Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tryptofish (talk | contribs) at 17:51, 19 November 2016 (→The page shouldn't have fear-mongering attacks on Stein. But as it does, she should at least be allowed a defense in her own words: replies). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 21 days

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

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) Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages'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 This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Mid-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. LGBTQ+ studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Presidential elections Low‑importance 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 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 Low-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Chicago Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Women This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Misplaced Pages. 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

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 Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 21 days

Template:Friendly search suggestions

call for copy editing help

This is our current wiki-text:

In response to a twitter question on whether vaccines cause autism, Stein tweeted, "there is no evidence that autism is caused by vaccines" but quickly deleted the tweet and tweeted instead the more circumspect, "I'm not aware of evidence linking autism with vaccines.

I would propose:

In response to a twitter question on whether vaccines cause autism, Stein first responded, "there is no evidence that autism is caused by vaccines," then revised her tweet to a more prudent "I'm not aware of evidence linking autism with vaccines."

Better suggestions:

In March 2016, she tweeted, "Nuclear power plants = weapons of mass destruction waiting to be detonated."

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2016

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

She has described quantitative easing as a "digital hat-trick" or "magic trick that basically people don't need to understand any more about than that it is a magic trick".

The first quote is in the source, the second is presented as quote but is not in the given source. Move the footnote to show it only verifies the first one:

She has described quantitative easing as a "digital hat-trick" or "magic trick that basically people don't need to understand any more about than that it is a magic trick".

184.101.231.113 (talk) 08:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for catching that mistake and pointing it out. You are correct that the second quote was not in the source cited. However, I looked around and found another source (transcript of her own words in an interview) that does contain both quotes, so I simply changed the source cited to that one. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:26, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Should Jill Stein's investments in the same industries that she's calling for total divestment from be included in the article?

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

Should the following text be included in the article?

• Through mutual funds or index funds, Stein invests in energy companies (such as Exxon, Chevron, Duke Energy, Conoco Phillips, and Toho Gas), the financial industry (including big banks like JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, and Deutsche Bank), pharamaceutical companies (such as Pfizer, Novartis, Johnson and Johnson, and Allergan), tobacco companies (such as Phillip Morris and Marlboro) and defense contractors (such as Raytheon). Explaining why she held investments in industries that she has been critical of, Stein said, "Like many Americans who hold retirement accounts, pension funds, or who invest in the American economy," the statement begins, "my finances are largely held in index funds or mutual funds over which I have no control in management or decision-making. Sadly, most of these broad investments are as compromised as the American economy—degraded as it is by the fossil fuel, defense and finance industries." Asked why she did not invest in socially responsible index funds or clean energy funds, Stein said that she had "not yet found the mutual funds that represent my goals of advancing the cause of people, planet and peace".

• Include - Stein's investments, confirmed by herself, merit inclusion. Not only do they point to conflicts of interest but illustrate major hypocrisy, as she is advocating for total divestment from some of these industries while she personally invests and profits on these industries. The text includes her own justification for these investments, so it's fair to her in that regard. Besides her inability to act on her political positions in her own life (which is relevant to the section on her political positions), her justification for these investments also include a clear political position, as she's suggesting that the US economy is so compromised that it's virtually impossible to invest in it without undermining one's own ethics (?). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Per WP:RfC: Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt at working out their disputes before seeking help from others. TimothyJosephWood 12:26, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Apologies. I'm not the most well-versed in Misplaced Pages rules. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• Include, but probably shorten. First of all, I am disappointed by the edit summary of the edit that removed the material, where it was described as something like the Clinton-controlled media. We don't need conspiracy theories as editing rationales. That said, the content is encyclopedic and relevant. Simply saying that she has investments in mutual funds without discussing how these investments relate to her campaign positions and without including what she, herself, said about it, is inadequate. However, the passage need not go on for so long, per due weight. I would leave out the lists of company names. Just say: "...in energy companies, the financial industry, pharamaceutical companies, tobacco companies, and defense contractors." Naming all those individual companies does come across as driving home the point excessively. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

That's fair. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• Exclude The information is sourced to an op-ed and hence fails rs. The author, Yashar Hedayat was recently on the Clinton campaign, raised $100,000 for her in 2008 and now is chief of staff for the mayor of San Franciso, and writes under the pseudonym Yashar Ali (Ali is is middle name.) The presentation of the material in this article is clearly presenting a a view that it is hypocritical for an opponent of corporations to invest in them. In order to present opinions we need to explain who presented them and the degree of attention they have received. I suggest in this case the opinion is from Clinton loyalists and has received no attention. Misplaced Pages is not the place to promote partisan campaign talking points that have been ignored by mainstream media. TFD (talk) 17:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

It's an article, not an op-ed (though the Daily Beast, like Vox, skirts the line between articles and opinion pieces). The piece is clearly revealing new information, so it's a piece of journalism, not an opinion piece. Stein has furthermore confirmed that all the information is correct. The mainstream media is not going to cover the daily events of a candidate who will barely break 1% on Nov 9, so finding multiple mainstream sources for *anything* on the Jill Stein has been a hassle. That said, it was brought up by NJToday.net, Politico, the Plain Dealer, MarketWatch. It's frankly incomprehensible how it cannot be considered pertinent that a candidate calling for total divestment from fossil fuels happens to invest in them and profit on them herself. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:02, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

If anything, that the candidate herself feels compelled to release an extensive statement on the story (confirming its accuracy) should show that its notable and merits inclusion. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

It's an op-ed. The writer has no academic qualifications, has never worked as a journalist, derives his income from an inheritance and worked as an unpaid volunteer on the Clinton campaign and considers Bill and Hillary Clinton to be his "friends." He also was involved in a Clinton Foundation project. He has been successful in getting a number of highly partisan publications to publish his writings, all of which are attacks on Clinton opponents. Is that the type of "journalism" you rely on? TFD (talk) 20:09, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Assuming that all of the things you said are accurate, despite all of that, he uncovered new and highly salient information about Jill Stein; information that Stein confirmed was accurate and information that she found necessary to release an extensive statement on. That's a good piece of journalism. Working on the assumption that your objections were based on the fact that no mainstream media covered this story, does coverage by the mainstream media sources mentioned above mean that you no longer to the inclusion of this material? If you accept that the information is correct, and that mainstream media sources have covered it, surely there is no reason left to oppose it? That the individual who broke the story dislikes Stein or is a partisan (assuming your info is correct) has no bearing on anything if the info is correct and notable. If that were the case, no information uncovered by Wikileaks or Judicial Watch would be acceptable for inclusion on any of the Clinton pages, which is surely not a position you hold? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Assuming we did include it, we would need to explain why it is significant and who complained about it. By comparison we pointed out that Clinton's use of a private email server was criticized by Republicans who saw it as illegal. We then point out that she was cleared by the independent director of the FBI. RS is not the only policy for inclusion which is why you have consistently opposed the inclusion of negative information about Hillary Clinton. There is also neutrality and no OR. TFD (talk) 20:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

There are no problems with NPOV or OR, and you know it. Just earlier this day, I fought to include material that reflected poorly on Clinton on one of her articles, so you should stop talking nonsense about me and my intentions. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, they are and I will eplain below. TFD (talk) 22:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• Exclude per TFD. Going further, Chelsea Clinton is on the board of directors of the Daily Beast and as such it is obviously inflammatory.--TM 17:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Namiba. Is the information in the article incorrect? If Stein herself confirms the accuracy of the report, how can you say it's unreliable? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:02, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• Updating my comment above: I still say "include but shorten", but I now want to add the following. Do not cite to the Daily Beast source, given its contentious nature. Do cite to the other sources (or at least some of them) that are listed above: NJToday.net, Politico, the Plain Dealer, or MarketWatch. This being the case, the arguments to exclude on the basis of the Daily Beast source are moot. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

If the information in the article is correct (which the Stein campaign confirms it is), then there is no reason to exclude the source. Mother Jones, Buzzfeed and Fox do excellent stories from time to time, despite doing a lot of nonsense journalism as well. When those sources do good journalism and produce verified information, it should be fine to cite them. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:26, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Meh. There's no reason that we have to include it, either. Not worth arguing over, and not necessary. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Over at Talk:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016, Snooganssnoogans wrote, "Postpone decision for one or two weeks to see if the thing has legs. Can they provide any reason why this article should be treated differently? Also, I find it irritating that I am asked to respond to an RfC aupported by an unacceptable source and when I point that out am asked to comment on additional sources. Before starting RfCs, please have the courtesy to provide all your information upfront. It's wearing out editors by continuing to through out stuff until we all get tired and go home. TFD (talk) 20:25, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

For big campaigns and candidates which have thousands of stories produced daily about them, we need to pick and choose what is actually salient enough to include. For stories that are not obviously important, postponement is valid. For candidates that barely get any coverage (and why should they, seeing as how this particular candidate is fighting to break the 1% mark), waiting to see if a story has legs is meaningless, given that no mainstream media sources could care less about anything associated with the Stein campaign and there's absolutely no way to discern if something is important or unimportant by waiting. If it gets covered at all by mainstream reliable sources (see above), that's good enough. The importance of the content should be clear to any editor; just plain common sense should be used here. Excluding this would be like excluding news reports that a candidate regularly smokes marijuana while the candidate at the same time advocates to imprison others for using marijuana. It's inexplicable that you would fight this. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Re your comments about OR and POV above. It is OR to say that Stein is hypocritical for owning shares in pharmaceuticals, tobacco companies and banks. That is an opinion and needs to be sourced, and the fact that you make the implication with out stating it explicity just makes it innuendo. If we source the criticism, we need to say who it comes from, which in this case is someone who worked on the Clinton campaign. We then need to establish per NPOV the degree of acceptance of this opinion in order to "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Even if you were unaware of Misplaced Pages policies, it should be obvious to you that that it is not neutral that all your contributions to 2016 campaign articles are taken from Clinton talking points or Clinton campaign workers. TFD (talk) 22:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Responding to this nonsense: (i) I have never proposed to add text to the article stating that Stein is "hypocritical". The proposed edit is up there for all to see. It is as straightforward as can be, reflecting the language from both the Daily Beast story and the other mainstream media sources, and with the majority of the content being Stein's own clarification. (ii) There is no opinion being presented here; only journalism that Stein has confirmed is accurate. (iii) What a load of bullshit. Is there something about being a Jill Stein supporter that demands that you have to be a crackpot conspiracy theorist feverishly dreaming up CTR shills all around you? This is the only talk page where I see this bullshit thrown at me. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:16, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

No you do not want to "say" that Stein is hypocritical, you merely want to imply it, which is worse. Otherwise you would have inserted into Clinton's article that she the same information. Clinton invests in a Venture 500 index fund and therefore has roughly the same diversification as Stein. And of course she has similar positions to Stein on global warming, tobacco, banks and pharmaceuticals. But why point out those industries and not all the industries, unless you are implying there is something wrong with investing in them for someone with Stein's positions? TFD (talk) 23:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Clinton has not argued for a total divestment from fossil fuels, chastised others for paid speeches to the very same firm she invests in, railed against big pharma's influence (even going as far as casting doubts on the FDA's ability to approve safe medicine) and credited security competition and conflict to the pernicious influence of defense contractors. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Clinton has a climate change plan that involves less reliance on fossil fuels, has a "no one is too big to fail or too big to jail" plan for reining in the banks, plans to rein in pharmaceutical companies price-gouging, even supported a sugar tax. Yet she has more money invested in these companies than Stein. BTW there is a lot of alleged hypocrisy in Clinton's positions. Why eo you always try to minimize them and put in negative information about Stein? I suppose it is because you favor Clinton, but you appear to make that lose your objectivity. TFD (talk) 03:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• Include, and shorten. I'm not a fan of the exact prose but the development seems worth a sentence. Heterodidact (talk) 00:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• Exclude per TFD. Op-eds are not RS. 75.172.250.109 (talk) 02:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

This comment should be disregarded or given low weight by the closer of this RfC. This IP editor has made only two edits total, and only one of those in the past year. More importantly, there are many straight-news (i.e., non-opeds) that report the story. Neutrality 03:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• Exclude - lacks prominence in coverage and lacks significant impact to life or campaign.

1. First, this is not widely covered outside so not deserving of coverage by guidance of WP:DUE. It is waaaaaaay down in the nits and kind of WP:FRINGE. Even the position was not previously mentioned and is not topically large in relation to the larger BLP themes or to the coverage given what is here. It relates to section 4.4, Energy where even para 5 (pipeline protest) is at the level of having gotten national radio, paper, and TV coverage -- which this didn't. In a Google doublecheck for relative prominence, she gets 6 million hits -- her and Exxon only 56 thousand (many re global warming) --- her plus exxon plus divestment is only 8 hits . I got only: one college paper here reported it was said in April; then 6 months later this dailybeast item; one rawstory] followup; one marketwatch.com saying it's a "smear" where beast undisclosed tie to Clinton; one is an aside of reporting Sanders and O'Malley and she pledge no energy funding.
2. Second, this lacks significance in context of BLP. The story seems to have made no evident impact to her life or campaign. If it were a life-changing change like felony charge or ccrippling car wreck -- or magically made her win the election -- that would be different. But this ... when we get to the "so what?" part, where's it been shown making a difference to her ???

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• Include, but probably shorten per Heterodidact and Tryptofish. This is worth a short mention, but considers of weight compel us not to unfairly dwell upon it. The comments above that oppose inclusion based on the Daily Beast should not really be considered because — as was pointed out above — this was covered by multiple sources, including straight-news pieces in Politico, the Plain Dealer, MarketWatch, etc. Neutrality 03:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• Exclude In addition to the detailed analysis provided by TFD, I have the in-principle objection that including information sourced to a single piece in the "daily beast" is highly undue weight. Vanamonde (talk) 04:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• Exclude, per WEIGHT. I have presented my case already. In addition there are the various comments by TFD. --Elvey 07:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

An early closure of this seems appropriate, given the 'timeliness' of the subject. The consensus is to include a significantly shorter version of the proposed text, that mentions the issue without giving it undue weight. Listing the specific companies seems, in particular, to be stretching the text to give undue weight.

For the record, the 'vote' was (1) include, (3) include and shorten, (4) exclude, with one exclude vote discounted due to a trivial edit history. Revent 11:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

BLP violation, wording, location

Investments

Regarding this edit, if anyone would like to discuss changes to this content, they are welcome to do so here. However, we do not make a habit of unilaterally overriding content that was included via RfC. TimothyJosephWood 18:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Timothyjosephwood is re-inserting unacceptable BLP-violating wording. Problematic sources and location too. She didn't invest significant money directly, let alone anything close to $8.5MM in "those" industries. She bought S&P 500 index funds; reliable sources don't claim more than $3,832,050 in investments at all. They certainly don't claim all her investments went into those industries. BLP issues, wording and location need be worked out here on the talk page before reinsertion.

Propose:

location: where this topic was covered initially.

content:

Stein's financial disclosure, filed in March 2016, indicated that most of her investments are in broad stock market-tracking index funds such as S&P 500 index funds and a Clinton supporter noted that these funds invest in part in industries that she had previously criticized, such as energy, financial, pharmaceutical, tobacco, and defense contractors.{that's it. 1 sentence.}

Though nominally WP:BLP means it wouldn't be an WP:EW issue for me to do so, I would rather someone else (User:Revent?) remove the BLP violating content ASAP.--Elvey 19:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

References

1. Schroeder, Robert (October 28, 2016). "Green Party's Jill Stein defends Big Oil fund investments after 'smear attack'". MarketWatch. Retrieved November 1, 2016.

Simply reflecting negatively on an individual does not constitute a BLP violation. The claim is sourced. The content does not go beyond what the source says. Both were reviewed by the community in an RfC and the decision was to include based on the source provided.

If you have sources that disagree with the one provided, feel free to link to them so they may be discussed. However, your personal conviction that the source provided is wrong, or that the content included is "unacceptable", does not constitute a BLP violation. TimothyJosephWood 19:17, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

You grossly misrepresent my argument. The claim is NOT sourced. The content does go beyond what the source says, and speaks in wikipedia's voice. You have been warned. The RFC did not propose approval of the BLP-violating language I removed, and the result did not approve it. --Elvey 19:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Have you read the source? TimothyJosephWood 19:31, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Good, so you admit that the RFC did not propose approval of the BLP-violating language I removed, and the result did not approve it. Yes, I read the source. It doesn't say or imply that she invested anything close to $8.5MM in "those" industries. You seem to want the article to be deceptive - to state that she did just that. No? --Elvey 19:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I've put back the text from revision 747294293 - the source does not say that the entire amount of her investment was in those industries, it makes quite clear that the investments were in mutual and index funds, that themselves invested in those industries 'among others'. Since the mentioned funds track the S&P 500, it's fairly easy to establish that substantial portions of her investments are not in those industries... about a fifth would be in IT companies, for example. Revent 19:47, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Alright, so apparently this is an issue of wording and not a world-ending BLP violation destined for litigation. This works better if the situation is approached from a slightly different angle such as: the current wording implies this, however the source specifies the other, and the wording should be adjusted thusly.

I have tweaked the wording to be more clear. Unfortunately, unless I'm mistake, 747294293 was the original COPYVIO issue. Of course this wording can be further tweaked if it's not sufficiently clear.

For future reference, try to reply to the thread someone starts when they revert, since now it looks a bit like I started a new thread accusing myself of violating BLP. Also, editing other's comments should generally be avoided for just this type of reason. TimothyJosephWood 19:54, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: Yes, I kind of realized (after I reinstated it) that I might have accidentally readded the copyvio, and was looking at rewriting it. The issues, as I see it, are not giving the matter undue weight, and being factually accurate... we don't know 'exactly' what companies those funds invest in, but the constitution of the indexes gives a pretty clear indication that a significant portion (around half, at least) is 'not' in those industries. Revent 20:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I just took out the 'first' mention of the list of industries... since they are mentioned in her 'response' quote, listing them twice is redundant. Frankly, the 'issue' is more that she invests in industries she has criticized, even if indirectly, not 'which'. Revent 20:25, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: since they apparently have an opinion. I will say that the quote leaves some ambiguity as to whether it is referencing the degradation of the country or that of the investments. Maybe there is another alternative? TimothyJosephWood 20:40, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I think that listing the industries is helpful, because the quote only refers vaguely to a subset of them, so it is more precise to list them all. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: It's more precise, but frankly which industries in particular is rather irrelevant to the point being made. All in all, however, this is incredibly trivial in the context of a biography... it was an attack made by a journalist with political connections that was ignored by most of the media, and only merited mere mentions by those who cared. She was criticized for holding the exact investments (index funds) that financial advisors tell everyone to invest in. Revent 21:25, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Good enough for me. Either one is fine. TimothyJosephWood 21:34, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

(Revent, I'm watchlisting here, although I'm getting close to losing interest.) My response about the industries is that, by listing them, we give a clearer picture of the industries that she has criticized. Leaving them out could make a reader wonder exactly which market sectors they were. And listing them does not really affect anything about POV. It's just information. Anyway, for me, the wording as of permalink is fine with me, and does not strike me as worth further fine-tuning. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Can folks comment the wording I proposed above? Silence = consent? And the BLP violation is still there. --Elvey 23:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

One marketwatch news article commenter points out: "Sorry this is a big nothing burger. Index funds match a broad index. They are an investment in the overall market economy without bias. There is no 'decision' made on individual companies. If big oil collapsed, the index would still be there. No one invested in an index fund is supporting the actions of each individual company that may be listed within that index. To claim that is just stupid. There are companies within indexes that are actively working against each other.

Trying to pin this to her (or anyone) as a scandal, really just shows the ignorance of those who are accusing her. "

My comment is that I agree with what appears to be the consensus in this discussion, that, per another editor above, Simply reflecting negatively on an individual does not constitute a BLP violation. The claim is sourced. The content does not go beyond what the source says. Both were reviewed by the community in an RfC and the decision was to include based on the source provided. Silence does not equal consent in this case. More like the rest of us getting tired of having to repeat ourselves. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

RFC on everything?

Do I really need to launch an RFC to get this to stick? . Covering up the connection is justified how???--Elvey 07:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

What are you referring to? You linked to a really minor edit in a citation. Assuming that was a mistake, it might be a good idea to post whatever the thing you're concerned about is at Biographies of living persons noticeboard or another relevant noticeboard first (depending on the issue). I think WP guidelines technically recommend getting input from relevant projects or noticeboards before an RFC anyway. —PermStrump(talk) 18:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

To have IAC's The Daily Beast instead of The Daily Beast in the website field? I'm highly skeptical that you could get a consensus for that - it's clearly not the name of the website. --tronvillain (talk) 20:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I support the omission.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I mistyped my edit summary: it should have been "and" rather than "an", but otherwise, yes, it is pretty over-the-top to have tried to insert the corporate ownership into the citation. I'll also point out that I left the link to The Daily Beast, even though we do not commonly link that sort of thing in citations. It's time to drop the stick. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Plagiarism

That one sentence has now been fixed. I also want to note that this comment was written by SashiRolls, who has been topic-banned. :Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I reverted your changes. Simply rearranging the words does not make less of a copyright violation.--TM 11:07, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

What a load of bullshit. Please re-write the text then so that it is not a copyright violation, yet maintains the accurate information (owned by her and her husband, the sum, when the info was released and to which institution it was released). I look forward to seeing your suggested changes, Namiba. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Snooganssnoogans, Don't be a jerk.--TM 11:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any intention to re-write the text so that it conforms to *your* standards of copyright violations or do just intend to re-insert a clear-cut copyright violation and add a badge of shame to the article just because you find the information in it upsetting to your cause? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:36, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I have rewritten the section in a way that should sufficiently avoid close paraphrasing issues regarding copyright. I would remind those involved that copyright violations are a serious matter and should be removed or rectified immediately in cases where the violation is clear and the source can be pinpointed. In these cases, individuals should not wait to debate preferred wording, so much so that removing clear copyright violations is an exception to the three revert rule.

If anyone takes issue with my wording, they are free to suggest changes here and gather consensus. However, the violating material will not be restored. TimothyJosephWood 12:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

• The language was introduced in this edit: , and regrettably, no one noticed the problem throughout a lengthy discussion that included an RfC. The language in the edit was "According to the financial disclosure form that she filed with the United States Office of Government Ethics on March 30, 2016, Stein and her husband, Richard Roher, have investments (with the exception of real estate) worth anywhere from $3,832,050 to $8,505,000, most of which are in mutual funds or index funds." The language in the source is: "According to the financial-disclosure form she filed with the U.S. Office of Government Ethics on March 30, 2016, Stein and her husband, Richard Rohrer, have investments (with the exception of real estate) valued at anywhere from $3,832,050 to $8,505,000." Yes, that is a direct violation of our policies on copyright, just as the original posting in this talk section was a violation of a topic ban, and the subsequent edits back-and-forth, until Timothyjosephwood actually fixed it, as well as the bickering in this talk section, were pure WP:BATTLEGROUND. As far as I can tell, there is no other language currently or previously in that paragraph of the page that presents problems with plagiarism. We are less than a week away from the election, so I would rather not take anyone to WP:AE, but I ask that everyone please be careful about such stuff, and please stop treating this page like a battlefield. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I do not see why it is important. Is it unusual for a retired Harvard educated doctor to have 4-8 million in index funds? Is it significant when compared to what Hillary or Trump have? TFD (talk) 23:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Please see: #RfC: Should Jill Stein's investments in the same industries that she's calling for total divestment from be included in the article?, just above. That's just the sentence that was copied from the source. But I don't think that the amount of money is the topic of the paragraph on the page here, nor the reason for inclusion. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:29, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I did not agree to close the RfC and note it was closed before uninvolved editors had a chance to comment and the vote was 4-4. I thought the point of the story was to smear Stein, but instead it is just trivia. TFD (talk) 23:41, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, I didn't close it (not that you said that I did). I guess you could take it up with editor who made the close. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: @The Four Deuces: An 'uninvolved editor' can close an RFC without the people involved agreeing to do so. I closed it rather quickly because the article is about a 'current event', a question was raised about if the subject was even 'ripe' for an RFC, and it seemed rather clear that the consensus opinion was to simply 'mention' it at significantly less length.... with nearly a dozen people already commenting, that was unlikely to change over time, and this is a subject where anyone is unlikely to care even a week from now. I think the current text is indeed better... it mentions the issue, without stretching it into something bigger than it actually was treated as by the media.

As far as copyright issues, I'd suggest that everyone read the article on substantial similarity... simply rewriting a source in 'your own words', while expressing the same thoughts and ideas, does not avoid a copyright violation. This is, unfortunately, a common problem on Misplaced Pages, where people simply rewrite text to avoid being a 'direct match' all too often. Revent 09:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Revent, on the face it, I'm not sure substantial similarity is applicable when the content in question is sufficiently short that it could be directly quoted without issue re: copyright. At that level, rewording or quoting is a stylistic decision. However, copying verbatim without quotes or attribution clearly would not be. TimothyJosephWood 12:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: I was mainly mentioning it because the 'I rewrote it to make it ok' argument was made above, and it's something that people do somewhat frequently when the text is much longer. When the text is this short, it's indeed somewhat moot, I just think it's something more people should be aware of... too many additions to articles are 'rewritten' versions of extended sections of text, IMO. Revent 13:23, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

@Revent: About the close, I entirely agree with you about the procedural aspects, and I also agree with the substance of your close. I thought it was quite helpful. I simply mentioned it because TFD was raising the issue, but it is TFD's concern, not mine. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:15, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Repeated copyright violation

I want to note that the copyright violation was (based the diff TFD posted; I still haven't looked.) by Snooganssnoogans. Who, instead of apologizing, deflected attention by attacking multiple other users, etc. warned. --Elvey 00:33, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I should probably just say thank goodness that the election will be over in just a bit more than 24 hours. And I certainly agree that editors need to take the copyright policy seriously. But I feel the need to point out that this "warning" is not only redundant with comments already made above, but that there are also some issues of the pot calling the kettle black. In the opening post of this talk section, (subsequently redacted), you said: Each of the editors who placed the copyvio in the article shall be warned, as though there were numerous editors engaged in nefarious violations. And yet, you edited that very content before another editor pointed out the copyvio, without you noting or correcting the copying problem: , and you likewise commented in the RfC about it, without noting the copying: . And you are also "attacking multiple other users, etc." It's time to stop treating this page like a battleground (but I said that already, didn't I?). --Tryptofish (talk) 00:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh boy. Untrue, trollish retaliatory finger pointing by willfully, unrepentantly uncivil editor. The only activity I see that seems nefarious is your incivility and trolling defense of your buddy; that is all. Your diffs don't actually show any copyvio or attack by me! We are done here. Drop the club.

Sadly, and more importantly, still no sign the copyright violator intends to take the copyright policy seriously. --Elvey 18:04, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

The page shouldn't recite GMO fear-mongering from Stein's website verbatim

Most of the 'Pesticides and GMOs' section now consists of claims made by Stein about how the science rejects that GMOs have been proven safe. She's making very specific claims that are not examined by reliable sources or put in the context of overwhelming scientific consensus. It's completely undue weight and of questionable accuracy to have almost the entire section be campaign rhetoric by Stein about what this or that scientific authority supposedly says about the issue, only to briefly at the end cite reliable secondary sources which say that she is talking nonsense. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:29, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's very much WP:UNDUE and sort of WP:QUOTEFARM. In a few days, all this will blow over, so for now I prefer to just let it go. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:34, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

The page shouldn't have fear-mongering attacks on Stein. But as it does, she should at least be allowed a defense in her own words

Snoog: Hogwash. Half of the section is spent on critical commentary. One critical sentence has EIGHT footnotes, all of which you insist need to stay in the section, which seems entirely unreasonable. No she's not. Not true. She cites hyperlinked reliable sources to back the specific claims that are made. Also, what the arbcom case has ruled is scientific consensus is stated in the section: "the scientific consensus is that existing GM foods are no less safe than foods made from conventional crops" (It just occurred to me - isn't ArbCom not allowed to make content decisions?) For those who don't recall: I tried to add a much longer section laying out the pro-GMO scientific consensus according to arbcom but it was removed - by __?__.

Calling her position nonsense, even on this page, is a BLP violation. I happen to disagree with much of her position on GMOs (though TFD makes an interesting point about what GMO crops turn into!). But the person who looks foolish is not her when someone claims that even the straight up facts that she lays out are "nonsense". She must at least be allowed a defense in her own words; we have consensus on that. Plus the article is supposed to be about her, after all. --Elvey 03:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Is there any reason why we are concentrating on showing that Stein is unscientific when the Clintons have Dr. Mark Hyman as an advisor and Hillary Clinton arranged for him to meet with the Secretary of Health and even said that vaccines may cause autism? TFD (talk) 04:29, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Is there any reason why you referred to Jytdog? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I was confusing this with another discussion and now changed my posting. My question is though why are some editors trying to show that Stein is unscientific yet not doing the same for Clinton. TFD (talk) 19:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Just read this article for the first time and am quite stunned at the way this bio is being reported. I removed the see also notes...unless it's some new policy that we will be putting "see global warming article" on Pense and Trump's article, etc., and on and on covering the hundreds of other article that will need some work... Gandydancer (talk) 14:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

If those "see also"s carried some sort of POV, you would have a point. But they do not. They are purely informational. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I think the election campaign has attracted an attempt to malign Jill Stein, led by pro-Clinton columnists, who were worried that she would take votes away from Clinton. Now that it is over, I hope we can re-write the article in a neutral manner. TFD (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I know that you were not implying this but, anticipating what some other editors might claim, my own editing interests in this page arose purely from my editing interests in science, and not from any political interests. I just wanted to be unambiguous about that point. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Could someone please point me to the section of the talk page where it was decided that it's a good idea to provide "informational" advice in our articles? Should Vandana Shiva and Prince Philip now get informational notes regarding Vandana's stance on GMs and Philip's stance on several medical practices that Wikipedians have decided are pseudoscience? Obviously not, and you'd think we'd be even more careful with this article that concerns politics and that we'd be extra careful to not show bias. A very dark day indeed for Misplaced Pages. Gandydancer (talk) 00:39, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Tryptofish, that's probably why this article reads in a peculiar way. Science was not an issue in this presidential campaign year and science was only a small part of what Stein talked about. Your never explain why you think it so important to point out where you think Stein gets science wrong, while ignoring Clinton's unscientific statements. It seems anyway your main area of interest in science in public discourse is GMO products, and Clinton comes closest to your position. TFD (talk) 06:30, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I have not heard back from Trypto, but looking back I see that he added the see also notes on August 20. I will wait a tad longer, but if he does not bother to respond I will again delete this "purely informational" help for our readers. If Trypto can show me other similar bios that contain "purely informational" links, I will reconsider my position. Gandydancer (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, you are hearing back from me now. I log out and sleep overnight. Please let me make it clear, first, that I do not advocate providing "'informational' advice". I advocate providing information, period, because Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. There is nothing in providing those links that gives "advice" to our readers, that tells the readers to reach or not to reach a given conclusion. There is nothing POV about providing links to those other pages. If editors want to add reliably sourced information that indicates favorable things about Stein and science, I strongly support adding that.

I've never advocated anything about what the Clinton page should say about her positions on science – if you claim that I've said otherwise, please provide diffs. The fact that I edit this page (having come here because I noticed that the Discretionary Sanctions from the ArbCom GMO case were being violated) does not obligate me to edit some other page in order to pass some sort of "loyalty test". WP:OTHERSTUFF. And I most certainly do not edit political pages with respect to GMOs to advocate for my "position", or to benefit candidates who come "closest" to it. I edit according to the sources.

It's really very simple: there are a ton of sources about Stein's positions on scientific issues, and many of them are cited here. If editors are concerned that this results in an imbalance on the page, there's an easy solution. Find and cite reliable sources that advocate in support of Stein's scientific positions. In fact, I looked very hard to find such sources with respect to GMOs. All I could find was the opinion piece by Sandra Eagle , and I fought hard to have it included on this page (currently cite 197), even when other editors objected to it. If you can find more such reliable sources, I'll support them. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I said already: If Trypto can show me other similar bios that contain "purely informational" links, I will reconsider my position. I've been here for ten years and I've never seen a bio with links such as the ones you have added. Perhaps I've missed them. Can you please refer me to a few bios that have similar links. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 21:14, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I've been away from Misplaced Pages for about a week, so I'm just responding now, thank you for being patient. I'm not that involved in bio pages, but a quickly-found example of what you ask for is at Barack Obama#Environmental policy. Please also note that Donald Trump#Climate change contains an in-text link to Scientific opinion on climate change, and Donald trump#Comments about fringe theories links (piped to "unfounded notion") to MMR vaccine controversy. I'm friendly to moving the links on this page from hatnotes to in-text links, if you feel that would help. But I'll repeat that what I said above is that WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a good argument. The issue that matters is what the links accomplish as part of the content of this page. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I know you have "never advocated anything about what the Clinton page should say about positions on science," which is why I said you were "ignoring Clinton's unscientific statements." It does not make any sense that as someone interested in science you chose to single out a minor candidate while ignoring a major candidate who said she does not know if vaccines cause autism, now supports GMO labeling and possibly thinks that we are not being told the truth about the Roswell UFO incident. Is there any reason you chose to write about Stein and ignored Clinton? TFD (talk) 04:40, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Again, I'm not obligated to edit other pages just because another editor tells me to. If there are problems at the Clinton page, I encourage you to correct them, as opposed to demanding that I do it for you – or making a personal attack against me, that I supposedly have a political agenda to my editing. (If you believe that the Clinton page violates the consensus from the GMO RfC, please do tell me about that, and I will make it my business to look into it, but if the page just talks about her political position on labeling, that's not a violation.) There is a very simple reason why I was drawn to editing this page. I have followed the edits of editors who were parties to the GMO ArbCom case (to my knowledge, they have not edited the Clinton page), and I observed that one such editor made an edit to this page that violated the DS, so I came here and corrected it. That's it. Please focus on the content of this page, rather than on your speculations about my supposed motivations. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

TFD, in my opinion this article is absolutely shameful. I honestly had no idea that things had gotten this bad here on WP. One more example is a whole headed section on homeopathy, while she actually calls it bunk. I'm going to remove that section. Gandydancer (talk) 13:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class biography articles
• C-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Mid-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles
• C-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• C-Class United States presidential elections articles
• Low-importance United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• C-Class Women scientists articles
• Low-importance Women scientists articles
• WikiProject Women scientists articles
• C-Class Chicago articles
• Low-importance Chicago articles
• WikiProject Chicago articles
• C-Class WikiProject Women articles
• All WikiProject Women-related pages
• WikiProject Women articles