Talk:Jill Stein

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jill Stein article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5: 365 days

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information

Enforcement procedures:

Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism.
In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.
Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established.

The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

This article was nominated for deletion on 23 November 2010. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Green Politics (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Green Politics, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Green PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject Green PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Green PoliticsGreen Politics articles

United States: Presidential elections Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as High-importance).

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as High-importance).

Women scientists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women scientistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women scientistsTemplate:WikiProject Women scientistsWomen scientists articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chicago Low‑importance

	Chicago portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]