SashiRolls (talk | contribs) adding permalink to rollback |
The Four Deuces (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 407: | Line 407: | ||
:'''Oppose''' (i.e., '''exclude all'''). For all the reasons I've already expressed. [[User:Snooganssnoogans|Snooganssnoogans]] ([[User talk:Snooganssnoogans|talk]]) 22:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC) |
:'''Oppose''' (i.e., '''exclude all'''). For all the reasons I've already expressed. [[User:Snooganssnoogans|Snooganssnoogans]] ([[User talk:Snooganssnoogans|talk]]) 22:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC) |
||
::I sincerely thank you for not attacking me personally this time. [[User:SashiRolls|SashiRolls]] ([[User talk:SashiRolls|talk]]) 22:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC) |
::I sincerely thank you for not attacking me personally this time. [[User:SashiRolls|SashiRolls]] ([[User talk:SashiRolls|talk]]) 22:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC) |
||
:'''Oppose''' Unreliable sources should not be used. While Stein is not the best known candidate, there are sufficient reliable secondary sources for use in the article. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 01:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:56, 14 August 2016
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is the tone truly encyclopedic in this article?
I'm sorry, but as currently written this article does not strike me as NPOV. Would it be possible to tone it down a bit so it doesn't sound like an extended campaign flyer? Just a thought. ::04:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)Rousse (talk)
Completely agree. This is a puff piece about someone whose entire political achievement is getting elected to a town council, with less than a thousand votes. Would Wikipedia stand for this if I wrote an article about my mayor? With a long discussion of his views? No. Wikipedia is frequently abused by people with an agenda - and no matter how much people might protest this woman is simply not notable. Catherinejarvis (talk) 23:28, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Jill Stein earned more votes for President in the 2012 general election than any woman ever. She has been interviewed by every journalistic outlet in the country multiple times. She is notable.--TM 12:40, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Removing religion from infobox
Previously, I asked for citations showing that this page meets Wikipedia's requirements for listing religion in the infobox and in the list of categories. I also did my own search. There do not appear to be sources establishing compliance with the rules for inclusion, so I have removed the religion entry and categories. It appears that this page does not meet Wikipedia's requirements, so I am removing religion from the infobox and categories. Editors are encouraged to add properly sourced religion information to the body of the article, subject to WP:V and WP:WEIGHT.
As a reminder Here are the requirements for listing a religion in the infobox and categories (religion in the body of the article has different rules):
Extended content
|
---|
|
Note: this page has not been singled out. I asked for citations on all forty candidates (some now withdrawn) for the 2016 US presidential election. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2016
I guess the person who write this sentence is not native speaker.
Stein has expressed that it is reasonable to be skeptical of mandatory vaccinations, arguing in favor of reducing vaccination rates.
The original source is
"I think dropping vaccinations rates that can and must be fixed in order to get at the vaccination issue: the widespread distrust of the medical-indsutrial complex."
She says dropping vaccinations rates must be fixed. If you look into the source you can easily see it.
Unbiasedsource (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- This is where she suggests that it is reasonable to be skeptical of mandatory vaccinations: "According to the most recent review of vaccination policies across the globe, mandatory vaccination that doesn't allow for medical exemptions is practically unheard of. In most countries, people trust their regulatory agencies and have very high rates of vaccination through voluntary programs. In the US, however, regulatory agencies are routinely packed with corporate lobbyists and CEOs. So the foxes are guarding the chicken coop as usual in the US. So who wouldn't be skeptical?" Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:58, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- On a second read of the quote about "dropping vaccinations rates", I see now that she could also be saying that dropping vaccinations rates are symptomatic of a problem of distrust. I'll correct it (check the page after five minutes). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:58, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the
{{edit semi-protected}}
template. B E C K Y S A Y L E S 22:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
phrasishly phrase phrasing
why "has been described as the presumptive nominee"? For the other two, it simply says "is". 174.19.179.9 (talk) 22:35, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- Honestly, I don't know. Maybe there are other candidates out there who are still vying for the Green Party nomination? I wouldn't be opposed to labeling her as the presumptive nominee without the "has been described" part. clpo13(talk) 19:19, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- That's the whole point, thanks. She meets the definition of presumptive nominee. 174.19.218.191 (talk) 19:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Inaccurate Characterization of "Brexit" opinion...
Article contains a factually incorrect statement that Stein was "in favor of the UK leaving the EU." No where in the cited source is that opinion ever expressed by Stein or tied to Stein. On the contrary, Stein is quoted in the article as stating she was in favor of the UK remaining in the EU, and working to fix problems with the EU that led to anti-EU sentiment: "Before the Brexit vote I agreed with Jeremy Corbyn, Caroline Lucas and the UK Greens who supported staying in the EU but working to fix it, because the EU has many problems. They also recalled the problems that existed before the EU between European nations. The EU was created to fix those problems. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckrachmer (talk • contribs) 17:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- She has completely changed her official statement on her website (without indicating that she made changes). There is a screenshot of what her official statement looked like when I edited it into this page here: http://www.forwardprogressives.com/green-party-jill-stein-busted-cover-up-praise-bigotry-driven-brexit/
- So yes, the wiki page should reflect both her immediate reaction and subsequent reversal. Thanks for pointing it out. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jill Stein. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jill2016.com/stein_calls_britain_vote_a_wake_up_call
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Requested edit
Can someone edit into the quote in the article the following links.
"apartheid, assassinations, illegal settlements, blockades, building of nuclear bombs, indefinite detention, collective punishment, international law." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.54.196 (talk) 21:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- I edited most of it in. I did not edit in the assassinations and int law wiki-links as it is unclear that she was referring to those particular things. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- I am undoing this change. Per MOS:QUOTE, "As much as possible, avoid linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader." --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the correction. I wasn't aware of the rule. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Editor moves Stein quote to chronologically inaccurate place
This is how SteveStrummer wants one part of the page to look:
- "Stein has put great emphasis on attracting Bernie Sanders supporters to her campaign.[2] She has, for instance, claimed to have a 99% match with Bernie Sanders (and 91% match with Hillary Clinton) on ISideWith, a political quiz on political stances.[105] Bernie Sanders has urged his supporters to vote for Hillary Clinton, noting that the United States is not a multi-party parliamentary system and that "you're gonna end up having a choice. Either Hillary Clinton is going to become president, or Donald Trump."[106][107] Stein says that the political changes desired by Sanders supporters transcend party interests, and that the Democrats could never fully deliver on them anyway: "[Y]ou cannot have a revolutionary campaign inside of a counter-revolutionary party".[2]"
I want it to look like this:
- "Stein has put great emphasis on attracting Bernie Sanders supporters to her campaign.[2] She has, for instance, claimed to have a 99% match with Bernie Sanders (and 91% match with Hillary Clinton) on ISideWith, a political quiz on political stances.[105] Stein says that the political changes desired by Sanders supporters transcend party interests, and that the Democrats could never fully deliver on them anyway: "[Y]ou cannot have a revolutionary campaign inside of a counter-revolutionary party".[2]" Bernie Sanders has urged his supporters to vote for Hillary Clinton, noting that the United States is not a multi-party parliamentary system and that "you're gonna end up having a choice. Either Hillary Clinton is going to become president, or Donald Trump."[106][107]
My explanation is simple: SteveStrummer's version gives the false impression that Stein's quote is responding to the Sanders quote, when it is not. Stein's quote precedes his. This is not a major issue but I'd rather see the confusion avoided. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- With this edit, I introduced Stein's regular rejoinder to calls for support of a compromise candidate, i.e. Clinton. She has made this same point over and over in the campaign. Its inclusion here is entirely accurate as a "reply" to the Sanders comments, even if it's not strictly chronological. Moreover I believe it's important to let Stein's perspective have the last-word emphasis, here in her own article. SteveStrummer (talk) 19:16, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2016
For some reason I cannot edit this article.
I would suggest changing the caption in the photograph (at the top of the 'Career' section) from "Stein at a protest against coal" to "Stein at a protest against coal mining" or "Stein at a protest against coal-powered energy production".
Although the world seems full of wacky politicians, I'm sure Dr Stein does have any kind of grudge against inanimate, non-sentient minerals!
98.122.20.56 (talk) 05:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Editor removes reliable secondary sources about candidate's claims (inconsistent with other politicians' pages)
User 'Namiba' removed this content (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jill_Stein&type=revision&diff=732364499&oldid=732364235) without a substantive reply to my reasons for inclusion. The crux of the issue is that the factual accuracy of and context behind candidates' claims are covered on all major politicians' pages, yet this editor wants to remove all such content on Jill Stein's page. See some examples from other politicians' pages:
- I can count at least four statements that received a "false" or "pants on fire" (use ctrl+F) from PolitiFact on Hillary Clinton's page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Hillary_Clinton. There are plenty more fact-checks on there that challenge Clinton's claims (just check every mention of Factcheck.org, PolitiFact, Washington Post fact-checker etc. and you'll see plenty of claims being pushed back on)
- Mike Pence's page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Pence. At a first glance, I can see the New York Times challenging Pence's claims about Iraq. I can also see the page reflecting the inaccuracy of Pence's claims about climate change.
- Donald Trump's pages are replete with sources challenging his claims (if I had to list them, I'd spend all day doing so). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump#Political_positions + https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Donald_Trump.
Please restore this content. There is no reason why this page should be cleansed of 'inconvenient' material that exists on all similar pages. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- Namiba is right. You are confusing "X is true" with "People are concerned about X". 174.19.157.210 (talk) 19:21, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- Who are you (I don't see any edits in your past before you showed up in this talk)? This is context that was brought specifically up by the reliable secondary sources (if they make note of it, then surely this wikipedia page should). As you can see on the other politicians' pages, they are full of this kind of content (do you dispute that?). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:30, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- I've restored the neutral point of view to the article. It is about Dr. Jill Stein's positions, not Forbes or the Washington Post's commentary. It doesn't matter what other articles have. Perhaps those need to have NPOV restored as well. Moreover, the obsessive focus on her scientific position, which bare little weight on her presidential campaign, is a definite problem.--TM 12:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- The edits that you removed clearly do not violate NPOV (e.g. (1) see the "Fringe theories and pseudoscience" exception for one, (2) adding context and clarification from reliable secondary sources is always acceptable) and have been reached by consensus on the other politicians' pages, so you're going against consensus (you're not even arguing that you aren't) and not citing the rules correctly. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with Snooganssnoogans.VictoriaGraysonTalk 17:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- I, too, agree with Snooganssnoogans. We are not a campaign brochure. If a candidate says X — and then reliable secondary sources (mostly journalists and academics) say that "candidate is wrong; X is actually inaccurate," then we can and should note the discrepancy. There is a right way and a wrong way to do this, and of course we need to be careful to hew to the sources, give appropriate weight, etc.: but this does not mean that any criticism or pushback should be excised from a candidate' bio page — particularly when a candidate's statement advances a conspiracy theory, a fringe claim, or the like. Neutralitytalk 05:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with Snooganssnoogans.VictoriaGraysonTalk 17:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- The edits that you removed clearly do not violate NPOV (e.g. (1) see the "Fringe theories and pseudoscience" exception for one, (2) adding context and clarification from reliable secondary sources is always acceptable) and have been reached by consensus on the other politicians' pages, so you're going against consensus (you're not even arguing that you aren't) and not citing the rules correctly. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- I've restored the neutral point of view to the article. It is about Dr. Jill Stein's positions, not Forbes or the Washington Post's commentary. It doesn't matter what other articles have. Perhaps those need to have NPOV restored as well. Moreover, the obsessive focus on her scientific position, which bare little weight on her presidential campaign, is a definite problem.--TM 12:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Who are you (I don't see any edits in your past before you showed up in this talk)? This is context that was brought specifically up by the reliable secondary sources (if they make note of it, then surely this wikipedia page should). As you can see on the other politicians' pages, they are full of this kind of content (do you dispute that?). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:30, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- FWIW I agree with Snoogans, too. I am also an anon editor, and that doesn't give me any less right to comment here than the previous anon editor. However, Snoogansnoogans is right - we should address the facts. We don't necessarily need to present it in such an in-your-face manner though. Simply stating something like, "despite scientific consensus overwhelmingly contradicting her claims", with a citation should do. There's no need to go into an overly-long explanation - leave that to a separate article on Wikipedia, or put it into an article about fringe, debunked theories or pseudo science. --98.122.20.56 (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Editors continue to remove inconvenient content and context
One editor keeps removing this content: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jill_Stein&type=revision&diff=732731583&oldid=732664753
- I'm fine with removing Chait's characterization of Stein's plan. Chait is just a journalist and op-ed writer, not an authoritative or reliable source. I didn't add the content and I'm fine with removing it.
- However, deleting the mention that Jill Stein is a 91% match with Hillary Clinton (https://twitter.com/drjillstein/status/742450334556028928) is just whitewashing. It is perfectly fair to describe the picture that she posted.
- Deleting an op-ed by a political scientist (writing for Washington Post's political science blog) mentioning Stein specifically and clarifying the impact of third-party candidates according to the political science literature is also just whitewashing.This is the kind of content that is all over the pages of Trump, Clinton, Pence and Kaine. There's no reason why expert opinion should be removed from this page.
- I don't understand what relevance if any the editor thinks Hillary Clinton's 'Lucifer' numbers have.
Pinging other regular editors to this page and other politicians' pages for feedback: User: Neutrality, User: VictoriaGrayson, User: Activist, User: Volunteer_Marek. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed. I completely agree with Snooganssnoogans.VictoriaGraysonTalk 22:49, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with Snooganssnoogans. Skuldt is a scholar, and her piece, published on the Washington Post's highly regarded political scientists' group blog, directly addresses Stein's likely impact. Skuldt essentially says that according to a large body of social science research, Stein has no realistic chance of winning and possibly could be a spoiler. This seems directly relevant and nonspeculative, and the weight given to it (two sentences) is proportional. Therefore I think it's perfectly fine to mention it both here at Jill Stein and at Jill Stein presidential campaign, 2016. Neutralitytalk 05:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
There is a mistake in the results of CNN poll
"A CNN poll (released on 1 August 2016) showed that 13% of Sanders supporters would vote for Sanders" should say "A CNN poll (released on 1 August 2016) showed that 13% of Sanders supporters would vote for Stein" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.227.216.247 (talk) 07:53, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. I will correct it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 07:54, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Stein's relevant experience
A recent New York Times article describes Stein as a "physician". I came to this article to see if she's had any relevant work experience at all. As far as I can tell from the article, Stein has held exactly one government position: She was "a town meeting representative" in the Town of Lexington, Massachusetts. It seems to me I shouldn't have had to dig through the article for this information. It also seems to me the article might put this information into some sort of perspective. It might mention, for example, that, as the Lexington website puts it, "the legislative function is performed by a representative Town Meeting comprising roughly 200 elected Town Meeting Members", and that, since the population of Lexington was 31,394 in the 2010 census, Stein represented approximately 157 constituents (in contradistinction to the 319 million constituents she'll represent if she's elected President of the United States). TheScotch (talk) 10:03, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
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)
Editor again removes clarifying content and context for spurious reasons
This editor removed an article from the New York Times' academic Upshot blog which put the polling data into context: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jill_Stein&type=revision&diff=733432172&oldid=733425524
The editor removed it for the reason that "This is an article about Stein, not polling." That explanation does not stand up. First, polling data is covered on both Clinton and Trump's pages in the corresponding subsections. Second, such polling data is clarified with informed commentary and context from reliable sources. Third, the editor chose to leave all other text on polls, which suggests that this is insincere and attempt to whitewash.
Keeping the content in is entirely consistent with the standards on other politicians' pages, and with consensus reached on these talk pages. Pinging regular editors again to quickly settle this disruptive editing: User: Neutrality, User: VictoriaGrayson, User: Activist, User: Volunteer_Marek, User: Gouncbeatduke . Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:04, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- I've re-added the text ("Historically speaking, support for third-party candidates tends to decline closer to the election") back, with an additional source, the Washington Post, such that our two sources are:
- Aaron Blake, A new poll has Trump in fourth — behind Gary Johnson AND Jill Stein — with young people, Washington Post (August 5, 2016) ("Third-party candidates tend to poll better before Election Day than they actually perform on Election Day. If history is any guide (and it has not always been one this election cycle), support for Johnson and Stein will ebb over the next three months.")
- Josh Katz, Can Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Nominee, Swing the Election?, New York Times (August 4, 2016) ("Since 1968, all of the major third-party candidates have seen their polling averages decline closer to the election. ... Jill Stein, the Green Party's presumptive nominee ... is polling in the low-single digits and is a long shot to make the debates.")
- It seems to me that
- (1) the sources are high-quality and mention Stein by name;
- (2) the weight given to the content (one sentence) is proportionate; and
- (3) the information provided is valuable historical context to the reader (especially for the reader unfamilar with U.S. political history) and is not overly speculative.
- (4) the wording is factual and does not express a particular point of view.
- The additional Washington Post that I added will, I hope, allay any concerns. Neutralitytalk 20:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- I've re-added the text ("Historically speaking, support for third-party candidates tends to decline closer to the election") back, with an additional source, the Washington Post, such that our two sources are:
FYI
I have removed two claims (one of them in the lead section) cited only to a graduate student's personal blog on Blogspot, which is obviously not a reliable source. It should be noted that the claims were not correct, or were at least not quite correct:
- The lead section claimed that Stein had more votes than "any other female general election candidate" in 2012. - Not a true statement. Stein may have received more votes than any other female general election presidential candidate but Dianne Feinstein received far more votes (7.2 million+) in the 2012 Senate election in California.
- The body claimed that Stein's 2012 performance made her "the most successful female presidential candidate in U.S. history" — that statement is very dubious because it is not restricted to general elections; Hillary Clinton's received far more votes in the 2008 primaries than Stein did in the 2012 general election. Perhaps Stein has received "the highest number of votes of any female presidential candidate in a general election," but that is very different from being "the most successful."
--Neutralitytalk 21:12, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
ties to Russia
This morning, I read this article "https://theintercept.com/2016/08/08/dems-tactic-of-accusing-adversaries-of-kremlin-ties-and-russia-sympathies-has-long-history-in-us' and related it with the wikipedia page a read a while ago.. I noticed there was an antagonism and I think the section concerning the December meeting with Putin in the wikipedia page is misleading:
The articles in its current form contains this sentence: "She met with president Putin in Moscow in December 2015 at a banquet celebrating the 10th anniversary of the Russian state propaganda network Russia Today.[141] While in Russia, Stein criticised U.S. foreign policy and the state of human rights in the U.S.; she did not criticize Russia's foreign policy or human rights in Russia"
What is said in that sentence is not corroborated by facts, Based on the video which is their only disclosed material/source of "Americablog.com", you cannot say the she "criticised U.S. foreign policy and the state of human rights in the U.S.; she did not criticise Russia's foreign policy or human rights in Russia".
This sentence is actually misleading, as it suggests Dr Stein is not critical towards Russia. However, she did publicly criticised Russia: "she criticised Russia for diverting scarce resources into military spending while its people suffered" Quote from a media outlet the_intercept (and not the blog..) (ref: https://theintercept.com/2016/08/08/dems-tactic-of-accusing-adversaries-of-kremlin-ties-and-russia-sympathies-has-long-history-in-us/). Finally, the word "propaganda" to describe RT has a negative tone.
Overall, if you want to report on her meeting with Putin in december 2015, the main message is 1) anti-militaristic attitude and 2) she's in favour of balance of power in international relations. As the election 2016 are getting close, all the sources and pages should be verified. Such a misleading part is not acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcsoisfranc (talk • contribs) 19:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Tax returns
Releasing a two-page summary of the tax returns for one year is generally not considered a release of tax returns. See, for instance, PolitiFact rating Sanders's claim that he has released his past tax returns as "false" for precisely this reason. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/apr/06/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-has-released-few-tax-returns-compar/ Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:05, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed, it is not a release of tax returns.VictoriaGraysonTalk 23:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
NPOV template
The NPOV template is being added to this page.SashiRolls (talk) 11:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Zero reason to add this template. You just add it to any page where the consensus is against your ludicrous edits. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- another personal attack. SashiRolls (talk) 19:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Editors also involved on Ajamu Baraka's page
For information, I would note that several of those involved here are also very active on her running mate's page (in particular Snoogansnoogans, Neutrality, and VictoriaGrayson). Cf. Ajamu Baraka There is currently an NPOV dispute on that page, concerning the inclusion of ad hominem attacks from articles titled:
- "What if the Green Party Stopped Being Kooky and Started Getting Real?"
- "Friends Don't Let Friends Vote for Jill Stein" (Tablet Magazine)
- "Stein Campaign Says Running Mate Didn’t Realize He Was Talking to and Being Republished By Holocaust Denier" (Gawker)
Anyone interested in Wikipedia neutrality is urged to look into the matter further.
Also, it is worth noting that User:Neutrality has been cited in an article at the Atlantic as the most prolific editor of Tim Kaine's page in the week preceding his nomination (30K of adds that week).
The Wikipedia page of Virginia Senator Tim Kaine [...] has seen 62 edits on Friday alone. There have been almost 90 edits over the past week. Many of them originate from a user called Neutrality, a longtime Wikipedia editor who has made more than 110,000 edits to the encyclopedia. [1] SashiRolls (talk) 01:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- ^ Robinson Meyer and Graham Starr (July 22, 2016). "Is Wikipedia Foreshadowing Clinton's Vice Presidential Pick?". the Atlantic.
- Is there any point in your continued efforts to cast ridiculous aspersions not only on myself, but on other editors? Give it a rest. Neutralitytalk 01:24, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, the point is to warn people concerning this activism, using verifiable and reliable sources. You say I'm casting ridiculous aspersions on you. You have the right to respond: do you deny any of the items exposed above? If not, in what way are the claims made ridiculous? SashiRolls (talk) 09:55, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- In addition, it is worth noting that Neutrality has fought to remove a harmless introductory summary of Baraka's work published at TeleSUR, though he received the support of only one person (also an activist lobbying for inclusion of the ad hominem atttacks) at the Reliable sources noticeboard SashiRolls (talk) 10:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
For the first time, I decided to try to add more neutral language to the page, eliminating terms like "rhetoric" and "highly critical" which indicate an authorial point of view and within minutes Snooganssnoogans reached his daily three revert WP:3RR limit for this page.
An excellent example of biased editing is his revert of the following edit:
- Stein later
changededited her official statement on the resultoutcome(without indicating so on her website),sayingclarifying that "Before the Brexit vote I agreed with Jeremy Corbyn, Caroline Lucas and the UK Greens who supported staying in the EU but working to fix it."
In her original post, Stein had not indicated her position prior to the referendum; in the edited version she did. This is, by any standard, a clarification of her position not a change of position. The effort to slow down cleanup of the article has been duly noted. SashiRolls (talk) 11:55, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- You've done your best to turn Ajamu Baraka's page into a mess. Now you're here to rewrite text in the most pro-Stein fashion. You've again implied that everyone who does not describe your favored candidates in the most laudatory terms must have insincere intentions, so I guess we can expect that you've come here to turn this page into a mess as we ll. It is more descriptive to say that someone quickly deleted a tweet rather than just deleted it. 'Highly' is used several times on both Trump's and Clinton's pages. Your recommended edit on Brexit is ludicrious. The statement was drastically different between the two versions. First version was highly critical of the EU, considered Brexit a victory and said not a single nice thing about the EU or said anything that could be interpreted as supportive of the UK staying in the EU. The second version scrubbed the most pointed criticism of the EU, removed the statement that this was a victory and added that she supported the UK staying in the EU. Readers can decide for themselves whether this change is a "clarification" or Stein flip-flopping. Editors should not describe it unless reliable secondary sources can be found. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:09, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- I've taken the time to reread her two statements carefully (that is why this comment is later than the following one). In neither post does she speak about having a post-referendum position on whether Britain should stay in Europe or leave Europe, contrary to what you assert. Indeed, readers can decide for themselves on the truth of your assertions above. The main difference between the two statements is that she indicates that prior to the referendum she supported the position of Corbyn & the Greens and makes clear that she will continue to support them. SashiRolls (talk) 12:52, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
You have made 4 reverts in the last half an hour, sir. 11:53 (deletion of content), 11:25, 11:24, and 11:22. This is a violation of the WP:3RR rule. SashiRolls (talk) 12:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- The intention was to do those reverts in one edit (as can be seen from how I reverted those edits over a short period). I'm not skilled enough to revert several edits at once. I don't think I violated the spirit of the rule. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:20, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- You wished to revert an 11:34 edit at 11:22? I'm confused. SashiRolls (talk) 12:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- All reverts except that one was intended to be part of the one revert. "Stein has made unequivocally clear that she does not believe that vaccines cause autism" should be dropped. Her clarified position is "I'm not aware of any evidence that vaccines cause autism." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Namiba adds the supposed position of another candidate
I can't revert. This edit clearly has no business on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jill_Stein&type=revision&diff=734304767&oldid=734304253. There are two problems:
(i) Trump's and Clinton's pages don't compare and contrast their positions with those of other candidates. After all, the pages are about those individuals, not other people. (ii) The editor adds a statement from 2008 without adding her current position on the subject. This suggests that the editor has insincere intentions.
Please revert. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:16, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Editor reinterprets Stein's clear Brexit statements
SashiRolls has already shown him/herself to have the worst reading comprehension I've ever encountered on wikipedia, and is now here to turn this page into a garbled mess. Stein in no unclear terms talks about Brexit favorably in her original statement, calling it a "victory" and saying absolutely nothing that can be interpreted as being in favor of the EU or the UK leaving the EU. SashiRolls has now rewritten and reinterpreted Stein's meaning to whitewash her original statement.
- after violating the WP:3RR rule, you have now violated the WPP:NPA rule as you have done on the other page. SashiRolls (talk) 15:52, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
This is what the sentence correctly looked like: "Having initially spoken in favor of the UK leaving the European Union in her official statement on the referendum outcome, Stein later changed her official statement (without indicating so on her website), saying "Before the Brexit vote I agreed with Jeremy Corbyn, Caroline Lucas and the UK Greens who supported staying in the EU but working to fix it."
- correctly? please. Again, nowhere does she indicate that she supports the UK leaving or staying in the union. Stating that something is a victory for those who oppose EU austerity policies is not saying that she is in favor of the UK leaving the EU.
This is SashiRolls removing any and all substance from her remarks, adding instead a bunch of weasel words: "Having initially expressing understanding concerning the Brexit vote because of the European austerity policy, Stein later clarified her position, adding that "Before the Brexit vote I agreed with Jeremy Corbyn, Caroline Lucas and the UK Greens who supported staying in the EU but working to fix it."
- another violation of the WP:NPA policy in this and the following paragraph. SashiRolls (talk) 15:52, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
She did not just "express understanding". She did not "clarify" the statement. This is getting ludicrious.Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:58, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- She expresses understanding, she did not call for Brexit... "The austerity policies pushed aggressively by the EU bankers in the wake of the 2008 economic collapse has harmed the economies of European nations. It has also led to the kind of divisions between the working class and immigrants that fueled the Brexit. The increase in anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim and anti-refugee sentiment expanded because of the EU's economic policies, and was a key driver in support of the UK's departure from the European Union." SashiRolls (talk) 15:52, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
The page is now in better condition, in my opinion. I hope it is easier to read than it was when I arrived and appropriate weight is given to the different positions. As things stood, we had two factual errors unsupported in the source material (Jill Stein did not indicate that she thought the UK should leave the EU, nor did she say that she did not believe "issues" with vaccines had not been addressed, just before a quote showing what she actually said), many formulations showing authorial interpretation, undue weight being placed on minor sources (tweets) and on, decontextualized citations (the Wifi in schools discussion in particular, in which no mention was made of the fact that Stein was discussing the drive to computerize kindergarten education), unnecessary repetitions, impossibly long paragraphs, etc. I have humbly tried to improve both the style and neutrality of the entry. I do think that Snooganssnoogans might consider stepping back from this page for a while, as I had no intention of irritating him by cleaning the page up in terms of style and neutrality. SashiRolls (talk) 15:52, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- ^ "Green Candidate Jill Stein Isn't Anti-Vaccine". Young Turks. Retrieved 2016-08-13.
Editor is ruining this page with nonsense. Please revert.
Pinging regular editors to this page and other politicians' pages again to quickly settle this disruptive editing: User: Neutrality, User: VictoriaGrayson, User: Activist, User: Volunteer_Marek, User: Gouncbeatduke, User: SkepticalRaptor. SashiRolls and Namiba have in a series of edits over the day added a bunch of nonsense and ridiculous interpretations of statements. It's getting difficult to count all the nonsense that needs to reverted at this point (I've reached my 3RR quota). The last few edits dubiously interpret her wi-fi statement and describe them in vague terms (nobody knows the term "wireless fidelity", the wi-fi statement falls under 'science' not 'education'). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- The edits are so ridiculous and extensive that they should be reverted in whole until the user gets consensus for them on the talk page. The page is now a mess. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Is this yet another personal attack? :( SashiRolls (talk) 15:53, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree these edits are not following Wikipedia policy, as is the usual case with SashiRolls. See the talk page of Ajamu Baraka for example.VictoriaGraysonTalk 17:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Interesting. No discussion of the relevant points above; nothing, just a global revert/rollback, reinserting two factual errors, leaving dated information, reverting to text which refers to Jill Stein's statements as "rhetoric". This is Wikipedia neutrality? I guess we know what the worth of wikipedia is. Will file a dispute for what it's worth to see if we can have any faith in the neutrality of these pages or if official wikipedia policy is to bully editors making good faith edits and do nothing about repeated personal attacks. SashiRolls (talk) 19:17, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
When not to remove NPOV template A template should not be removed if any of the following applies:
- When the issue has not yet been resolved;
- When there is ongoing activity or discussion related to the template issue;
- When you do not understand the issues raised by the template;
- When you simply disagree with the template (seek consensus first);
- You have been paid to edit the article or have some other conflict of interest.
1, 2, & 4 definitely apply. I suspect 3 does as well, because you didn't have the time to look into the changes, reading the sources carefully as I did. As for 5, only you can know that. SashiRolls (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- I don't see the word "rhetoric" anywhere in the revision I reverted to. I also performed a search via CTRL+F.VictoriaGraysonTalk 19:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Very strange, you rolled back all of my edits and yet the word "rhetoric" which I had changed somehow also disappeared since yesterday [1] (ctrl-f)
- Could I ask for the wiki version of the page prior to your rollback that I can store it on my own personal mediawiki during the dispute process please (or are my hours of work just lost forever?) (I have mediawiki installed on my own server for my students.) I can provide an email address for that purpose, if there is a private way to communicate. Thank you. SashiRolls (talk) 19:58, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't rollback all your edits. Please me more careful with your accusations.VictoriaGraysonTalk 21:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- But you did roll back a significant number of my edits, which seems to be against wikipedia policy (I just learned this in fact, looking through the page of someone who thanked me for posting the following section "Censored material")
- I didn't rollback all your edits. Please me more careful with your accusations.VictoriaGraysonTalk 21:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Please keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:
- Rollback should never be used to edit war.
- Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
- Why are you risking your rollback and reviewer status to prevent correction of erroneous information on this page? Please understand, I have no desire for you to get in trouble, I'm only looking for neutrality. SashiRolls (talk) 00:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't use the rollback function at all.VictoriaGraysonTalk 01:07, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- OK. I guess it was a manual cut and paste rollback then (here). Like I said, I'm not looking to cause trouble, I'm looking for honest responses to my questions below (the purpose of the talk page as I understand it is to reach compromise positions.) You stated below that none of the references cited were reliable sources, and yet 5 of the 6 were already contained in the article. In fact, I agree with you regarding all of the sources on the Brexit question: the fact that she edited her page does not seem to me to be a scandal, especially given that the only significant change was to make clear that she shared the position of the UK Greens and Corbyn prior to the vote (i.e. Remain). Normally, on a talk page, there is some negotiation, an attempt to find a compromise solution, and yet I haven't seen much effort to reach consensus on the part of the three editors who have voted so far. Could I ask you to be more specific, please, as to what specifically you find as being wrong with my edit, since clearly it's not a question of "reliable sources" since I introduced only one source. Thank you for participating in a constructive way in an effort to reach consensus. SashiRolls (talk) 01:20, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't use the rollback function at all.VictoriaGraysonTalk 01:07, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Censored material
I will attempt to reconstruct briefly the major changes made to the page, then reverted without any comment by Victoria Grayson, below.
Technology in Education (Wi-Fi + computers in Kindergarten)
Necessary context was provided for the much-cited quotation concerning wi-fi in schools. While this was originally an education question, only the health aspect / wifi aspect of the discussion has been cherry-picked from the video (currently citing "The World According to Matthew" rather than the original video posted by "Safe Teach for Schools").
In a much-discussed interaction with parents and teachers, Stein stated that she felt the move towards computerized education in kindergarten was good neither for young children's cognitive nor social development, saying that "We should be moving away from screens at all levels of education."[1] She argues that such a policy is not good for teachers, children, or communities, but does benefit device manufacturers.[1] Her position on wireless fidelity in the classroom is likewise critical of device manufacturers:
We should not be subjecting kid’s brains especially to that... and we don’t follow this issue in our country, but in Europe where they do [...] they have good precautions about wireless. Maybe not good enough [...] it’s very hard to study this stuff. You know, we make guinea pigs out of whole populations and then we discover how many die. This is the paradigm for how public health works in this country. [...] Our research institutions, as well, need to be publicly funded and publicly accountable, not for the device manufacturers, not sponsored by the pharmaceutical companies. [1]
Inaccuracies concerning her stance on vaccines
This paragraph took a lot of work because it was necessary to split it up into several paragraphs for clarity, and a number of minor changes were made to eliminate subtle bias. As the text stands, it is clear that wikipedia's position is that Stein is to be distrusted on this issue. My version left all of the facts and references but added a more neutral tone.
clear contradiction between wiki-voice and citation
Currently existing text:
In an interview with the Washington Post, Stein stated that "vaccines have been absolutely critical in ridding us of the scourge of many diseases," but said that not all "issues" or "questions" around vaccines had been addressed or resolved.[160] She said, "There 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.
My solution was to let the quote stand on its own without the contradictory text in Wiki-voice.
Jill Stein's position on vaccines, clearly and unequivocally stated
The following evidence that Jill Stein has clearly and unequivocally stated she thinks there is no link between vaccines & autism was summarily deleted without discussion despite the citation being on the talk page (#20 bottom 11:34 edit) above.
Stein has made unequivocally clear that she does not believe that vaccines cause autism, comparing the media frenzy around the issue to the birther issue used against Obama. [2]
Inaccurate characterization of "Brexit" opinion
As noted by another editor on the 28th of June (see #5 above), and by me in the talk above (#22), there is a factual error concerning Jill Stein's position on Brexit. I corrected this with the following text:
Having initially expressing understanding concerning the Brexit vote because of the European austerity policy,[3][4][5][6] Stein later clarified her position, adding that "Before the Brexit vote I agreed with Jeremy Corbyn, Caroline Lucas and the UK Greens who supported staying in the EU but working to fix it."[7]
Nowhere in the original text does she say she is in favor of the UK leaving the EU, as two editors have noted on the talk page already. As it currently stands the text has been reverted to:
Having initially spoken in favor of the UK leaving the European Union in her official statement on the referendum outcome, Stein later changed her official statement (without indicating so on her website), saying "Before the Brexit vote I agreed with Jeremy Corbyn, Caroline Lucas and the UK Greens who supported staying in the EU but working to fix it.
Conclusion
While these represent only the major changes that stick out in my mind, because of the severity of their impartiality, there were others as well. I grant that there may be points at which a word or two could/should be changed in my formulations, however I believe that in each case reasonable people, having done the work to study the original texts (in the case of Brexit), or read the text carefully, will agree that they represent improvements.
I would ask that these edits be restored in the interest of impartiality. Thank you for taking the time to read this. Action on this will restore my faith in the Wikipedia process (and probably of those who might land on Jill Stein's page or this talk page). That confidence has been badly damaged by this rollback and by the numerous personal attacks I have endured above in an effort to override an editor who seems unwilling to compromise despite the presentation of clear evidence. SashiRolls (talk) 20:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
NB: reference #2 is new. The rest are already in the article (though #1 is embedded in a blog)
- ^ a b c ""We Should Not Be Subjecting Children's Brains To Wi-Fi [&] Screens In Schools. It's Not OK" Jill Stein". Safe Teach for Schools.
{{cite web}}
:|access-date=
requires|url=
(help); Missing or empty|url=
(help) - ^ "Green Candidate Jill Stein Isn't Anti-Vaccine". Young Turks. Retrieved 2016-08-13.
- ^ "The original, pro-Brexit statement".
- ^ "Jill Stein calls Britain Vote a "Wake-up Call"".
- ^ "Jill Stein calls Britain Vote a "Wake-up Call"".
- ^ "Green Party Hero Jill Stein Busted Trying to Cover Up Her Praise of Bigotry-Driven Brexit". 2016-06-27. Retrieved 2016-06-30.
- ^ "Stein calls Britain Vote a Wake-up Call". Retrieved 2016-06-25.
Request for Comment
Should some or all of the material listed in the previous section (censored material) be restored? SashiRolls (talk) 21:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose None of the sources are WP:RS.VictoriaGraysonTalk 21:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- The only new source is #2 (a video of Jill Stein speaking (which would seem to me to be a very reliable source concerning what she actually said)). In fact one of the sources of video (as noted above) is the same as the one currently cited, except that it is not embedded on the site "The World According to Matthew" (with the added spin of the Matthew in question) but goes directly to the source (video posted by Safe Teach for Schools. So it would seem you might be saying that the sources currently contained in the article are not WP:RS? SashiRolls (talk) 22:23, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose (i.e., exclude all). The excluded text doesn't improve the article and in some cases is confusing, misleading, inaccurate. Neutralitytalk 22:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- which cases? This one? clear contradiction between wiki voice and citation SashiRolls (talk) 22:23, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Include all (so that my vote counts too) SashiRolls (talk) 22:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose (i.e., exclude all). For all the reasons I've already expressed. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- I sincerely thank you for not attacking me personally this time. SashiRolls (talk) 22:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Unreliable sources should not be used. While Stein is not the best known candidate, there are sufficient reliable secondary sources for use in the article. TFD (talk) 01:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)