Talk:Ralph Nader

Neutrality

Why is the neutrality of the "Third-party votes controversy" section disputed? I could not find the discussion? Stovl (talk) 04:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea why the neutrality is disputed. It's just facts, and it accurately portrays the conflict over the issue. Plus, it's full of citations. I think the tag should be removed. --N-k (talk) 12:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Terry McCauliffe attempted pay off of Nader

Another editor is persistently removing important, relevant verified information regarding the actions of Terry McCauliffe in 2004. First, "bribery" is not a crime, per se. I asked that the dictionary be consulted (try Webster's College vs.); apparently it wasn't. I would ask that you get the semantics right before overturning other people's work. At a minimum, you could have changed that one word, perhaps to "pay off", instead of removing an entire paragraph. Perhaps the person that added that material would care to comment? Jack B108 (talk) 00:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree to include it. Aslo, I have removed the quote from the Atlantic Monthly; may remove the rank altogether from Recognition, since it's really criticism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.114.230 (talk) 00:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Recognition does not necessarily have to be positive, so I have restored the point. Markvs88 (talk) 02:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I removed it entirely, it belongs in criticism, or 2000 section, it is clearly tongue and cheek not meant to be "recognition". I welcome other people to join in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.93.195.124 (talk) 04:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

And I've restored it again, zero sum game. Again, recognition is not always positive. IE: Adolph Hitler, John Wilkes Booth, Tanya Harding, etc. You're reverting a cited quote of someone else's from a reliable source. Markvs88 (talk) 11:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you think we can reasonably agree to move it to criticism? Would be great to hear from others, as well. 99.93.195.124 (talk) 21:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'm fine with that. Markvs88 (talk) 21:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I did that, adding a new section :-) 99.93.195.124 (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Criticism

I am told it is best to eliminate this section, as it tends to give undue weight. Now I can see why this is a policy. There is waaaaay too much criticism coming in, coming across as axe-grinding, strictly op-ed. I vote to remove it. 99.25.216.198 (talk) 02:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

If you remove the criticism section you have to remove the recognition section as well. Until recently this article read as a puff propaganda piece and it still tilts in that direction. Mystylplx (talk) 13:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Please state why you think [[1]] applies. I see no rationale at this time. Markvs88 (talk) 16:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

See Barack Obama artcle talk page. 99.25.216.198 (talk) 02:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Talk:Barack Obama has 17 sections plus 71 pages of archives. I'm not going to search for what you mean and figure out the context for you... can you please be a bit more specific? Markvs88 (talk) 03:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It's the Section marked "Criticism": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barack_Obama#Criticism_section 99.25.216.198 (talk) 04:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

In that section they also say the recognition section should be removed. I agree. Both sections should be removed. The very fact there was even a recognition section at all is another indication of what a puff piece this is. Then the criticism section was added to balance the recognition section... Both should be removed. Mystylplx (talk) 09:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The third-party votes (spoiler) controversy

This article as it was until recently (and still to a great extent) comes off as a pro-Nader propaganda piece where everything positive is covered in good detail while everything negative was glossed over and soft-balled. Calling that section "The third party votes controversy" is one example. The controversy was not about "third party votes;" it was about whether or not he ran as a spoiler. "Spoiler was the word used at the time and is the word used in most of the cited sources. Let's call it what it is instead of soft-balling. Mystylplx (talk) 13:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

OPPOSE - The term "spoiler" is POV charged and violates NPOV. 99.25.216.198 (talk) 02:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest it's the opposite. The term "spoiler" is the term the controversy was all about. By not using the term it soft-balls it and violates NPOV. Mystylplx (talk) 09:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

DISAGREE - Let's keep the article about the subject it represents. This is not a forum for political soap-boxing or axe-grinding. There is too much weight given to the issue here as it is. 99.34.58.117 (talk) 21:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Like it or not this is a major part of what Nader will be remembered for.

- This is your opinion. It is not shared by all, particularly those off of the continent. 99.34.58.117 (talk) 07:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It is shared by enough reliable sources to mean it should be included. And please stop vandalizing the talk page by editing other peoples posts. If you continue I will ask an administrator to block your IP.Mystylplx (talk) 17:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

And when I started the same amount of the article was on this--it was just all defending Nader.

- Again, this is your opinion. I for one do not see evidence of this.99.34.58.117 (talk) 07:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Look in the history.Mystylplx (talk) 17:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

In fact the whole "third party votes" section barely mentioned any controversy and was all Nader's defense.

- Same as above.99.34.58.117 (talk) 07:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Same as above.Mystylplx (talk) 17:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

By soft-balling it and calling it something other than what it was commonly called it violates NPOV.

- You have failed to convince me, and merely repeat this anthem without support.99.34.58.117 (talk) 07:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Look, I'm not the one who wants to remove all criticism of Nader and leave the recognition.

- I acutally *created* the criticism section, and was later informed that it causes problems, such as the ones you appear to be creating. 99.34.58.117 (talk) 07:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

You are the one soap-boxing and ax-grinding, not I.

- I will conditionally accept this statement upon proof of claim. Making such a statement doesn't make it so. Kindly supply proof of your accusation.99.34.58.117 (talk) 07:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I came into the article and it was a pro-Nader propaganda puff piece.

- Again, I disagree, and your saying it, again, doesn't make it true. In fact, if it were to be structured like a encyclopedic biography, it would be chronological, biographical and factual. Your attitude and language indicate a negativity towards the subject. Is this correct?99.34.58.117 (talk) 07:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to add balance.

- I think you are adding negativity. If you were interested in balance, your contributions would reflect factual data, not merely negative data. 99.34.58.117 (talk) 07:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

My contributions are all factual data. You are trying to scrub everything negative. I'm trying to add balance.Mystylplx (talk) 17:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

If I came in and it was an anti-Nader hit piece I would be adding positive stuff to try to balance it.

- Why would you not be aiming for NPOV instead?99.34.58.117 (talk) 07:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

As it is it needs to be less soft-balled and show some real balance.

- Take it to a political web site, then. THis is an encyclopedia. "soft-balled" and "balance" are matters of opinion. Why not focus on facts?99.34.58.117 (talk) 07:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

There was never a "third party votes controversy."

- Yes, there certainly is. 99.34.58.117 (talk) 07:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

No there never was. It was never called the "third party votes controversy." The controversy was over whether or not he ran as a spoiler."Mystylplx (talk) 17:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

What the controversy was about was whether or not he ran as a spoiler. Mystylplx (talk) 17:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

- A term rejected by Ralph Nader and others. It's about third party voting.99.34.58.117 (talk) 07:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Nader rejected it, of course, but it's the term that was used and is important. Stop shilling for Nader.Mystylplx (talk) 17:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

You may not like that but it's the fact.

- Fact? All I've read are your opinions. 99.34.58.117 (talk) 07:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Call it what it was instead of bending over backwards trying to make Nader smell like roses.

- By what evidence am I "trying to make Nader smell like roses"? What justifies such an accusation? I think you've got a lot of nerve. I hope that others with contribute in an appropriate way to this article, and can communicate the process without being presumptuous or offensive.99.34.58.117 (talk) 07:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

First off, please sign your edits with 4 tildes. Please stop editing other peoples posts on the talk page. And as for how you're violating POV, among other things, you want to soft-ball the spoiler controversy title itself by calling it something it was never called "the third party votes controversy" and you want to remove all criticism and keep the recognition. Nuff said.Mystylplx (talk) 17:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Mystylplx (talk) 01:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a note: I googled the phrase "third party votes controversy" and all the results were mirrors of this page. The whole phrase was invented here in order to softball what was actually a controversy about whether or not he ran as a spoiler. "Third party votes" are not controversial. Running as a spoiler is.Mystylplx (talk) 19:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

2000 section

I propose migrating a good deal of this section to the 2000 article. I see that this has been done in the past. Too heavily weighted here for a bio article. 99.61.113.84 (talk) 21:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

You can migrate stuff from the 2000 campaign section to the subarticle as long as it's not already mentioned in the 2000 article. It's really not that long though. The subarticle is not overdone. However, you cannot move stuff from other sections, such as criticism to that article. The criticism section has no subarticle. And I don't think it would be appropriate to make one. Thus the criticisim section stays in the main article. Thus you cannot delete cited material just because you disagree with it. Mystylplx (talk) 22:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, I propose migrating a good deal of this section to the 2000 article. I see that this has been done in the past. Too heavily weighted here for a bio article. 99.61.113.84 (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

And I see it has been overruled in the past. This is a major part of Nader's Bio. Continually trying to hide it away in a subarticle violates WP:NPOV. There is far more WP:RS quotes on this than are present. What we have now is a small but representative sample. Please stop trying to hide what WP:RS sources have said on the issue. Mystylplx (talk) 22:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Where was it overruled? Who is hiding content? Are you referring to the content you're removing? 99.61.113.84 (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

You are the one who keeps trying to remove content. Please stop removing references and putting back unreferenced stuff that's merely in praise of your hero. Mystylplx (talk) 16:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

So, from your response, I gather:

1. There is no proof that migrating material to the 2000 article was overruled; in fact, there is support for migration on the basis that a 2000 article was created and a good deal of content was migrated. Apparently, you rely on false statements to support what must be a weak position.

It is sometimes appropriate to move stuff from a subsection to a branch article. It is never appropriate to move stuff from other subsections to an article which is not a branch of that subsection. When you do that you are deleting, not moving. 208.53.80.254 (talk) 17:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

2. Your edits reflect persistent removal of sourced material.

One time I accidentally removed source material because you had mixed in a bunch of new source material with your repeated attempts to remove other source material. You, however, continue to remove source material, not accidentally, persistently, and with no justification. Mystylplx (talk) 00:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

3. I have provided valid references, which you are removing.

One time, by accident. Mystylplx (talk) 00:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

4. You are unable to communicate without making false insinuations; thus, your position is weak and unconvincing.

I have made no insinuations only flat out accusations, and all of them have been accurate.

I encourage others who work well with others and who are mentally secure enough to maintain a NPOV to civilly contribute to the article and discussion.

99.61.113.84 (talk) 19:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me the 2000 section could use some work. It should be a summary of the notable aspects of the campaign, but it is weak on those, and the later half is apologist type stuff for the spoiler controversy for which there is already a subsection. 208.53.80.254 (talk) 17:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem here is this is an encyclopedia article, not a pro-Nader propaganda piece. That means it should accurately reflect what wp:rs has said on the subject. For the most part the article is OK, but when it comes to the spoiler controversy part it is nerfed to the extreme. Before I came in it was even worse, but even still it reads like an apologist piece. Even the name "third party votes" is an example of how slanted and POV this article remains. Who ever heard of a "third party votes" controversy? The controversy was over whether he ran as a spoiler. It had nothing to do with "third party votes." There have been "third party votes" in every election, before and since, but it's never been controversial before or since Nadres run in 2000.

As an encyclopedia article it needs to accurately reflect what wp:rs says about him. The continual attempt by an IP User to sanitize and remove any and all negative content which comes from wp:rs and "move" (hide) it to lessor read articles is a violation of wp:npov. It is an attempt to turn an encyclopedia article into a pro-Nader propoganda piece. This is wikipedia, not Nader.org. It should reflect what is there in wp:rs, not what Nader himself would like to see. Mystylplx (talk) 00:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that this is a Wikipedia article on Ralph Nader, NOT an article about the 2000 election, the so-called "spoiler" controversy or the "third party votes" controversy, or any other subtopic. It is not a political forum. Stacking the article with excessive criticism and quotes that slam the subject is NOT the way to create an NPOV article, and in fact violates NPOV. No one is hiding content, but moving it to the article to which the content belongs. There is no NPOV violation, save yours, which is apparent from your edit history and personal attacks on this page. History reveals other editors working together, while you push your POV and falsely accuse others without any efforts to compromise with or AGF anyone who challenges that POV. Meanwhile, these same editors you accuse of vandalism and POV add references, which YOU have reverted, an act that actually DOES constitute vandalism, when he/she/they are working to improve the article. 99.59.98.198 (talk) 05:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It is hardly "stacked" with criticism. The great majority of the article is quite positive. Excessively so. The article should reflect what has been published in wp:rs. At this point there is still far more criticism in wp:rs than is reflected in the article. And you are the one causing problems. Your persistent attempts to remove content have been reverted by at least 3 other editors yet you just stubbornly keep deleting and reverIf your feelings towards the subject of the article and its contributors are so hostile that you cannot control your negative behavior, I suggest you step back and work on ones that are less personal for you. I see little to NO improvement to the article reflected in your edits, and your presence has already stirred up excessive trouble for others. ting. I only removed references once, and as I already said, it was by mistake. You had added in a bunch of references at the same time you also (again) deleted content and I didn't pay enough attention to notice that. This is an encyclopedia article, not a propaganda piece on nader.org. It should accurately reflect what has been said about him in wp:rs, including both negative as well as positive. Please stop trying to remove everything you perceive as negative while leaving only the positive. Mystylplx (talk) 12:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I did not say that "it", i.e., the article, is stacked with criticism, but that YOU are stacking the article with criticism under false impression that it creates NPOV, when in fact it opposes NPOV. Are your telling me that your false accusations of vandalism did not stimulate the recent problems reflected on ANI? Why, pray tell, then, did you then apologize for doing so? Which THREE editors are you now referring to? You stated "several" editors in another post-- which is it? How is moving content to the appropriate article in your world removing? As I stated before, if your feelings towards the subject of the article and its contributors are so hostile that you cannot control your negative behavior, I suggest you step back and work on ones that are less personal for you. I will no longer contract any contact with you, and I will tell you why. Your posts are negative, your CONTRIBUTIONS are negative, and negative can only destroy itself and take whatever it attaches itself to with it. I want NOTHING further to do with you. I will contribute to improve the article. Any further correspondence from you will be refused for cause.

The editors in question are listed on the protection page. You have been reverted by at least three editors yet seem unwilling to seek consensus and just keep stubbornly reverting no matter what. And you should take your own advice--step back and work on articles that are less personal for you. There's nothing personal for this for me. The article as it stood did not reflect what was out there in wp:rs on the subject, and now it's closer to doing so. Your continual attempts to remove everything negative are not helpful. Mystylplx (talk) 19:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

BTW< you claimed I was a liar when I said Markvs88 had also reverted your attempts to delete content. [[2]] You don't even seem to remember how many people have reverted you on this and yet you just keep stubbornly edit warring against consensus and everyone. Mystylplx (talk) 08:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Refused for cause. 99.59.98.198 (talk) 09:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. The 2000 election is what Nader is most famous for, so should be covered thoroughly.PopeStephen (talk) 20:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)