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)