Talk:Jill Stein

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2024

The sub headers of Infrastructure and payment under the political positions section are misformatted. They should be bolded. Wtinguely (talk) 18:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Per MOS:BOLD, bolding section headers causes excessive double-bold fonts. Liu1126 (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Jill Stein's Policies - Specifically on Economy

Old Text. Economy In her various political campaigns, Stein supported industry nationalization and guaranteed employment. In 2015, Stein was critical of official employment numbers, saying that unemployment figures were "designed to essentially cover up unemployment," and that the real unemployment rate for that year was around 12–13%. In February 2016, she said that "real unemployment is nearly 10%, 2x as high as the official rate."

New Text. Economy

In her various political campaigns, Stein supported some industry nationalization and guaranteed employment.  Specifically:  “we need grassroots democratic control of the resources of society.  Nationalizing failed banks and the automobile industry can be one step toward filling those needs. Our government and our economy must focus on the needs and potentials of people and the planet – instead of serving a wealthy few.” ([https://web.archive.org/web/20141019035142/http:/greenpapers.net/jobs-for-all-with-a-green-new-deal/ https://web.archive.org/web/20141019035142/http://greenpapers.net/jobs-for-all-with-a-green-new-deal/  )

During her 2012 and 2016 presidential runs, Stein called for "nationalizing" and "democratiz[ing]" the Federal Reserve, placing it under a Federal Monetary Authority in the Treasury Department and ending its independence. She supported the creation of nonprofit publicly owned banks, pledging to create such entities at the federal and state levels.  In a 2016 interview Stein said she believed in having "the government as the employer of last resort."  Stein's 2016 platform pledged to guarantee housing but did not offer specifics.

Green New Deal

Referring to President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal approach to the Great Depression, Stein advocated the Green New Deal in her 2012 and 2016 campaigns, in which renewable energy jobs would be created to address climate change and environmental issues; the objective would be to employ "every American willing and able to work."  Stein said that it would be "through a community decision-making process." Leonard Zane (talk) 22:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2024

In the lead, please change "which accounted for .36% of the popular vote" to "which accounted for 0.36% of the popular vote". To anybody with less than perfect vision, it looks like 36%. 2001:BB6:47ED:FA58:F9C3:BBA3:F69D:A540 (talk) 08:52, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done Hyphenation Expert (talk) 13:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

mother's maiden name?

if it says what the first name she was born with is, it should also say what the last name she was born with was. 173.222.1.181 (talk) 01:03, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Stein is the last name she was born with. She uses her maiden name (her husband's last name is Rohrer, see the "Personal life" section). Her mother's maiden name is acknowledged in the "Early life" section: "the daughter of Gladys (née Wool) and Joseph Stein". A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 01:22, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, I misread that to mean that Gladys Stein used to be named Wool ___ and was wondering why she changed her first name. 173.222.1.181 (talk) 03:28, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

semi protected edit request on August 19, 2024

In the section on political positions > black americans, it says "Stein has deplored what she and others identify as the structural racism of the U.S. judicial and prison system."

The wording here implies that structural racism is a green party thing, when it is widely accepted beyond the green party, including by Wikipedia.

I request that the sentence be revised by someone with edit access to say something like "Stein has deplored the structural racism of the U.S. judicial and prison system."

Please note that I changed the link to the one referenced in the "see also" section of the structural racism page. The new link is specific to the structural racism of the U.S. which makes more sense since Jill Stein is a U.S.-specific political figure.

Thank you for your help. 173.222.1.181 (talk) 03:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Recent POV edits

Recent edits by User:DMH223344 rely mostly on her website, or that of her campaign, and the language seems to rely on that as well. That's not neutral, and it's not OK: we need material that has secondary sourcing if only to prove that all these claims and positions are worth noting in the first place. Drmies (talk) 00:35, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree secondary sources would be better. But primary sources are fine when no interpretation is presented. Here I have summarized the points presented on the platform itself. There is nothing inherently POV about the additions which you reverted and I disagree with the addition of a POV tag. In response to your edit summary "a lot of the material here seems to be copied straight from the subject's website", it was not copied, which you can verify. Much of the word choice is the same or similar, but I have attributed the descriptions to either Stein, the green party or the campaign/platform.

I would, however, change the wording I used in one case: "The overarching goal is to create a sustainable and equitable economic system that prioritizes both environmental and social justice."

should instead be:

"The stated goal as described by the party is to create a sustainable and equitable economic system that prioritizes both environmental and social justice." DMH223344 (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

No, that's not how it works. Someone's opinions aren't automatically relevant because a notable person has them. If a position is noteworthy, secondary sources will have reported on them. Drmies (talk) 01:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

It's not opinions, it's a representation of the platform they have put forward. Once again, primary sources are fine in this context, as you know. DMH223344 (talk) 01:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Whatever. A statement by an organization or a position point does not become noteworthy just because they said it. No, primary sources are not sufficient here, and please stop gaslighting. Drmies (talk) 20:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Your claim is: A description of the platform is not notable enough for inclusion in a section about the platform? DMH223344 (talk) 21:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I am glad I am not the only one who noticed. @DMH223344 seems to be doing Jill Stein's bidding. Today the user added, "The outcome of the 2016 election would not have changed even if all Stein voters had instead voted for Hillary Clinton." That kind of statement should not be written as declarative, because plenty of other articles that the user did not cite disagree with the claim (in fact, I deleted one of the references yesterday due to it being misconstrued as evidence of an unrelated point. The user seems wont on finding a way of putting that reference back in the article) Brangston (talk) 19:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Let's keep it civil please.

The point is that RS discussing third party candidates as spoilers both raise concern about the spoiler potential, or present an analysis of previous elections where the spoiler effect can be studied. Not including analyses of previous elections lacks WP:BALANCE.

As to the declarative nature of the statement, it is simply a fact (as shown by the 3 RS cited) based on the totals in each of the states (as per WP:NPOV: "Avoid stating facts as opinions"). If the statement is contested by some source then we should avoid wikivoice and highlight the points being contested--but that is not the case here, of course because it is a very straightforward conclusion from looking at the totals. DMH223344 (talk) 20:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

"it is a very straightforward conclusion from looking at the totals" is practically the definition of original research. Drmies (talk) 20:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

It's not my conclusion, it's the conclusion of the RS presented. DMH223344 (talk) 21:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Jumping in on this discussion. Looking at this page there are a lot of claims not backed by Reliable Sourcing or Independent Sourcing. Significant claims are backed only by the candidates election website which is not reliable.The One I Left (talk) 21:17, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Please read WP:ABOUTSELF DMH223344 (talk) 23:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

edit warring in lead

I appreciate the effort to improve the article and to BEBOLD. However, we should instead be focusing on the body of the article, changes to which would then be reflected in the lead. The recent edits have crossed the line into edit warring and have focused almost exclusively on the lead. It's particularly inappropriate and unproductive when we could instead be collaborating on improving the body and naturally reaching consensus. Changes to the lead would easily follow.

@The One I Left, in case you are not watching this page. DMH223344 (talk) 00:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I think you should listen to the other editors about adding unsourced information or information that isn't RS. This article as you can clearly see has significant issues mainly it's sourcing, and claims not supported by sourced content. Please refrain from removing reliable sources as you've done in the past, as well as make bold claims that aren't backed up by any sourcing. This is not her personal website. Also please READ the RS. "Russian government-linked" is directly used in the RS.The One I Left (talk) 00:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Usage by one source (how many citations did you have for the statement previously, 5?) does not warrant inclusion in the lead. What does "linked" mean anyway? It's of course a russian company, that is much clearer than saying it is "linked" DMH223344 (talk) 00:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I think it's clear why News organizations are labelled it that way in their reporting and is helpful to the reader. First you claim that it wasn't in the RS, now you are arguing that it shouldn't be in the RS?The One I Left (talk) 00:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I missed it the first time amidst the mess of citations that were there (I actually think I was checking an old diff by mistake).

In any case, what I argued doesnt matter in this case since the point of using terms used by most RS still holds (wikipedia content is not about personal stances or arguments, it's about content) DMH223344 (talk) 01:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

There were only ever two sources for that section. From PBS and CNN. Either way, it's in the sourcing and makes sense. Yes it's a Russian company, but it's also a Russian Government linked company which is important given the context and sourcing.The One I Left (talk) 01:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@The One I Left regardless of the sources, it has nothing to do with Jill Stein's conduct and does not belong in the lead. 814jjs (talk) 11:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

It has to do with her and her campaign. It's most certainly notable.The One I Left (talk) 13:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

it doesn't have to do with her campaign. it has to do with another entity's indirect support of her campaign. notability is not the only requirement for inclusion, and in this context it destroys the NPOV. i'm opposed to mentioning it at all except in the section on her 2016 campaign, and then only to ensure it is clear that there is no evidence of her involvement. 814jjs (talk) 13:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

"i'm opposed to mentioning it at all...and then only to ensure it is clear that there is no evidence of her involvement". Your bias is showing.The One I Left (talk) 16:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

It definitely does not belong in the introduction. Being BOLD, I removed it. Should it be lower in the article? That's another discussion.--User:Namiba 17:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

the only bias i have is toward NPOV 814jjs (talk) 17:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think selectively editing her page removing anything that could be considered negative is NPOV. Objectively the Senate investigation is worthy of mentioning given the RS.The One I Left (talk) 21:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

"I don't think selectively editing her page removing anything that could be considered negative is NPOV" this is not an accurate characterization of what i said. further, the senate investigation found that she had no involvement, so i don't see why anything except that finding should be in her biography. 814jjs (talk) 22:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes the Senate Committee said there was no evidence of direct involvement but it still impacted her campaign which is pretty significant. Objectively it belongs there mainly given the RS who covered the story. For reference the Mueller investigation is referenced in Donald Trump's lead despite no evidence of participating in the Russian interference in the campaign or election. The One I Left (talk) 11:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

"still impacted her campaign" based on? DMH223344 (talk) 15:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

There was a whole investigation?The One I Left (talk) 15:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

There's a difference between investigating whether a group tried to impact the campaign and whether they actually did. In this case, it's not clear that they impacted the campaign. DMH223344 (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

It clearly impacted the election, but to the extent its unknown.The One I Left (talk) 16:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@The One I Left that sounds like you're making a case for amending that Donald Trump article. regardless of the reliable sources that covered it, it doesn't objectively belong in the lead. 814jjs (talk) 16:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Based on the RS, there was interference, as to the extent it had on the election it is unknown. The consensus seems that it's fair for it to be included on the Trump article. Should be the same here. There's no objective reason to remove it here.The One I Left (talk) 16:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

discussions on other pages arent really relevant DMH223344 (talk) 16:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@DMH223344 agreed 814jjs (talk) 16:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Don't understand your argument at all honestly. You both seem to not want to include it bc you personally don't see it as notable despite overwhelming evidence supported by RS.The One I Left (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@The One I Left my issue is not notability but npov. 814jjs (talk) 17:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

The 2016 election and subsequent investigation are the events she is most known for based on the RS. The investigation into her campaign gained international coverage.The One I Left (talk) 17:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Inviting Drmies and Brangston who have both frequented this page. Thoughts as to the discussion? The One I Left (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the entire history, The One I Left, but I saw this edit, by User:Namiba, who is correct: consensus is necessary. Personally I think that material is a bit too lengthy for the lead, but that's just me; I would not oppose a shorter version. But that's neither here nor there--longer or shorter, it needs consensus, and an RfC is really the way to go. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I completely agree about consensus being necessary. I'm just confused by the arguments that this isn't worthy of mentioning especially given the numerous RS backing the notability.The One I Left (talk) 17:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@The One I Left my objection is not about whether it's worthy of being mentioned: it's about preserving npov 814jjs (talk) 00:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by that. There's no POV, it's just reflecting the RS.The One I Left (talk) 01:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@The One I Left the subject of the article has called the accusation of Russian collusion mccarthyist. whether the accusation and investigation appear in rs or not, it is clearly defamatory, and therefore breaks npov. it must be presented in a way that is neutral, and including it in the lead biases the reader. including the accusation is relevant to the section on their 2016 campaign, and still requires framing it to ensure the reader knows that the accusation of collusion is false. 814jjs (talk) 10:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

The issue can and should be covered very briefly in the body. The Senate Intelligence Committee investigated whether there was any collusion between Stein's campaign and Russia. It found there was no collusion. We appear to have overlooked saying that her campaign was cleared by the committee. We can also mention that Russian entities sent out social media posts that supported Stein's campaign.Burrobert (talk) 11:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

September 2024

Specify the years of Stein's remarks

I had little knowledge about Jill Stein and was curious to see the Wikipedia article. The readability is quite poor in my opinion. It comes across as an indiscriminate chronological account of every opinion she has ever expressed, leveraging overwhelmingly primary sources.

If not removal or restructuring, claims about her opinions should at least be mostly accompanied by a more specific description of the time and context. I personally think this article is somewhat a collection of political promotion without necessarily relevance. It's certainly an outlier among B-class articles. Y. Dongchen (talk) 10:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Should we add the fact that, in a September 2024 interview, Stein told an interviewer that there are "600-some" voting members of the U.S. House of Representatives? That seems rather unusual for a well-educated American citizen, 74 years of age, who has run for U.S. president three times. 98.123.38.211 (talk) 23:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Do you have some sources? Apologies that I'm not bothered to research about US politics. I.e. reports and commentary in secondary sources? I think a new section "Public image"/"Public perception" would be a good idea for these things.

Also, if you actually see this message: It would be easier to participate in discussions if you register for an account. Y. Dongchen (talk) 04:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

"Political positions" section seems like self-promotion

That section thematically aggregates the remarks of Stein over the past twenty years. Not everything is necessarily notable. For instance, Laura Loomer undoubtedly has many political opinions, but there are only four sub-headings under Laura Loomer § Views, all including citations to secondary sources commenting on her views.

I think it would be better to dissolve the "Political opinions" section into "Activism and political remarks" (to be renamed from "Early activism and political career"). This way, criticisms of her can be interweaved. Some content from the "Political campaign" section can also be moved there. "Electoral history" can be incorporated into the "Political campaigns" section. Y. Dongchen (talk) 10:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Please explain how it is self promotion. As for primary sources, please read WP:ABOUTSELF DMH223344 (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I used "self-promotion" in the sense of Wikipedia:SOAPBOX. It's not that the stuff on her opinions is irrelevant, as it does determine her character in politics — arguably important information for the biography of a politician. But the structure of that section ("Political positions") is void of context: It's ambiguous with regard to the political context in which she made certain remarks. Also, it contains no criticisms of her opinions. Y. Dongchen (talk) 23:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Structural issues are one thing. Lack of criticism, as in lack of WP:BALANCE, is another. DMH223344 (talk) 23:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Advert tag is not justified, I've removed it. If you have issues with the style then BEBOLD and fix it or propose specific changes or criticisms. Structure is not a justification for an advert tag. DMH223344 (talk) 23:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I was intending to fix it. In the mean time, it is not unreasonable to add a label. The structure prevents criticism from being interweaved and hinders the incorporation of context. If there is a problem with balance, then it is by definition a NPOV issue which can be cautioned using that template. Y. Dongchen (talk) 02:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I do not want to unproductively escalate this into a revert war, so I won't do anything of the sort. It would be helpful to solicit the opinions of other editors. Y. Dongchen (talk) 02:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

For context: This discussion refers to my revision Special:PermanentLink/1246601910. Y. Dongchen (talk) 02:33, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, Y. Dongchen, it's really simple. What a politician says, or believes, or what they say they believe, is as relevant as what Taylor Swift or Per Olof Hulth say about their own work/positions/things, but it's worth mentioning only if secondary sources make that point. This is no different from, say, YouTubers whose articles are full of the things they said, sourced to their own videos. DMH223344, something Stein (or Swift or Hulth or Joe Rogan) say doesn't become noteworthy just because they said it. If secondary sources report on it, that's a different things. Drmies (talk) 14:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I have inserted Template:Original research section to Jill Stein § Political positions and begun rewriting some of the OR and insufficiently notable information. Y. Dongchen (talk) 03:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I removed all the WP:OR without reliable secondary sources to establish notability after flagging everything inline last week. Superb Owl (talk) 19:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I think you mean due weight not notability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:11, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

yeah, not noteworthy or WP:DUE. I also removed all flags as they seem to have been addressed Superb Owl (talk) 19:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Broken link

This link is broken:

[73] Jill Stein (December 26, 2017). "Stein calls on Senate Committee to retract election interference report by cybersecurity firm caught interfering in US election". Vinietsky (talk) 02:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Link 116, third party hear-say?

under "Political positions", "Russo-Ukrainian War", the third paragraph revolves around Stein's position on calling Putin a war criminal. link 116 takes you to a third party source, Kyiv independent, not the Twitter cited. the article only makes the same assertion, which is insufficient for my need. i will research elsewhere, but wanted to point this out for editorial attention. 2600:6C46:C40:E1:851A:99E8:59EF:F856 (talk) 17:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2024

Butch is not her running mate, it's Rudolph Ware 76.87.113.28 (talk) 23:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Her own website disagrees. --AntiDionysius (talk) 23:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2024

On the succession box for Green Party presidential nominee, please remove the "presumptive" note, as she is the official nominee.2601:249:9301:D570:1DFB:5F3B:1012:72AB (talk) 20:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done ⸺(Random)staplers 00:37, 27 October 2024 (UTC)