Talk:Ralph Nader

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)

I change my mind about both sections being removed. WP:BLP has this to say, Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. The material is sourced to reliable secondary sources and is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. It is representative of both recognition and criticism Nader has received in many reliable sources over time. Mystylplx (talk) 15:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Note: The tone of the reliable sources criticizing and praising him may not be disinterested, but the way it's presented here at Wikipedia is. Just the facts, and just from reliable sources. Mystylplx (talk) 15:26, 17 January 2011 (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)

Right, in the 2000 article, it should be covered thoroughly. With NPOV. "The 2000 election is what Nader is most famous for" is provincial. And POV. The argument was made previously with no success. 99.59.98.198 (talk) 09:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Provincial? It seems to me you are the one trying to violate NPOV. As it is the section has his own words, and those of both his defenders and critics in a way that is representative of what was said in reliable sources at the time. It looks to me like you are trying to remove everything critical, which is blatantly POV. 207.231.4.168 (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• IP 207.231.4.168, are you Mystylplx? 99.59.98.198 (talk) 09:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. That is me. Mystylplx (talk) 10:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The IP user 99.59.98.198 has been edit warring against everyone in an attempt to delete anything s/he thinks seems negative about Nader, engaging in ad hominem attacks (like calling you "provincial") and generally s/he is right while everyone else is wrong. The 2000 section could use more detail on the campaign though, not less. If I haven't already gone on the record then I will do so now and oppose the deletion of any more content. Mystylplx (talk) 20:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Refused for cause. 99.59.98.198 (talk) 21:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Page semi-protected for 3 days

The (I believe) single editor on multiple IPs who keeps trying to add Nader's name in arabic drew my attention to himself, and I have semi'd the page for 3 days. The anonymous editor is free to discuss the matter here. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

And how is the fact that he's an arab american disputed information? This might come as a shock to you, but the "Lebanon" in the article is referring to the country Lebanon in the middle east, not Lebanon, Ohio. Most Arab Americans, have translations for their names in arabic, I don't see what your objection here is, do you have something against arabs that you even refuse any translation of Arabic names of arab americans into arabic? You're completely contradicting yourself, when saying "His parents were Lebanese. Neither makes him 'an arab'"; Is it then up to you to decide which arab american is "an arab" and which is "plainly american"?(you can also enlighten me on what "plainly american" means according to you) I hope you can respond rationally this time.--94.187.78.9 (talk) 10:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. I have noticed that your IP address changes a lot. It would be helpful to everyone involved if you registered an account, so that you'd get your own talk page and your edits would be properly attributed.

Now, I'm actually not sure why the Arabic translations of Nader's name are being removed. Certainly, it's not very common on other articles, but I can't tell why it would be wrong. The situation seems similar to Isaac Asimov, a prominent Russian-America whose name appears Russian (and in this case, he didn't speak Russian, as Nader speaks Arabic). It would help if there were other instances of sources noting his Arabic name. I don't even see that in book-length biographies about him.

What I do commonly see in biographical literature, though, is that he is an ethnic Arab. Note that Lebanon is a country, and so "Lebanese" may refer to the nationality of members of any ethnic group (and there are Lebanese Persians, Jews, Armenians, and so on, who are not Arabs), and so this is why there was some objection to your claims. All confusion could have been dispelled if you had cited a reliable source to demonstrate that he is in fact Arab. I don't think that ethnicity and religion automatically merit inclusion in biographies, but in this case, Nader is often cited in profiles of Arab-Americans as one of the country's most prominent members of that community. And you can take your pick of reliable sources to that effect: Time Magazine, The New York Times, The Economist, The Encyclopedia of Contemporary American Culture, Arabs in America: Building a New Future, and so on. After the protection expires, I would support adding a sentence about his Arab ancestry relying on these sources. Dominic·t 00:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Well thanks for the support, but from past experience, I know that if the admin says the Earth is flat, and the dynamic IP contradicts him, the admin is the one who's right. And if I contradict her a second time, I'm as good as blocked(beleive me, they'll always find some vague WP: reason to block me). So I think I'll just let it go.--94.187.70.243 (talk) 18:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the point is it's not necessary to give the Arabic spelling, and doing so over-emphasizes the point... Imagine if someone went around and started putting the Hebrew spelling of everyone with a Jewish last name... The page already mentions he's Lebanese American in the very first sentence. It's not as if the fact is being hidden. Mystylplx (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

He is a spoon collector!

He is! I saw a sampling! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.167.9.178 (talk) 03:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Removal of or moving cited content, June 2011

Would the IP editor please be so kind as to point out where the consensus is that he or she keeps removing the "The "spoiler" controversy" and the "The Atlantic Monthly" points? All I'm asking for is the date (and which archive it is in), because I simply cannot find it. Thank you, Markvs88 (talk) 12:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, again, I am not removing the content, but moving it to appropriate sections and/or articles. The majority of the content in question belongs in the corresponding 2000 article to which it was moved.

Kindly check talk page records starting 1/2006 regarding consensus. You will find other editors' agreement from that time up to the present, and evidenced by a fairly static consensus, save banned editor User:Griot/meat/socks.

I am happy to see that you wish to discuss the issue, but disappointed that you reverted back to sock/meat contributions in the wake to these discussions. I recommend that the present version be left undisturbed in good faith. I will assume your good faith in this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.63.196.51 (talk) 20:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

From the history it looks like only one person wants to remove the content. This is 2011, not 2006. This person (99.63.196.51 (talk)) also appears to be engaging in name calling and other irrational behavior.74.93.21.110 (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

user:99.63.196.51, I went through all of archive 1 and cannot find anything like consensus. Please quote from the archive the EXACT point of consenus you are referring to. Also, accusing me of sockpuppetry is absurd. I have never used an alt. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 19:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I did not accuse you of sockpupptery. I am stating that there are others who are. 99.93.194.84 (talk) 06:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The AM passage is obvious criticism that does not belong in the lead of this article. 184.59.23.98 (talk) 04:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Two problems here: 1) It is not necessarily criticism (that's opinion) and 2) it's been a week and the consensus point has not been posted out of the archives. If it is not posted for another week, I will take that as proof of none. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 14:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

1. Pretty obvious criticism nd 2. Here are at least two people that think it doesn't belong. I don't have time to check through everything, but that's pretty poor logic that if doesn't post something that's lack of evidence.

The Life Magazine passage is obviously praise. The AM passage is balance. Trying to call the spoiler controversy the "third party votes" controversy is another example--the controversy was never about "third party votes" (it was about whether he ran as a spoiler) and continually trying to call it something other than what it was called simply because it sounds more favorable to Nader violates WP:NPOVMystylplx (talk) 16:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not the same. The Life mention is a fact. The AM thing is snarky. Blatant political agenda. No one could reaonably equate them.

Life chose him as one of the 100 most influential Americans. AM did as well. Both are facts. Or neither is a fact. You don't get to pick and choose which facts you like and which you don't. Picking and choosing like that violates WP:NPOV These incessant attempts to remove all criticism and leave all praise are blatantly POV. Are you the same person as user:99.63.196.51? Mystylplx (talk) 04:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Life passage states a fact, AM passage states a fact with obvious snarky political agenda. NOT that same. I'm hardly removing "all criticism," I'm pulling a quote that `1. does not belong in the lead of the article and 2. reflect obvious political agenda that has no place in biography. List both, without the snarky political agenda, or none, if that makes you happy, I don't care. And no, I'm not the same person. Why do you ask? Are you? Are you somebody else? Do you dislike Ralph Nader, what's YOUR AGENDA? Because it's pretty clear to me you're the one who's pushing points of view. Answer or don't bother writing to me anymore, because I don't like YOUR attacking tone. 184.59.23.98 (talk) 01:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Apparently it's a fact if you like it and "snarky" if you don't. That's what they call POV. The reason I asked if you are the same person is your edits are identical even including the claim it's OK to delete validly cited content against consensus as long as it's been "moved." The thing about IP users is you can't tell if it's a different person or the same person from a different computer, or on vacation, or whatever. The IP user whose IP starts with 99 has been here pretty consistently for months, then s/he disappears and you show up making identical edits. And just like hir you insistently remove cited content in spite of getting reverted by numerous other editors.

The main point is you cannot remove valid cited content without (or in this case against) consensus. Mystylplx (talk) 02:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

No, it's snarky. So, are you another person? You didn't answer. What concensus are you taling about? Prove it. And, answer my questions. 184.59.23.98 (talk) 20:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The consensus of at least three people who have reverted you just recently. And more than that in the past. And no, I don't dislike Ralph Nader--I just don't think her's a saint. I think the article should accurately reflect what has been published about him in reliable sources, the good, the bad, and the ugly, and not constantly be being scrubbed of anything perceived as negative. Mystylplx (talk) 14:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Moot. Since the IP user has nor or cannot point to any consensus that was reached six years ago, it is allowed back in per WP:CHALLENGE : All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source. As The Atlantic Monthly is a realiable third party source, it may not be removed without good reason. The IP editor has refused to make any arguement why the cited content must be removed to another article, other than he considers it criticism of the person in question. That isn't enough. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 14:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Not Moot. For highly personal reasons I have been absent. It does not change the fact that a consensus was made years ago to eliminate the the passage from the article and the lead. 99.93.194.84 (talk) 06:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Er, yes, still moot. Please show the EXACT point of consenus you are talking about, as I have looked and cannot find it. You've had over a month to do so and to date still have not. Until you do so, you have no grounds whatsoever to try to remove the content. Right now I see you and Mystylplx are going back and forth about moving the The Atlantic Monthly part from one section of the article to another. I strongly suggest that the two of you discuss here WHY it should be in one section or another and stop edit warring before either or both of you get blocked for wp:edit warring. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 12:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Er, no, not moot. Again, for highly personal reasons, I've been absent. Thus, I haven't had one month. I've had much more important and pressing matters to contend with. I still have more important and pressing matters. Your not locating consensus does not mean there isn't any-- it means you haven't located it. I haven't moved anything, I've been absent, again, as I've stated. I'll have nothing to do with Mystylplx, who is a sock/meat of Griot. The consensus is plain as day. Months will go by without any warring until Griot and his socks/meats show up, then it's nothing but trouble. This evidence, months free from this Griot behavior and warring and false accusations of vandalism, plus article talk page comments and notes others have made in edits removing or moving the quote, like "Does not belong in the lead" and "Does not belong in the article," is clear. In fact, I see that there are SEVERAL editors from 2006 on who vie for the quote to be moved or removed, and only one Griot/sock/meat, until you, inserting it.

Now, let's get to the heart of the matter. If you wish, post to the community, and see what the community wants. By community, I don't mean Griot/Mystylplx/meats/socks. Let's see a sincere and bonafide discussion, and not one riddled with political agenda. I say the quote belongs in the 2000 article, if at all, and certainly not in the lead of the main article. 99.12.181.184 (talk) 02:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Removal to sub-article discussion is closed. My not locating the alleged consensus after wasting an hour of my life reading through the archives means it does not exist. Frankly, I don't know if you've been gone or not but you've still had over a month to post it and (if there was such a point of consensus) you could have just posted its location in the archives now instead of reiterating that you've been away. I don't really care either way, as it has been a more than reasonable amount of time.
  Thus I can safely say that at this point the subject matter cannot be removed to the sub-article. It is validly cited and is something that people do discuss regarding Mr Nader. To move it is an ommission, and wp:burden is on you in this case. There is nothing else to discuss on this point, the matter is closed (unless you can come up with that consensus in the archives).

However, I do agree that this constant back-and-forth reversion needs to stop, so I am factoring it out below. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 14:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I have been absent. Serious personal matters. I must reiterate if you continue to question my word. It certainly causes me concern that you continue to question my word. I cannot reveal the specific nature of my absence, since it is very private, but can assure you its gravity left me no time to read, much less address, your request. If I can find the time, I will locate the many points of consensus that I have no difficulty recalling and at times locating on the talk page archives and edit notes since 2006. I'm sincerely sorry that an hour of your life was wasted; that was, however, your decision, for which I cannot accept responsibility. Thank you, I do appreciate your willingness to patiently assist. 99.67.41.164 (talk) 00:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

That's all well and fine, but I am not questioning your word... I am simply following the rules. As I cannot find what you claimed was in the archives, the issue is dead until/unless it can be found. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 01:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Movement not removal

I see no reason for the constant revisions by Mystylplx (and Griot?) & 99.12.181.184 (and other IPs?). The wikilink for "the New York Times" vs. "The New York Times" under Background and early career is likewise no biggie, I think we can all agree on that. My guess is that the renaming of The "spoiler" controversy to " The third party voting controversy is a point of contention, as is the location of the The Atlantic Monthly section.
I ask the two of you to hash out your differences and politely make your rationales here and (no matter what version is current) PLEASE not keep reverting while discussing it. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 14:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree I will not change it from the present status. I have stated my reasons for its removal, movement, etc. 99.67.41.164 (talk) 00:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

"Griot" seems to be a figment of the IP users imagination. S/he constantly accuses me of being "griot" and has accused you of the same thing. Attempts have been made to hash out the diferences, but all I get is name-calling and weirdness from the IP user. Mystylplx (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Mystylplx, I am aware of the past and we've completed that discussion and are now on to if we can come to an agreement regarding the movement of the text from one part of the article to another. Do you have any opinions on the matter, or can it remain where 99.67.41.164 moved it? Do you care about the NYT wikification or the spoiler/third party titles? Best, Markvs88 (talk) 19:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the 2000 election deserves at least some mention in the lede as it's arguably what Nader is most famous for. Putting the Atlantic Monthly quote at the end of the 2000 section seems odd as it appears orphaned and inappropriate (what did auto safety legislation have to do with the 2000 election? What does him being one of the 100 most influential Americans have to do with the 2000 election?) there and there's a better symmetry putting the two magazines that called him "One of the hundred most influential Americans" together. I think the Spoiler Controversy section should be called what it was actually called at the time. There was never any "third party votes controversy." All elections have third party votes--the controversy was about whether he ran as a spoiler. That's what all the debate was about at the time--it had nothing to do with "third party votes." I think calling it The Third Party Votes Controversy is an attempt to soft-sell and whitewash the importance of the controversy. It's a form of misdirection by implying the controversy was really about something entirely different from what it was about. Not sure what you mean by "NYT wikification." Mystylplx (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

My prior comment was deleted. Per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page#Editing_comments, I would request that my comments be addressed, not deleted. It is productive to note anyone using his logged out IP to avoid culpability for going against the requests of the moderator, to create an appearance of consensus and/or to evade WP:3RR. 99.90.147.10 (talk) 01:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I deleted your prior comment per the "removing harmful posts" clause of the very policy you cited. Accusing a fellow editor of sockpuppetry without hard evidence constitutes a personal attack and is a violation of WP:AGF.--JayJasper (talk) 04:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I find it productive, and not harmful, to note anyone using his logged out IP to avoid culpability for going against the requests of the moderator, to create an appearance of consensus and/or to evade WP:3RR. I therefore request that my comments be addressed, not deleted. Policy requires honoring that request. 99.25.218.227 (talk) 15:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that as having gone through Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, which makes it a baseless claim at this point and JayJasper was quite right to remove your post. I don't know what policy you are referring to, but I think you might want to re-read it. In any case, since no one has countered Mystylplx's point from the 28th, the information is not movable at this point. The whole idea here is to DISCUSS the proposed move. Do not move it again, thanks. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 16:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC

I don't always remember to log in, but I've never claimed to be anyone else and I'm not the "Griot" person the IP user keeps accusing me of being. Mystylplx (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The agreement was to keep it as is, thus I have maintained that agreement. The point has been refuted many times. 2000 election OpEd does not belong in the lead of a subject article. Some, like myself, do not believe it belongs in the subject article at all. The consensus on this point has been made since 2006 by several editors besides myself on the talk page of this article and in edit summaries. I have already compromised by leaving it in the 2000 section, against my position. 99.25.218.227 (talk) 19:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The agreement is to keep it, and thus far you have not maintained the agreement of the other editors to discuss moving the content within the page. Ah, the consensus again! Wonderful. Tell me exactly how to find it: I need to know which archive it is in, and the date. It doesn't matter "that you've compromised already", that doesn't automatically give moving it a "bye" for the next issue. Personally I don't care, but I'm tired of all this constant reverting. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 19:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Per your talk page note, you asked that the version of July 26 be kept as is, which is the version I've reverted to. Logged out Mystylplx changed it back, so I reverted to the version per your talk page note. You are reverting against your own request. You are grossly mistaken. 99.25.218.227 (talk) 19:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

And I just put it back, that one was my mistake. Now, please answer Mystylplx above. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 19:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, 99.25.218.227 (talk) 19:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I've already responded to the matter, above. 99.101.130.72 (talk) 22:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

As the IP user seems unwilling to discuss his changes I'm going to restore the article to the previous longstanding version. Mystylplx (talk) 14:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Consensus:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ralph_Nader/Archive_2#The_Atlantic_Monthly_Making_Nader_96th_Most_Influential_American — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.101.130.72 (talk) 22:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

By my count four people in that thread were infavor of leaving the quote in the lede, three opposed. Mystylplx (talk) 14:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Markvs88, you'll note that Griot/Mystylplx is repeatedly reverting against your wishes. Also, his math and conclusions on consensus to remove the quote are way off. Thanks, 99.59.98.144 (talk) 03:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I am OK with having the Atlantic Monthly comment about Nader making GWB the president in the body (and not in the lede), provided some sort of brief and neutral comment is put in the lede, such as "Experts disagree over whether or not Nader's participation in the 2000 presidential election led to Al Gore's defeat in Florida." As for the accusation that Mystylplx is a sock of a banned user, this sort of talk does not belong in an article talk page; many editors (myself amongst them) have advised the IP-anon to either bring up this issue at WP:SPI or drop it, and his/her continued flat refusal to follow accepted procedure in this regard is (IMO) an unacceptable breach of WP:NPA. Until and unless the SPI process decides to label Mystylplx as a sock — something that isn't going to happen if a case is never put forth in that forum — his/her contributions to this article are entitled to be treated on their own merits. Richwales (talk · contribs) 04:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Disagree I don't agree with the inclusion of a statement(s) like "Experts disagree over whether or not Nader's participation in the 2000 presidential election led to Al Gore's defeat in Florida" or other 2000 election specifics. Such a topic is not the subject of the entry. Furthermore, it is inappropriate for the leading paragraph(s) of an encyclopedia entry, as evidenced by other encyclopedia entries on the subject, like Encyclopedia Britannica, Encyclopedia Americana and Encyclopedia.com, all of which do not include these specifics. Also, Markvs88 stated for the get-go that once a consensus was located, the matter would be closed; thus, I consider it closed. We do not need new reasons for User:Griot socks/meats to edit war on this entry any longer.

Btw, the proper term is '"lead," not "lede," which is reserved for news articles. As for my so-called "flat refusal?" Please get your facts straight, for in addition to reports to Wikimedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hersfold#Requesting_Your_Assistance

Now, given your concern for rules and procedures, what are you going to do about the the following immediate violations: Griot/Mystylplx has repeatedly reverted against consensus and the express directive of Markvs88, and has used his logged out IP on at least two occasions to evade the WP:3RR/edit-warring and to create the illusion of consensus? 99.59.98.144 (talk) 05:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Given that I now see you've tried (via Hersfold) to pursue your SPI accusation in a proper forum, I will withdraw my "flat refusal to follow accepted procedure" comment. Please note that Hersfold currently claims not to have received e-mail you said you had sent; I don't know what this means. Also, note that Hersfold is currently saying he is skeptical of your sockpuppet claim. In any case, I still say it is not appropriate to continue making sockpuppet / meatpuppet accusations here in an article talk page, and Mystylplx is entitled to WP:AGF until such time as he/she is subjected to enforcement measures.

I understand that the use of the "lede" spelling in Wikipedia is controversial, but for better or worse, it doesn't appear to be going away anytime soon (see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (lead section)/Archive 13#Lede revisited). As for your claim that Mystylplx is defying current consensus, I'll certainly take a look at this and come to my own conclusion (for what that might be worth) as to whether I think it should be reported as edit warring. Keep in mind, as always, that consensus is not immutable (see WP:CCC). Richwales (talk · contribs) 05:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any recent instance of a 3RR violation by Mystylplx (either logged in or under IP's apparently being used by him/her). The content dispute involving Mystylplx, Markvs88, and the IP-anon is spread out over several days, and given the extended discussion / argument going on here on the article talk page, I do not plan to report anything at WP:ANEW.

Given the contentious nature of the argument here, I don't think I'm saying anything strange if I suggest that (1) people should try to remember to log in whenever they edit, and (2) the IP-anon could help in this regard if he/she would get an account and use it (especially since he/she doesn't have a static IP address). For what it may be worth, I customized my own account's look and feel a long time ago (see User:Richwales/common.css), and I use a non-default skin (Monobook) in my preferences, so Wikipedia looks distinctly different to me when I'm logged in — hopefully making it much less likely that I would accidentally edit anonymously.

And yes, I know it is not absolutely necessary for editors to use accounts — but given the arguments at WP:ACCOUNT, I fail to see any convincing reason for an ongoing, habitual editor not to get any account. Consider, too, that if a dispute like this were ever to be reported as disruptive, I think there's a good chance that an admin seeing an apparent edit war involving an IP-anon using dynamic addresses might choose to respond by having the page semi-protected (which would make it impossible to edit the page any more without using an account). Richwales (talk · contribs) 05:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I would be in favor of having the page semi-protected again. This would not be the first time this has happened in relation to this IP-user. And BTW, in case anyone is taking the accusations of the IP_user seriously, as far as I could tell "Griot" was purely a figment of his imagination until I saw there actually was such a person in the discussion page he posted. In either case, that person is not me. I have only one account, always have and always will. Mystylplx (talk) 20:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I see three things going on here:

1. The consensus 99.59.98.144 is pointing at doesn't look like consensus to me, as at no point does anyone say "This is the verdict". Unless another (uninvolved) editor wants to weigh in on this, I can't see how this counts as wp:consensus as the numbers are basically tied and there was no resolution that both sides agreed to. If anything, this discussion ends with inclusion and not exclusion. Also, please note that I said if there was consensus to move the point that it would be considered and that the matter of removal from the main article was closed until it was found.
2. Mystylplx has been reverting the article back to the spoiler section despite my request to leave it at a particular date until the discussion on movement or not is settled. PLEASE leave it at the 23:34, 6 August 2011 version until this is settled, as this constant reversions don't help anyone.
3. Neither Mystylplx nor 99.59.98.144 has debated each other's points for as to why the text in question should be moved/reworded or not. 99.59.98.144, it is your move. So far you have not laid out a rationale for rewording "The "spoiler" controversy" section heading nor moving the Atlantic Monthly text, which is the next step (that is, to the reply to Mystylplx's post of 20:44, 28 July 2011).

Best,Markvs88 (talk) 17:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen 99.59.98.144 make any points as to why the text in question should be moved/reworded. I've explained why I think it should remain in the (previous) longstanding version. I'm not sure why it should stay in the changed version while being debated (or, as the case may be, not debated) rather than leaving it at the longstanding version, but I will leave it at the altered version for now. Mystylplx (talk) 20:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)