'll check the new version so I can learn what "neutral" means on Wikipedia these days, from the master themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.185.245 (talk) 12:34, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

getting past wow

Media studies are going to be important it seems to me, I hope that you will talk a little bit about the history of US Uncut. I suppose that reflexively referring to the talk page in the article itself with a suggestion like ctrl-f "media" would be inappropriate and ineffective. But while we wait patiently for the administration's response, there are some interesting media studies that echo with this page in surprisingly familiar ways: [Power plays]. Note that some of the studies are not that "new". SashiRolls (talk) 13:21, 20 August 2016 (UTC)