Open main menu

call for copy editing helpEdit

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."

We cite the news outlet, not the reporterEdit

This is not complicated. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:08, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Awilley, can you please instruct SashiRolls to stop edit-warring text into the article? I've started a talk page discussion and posted a warning on the user's talkpage four days ago, yet he has now repeatedly edit-warred this back into the article[1]. I can't revert anymore because of WP:3RR. Note that I'm seeking to restore the long-standing version. He is seeking to change the long-standing version, yet refuses to abide by WP:BRD. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Do you have any source other than Charles Davis for this story? If not, he needs to be attributed as he was a free-lancer who no longer works for the muck-raking Beast. As you know he has a bit of a reputation... and his claim that there was something untoward about all this is denied by several specialists in the article. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 19:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Is this an acceptable compromise, saying that "Charles Davis, writing for the Daily Beast reported that..." ? ~Awilley (talk) 19:38, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
No, it is not. Wikipedia should not attribute reporting to individual reporters. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
According to "What information to include," they should. If you have an alternative policy or guideline, could you please cite it. TFD (talk) 20:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
That's a guideline for how to write a citation. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:34, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
The guideline includes In-text attribution, which is "is the attribution inside a sentence of material to its source." That's what we're doing here. "This is done whenever a writer or speaker should be credited, such as with quotations, close paraphrasing, or statements of opinion or uncertain fact." Now if you have a policy or guideline that says authors of articles should not be mentioned in text, please provide it. TFD (talk) 21:18, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Actually Sashirolls is correct. Stories are reported by reporters and reported in The Daily Beast not by it. However we should not use in text citation for facts unless our sources do. If something happened say it happened. If someone wants to know where we found a fact that's what footnotes are for. TFD (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't mind compromising as long as we don't follow Davis' transparent editorializing in the wiki-text. If we stripped it down to fact rather than innuendo, e.g. replacing

In May 2018, Charles Davis, writing for the Daily Beast, reported that approximately $1 million of the original $7.3 million had yet to be spent and that there remained uncertainty about what precisely the money had been spent on.

  • Russia probe

Two months later, the same Daily Beast journalist reported that Stein was spending the recount money on her own campaign's legal fulfillment obligations due to probes related to Russian interference in the 2016 election. A former FEC associate general counsel said he "believe[d] Stein’s spending [wa]s likely compliant with FEC rules[.]"


In March 2019, her spokesman David Cobb told The Daily Beast that Stein had "fully cooperated with the Senate inquiry."

with the significantly shorter

In May 2018, approximately $1 million of the original $7.3 million had yet to be spent.

  • Russia Probe

Stein reportedly spent some of the recount money on her Presidential campaign's legal fulfillment obligations. These were linked to Senate probes into potential Russian interference in the 2016 election. A former FEC associate general counsel said he believed Stein was "likely compliant with FEC rules."


In March 2019, her spokesman David Cobb said that Stein had "fully cooperated with the Senate inquiry."

I'm not sure why there seems to have been a desire to push The Daily Beast into these paragraphs. I know that people like to add links and references to their favorite media outlets and it's true that "told the Newspaper that" is a bit more de-credibilizing rhetorically than "said", but otherwise who knows why The Daily Beast was squeezed 3 times into 6-7 sentences. In any case, as long as we stick to the facts and leave aside the embellishments, the rollover ref is fine, no need for inline citation and no need to unnecessary promote the Daily Mail/Mirror/Spot & co.🌿 SashiRolls t · c 21:34, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
The May piece by the Daily Beast, at least, received significant coverage in secondary sources. I don't think it's odd to devote one sentence to it and then another to a followup. Of course, we might want to look at those secondary sources for hints on how to word it. (Note that even though we have secondary sources, we should still in-line attribute it to the Beast, since it's what they do.) --Aquillion (talk) 14:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Legal defense implies prosecutionEdit

As far as I'm aware, JS was never prosecuted as the en.wp entry (deceptively) suggested here? let's not use language from a click-baity Daily Beast headline to claim she was. In the article at least it is clear she was not being prosecuted. Perhaps you have a better source than the headline for the claim you added that this money was used for "her legal defense" rather than compliance, SS? 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 03:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC) 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 03:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

The text does not state that she was prosecuted for anything nor does it suggest it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Fact: neither *defend* nor *defense* are in the article, whereas both *comply* and *compliance* are. As often, you are basing your spin on the clickbait headline. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 03:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
I see that no comment has been made concerning whether we should source to the headline or to the body of the text before the editwarring has resumed. Shall we seek a third opinion before wasting time with an RfC? Third opinions are welcome. (Actually, just for the record Snoogans are you saying you think it's ok to source the wiki-text exclusively to the headline?) Here is the article again [2], in case anyone wants to search for "compliance" (1 relevant occurrence), "comply/complied" (1 2 relevant occurrences), "compliant" (1 relevant occurrence), "defense" (1 occurrence, the headline), "defend" (2 unrelated occurrences). I also don't think either of the Charles Davis pieces pass the 10 year test but reasonable people might conceivably disagree. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 01:57, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm not wedded to the 'legal defense' language. As far as I'm concerned, saying she used the recount money on legal fees related to Russia probes is perfectly fine. What is not fine is your edit which makes it seem as if she was forced to use money donated to her for the purposes of a recount on legal issues related to the Russia probe. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:18, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm afraid that's due to the use of the words "comply", "compliant", and "compliance" in the original, which do indicate a degree of obligation, don't they? More generally, what about the 10-year test? Do you really think these articles pass? (they are pretty clearly muck-raking since the experts Davis interviewed all say she did nothing wrong even if one of the three does lament the state of FEC regulation). 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 02:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
I think we need to remove the two articles for the above reasons. I'm sure you disagree. In the meantime, I'll add more neutral wording and remove the bluelinks to the Daily Beast and the opinion bits, as TFD suggested above. We should stick to the facts so we don't need to cite the source in-text. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 03:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I'm afraid there's not much scandal left once you read the text carefully and sift through all the innuendo for the facts. But now that we've gotten it down to the facts I suppose it can be kept. In the first article, Davis mentions quite clearly that the Center for Responsive Politics says that recount money can be used for "post-election litigation". 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 03:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I have worked very hard to try to accomodate your desire to document this element of the post-campaign in an NPOV way with your chosen (in my view very partisan) sources. I would appreciate if you would read en.wp policy on gaming the consensus-building process before you make another wholesale revert of my hard work. Otherwise, I'm afraid this is going to be added to the list that will be going to ArbCom. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 04:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
I really don't understand why you wanted me to add in the experts. They all say (in different ways) that outside of personal expenses, candidates can do what they want with recount money. I think the only thing that talking about the experts he consulted adds is to show in wiki-text just how much Davis wanted to find something untoward about it... in fact, I may just delete that part. There is nothing more "nuanced" about what the experts say. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 05:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
I discuss this here[3]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
I think the coverage by secondary sources shows that this is considered enough of a scandal to get a paragraph, but we should probably consider what those secondary sources focus on in terms of how we word it. I also somewhat object to the rewording of the Russia probe paragraph; if we're going to section it should obviously start with the Senate report. The details about New Knowledge and the Internet Research Agency aren't so important; certainly, though, the NBC News quote about concerns stemming from her policies aligning with Russia is important, since it helps explain why there was an investigation in the first place and one of the reasons why it's being covered Cutting that quote in half and only covering the parts that favor her obviously isn't WP:NPOV. I don't think the what-happened-to-the-money paragraph needs to be split with half of it in the Russia section; it makes both that part and the Russia section harder to read, and ultimately that last note about where the money ended up is more relevant to the recount than the Russian investigation. --Aquillion (talk) 14:22, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Welcome to this page Aquillion. I'm sorry to say I've had to modify some of your first edits to it. I'd like to explain why in the spirit of BRD.
1) you say that the coverage is wide enough to suggest this is a scandal, providing two references written on the 31 May 2017 in and which recycle Charles Davis' story the day after it was published. (diffs) I have removed those low-quality sources as they are just part of the amplification of the buzz of the story published the day before at the Beast.
2) I notice that you reinstated multiple mentions of the Daily Beast in wikitext. I do not believe that we need to be promoting a commercial entity in this way. As has been said above, by wiser contributors than I, best practices are to extract the facts so that it is not necessary to promote news outlets in wiki-text, but simply use them in the footnotes.
3) I notice that though you posted in the TP section "legal defense implies prosecution" after it had been agreed that "legal defense" (sourced only to the Beast headline) should be abandoned in favor of a more accurate NPOV phrasing, you restored the POV phrasing against the emerging consensus.
4) I notice that you restored a long quote from NBC News, introducing it with the verb "noted". I would ask that you revisit WP:SAY for best practices on introducing long quotes. Since you are new to this page, you are probably unaware that this quote has already been discussed (by people wiser than I) who argued persuasively that all that follows "but" in that quote is an opinion and should be marked as such. (Actually saying that JS's policies mirror Russian foreign policies seems to me a particularly propagandistic way of expressing the idea that there is some overlap in her anti-war stance and Russia's desire not to have NATO in its backyard.) You may agree with the opinion expressed that Jill Stein's anti-war policies align with Russian policies, but that does not make it less of an opinion.
5) I fundamentally disagree with you about the importance of mentioning New Knowledge, insofar as they are the ultimately the authors (cf. authority) of much of what you wish to include. It is essential that authors be identified so that we know on whose authority en.wp entries are written. This is also why I updated the pseudonym of the author formerly known as Kat Hatz (and now known as Smart Ass Dem-inist) for the Medium post that was added by SecretName101 on 30 July 2017 to source a claim (here).
Just out of curiosity, what brought you to this page today? Was it being discussed somewhere?
I've reverted my changes as you can see, because I overlooked the change in rules and got confused by a new person getting involved. The totality of the proposed improvements I will be making once the rules permit page improvements can be seen here. Please discuss anything you have a problem with. Again, I'm very curious how you found this page just now. Could you explain that please? 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 20:02, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

1RR now in effectEdit

Please be mindful. El_C 05:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I have self-reverted in order to respect the new rules. I always get confused when people start working together against changes being made. My apologies. I just realized now that I can't make these improvements. It's strange that some of these sentences have been reverted to exactly the same state 12 times now, despite the agreements on the TP that we should not be sourcing language to a headline. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 21:16, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
@El C: can you confirm that I have the right to update the text as I did here about Mother's Day? As far as I can tell, it has not been touched by anyone since 2017. I'm not sure why Kat Hatz changed their name, but they did... and I'm not sure why Jill Stein's right to response to this (once) recentist criticism was never added. Again, my apologies for thinking that today was a new day, just because I'd slept. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 21:27, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Return to "Jill Stein" page.