Talk:Jill Stein/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Ukraine-russia conflict

citation needed — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigMouthCommie (talk • contribs) 22:33, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Jill_Stein&oldid=1162359245 this revert should not have happened. i checked the source that is used to support it, and it makes no mention of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. I don't believe the Russia-Ukraine section establishes that she has been criticized for her views in a reputable source, and even if she were criticized, it's not clear that her views are pro-Russia. given the guidance for controversial claims about living figures, this claim must be sourced. until it is sufficiently sourced, i am going to remove it (again) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigMouthCommie (talk • contribs) 16:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I removed editorializing about the veracity of Stein's claims. As an encyclopedia, we are here to inform the public about what public figures believe, not to tell them who was right and wrong per WP:NPOV.--User:Namiba 16:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Upon further review, I removed the criticism paragraph from the introduction entirely. There is no such criticism in the introductions of far more prominent political figures and all of that criticism is already imbedded elsewhere in the article itself.--User:Namiba 18:19, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

And how do you square removing criticism from the lead with NPOV? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

they already explained:

There is no such criticism in the introductions of far more prominent political figures and all of that criticism is already imbedded elsewhere in the article itself.

commie (talk) 19:09, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

That explanation seems to be at odds with NPOV. It also appears to be a misrepresentation of what the lead is supposed to be. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

What part of NPOV is it at odds with?--User:Namiba

For example: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." yet you want to exclude significant views from the lead because they're criticism. Did it ever occur to you that maybe the criticism of those far more prominent political figures wasn't proportionately as important as with this one? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Did it ever occur to you

this kind of phrasing is condescending. commie (talk) 00:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

My apologies, I did not occur to me that it would be perceived that way. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

don't apologize to me. commie (talk) 00:13, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

"All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

the topic is clearly an american presidential candidate. i think it is fair to look at the summaries of other candidates, and make this article match in style. as the other editor noted, all the (sourced) criticism is in the article, as it would be for any other presidential candidate, but to have it in the summary is out of step with the other articles. commie (talk) 00:13, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

That is not how NPOV works. Nothing about NPOV says that we need to treat one article like another, in fact it says that they're all different. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:30, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

as a (relatively) new editor, i have been voraciously consuming the essays and policy pages about etiquette, and i want to just lay my feelings out here. i can admit i voted for ms stein twice in 2016 (in the primary and general) and have always felt the criticism of her was both misplaced and overly vitriolic. but i am trying my best not to let this cloud my judgement of the project of creating an encyclopedia.

as an article about jill stein, who's most notable as a presidential candidate, it is my feeling that it should mirror other articles about presidential candidates (especially those who won their primaries). i agree with the edit made by the other user, but would not have made the edit myself, fearing i was letting my own bias cloud the editorial process.

by contrast, your comments gave given me the impression that you both 1) dislike jill stein and 2) do not care to treat her as another presidential candidate and would, in fact, prefer to primarily cast her in the light that her detractors would favor. this could be due to my own position on her, but, in the spirit of honesty, i am asking you to examine what has been said in this talk page in the last 24 hours and consider whether you are allowing some bias to effect how you are engaging on this topic.

if i am wrong, i want to apologize now: i mean no offense by this. i am hoping to ensure that we are all of one mind and focused on the same goal: building an encyclopedia. if i'm right, though, i want you to know i would still harbor no ill-will if you could see a way to help make this article genuinely neutral and encyclopedic

and, of course, i am open to a third option, where my understanding of either policy or encyclopedia-ishness is misgiven, but in such a case i'd ask some charity: please explain in more complete detail how the edit about which we have been discussing detracts from the project of creating an encyclopedia. commie (talk) 01:09, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Interesting, I wasn't aware that I disliked Jill Stein (and I don't think I've expressed any opinion on the subject so unsure how you got that idea). Yes I do not care to treat her as another presidential candidate, thats not how it works here. We also won't treat the subject as another doctor or activist, we will address the subject as a unique individual and write the article based on the coverage they received in reliable sources (not just the coverage which we personally like or think is fair). NPOV is hard, I don't expect you to really get it in your first 1,000 edits. Part of what makes it hard is that the policy doesn't match what most new editors think of when they hear the phrase "neutral point of view" and it actually strikes many as extremely not neutral (for example if you believe that mainstream media and academia is biased against your position). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

First, the wording "has been criticised for" violates WP:WEASEL. Who exactly is criticizing her? In this case, it's a writer whose opinion pieces supported Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election cycle.

Second, the source is an opinion piece. While opinions can be presented provided weight is established and in text attribution is used, they cannot be used for facts. Stein's supposed "pro-Russia views on the Russia-Ukraine conflict" is a little confusing because the current conflict began several years after the source was written. Also, her "conspiracism involving vaccines" is outdated, since Snopes has debunked this claim against her.

TFD (talk) 23:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

That does not appear to be an opinion piece. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:57, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I am not excluding anything. The criticism already exists elsewhere in the article. Putting it in the lead gives undue WP:WEIGHT to her critics.--User:Namiba 00:16, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Why doesn't not putting it in the lead give undue WP:WEIGHT to her critics? Too much is just as bad as too little. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:30, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

The source is "Jill Stein’s Ideas Are Terrible. She Is Not the Savior the Left Is Looking For," by a Slate senior editor. I'll quote its Wikipedia article: "According to its former editor-in-chief Julia Turner, the magazine is "not fundamentally a breaking news source", but rather aimed at helping readers to "analyze and understand and interpret the world" with witty and entertaining writing."

WP:NEWSORG says, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."

The fact that the headline describes Stein's views as "terrible," that the source is written by an editor rather than a reporter and the fact the magazine's goal is analysis makes it obvious it is more editorial or analysis than news reporting.

TFD (talk) 00:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

The main source in the stuff removed from the lead is NBC "Russians launched pro-Jill Stein social media blitz to help Trump win election, reports say"[1]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

The NBC report is used to support part of the criticism. This section is however entirely supported by the op-ed: "for conspiracism involving vaccines, Wi-Fi, and GMOs."

However, if you want to move on to the NBC supported material, it doesn't fully reflect the source. The NBC article for example does not say that Stein "has been criticised by opponents for what they deem pro-Russia views." It says, "has long been criticized for her support of international policies that mirror Russian foreign policy goals." It's over-simplistic conspiracist OR: anyone who opposes any U.S. covert or overt operations abroad must be a supporter of the enemy. TFD (talk) 00:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree with TFD. We should be cognizant of WP:BLPSTYLE "Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content." This is clearly a situation of guilt by association. No one has claimed proof that Stein was a secret Russian agent. They "prove" their claims by her associations. It is McCarthyist rhetoric and should not be included in the lead, nevermind anywhere in an article.--User:Namiba 23:04, 3 July 2023 (UTC)