Talk:Ralph Nader

Archives: Archive 1

Stroke?

Did Nadar have a stroke or something? He doesn't really blink his left eye. I couldn't find any info on this anywhere.

Ralph contracted Bell's palsy after the death of his brother.

the Gayster?

The infobox lists his nickname as 'the Gayster.' I strongly doubt that this is correct, but I can't find out how to edit it to correct the error (I am a loser). Someone please either confirm it with a source (I believe gayster is a slur against gays and lesbians that has recently been reclaimed), or delete it.

Nader's Religious Stance

I don't personally know anything about his religious views, but I have been told that he does adhere to some religious precepts, such as not utilizing credit cards.

Response: Why is common sense (not buying on credit) suddenly a religious precept? 193.6.158.61 12:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)KA

Some subsets of muslims, jews, christians, and possilby non abramic religions refuse to use credit. 88.212.136.185 15:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Nader has written for The Humanist magazine, a publication of the American Humanist Association, and he has never been known to be outwardly religious. It's highly unlikely that he consders himself a "Christian" in the traditional sense of the word (that is, believing in the divinity of Christ or other Christian supernaturalism). It seems much more likely that he is a humanist. His opposition to corporate power and excessive consumerism is not inconsistent with a humanist worldview.

Please sign your comments. If you do not have an account, I encourage you to create one. Many Christians, Jews, and even muslims have written for Humanist magazines. And humanists are not the only ones to be against "authority." Punks, Christian Punk groups, liberals, conservatives, anyone can hold that position. Anyways, it's already in the article that he's a Maronite Christian. IronCrow 05:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Making the article NPOV

Here are my disagreements with the set of edits made by an anonymous user at 16:20, 24 Nov 2004:

• For Republican help, changing “several states” to “Michigan” is inaccurate if it implies that Michigan was unique in this respect. The Common Dreams article itself discusses Oregon. There were other examples, too. I think the general “several states” is better than burdening the reader with a blow-by-blow catalog, but if you won’t accept “several states”, then I’ll just list every one I can find, rather than leave a false implication that Michigan was an isolated event.
• Characterizing Democratic opposition to Nader as an attempt to “discredit” him is POV. We already include the charge that the Democrats were attempting to “smear” Nader, but that quotation is properly attributed to Nader’s campaign. Having quoted his press release verbatim, we don’t need to amplify the point, let alone endorse it.
• Changing “[the campaign] accepted contributions from donors who were....” to “[the campaign] accepted campaign contributions from several individual donors who were” seems to add a few words to no purpose. Obviously contributions to a campaign were campaign contributions. The additions aren’t inaccurate, but isn’t the shorter version just as clear?
• SBVT: This edit said that Nader’s campaign had accepted “a donation from one individual” also backing SBVT. Stating or implying that there was only one is inaccurate. The “Up for Victory” site says that FEC reports show eight such donors. [1]
• Organization: The way the article presented the information about Nader’s effect on the major-party candidates (the subject of this section) was to describe what the Bush supporters said and did, then what the Kerry supporters said and did, then what the Nader campaign said and did. The new edit disrupts that logical structure by interpolating one Democratic group (Up for Victory) after some of the material about Bush supporters, then immediately giving Nader’s POV, before returning to the subject of the Bush supporters. The logic is broken up. In addition, the Nader campaign’s main talking point, about Kerry having accepted donations from donors to Republicans, is now in the article twice. The former version cited the same contribution statistics cited by Nader and even quoted his press release, so I don’t think that version was unfair to him.
• This edit is very POV with regard to the Nader campaign’s sanctimonious (my POV!) claim of not accepting right-wing help. The edit reports the claim uncritically. It omits Camejo’s initial reaction of “We don’t want that money” and the subsequent reversal. In Michigan, the Nader campaign made similar pronouncements, then flip-flopped. [2] The edit falls all over itself to justify Nader’s collaboration with the Republicans in Michigan. Can any instances be cited, anywhere in the country, in which the Nader campaign went beyond lip service, and actually turned down Republican help that would have been of real benefit? If the campaign already had enough signatures of its own to qualify for some state’s ballot, then turning down Republican signatures is a meaningless gesture. I thought it made more sense to omit the subject, but if we're going to report the Nader campaign's claim on the point, then we'll have to go into detail on the other side as well.
• While I’m venting: A previous anon edit also seemed to reflect a pro-Nader POV with regard to the O’Hara quotation. The edit changed “voted for Bush in 2000 and has said....” to “voted for Bush in 2000 and was quoted as saying....” This phrasing isn’t used for other quotations in this article or in Wikipedia generally. Its only purpose seems to be to cast doubt on the accuracy (maybe he didn’t really make this comment that Naderites find embarrassing). The quotation is from an established newspaper, the source is given, and people can click on the link and confirm it. I didn’t bother correcting this change before but there’s a lot of other pro-Nader POV that will have to be cleaned out of this article, so that passage might as well be restored.

In sum, I think the article as it stood was factual and NPOV. The changes criticized above made it worse, not better.

In an unrelated point, I previously added some of the data about Nader's vote total in 2004. As more votes are being counted, Nader has done a little better, so that passage will need to be changed. In the lead section, my inclination is that it should be re-ordered to put Nader in context as to who he is -- activist attorney, presidential candidate -- before summarizing his views. The main reason is that some readers, especially non-Americans, won’t really know who Nader is. They’re being told the opinions of some random guy before they’ve been given the full picture about why his opinions are worth reporting. JamesMLane 19:41, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

__________

In hope of advancing the dialogue, I want to address some of the points noted above by James M. Lane:

I think it would be helpful if James M. Lane (or someone) would make good on the offer to list each of the states where Nader's campaign is supposed to have accepted organized Republican assistance in 2004, or in any other election year, together with a detailed explanation of the exact type of assistance that was involved.

It's important to distinguish between (1) "organized Republican assistance" (which Nader's campaign said it was making a point of eschewing, except regarding petitioning help for ballot access in the case of Michigan----and there may be other exceptions that Jame L. Lane will list), versus other types of activity, such as the following: (2) individual registered Republican voters voting for (or endorsing) Nader; (3) individual campaign contributions given by voters who were registered as Republicans; (4) the Nader campaign hiring a ballot access lawyer in Florida whose practice usually represented Republicans in election law cases; (5) other types of "help from Republicans" that are not properly characterized as "organized Republican Party help."

For example, with regard to item (4) listed above, Kerry campaign spokepersons repeatedly accused Nader of "accepting Republican help" when the Nader campaign hired an election law attorney in Florida who normally represented Republicans. Taken out of context, the accusation ("a top Republican lawyer helped Nader in Florida!") would perhaps appear to support the thesis of Republican help for Nader, but if one understands the nature of legal representation (the lawyer in question was evidently paid by the Nader campaign at the market rate), and if one understands the specialized nature of ballot access law and also understands that the expert election lawyers who typically represent Democratic Party candidates were unavailable because they were under pressure (including professional "conflict of interest" pressure) either to help the Democratic Party's efforts to block Nader's ballot access, or in any case not to represent Nader, then a truer picture emerges and the Nader campaign's hiring of that lawyer is seen not to support an "N-R conspiracy" theory.

Several so-called "big Republican donors" to Nader seem to have been individuals who have had longstanding relationships with Nader that transcend politics (e.g., classmates at Princeton or at Harvard Law School), and, when interviewed, some donors explained that they thought it was important to support the opportunity for certain of Ralph Nader's views to be part of the political dialogue, such as his views on the Middle East, or on environmental protection, etc. Peter Tanous apparently hosted a house party for Nader, but he seems genuinely to have been supportive of Nader's views on foreign policy, Nader's fiscally conservative critique of fraud, waste, and abuse, etc. One can question whether, for example, Ben Stein was being candid when he said that he supports many of Nader's views, but it unfairly bolsters an anti-Nader POV, to say only enough to create the impression that the Republican Party was behind Nader's campaign and/or that Nader was seeking to help elect Bush.

I think Wikipedia should be especially careful about inadvertently joining a partisan effort to associate Nader with the obnoxious "Swift Boat" group. First, information concerning the individual donors should be taken from the publically accessible FEC reports themselves, not from a story on Buzzflash.com, which in turn took its report from Up With Victory (a group created by the Democratic Party for the express purpose of opposing Nader). Nader actually criticized the ugly "Swift Boat" ads, and did so much more strongly than John Kerry did. It is misleading to imply that Nader was supporting flak against critique of the Vietnam War. Nader remains staunchly critical of U.S. military action in Vietnam (and he strongly opposes the invasion and ongoing war in Iraq), whereas John Kerry for purposes of the campaign in 2004 distanced himself from his own antiwar views and actions.

Likewise, very little credibilty should be given uncritically to the article by anti-Nader activist Jeff Cohen on the Common Dreams website. Mr. Cohen was one of the main ogranizers of the effort to discredit Nader by associating Nader with the Right. Even Mr. Cohen's article alludes to the Democratic Party's organized and successful effort to sabotage Nader's efforts to achieve ballot access in Oregon in 2004. As you probably know, organizations like Jeff Cohen's group (with funding from the Democratic Party) succeeded in keeping Nader off the Oregon ballot in 2004.

If readers are given enough information to understand the reasons "Republican help" was needed for Nader to exercise the right to ballot access in Michigan (namely, the Democratic Party's team of lawyers first succeeding in removing Nader's name as the Reform Party nominee, and then the same Democratic Party lawyering team's further challenges to the subsequent indepedendent petition drive on the ground that Nader "had failed to coordinate with the Republicans" during that petition drive, readers may see more of the overall context and may perhaps be less likely to assume a nefarious Nader-Republican conspiracy. It is especially interesting that the Democratic Party's argument in court (trying to knock Nader off the ballot the second time in Michigan) was precisely that Nader's campaign had NOT coordinated with the petition drive organized by Republicans. The court acknowledged the fact that Nader's campaign had not coordinated with the Republican petition circulators but ruled in Nader's favor, on the fundamental right to ballot access in Michigan. I don't know whether this background amounts to a "justification" for accepting help in Michigan, but it strikes me as misleading to mention "Republican help in Michigan" without a fuller explanation.

People in the Democratic Party, especially who worked to stop Nader, freely admit that they sought to "discredit" Nader as an "insane egomaniac," a "Republican dupe," a "selfish spoiler," etc. The websites of the big anti-Nader groups make no bones about this being their main strategic aim (in addition to their efforts to knock, or to keep, Nader off ballots wherever possible, by whatever means).

To clarify my own POV: It happens that I did not vote for Ralph Nader in 2004. The fact that I am not anti-Nader does not necessarily mean that my POV is pro-Nader. Moreover, I am not unsympathetic to the concerns of many Democrats who were worried that Nader's presence might help the election of George W. Bush (for whom I cannot imagine voting). But it seems to me that the concerted (and often misleading) Democratic Party attacks on Nader in 2000 and 2004 are an important story. Without including information about the organized nature of the attacks against Nader, it would be misleading simply to repeat as true the gist of the anti-Nader attacks (even if a partial rebuttal or denial by the Nader campaign is included a few paragraphs later).

If it can be shown that Nader's campaign in 2004 systematically accepted organized Republican Party help, I believe this would be a relevant and important point to be brought out, but such information should be brought out accurately and should be accompanied by sufficient explanation and context, including contextual information from the FEC about the funding of Democratic Party candidates from some of the same "Republican" individuals the anti-Nader groups pointed to as having donated to Nader's campaign, as well as the Republican and Democratic parties' dependence on various corporate donors.

The quote from Reform Party Chair Mr. O'Hara appears to have been taken out of context, to build the case that the Reform Party's support for Nader was essentially from the right, and, in particular, was at its heart anti-Kerry. This isn't an accurate picture. Likewise, the reference to the 2000 nomination of Pat Buchanan seems designed to make it appear that it was right-wingers within the Reform Party in 2004 who nominated Ralph Nader. This is not at all what happened at the 2004 Reform Party convention. The Reform Party underwent a huge organizational upheaval in 1998-2000, with Ross Perot supporters (and Jesse Ventura supporters) losing control of the organizational apparatus to a pro-Buchanan group (that apparently included some supporters from the New Alliance Party). The Reform Party, which had at one time stood for a variety of reforms ("fiscal conservatism" plus some important progressive electoral reforms), in essence had become by 2000 little more than a vehicle for ballot access, and even then only in certain states, with a small pot of FEC-awarded money in disupte. After Buchanan's dismal showing in 2000, the Reform Party returned in most states to the status of being more or less an empty shell (not a bastion of right-wing ideology). The Reform Party's relevance was not based on a platform or ideology but instead on the fact that it had available ballot lines in certain states. The existing article suggests (inaccurately) that Nader made ideological compromises to collaborate with right-wing bigots, in order to win the Reform Party nomination. There is no evidence that anything like this happened.

I do not think Wikipedia should be used to try to help build the case that Nader's campaign "flip-flopped" on the issue of contributions from Republicans, unless we are willing to do the work of examining each facet of each such allegation closely and offering Nader's campaign an opportunity to be heard.

I also don't think we should rely on Buzzflash or on anti-Nader activist Jeff Cohen's Common Dreams article as "neutral" news sources, to attack Nader's credibility. Now that the election is over, one hopes that it might be easier for a truer picture of what happened to emerge, at a less breathless pace of attack, denial, and self-righteousness. If Nader's spokesman sanctimoniously contradicted himself or misspoke himself or said something that was outright false, such a false statement might be a relevant fact, but one hopes we will have a chance to be fair about this and to do more detailed fact-checking, now that most people are no longer in campaign-spin mode.

I do agree with the evaluation that the organization of the article could be improved, but I don't think it would improve the article or its organization, simply to revert to a largely anti-Nader presentation in this section.

I hope we continue these discussions, in an effort to make this article more accurate.

The main thing you should note is that the information isn't adduced to show that Nader is a sleazeball. The point of it is to shed light on the question of Nader's effect on the major-party candidates. (That's the section it's in.) There's no way to know for sure whether Nader pulled more votes from Bush or from Kerry, or whether his presence on the ballot was important to their race in other ways (e.g. if his criticisms of Kerry caused some left-leaning voters to conclude that there was no significant difference between Kerry and Bush, and therefore to stay home). Because we can't know that for sure, the article presented information along the lines of "experienced politicians who weren't affiliated with the Nader campaign showed by their actions that they thought Nader would hurt Kerry and help Bush".

In that context, I think that the simple phrase "Republican organizations in several states worked to gather petition signatures to place Nader on the ballot" is fine. Going state-by-state is more detail than is needed. If they worked to gather the signatures, that shows their assessment of Nader's effect. If you think that mentioning this fact will lead some readers to think ill of Nader unjustifiably, and you want to add factual information about some action taken by the Nader campaign, that would be one thing, but just quoting Nader's self-serving statement that they weren't accepting such help is misleading unless the full information is presented. That's why I thought it was better to present the facts about what the Republicans did and not get into presenting the pros and cons of Nader's response. (Republicans helped him, so that shows he's a sleazeball, but he said he wouldn't accept the help, so he's not a sleazeball, but he did accept it in Michigan, so he is a sleazeball, but he accepted it only because otherwise he wouldn't have gotten on the ballot, so he's not a sleazeball, and by the way it was some Democrats who persuaded the court that the Reform Party hadn't met the legal requirements for a ballot line in Michigan, and they made inconsistent arguments, so it's really the Democrats who are the sleazeballs... I just think this whole back-and-forth should be eliminated.)

I suggest that this section of the article be returned to this version (as of 13:39, 19 Nov 2004). Nothing in that text is unfair to Nader. For example, it doesn't even mention the alleged flip-flopping on standards for accepting campaign contributions. I agree with you that we shouldn't give one side of that argument without giving all sides, but omitting it is also fair. JamesMLane 20:42, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

____

Responding to James M Lane: Let's present well-checked, documented facts, rather than "facts" originated and supplied either by pro-Nader, or by anti-Nader, sources. The version to which you suggest reversion contains quite a bit that is objectionable as inacccurate and misleading.

I think it's factually important to distinguish different kinds of "Republican help" that could be alleged.

The point about the Democratic Party's argument in the Michigan courts was not to show that they're "sleazeballs," but instead to point to an important inconsistency and an important fact: the gist of the anti-Nader attacks were that Nader was "collaborating" or "coordinating" with the Republicans (and the one admitted example has been the drive for ballot access in Michigan); but, by the Democratic Party's own admission (and the court's findings), Nader's campaign carefully avoided any direct involvement in that Michigan petitioning effort. Doesn't this fact seem significant in light of the UPforVictory allegations that Nader was "working with right-wing Republicans to elect Bush"?

If anyone can point to any circumstances, apart from ballot access petitions in Michigan, where the Nader campaign accepted organized Republican Party support, then please do bring this up and document it. I want to know and I want the Wikipedia article to be accurate. So far, the information I have suggests that these accusations against the Nader campaign are false.

With regard to ballot access in Michigan, if you are willing to study the full story of Nader's initially being denied ballot access in Michigan, it would be difficult to read your preferred edits as other than showing anti-Nader POV. The Democratic Party's attacks on Nader, including their intense efforts to keep Nader off the ballot in Michigan, do seem relevant to the topic of how Nader's expected effect was perceived by others (under the rubric "effects on major part candidates"). But simply to repeat (and to credit) those attacks by suggesting a Nader-Right collaboration (beyond what is warranted by the facts) is not accurate.

The discussion of the Reform Party's nomination in 2004 likewise tends to be considerably misleading, as noted above in this Talk section. Worse still, trying to pin "Swift Boat" stuff on Nader seems a rather Willie-Hortonesque device; this line of attack was originated by the anti-Nader groups, and (especially because of Nader's actual antiwar views) it seems not unworthy of Karl Rove himself. If you believe that this sort of stuff is important to include, you really need to check the facts carefully and document them (and not just by relying on UPforVictory), including providing an opportunity for the Nader campaign to be heard.

The point of going state by state is that this method could well bear out (or disprove) my information that there was virtually no organized Republican support for Nader's campaign. Instead, it appears that most of the information about supposed Republican support was circulated, misleadingly, by dedicated anti-Nader groups, for immediate political gain. To repeat generalized allegations (in the nature of attack ads) seems highly inaccurate and partisan. But if the details are there to bear it out, then that would be a different story.

Despite your protestations that the point of your preferred edits is not to smear Nader as a "sleazeball," the discussion has been framed in such a way as to invite exactly that reading.

Let's take thee time to gather actual FACTS, and not simply recite political attack material. I'm willing to work with you on this. The first place to start, would be to determine where the Nader campaign did accept organized Republican help, and what the circumstances were.

You continue to approach the whole topic from the point of view of "anti-Nader attacks" and "accusations against the Nader campaign" (your phrases). My concern is that the approach you suggest seems likely to result in a much greater level of detail of facts relevant to those subjects, with the result of obscuring the subject I was trying to address, namely the assessment of Nader's likely impact. It seems we need two sections. The section about "Effect on major-party candidates" would be based on the earlier version, with a cross-reference to a new section, which would focus on charges and responses about whether Nader was collaborating with the right. Some readers will be most interested in the indications that Republicans thought Nader's candidacy would help Bush. Other readers will be more interested in whether Nader acted honorably in response to what was said and done by people who weren't part of his campaign. (Some of the comments attibuted to Nader belong in the "Effect" section, though. For example, if he denounced the Swift Boat ads, that fact strengthens the implication that those donors were supporting him because they thought he'd hurt Kerry. His comment about Republicans donating to Kerry cuts the other way.) Such a separation would deal with the problem that a lot of this information, such as the detail about ballot access litigation in Michigan, is irrelevant to the undisputed point that both major parties thought a ballot line for Nader would help Bush. JamesMLane 22:27, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

___

First, I would note that it is not entirely undisputed that both major parties thought ballot access for Nader in 2004 would help Bush. Some people within each of those two parties no doubt had some such perception, but if you read the information toward the bottom of this message, you might agree that there is some reason to doubt that these supposed perceptions were in fact held by strategists in the two major parties.

To characterize the information disseminated by UPforVictory, StopNader, etc., as "anti-Nader attacks" does not seem inaccurate (or POV). Indeed, attacking Nader was the whole mission of those groups (just as it does not seem "POV" to say that the SwiftBoat ads were an anti-Kerry attack).

It seems quite in keeping with one of your aims in this section (namely, to show that some Democrats felt that Nader would hurt Kerry), to mention those attacks by Democratic Party groups, who evidently felt that, by attacking and hurting Nader, they might help Kerry. Likewise, to the extent it can be shown that some Republicans also felt that Nader would lower Kerry's results, accurate information about specific Nader-supporting actions by those Republicans would also be relevant for this purpose. (One of my points, though, is that, in order to write accurately about supposed organized Republican help, if indeed there was any beyond the Michigan petition drive, it is necessary to provide actually verified information, and not just repeat the generalized allegations of "Nader being in cahoots with right-wingers" leveled by the anti-Nader partisans.)

It seems a far cry from NPOV, simply to recite as factual, without further documentation, accusations against Nader that were made by UPforVictory, StopNader, etc.

I'm not sure what you mean, by "For example, if [Nader] denounced the Swift Boat ads, that fact strengthens the implication that those donors were supporting him because they thought he'd hurt Kerry." First, it's not yet proven (as far as I can tell) that anyone directly involved in the Swift Boat 527 group gave anything to Nader's campaign. I've heard an allegation that at least one donor to the pseudo-independent 527 group that ran the Swift ads also made an individual donation to the Nader campaign. Is information about support for Nader from Swift Boat veterans verified by the FEC reports? Did Nader's campaign accept money from Swift Boat operatives, and, if so, did it knowingly accept this money? Did these same individuals, if there are any, also give to other political campaigns and, if so, to which ones? If the same individuals also gave money to John Corzine or Nancy Pelosi, for example, this information could shed light on the whole story.

Does it make a difference to the "implication" you feel is strengthened by Nader's denunciation of the Swift ads, if it turns out that Nader denounced the first Swift Boat ad immediately, within days of its having first been broadcast, before anyone had ever made any allegation (which originated with UPforVictory and StopNader) that Nader had received campaign money from individuals who had also donated to the pseudo-"independent" group that ran the awful Swift Boat ads?

Maybe you are right, that more than one section is needed. I guess your idea is that one section could discuss assessments (or perceptions) of Nader's likely impact. Another section could try to sort out the details (relevant to the truth or untruth) of the various allegations and perceptions. Still another section could lay out what the actual campaign finance practices were of the Bush campaign, the Kerry campaign, and the Nader campaign. When the discussion makes Nader's campaign the only campaign under scrutiny with respect to allegedly "improper" donations, some necessary context is missing. (It would be relevant to mention in this connection that Nader's campaign at least to some extent took a principled approach to campaign finance, by refusing corporate PAC money altogether. This exercise of restraint is worth noting, especially in light of the fact that there was no restraint at all shown by the Kerry or Bush campaigns. If it turns out that Nader violated his own self-imposed principles, or if it turns out that some of the individuals who gave the Nader campaign donations were actually Bush operatives, it will be important to find this out. But to establish this requires facts and documentation, not innuendo.)

On the issues of Nader's likely impact and perceived likely impact on the 2004 election, below you can find some polling information (the gist of which was available to the Democrats and to the Republicans months before November 2004). This polling information supports the conclusion that Nader was not actually "taking net votes away from" Kerry in the Kerry-versus-Bush contest in 2004.

One creative theory that might give Karl Rove too much credit is the suggestion that some top Republican strategists thought it would be clever to leak information about Nader hurting Kerry, in order to trick the Democrats into diverting some warchest resources into attacking Nader (similar to the "leaked" Republican polls in late October supposedly showing that Hawaii was leaning toward Bush-Cheney); whether or not this was a deliberate strategy, it seems likely that the Republicans were not unhappy to encourage the impression that they expected Nader to hurt Kerry, if they thought this would make Kerry's campaign waste some resources hitting Nader. Another theory is that some of the Democrats' attacks against Nader were not necessarily even based on their own belief or perception that Nader might take votes away from Kerry in the 2004 election. The top Kerry strategists knew about the polls and knew by August or September that it was not likely that Nader would have an effect. Instead (according to this theory), the Democrats were mostly concerned to keep young activists from being drawn into the Nader campaign, where they might become dangerous critics (from the left) of the Democratic Party's rightward "centrist" slide the past fifteen years or more. So (according to this theory), the Democrats played along with the scare tactic of Nader as bogeyman, rather than actually being frightened about Nader in the 2004 election. They sought to diminish and revile Nader because Nader was accusing both major parties (including their own Democratic Party) of being corporate-dominated; such accusations are ultimately (regardless of any expected or unexpected 2004 election result) extremely threatening to the Democratic Party in the longer term, because the Democratic Party generally tries to position itself as the party of the "people" ("the party of working families" seems to be the newer phrase), in contrast to the Republican Party, which the Democrats characterize as the coporate party or the party of "the rich," etc. I'm not endorsing any of these alternative theories, but I think they are interesting because they are perhaps supported by data that tend to dispute what you said was undisputed (regarding perceptions within the two major parties of the likely effect of Nader's candidacay).

From the November 2004 Ballot Access News: "NADER MAY NOT BE HURTING KERRY The Washington Post carried a story on October 22, quoting officials of four leading national pollsters that Nader’s presence on the ballot does not hurt Democratic nominee John Kerry. Frank Newport, editor in chief of the Gallup Poll, said his research has shown for months that when Nader is removed from poll questionnaires, the margin separating the two major candidates is unaltered. Scott Keeter of the Pew Research Center, Scott Rasmussen of Rasmussen Reports, and Richard Bennett of the American Research Group, agreed."

The Washington Post story referred to above in Ballot Access News is evidently the article by Manuel Roig-Franzia and Jonathan Finer, "A Fading 'Nader Factor'?; Consumer Advocate Has Been Stripped of Much of His Support," The Washington Post: Oct 22, 2004. pg. A.01. The abstract from that article reads: "A survey conducted this month for the Democratic National Committee by pollster Stanley Greenberg showed [Ralph Nader] averaging 1.5 percent of the vote in a dozen battleground states where his name appears on the ballot, compared with about 3 percent in the summer. It also showed that most of the support Nader lost had shifted to [John F. Kerry] and indicated that his remaining backers would be as likely to vote for Bush as for the Massachusetts Democrat, if Nader were not running. Other studies indicate that Nader supporters are unlikely to support either major-party candidate. Pew's [Scott Keeter] said the majority of the Nader voters he has tracked do not identify with either major political party. Richard Bennett of the New Hampshire-based American Research Group said: "Especially since the debates, where Kerry shored up his base, it does not appear that many of the remaining Nader voters would vote for either Bush or Kerry."

Even assuming these polling numbers are accurate (and that this was known months before November), of course, it does not follow that the Democratic Party was therefore not concerned about Nader's potential effect. For example, the Democrats could have fully believed these polls, but still also believed that it was only through their own ongoing successful efforts to demonize Nader that the polls were showing Nader to be a non-factor.

My discussion on this page has largely been critical of what I take to be the inadvertent advancement of a polemical anti-Nader position. I don't suggest that this is your intention at all, but it could be the effect. I'll conclude for now, by saying that I think we should be able to work out a genuinely improved NPOV discussion, but it might take some time.

I think the statement about the prevailing opinion within each party during most of the campaign is accurate. The main reason for doubting that Nader would hurt Kerry was the growing evidence, as Election Day neared, that Nader was going to draw many, many fewer votes (from anyone) that he had in 2000. I think most experts expected him to decline, but few expected him to decline so precipitously. At any rate, from the point of view of describing the major-party reactions, the late-October poll you cite doesn't affect the fact that many Democrats were campaigning against Nader, seeing him as a threat. It might well be the case that Democrats devoted less resources to that front than they did in 2000, but if so, it was because of Nader's overall fade, not because they changed their assessment that he'd provide a net benefit to Bush.

You're correct that I think the article should mention major-party attitudes toward Nader, as a way of gauging his likely effect -- but that doesn't mean that every such statement or action needs to be included. Describing all the "UP for Victory" type groups would be too much detail on that point for a general bio of Nader. That's why the section I wrote just stated the general point and gave a few examples. It would be unfair to Nader to have his bio dominated by the subject.

The point of my comment about SBVT was that, if Nader denounced those ads, then that makes it even more clear that people who helped get the ads on the air weren't giving to Nader because they liked him or agreed with his views. They were donating to Nader for the same reason they donated to SBVT: to hurt Kerry.

You write: 'When the discussion makes Nader's campaign the only campaign under scrutiny with respect to allegedly "improper" donations, some necessary context is missing.' This article is about Nader, not about campaign finance in general. In any event, there's no claim of "improper" donations that I know of. The donations shed light on the donors' assessment of the race, not on the recipient's campaign finance practices.

Finally, with regard to sources, there are plenty of sources available online that have an agenda. We don't normally just dismiss them entirely. If UP for Victory or some other source makes a statement about a matter of fact, like campaign contributions, some Wikipedia editor who doubts it can find and cite opposing data. JamesMLane 23:44, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Continued: Making the article NPOV

You are surely right, that it was conventional wisdom that Nader's presence in the 2004 presidential race would be expected to reduce the number of Kerry votes more than it would be expected to reduce the number of Bush votes. And it is not at all unreasonable to imagine that some Democrats, and some Republicans, believed they should take action based on that conventional wisdom.

But I think it will take careful writing, to avoid oversimplifying this "common sense" idea to the point of inaccuracy. For example, based on the verified information now available, it would not be accurate for the article to give the impression that Nader's campaign was generally soliciting or generally accepting organized Republican donations. You offered to list (or at least to identify in this discussion---maybe you're right that the details do not belong in the article itself) each of the states where Nader's campaign is supposed to have accepted organized Republican assistance in 2004, with some documentation of the exact type of assistance that was accepted. If there is documented evidence that Nader accepted organized Republican help other than in the case of the non-coordinated Michigan petition drive, please share any such information. If you can find evidence that Nader's campaign accepted organized Repubican contributions of campaign money, that would also be very important and I would appreciate learning about it.

If it were so clearly true that the Republican Party in 2004 was eager to promote Nader (as part of a strategy to hurt Kerry), one might have expected the Republicans to take some steps to help Ralph Nader get into the 2004 presidential debates. As you probably know, the supposed "commission" on presidential debates is essentially a joint creature of the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. As it actually happened, however, the Republican Party appeared every bit as opposed as the Democratic Party, to opening up the debates to Nader (in 2000 and in 2004).

You write that you do not want to be unfair to Nader, and I agree that fairness is a worthy aim. I would urge that it is unfair to repeat, uncritically, unsupported allegations from political groups that were created with the specific mission of attacking Nader and/or taking votes from Nader (mostly by disseminating information alleging that Nader was associated with right-wingers). It would not be fair for the article about Nader to perpetuate the false impression that Nader was being substantially financially supported by the Right, without checking into the falsehood/spin/veracity of the partisan-orchestrated statements upon which the article relied in creating that impression. Because the Nader campaign states that the allegations are false and/or misleading, some verification should be in order before those allegations are simply repeated as if true.

About the Washington Post article: I thought you might be interested in the October Post article. (I want to point out that the article discussed similar polls that had been reported much earlier than October, but I'm not disagreeing with you, that the polling results reported in that Post article are consistent with the idea that the early Democratic Party attacks on Nader were effective.) I didn't (and still don't) claim to know what conclusion (if any) to draw from the polling.

Nader did denounce the SBVT ads. I'm going only from memory now, but I think Nader referred to those ads as deceptive covert slime sponsored by Bush proxies (through a 527). (Nader was also critical of 527 Kerry-sponsored ads.) I'm still not sure what your inference is, about Nader's denunciation of the SBVT attack ads. I think it would take more information and analysis before it would be warranted to conclude, from the fact (if it is a fact) that donor-X donated to fund-Y (a 527 fund) and also donated to the campaign committee for candidate N, that it is obvious exactly what X's intentions were. (Political money moves in ways that are not always obvious.) Another basic step is to check the actual FEC records, which are publically available on the web from www.fec.gov. I also think some context is required, so that readers have a frame of reference for understanding the scale of any donations, typical practices, etc.

If it turns out that the organized Democratic Party attacks on Nader were largely false and/or misleading, the falsehood of those attacks (if they were false) should become highly relevant to the article on Nader's 2004 campaign, especially in the context of discussing major party perceptions of, attitudes toward, and actions regarding Nader.

A very important element of Nader's presidential campaigns (at least, as far as I know) has been self-imposed principled limits on the sources of campaign funding, so I think an article about Nader properly mentions his approach to campaign finance, which sets him apart from the big party candidates. What I think the article should not do, however, is to repeat unverified "scandal"-misinformation about Nader's campaign finance practices. (Verified flat-out hypocrisy should of course be fair game.) Or, if such allegations are included, then the article should offer appropriate context so that readers are not left with a mistaken impression. For example, if my own campaign broadcasts an attack ad stating that one of my opponents is taking money from Big Tobacco and is therefore profiting from killing our kids (say, based on a $500 contribution from PM-PAC), an encyclopedia entry shouldn't simply repeat the gist of my unverified attack ad to show that my opponent was supported by the cigarette industry; and, if the article does repeat that information (properly attributing it to my attack ad, and properly characterizing it as such), it would only be fair to point out, if true, that my own campaign had received $10,000 from the same PAC, or that every politician in the state had received money from the same PAC, or whatever other trthfulu information would help the reader better understand what was really going on. (I'm pretty sure Nader has refused to accept any PAC money, which means that his presidential campaigns have received money from individual donors only. If true, this is an interesting fact, isn't it?)

I noticed that there is another, separate, Wikipedia entry for the 2004 Presidential campaign of Ralph Nader. It seems mostly to have collected some possibly incomplete ballot access information as of some time in October. I don't know whether or not that would be a more appropriate location (with a proper cross-referencing link) for some of the more detailed information.

Anyway, I guess this discussion is now very long, probably too long. Thank you for discussing this with me.

P.S. REGARDING THE REFORM PARTY & NADER in 2004:

After thinking that I had signed off for the night, I just now looked at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article that is linked from the Wikipedia article, quoting Reform Party Chair Shawn O'Hara (to the effect that Mr. O'Hara voted for Bush in 2000 and is working to keep John Kerry from becoming president). This quote seems to have been included to show that elements from the "Right" (namely, the Reform Party) supported Mr. Nader, presumably in order to get Mr. Bush elected. What the Wikipedia article does not say is that the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article actually quotes Mr. O'Hara as saying that Republican President George W. Bush "has lied to the American public" about the "illegal war in Iraq." The selective quote in the Wikipedia article from Mr. O'Hara was used to build the case that Mr. Nader was being supported by the Right, but this case could not have been made if the article had also included the following adjacent passage from the Post-Gazette article, quoting Mr. O'Hara (but again this was omitted from the Wikipedia article): <<>> "I'm not a George Bush fan anymore. My man's Ralph Nader," O'Hara said. <<>> The same selective and out-of-context quote that is included in this section of the Wikipedia article was also used by the anti-Nader groups, to create the impression that the Reform Party was insincere in its support for Ralph Nader. The anti-Nader groups, like the Wikipedia article, never mentioned that Mr. O'Hara said that he was disillusioned with both Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry and was now supporting Ralph Nader. The anti-Nader groups did not quote Mr. O'Hara's expression of support for Ralph Nader's opposition to the war in Iraq. Instead, the quotes used by the anti-Nader groups (and, unfortunately, repeated by the Wikipedia article) were designed to make it appear as though Mr. O'Hara (and perhaps the rest of the Reform Party) is actually supporting Mr. Bush. What did the Post-Gazette article actually quote Mr. O'Hara as saying? - - - -"I'm not a George Bush fan anymore. My man's Ralph Nader," O'Hara said.- - - - Another instance of somewhat misleading information about the Reform Party's nomination of Nader is the Wikipedia article's statement that conservative Pat Buchanan was nominated by the Reform Party in 2000. Although that bare statement is not untrue, the implication in the context of the article is that Nader in 2004 was being supported by the same right-wingers who had taken over the Reform Party in 2000 (in a struggle the Buchananites won against Jesse Ventura, John Hagelin, and even Perot himself to some extent). However, what happened to the Reform Party after Buchanan's dismal showing in 2000 is that the Buchanan supporters bailed out of the Reform Party after draining its pot of money and most of them went elsewhere, including many who went over to the so-called "America First Party," which endorsed the ultra-conservative Constitution Party presidential candidate in 2004. The 2000 Buchanan supporters did not nominate Ralph Nader in 2004. The Reform Party convention in 2004 can be criticized for having been very small, but it is false to say that the Reform Party in 2004 was a right-wing organization. As I explained earlier, the Reform Party had to some extent become a shell that offered potential ballot access in about seven states. If, as appears true, most of Mr. Nader's support within the Reform Party came from people who actually agreed with Mr. Nader's views on issues of war and peace, campaign finance reform, reining in corporate abuse, etc., then it is misleading to cite the Reform Party nomination as an example showing that Ralph Nader was being propped up by the Right. That's not what actually happened.

My sense is that the discussion of the Reform Party nomination within this section of the Wikipedia article was perhaps an instance of uncritical recital of information originating from the spin generated by anti-Nader groups. It is this kind of mistake I'm hoping we can avoid, by carefully checking the facts and not simply repeating the attack talking points generated by UPforVictory and other such axe-grinding groups.

I hope this P.S. helps clarify. Thanks again.

When I have time I'll make the two separate sections, and also remove some of the pro-Nader POV. For example, it's not neutral to say that O'Hara "clarified" he'd become disillusioned with Bush, a phrasing that accepts his politically convenient assertion as truth. Beyond the POV issue, I thought this article already had somewhat too much discussion of general issues of third-party politics. It's a bio of Nader, who, after all, never joined the Green Party and who chose not to work within the Green Party structure in 2004. The additional detail about whether the Greens should continue their relentless sabotage of any hope for progressive politics in America -- uh, pardon me, I mean the additional detail about possible courses of action for the Greens -- would be more appropriate to the article about the Green Party. JamesMLane 17:05, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

_______ _______

"Political extremists"

Come on, I'm hostile to Nader and even I think this categorization is absurd. In fact, the category is inherently POV. It should be deleted. Anyone who wants to chime in on the question is invited to visit Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Political extremists and comment or vote. JamesMLane 20:32, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Trimming the article

I think some of these trims go too far. The deleted material was incorporated as a result of the lengthy discussions above, to present assessments of Nader's effect on the 2004 race while being fair to him. In particular, I don't see the point of trying to "shorten" an article by deleting inline references, which appear simply as bracketed numbers. What's the rationale for the deletions? JamesMLane 12:54, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The main reason for shortening the article is that once wiki articles get over 35-40 kb, browser problems increase exponentially. That's why, for example, an article about the nation XYZ will (or, at least, should) include a short synopsis of its history, with a wikilink to a separate article "History of XYZ" for more detail. Come to think of it, that would be a good idea here: A two- or three-paragraph discussion of the 2000 race, with much of this material moved to a separate article linked from here, probably including the material that I deleted.

(That's also why I archived part of the Talk ... this page was so long my browser choked. It's still longer than recommended levels, but I couldn't break up the enormous chunk of text just above this.) (See Wikipedia: Article size for discussion)

Readability suffers in overlong articles, too. The main point of an encyclopedia is not to provide vast reams of details for people already knowledgeable about a subject, but to give an overview and context for casual readers. If, say, a Kenyan who had barely heard of Ralph Nader was interested in figuring out what effect he had in the 2000 election, there is so much detail here that it would be very difficult for him/her to figure it out. Americans who followed the election and already know the story might be helped, but everybody else would be flummoxed. Breaking it up into separate articles could help that, too - the hypothetical Kenyan wouldn't have to follow the links to the more detailed article.

Finally, Wikipedia has always frowned on external links within the text, because when you follow them, you can't easily return to wikipedia. One of the major points of creating this encyclopedia was to have a huge sea of interlinked knowledge - sending readers outside the sea hurts that. We're not trying to recreate the Web. The links can be included as external links at the bottom for those who want to know more, but we shouldn't break up the text with them. - DavidWBrooks 14:07, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree that Wikipedia frowns on external links in text. It's definitely our policy to cite your sources. Let's take a specific example, the first citation deleted from this article. As you can see earlier on this talk page, an ardently pro-Nader anon questioned whether there was indeed organized Republican backing for Nader's campaign. I inserted an inline link to a July 20, 2004 article by Jeff Cohen, found at http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0720-15.htm, although, to minimize disruption to the text, I used brackets to make it a numbered link: [3]. Here are three ways to deal with that citation:

• Using APA style. In articles on scientific subjects, APA style seems most prevalent. The format is described at Wikipedia:Cite sources#An example citation style. I gather this is what you mean by referring to links "included as external links at the bottom". In this instance, it would mean that the example citation would be replaced by "(Cohen 2004)" in the text, with the Cohen article then listed in a bibliography near the end of the article. I think the intrusion of "(Cohen 2004)" is more disruptive than a simple numbered link. Furthermore, it's less convenient for a reader who wants to do a quick check of the cited source. That reader has to go down to the bottom of the article, find the reference, and then, after reading it, return to the Wikipedia article and try to find his or her place.
• The method I used is described at Wikipedia:Cite sources#Embedded HTML links for citations. The advantages and disadvantages are discussed there. In the citations involved here, I don't think the mentioned disadvantages are significant. Many of these, like the Cohen article, are citations to online sources. If the Common Dreams website folds, that article won't be available to the reader no matter how much bibliographic information is given in a References section.
• Eliminating all the citations. This alternative means that controversial points are simply asserted. The reader has no way of knowing whether there's any support for the statement, let alone assessing the reliability of the source, and also can't go to the source for more detail. This is the worst of the three alternatives, yet it's the one now in place in this article for several significant points.

On the general subject of article length, I agree with you that articles shouldn't get too long. Nevertheless, we shouldn't deal with the problem by losing valid information. (See Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Long article layout: "[W]e must remove information from entries periodically. This information should not be removed from Wikipedia: that would defeat the purpose of the contributions. So we must create new entries to hold the excised information.") In this instance, the information in question is significant enough to be in an encyclopedia, so it should be included either in this article or in Ralph Nader presidential campaign, 2004. I'll look at that article later and see how we might allocate information between the two. For now, I don't even see a link to that article in this one, so I'll add it. JamesMLane 21:02, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

photo vandalism

Boy, what is it with this article and anon vandals replacing the picture with a really really funny (to a 12-year-old) photo-mash? It must be on the bookmark list at some middle school ... - DavidWBrooks 20:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Veep for McGovern?

What is the source of the story that Nader was asked by George McGovern to be his running mate in 1972?

Good question. I just tried Googling this and I can't find any substantial source for McGovern asking Nader to be his running mate? Anybody have a source? Griot 23:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)Griot

I'm going to remove this Veep reference. I can find no evidence of it anywhere. Griot 00:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fair. Could you determine who had added it? Schizombie 00:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It was added long ago. I asked for a citation way back in October 2005. It was in the article back then. I'm not that much of a detective. :) Griot 00:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It appears it was 12.217.121.245 possibly citing "The Making of the President, 1972." Schizombie 00:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC) See the 05:28, 2 December 2005 and 01:44, 3 September 2005 edits. Schizombie 02:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Nader makes this claim in Crashing the Party: Taking on the Corporate Government in an Age of Surrender, pages 37-38. Schizombie 04:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I think I've tracked down the contemporary origin of the story that George McGovern asked Nader to be his running mate in 1972. What I found tends to undermine the notion that McGovern extended an actual offer to Nader, although McGovern did mention Nader's name in public. The accurate story would seem to be be that Nader's name was mentioned by McGovern in a hypothetical list of "fresh faces," who were not Democratic Party political insiders, but who might have characteristics that would make them potentially worthy of selection as a running mate. The source I found was a news story written by William Greider in the Washington Post, from August 4, 1972, covering a McGovern press conference (an "office conversation" with reporters) concerning the fact that several Democratic Party Senators had declined to become his replacement for Sen. Eagleton. This is consistent with Nader's statement in *Crashing the Party* (pp. 37-38) that after Eagleton withdrew as the vice-presidential nominee, George McGovern called Nader and "asked if I would be willing to be considered for the vice presidential nomination." According to Nader's account, the "would you be willing to be considered?" overture from McGovern was considerably short of a direct offer.

In the Nader documentary "An Unreasonable Man", Nader discusses this. According to the people interviewed in the movie, including Nader himself, McGovern personally called Ralph to ask if we was willing to be considered, along with several other people, for the VEEP spot on his ticket. I have no idea how to find a clip of that or anything, but it is in the movie.

SOURCE: "3 Reject Offers by M'Govern" By William Greider Washington Post Staff Writer The Washington Post, Times Herald (1959-1973); Aug 4, 1972; ProQuest Historical Newspapers The Washington Post (1877 - 1990) pg. A1: Greider's report of McGovern's list of names that included Ralph Nader (and Jacob Javits and John Garnder) begins with the phrase, "Without trying to suggest that they are under active consideration, McGovern mentioned, for example . . . " The "three" referenced in the title of the article who rejected an offer from McGovern were Senators Humphrey, Ribicoff, and Kennedy. ~~

Sorry re:photo revert

Sorry, everyone, I accidentally reverted the photo back to the original. I think I changed it back to the latest (bigger) one, but if I didn't, can someone please do it for me? I didn't realize what "rev" meant.

Apologies!--ViolinGirl 19:28, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Pie in the face.

I think the bit about being pied should remain in the article, but, as an event that occurred in 2003, it is out of place in the middle of a section about his 2000 campaign. -12.217.121.245 07:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Jan D. Pierce, Karen Sanchirico, and other Vice Presidential stand-ins

I had added that little bit to the article about Jan D. Pierce, but now I wonder if it is too trivial for the intro and if it should be deleted or moved below to the section on 2004. I did add it to the Ralph Nader presidential campaign, 2004 article with more specifics, and also another stand-in I hadn't been aware of, Karen Sanchirico. Does anyone know why these people appeared instead of Peter Camejo, and who they are? Schizombie 10:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

This page http://www.drivingmrnader.org/chapter4.htm has some information about stand-ins in Nader's 1996 presidential campaign. I don't know if they were only on the petition to get on the ballot, or if they actually appeared on the ballot (although at least one of them, Muriel Tillinghast, did). Schizombie 22:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Third parties in Florida

Regarding recent edits by Griot and Ben Manski: If Bush's margin over Gore in Florida was 537 votes, the Green, Reform, Libertarian, Natural Law/Reform, Constitution, Socialist Workers Party, and Socialist Parties all got more votes than that margin http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2000/2000presge.htm#FL . Schizombie 02:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

My edits have to do with the Alantic Monthly's assessment of Nader. Nothing more. Griot 02:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

References

I remember reading in one of michael moore's books - either stupid white men or dude where's my country - moore comments on helping out with ralph nader's election campaign, but see i cant remember the exact book or reference, anyone else care to post?

New Link

I was wondering if this could be added under the appearances section or perhaps an external link. I thought the link was a funny testement to the pop culture icon Nader has been made. http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/nader.php Cjflash 02:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)cjflash

{{GA}}

Making the article NPOV

Here are my disagreements with the set of edits made by an anonymous user at 16:20, 24 Nov 2004:

• For Republican help, changing “several states” to “Michigan” is inaccurate if it implies that Michigan was unique in this respect. The Common Dreams article itself discusses Oregon. There were other examples, too. I think the general “several states” is better than burdening the reader with a blow-by-blow catalog, but if you won’t accept “several states”, then I’ll just list every one I can find, rather than leave a false implication that Michigan was an isolated event.
• Characterizing Democratic opposition to Nader as an attempt to “discredit” him is POV. We already include the charge that the Democrats were attempting to “smear” Nader, but that quotation is properly attributed to Nader’s campaign. Having quoted his press release verbatim, we don’t need to amplify the point, let alone endorse it.
• Changing “[the campaign] accepted contributions from donors who were....” to “[the campaign] accepted campaign contributions from several individual donors who were” seems to add a few words to no purpose. Obviously contributions to a campaign were campaign contributions. The additions aren’t inaccurate, but isn’t the shorter version just as clear?
• SBVT: This edit said that Nader’s campaign had accepted “a donation from one individual” also backing SBVT. Stating or implying that there was only one is inaccurate. The “Up for Victory” site says that FEC reports show eight such donors. [4]
• Organization: The way the article presented the information about Nader’s effect on the major-party candidates (the subject of this section) was to describe what the Bush supporters said and did, then what the Kerry supporters said and did, then what the Nader campaign said and did. The new edit disrupts that logical structure by interpolating one Democratic group (Up for Victory) after some of the material about Bush supporters, then immediately giving Nader’s POV, before returning to the subject of the Bush supporters. The logic is broken up. In addition, the Nader campaign’s main talking point, about Kerry having accepted donations from donors to Republicans, is now in the article twice. The former version cited the same contribution statistics cited by Nader and even quoted his press release, so I don’t think that version was unfair to him.
• This edit is very POV with regard to the Nader campaign’s sanctimonious (my POV!) claim of not accepting right-wing help. The edit reports the claim uncritically. It omits Camejo’s initial reaction of “We don’t want that money” and the subsequent reversal. In Michigan, the Nader campaign made similar pronouncements, then flip-flopped. [5] The edit falls all over itself to justify Nader’s collaboration with the Republicans in Michigan. Can any instances be cited, anywhere in the country, in which the Nader campaign went beyond lip service, and actually turned down Republican help that would have been of real benefit? If the campaign already had enough signatures of its own to qualify for some state’s ballot, then turning down Republican signatures is a meaningless gesture. I thought it made more sense to omit the subject, but if we're going to report the Nader campaign's claim on the point, then we'll have to go into detail on the other side as well.
• While I’m venting: A previous anon edit also seemed to reflect a pro-Nader POV with regard to the O’Hara quotation. The edit changed “voted for Bush in 2000 and has said....” to “voted for Bush in 2000 and was quoted as saying....” This phrasing isn’t used for other quotations in this article or in Wikipedia generally. Its only purpose seems to be to cast doubt on the accuracy (maybe he didn’t really make this comment that Naderites find embarrassing). The quotation is from an established newspaper, the source is given, and people can click on the link and confirm it. I didn’t bother correcting this change before but there’s a lot of other pro-Nader POV that will have to be cleaned out of this article, so that passage might as well be restored.

In sum, I think the article as it stood was factual and NPOV. The changes criticized above made it worse, not better.

In an unrelated point, I previously added some of the data about Nader's vote total in 2004. As more votes are being counted, Nader has done a little better, so that passage will need to be changed. In the lead section, my inclination is that it should be re-ordered to put Nader in context as to who he is -- activist attorney, presidential candidate -- before summarizing his views. The main reason is that some readers, especially non-Americans, won’t really know who Nader is. They’re being told the opinions of some random guy before they’ve been given the full picture about why his opinions are worth reporting. JamesMLane 19:41, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

__________

In hope of advancing the dialogue, I want to address some of the points noted above by James M. Lane:

I think it would be helpful if James M. Lane (or someone) would make good on the offer to list each of the states where Nader's campaign is supposed to have accepted organized Republican assistance in 2004, or in any other election year, together with a detailed explanation of the exact type of assistance that was involved.

It's important to distinguish between (1) "organized Republican assistance" (which Nader's campaign said it was making a point of eschewing, except regarding petitioning help for ballot access in the case of Michigan----and there may be other exceptions that Jame L. Lane will list), versus other types of activity, such as the following: (2) individual registered Republican voters voting for (or endorsing) Nader; (3) individual campaign contributions given by voters who were registered as Republicans; (4) the Nader campaign hiring a ballot access lawyer in Florida whose practice usually represented Republicans in election law cases; (5) other types of "help from Republicans" that are not properly characterized as "organized Republican Party help."

For example, with regard to item (4) listed above, Kerry campaign spokepersons repeatedly accused Nader of "accepting Republican help" when the Nader campaign hired an election law attorney in Florida who normally represented Republicans. Taken out of context, the accusation ("a top Republican lawyer helped Nader in Florida!") would perhaps appear to support the thesis of Republican help for Nader, but if one understands the nature of legal representation (the lawyer in question was evidently paid by the Nader campaign at the market rate), and if one understands the specialized nature of ballot access law and also understands that the expert election lawyers who typically represent Democratic Party candidates were unavailable because they were under pressure (including professional "conflict of interest" pressure) either to help the Democratic Party's efforts to block Nader's ballot access, or in any case not to represent Nader, then a truer picture emerges and the Nader campaign's hiring of that lawyer is seen not to support an "N-R conspiracy" theory.

Several so-called "big Republican donors" to Nader seem to have been individuals who have had longstanding relationships with Nader that transcend politics (e.g., classmates at Princeton or at Harvard Law School), and, when interviewed, some donors explained that they thought it was important to support the opportunity for certain of Ralph Nader's views to be part of the political dialogue, such as his views on the Middle East, or on environmental protection, etc. Peter Tanous apparently hosted a house party for Nader, but he seems genuinely to have been supportive of Nader's views on foreign policy, Nader's fiscally conservative critique of fraud, waste, and abuse, etc. One can question whether, for example, Ben Stein was being candid when he said that he supports many of Nader's views, but it unfairly bolsters an anti-Nader POV, to say only enough to create the impression that the Republican Party was behind Nader's campaign and/or that Nader was seeking to help elect Bush.

I think Wikipedia should be especially careful about inadvertently joining a partisan effort to associate Nader with the obnoxious "Swift Boat" group. First, information concerning the individual donors should be taken from the publically accessible FEC reports themselves, not from a story on Buzzflash.com, which in turn took its report from Up With Victory (a group created by the Democratic Party for the express purpose of opposing Nader). Nader actually criticized the ugly "Swift Boat" ads, and did so much more strongly than John Kerry did. It is misleading to imply that Nader was supporting flak against critique of the Vietnam War. Nader remains staunchly critical of U.S. military action in Vietnam (and he strongly opposes the invasion and ongoing war in Iraq), whereas John Kerry for purposes of the campaign in 2004 distanced himself from his own antiwar views and actions.

Likewise, very little credibilty should be given uncritically to the article by anti-Nader activist Jeff Cohen on the Common Dreams website. Mr. Cohen was one of the main ogranizers of the effort to discredit Nader by associating Nader with the Right. Even Mr. Cohen's article alludes to the Democratic Party's organized and successful effort to sabotage Nader's efforts to achieve ballot access in Oregon in 2004. As you probably know, organizations like Jeff Cohen's group (with funding from the Democratic Party) succeeded in keeping Nader off the Oregon ballot in 2004.

If readers are given enough information to understand the reasons "Republican help" was needed for Nader to exercise the right to ballot access in Michigan (namely, the Democratic Party's team of lawyers first succeeding in removing Nader's name as the Reform Party nominee, and then the same Democratic Party lawyering team's further challenges to the subsequent indepedendent petition drive on the ground that Nader "had failed to coordinate with the Republicans" during that petition drive, readers may see more of the overall context and may perhaps be less likely to assume a nefarious Nader-Republican conspiracy. It is especially interesting that the Democratic Party's argument in court (trying to knock Nader off the ballot the second time in Michigan) was precisely that Nader's campaign had NOT coordinated with the petition drive organized by Republicans. The court acknowledged the fact that Nader's campaign had not coordinated with the Republican petition circulators but ruled in Nader's favor, on the fundamental right to ballot access in Michigan. I don't know whether this background amounts to a "justification" for accepting help in Michigan, but it strikes me as misleading to mention "Republican help in Michigan" without a fuller explanation.

People in the Democratic Party, especially who worked to stop Nader, freely admit that they sought to "discredit" Nader as an "insane egomaniac," a "Republican dupe," a "selfish spoiler," etc. The websites of the big anti-Nader groups make no bones about this being their main strategic aim (in addition to their efforts to knock, or to keep, Nader off ballots wherever possible, by whatever means).

To clarify my own POV: It happens that I did not vote for Ralph Nader in 2004. The fact that I am not anti-Nader does not necessarily mean that my POV is pro-Nader. Moreover, I am not unsympathetic to the concerns of many Democrats who were worried that Nader's presence might help the election of George W. Bush (for whom I cannot imagine voting). But it seems to me that the concerted (and often misleading) Democratic Party attacks on Nader in 2000 and 2004 are an important story. Without including information about the organized nature of the attacks against Nader, it would be misleading simply to repeat as true the gist of the anti-Nader attacks (even if a partial rebuttal or denial by the Nader campaign is included a few paragraphs later).

If it can be shown that Nader's campaign in 2004 systematically accepted organized Republican Party help, I believe this would be a relevant and important point to be brought out, but such information should be brought out accurately and should be accompanied by sufficient explanation and context, including contextual information from the FEC about the funding of Democratic Party candidates from some of the same "Republican" individuals the anti-Nader groups pointed to as having donated to Nader's campaign, as well as the Republican and Democratic parties' dependence on various corporate donors.

The quote from Reform Party Chair Mr. O'Hara appears to have been taken out of context, to build the case that the Reform Party's support for Nader was essentially from the right, and, in particular, was at its heart anti-Kerry. This isn't an accurate picture. Likewise, the reference to the 2000 nomination of Pat Buchanan seems designed to make it appear that it was right-wingers within the Reform Party in 2004 who nominated Ralph Nader. This is not at all what happened at the 2004 Reform Party convention. The Reform Party underwent a huge organizational upheaval in 1998-2000, with Ross Perot supporters (and Jesse Ventura supporters) losing control of the organizational apparatus to a pro-Buchanan group (that apparently included some supporters from the New Alliance Party). The Reform Party, which had at one time stood for a variety of reforms ("fiscal conservatism" plus some important progressive electoral reforms), in essence had become by 2000 little more than a vehicle for ballot access, and even then only in certain states, with a small pot of FEC-awarded money in disupte. After Buchanan's dismal showing in 2000, the Reform Party returned in most states to the status of being more or less an empty shell (not a bastion of right-wing ideology). The Reform Party's relevance was not based on a platform or ideology but instead on the fact that it had available ballot lines in certain states. The existing article suggests (inaccurately) that Nader made ideological compromises to collaborate with right-wing bigots, in order to win the Reform Party nomination. There is no evidence that anything like this happened.

I do not think Wikipedia should be used to try to help build the case that Nader's campaign "flip-flopped" on the issue of contributions from Republicans, unless we are willing to do the work of examining each facet of each such allegation closely and offering Nader's campaign an opportunity to be heard.

I also don't think we should rely on Buzzflash or on anti-Nader activist Jeff Cohen's Common Dreams article as "neutral" news sources, to attack Nader's credibility. Now that the election is over, one hopes that it might be easier for a truer picture of what happened to emerge, at a less breathless pace of attack, denial, and self-righteousness. If Nader's spokesman sanctimoniously contradicted himself or misspoke himself or said something that was outright false, such a false statement might be a relevant fact, but one hopes we will have a chance to be fair about this and to do more detailed fact-checking, now that most people are no longer in campaign-spin mode.

I do agree with the evaluation that the organization of the article could be improved, but I don't think it would improve the article or its organization, simply to revert to a largely anti-Nader presentation in this section.

I hope we continue these discussions, in an effort to make this article more accurate.

The main thing you should note is that the information isn't adduced to show that Nader is a sleazeball. The point of it is to shed light on the question of Nader's effect on the major-party candidates. (That's the section it's in.) There's no way to know for sure whether Nader pulled more votes from Bush or from Kerry, or whether his presence on the ballot was important to their race in other ways (e.g. if his criticisms of Kerry caused some left-leaning voters to conclude that there was no significant difference between Kerry and Bush, and therefore to stay home). Because we can't know that for sure, the article presented information along the lines of "experienced politicians who weren't affiliated with the Nader campaign showed by their actions that they thought Nader would hurt Kerry and help Bush".

In that context, I think that the simple phrase "Republican organizations in several states worked to gather petition signatures to place Nader on the ballot" is fine. Going state-by-state is more detail than is needed. If they worked to gather the signatures, that shows their assessment of Nader's effect. If you think that mentioning this fact will lead some readers to think ill of Nader unjustifiably, and you want to add factual information about some action taken by the Nader campaign, that would be one thing, but just quoting Nader's self-serving statement that they weren't accepting such help is misleading unless the full information is presented. That's why I thought it was better to present the facts about what the Republicans did and not get into presenting the pros and cons of Nader's response. (Republicans helped him, so that shows he's a sleazeball, but he said he wouldn't accept the help, so he's not a sleazeball, but he did accept it in Michigan, so he is a sleazeball, but he accepted it only because otherwise he wouldn't have gotten on the ballot, so he's not a sleazeball, and by the way it was some Democrats who persuaded the court that the Reform Party hadn't met the legal requirements for a ballot line in Michigan, and they made inconsistent arguments, so it's really the Democrats who are the sleazeballs... I just think this whole back-and-forth should be eliminated.)

I suggest that this section of the article be returned to this version (as of 13:39, 19 Nov 2004). Nothing in that text is unfair to Nader. For example, it doesn't even mention the alleged flip-flopping on standards for accepting campaign contributions. I agree with you that we shouldn't give one side of that argument without giving all sides, but omitting it is also fair. JamesMLane 20:42, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

____

Responding to James M Lane: Let's present well-checked, documented facts, rather than "facts" originated and supplied either by pro-Nader, or by anti-Nader, sources. The version to which you suggest reversion contains quite a bit that is objectionable as inacccurate and misleading.

I think it's factually important to distinguish different kinds of "Republican help" that could be alleged.

The point about the Democratic Party's argument in the Michigan courts was not to show that they're "sleazeballs," but instead to point to an important inconsistency and an important fact: the gist of the anti-Nader attacks were that Nader was "collaborating" or "coordinating" with the Republicans (and the one admitted example has been the drive for ballot access in Michigan); but, by the Democratic Party's own admission (and the court's findings), Nader's campaign carefully avoided any direct involvement in that Michigan petitioning effort. Doesn't this fact seem significant in light of the UPforVictory allegations that Nader was "working with right-wing Republicans to elect Bush"?

If anyone can point to any circumstances, apart from ballot access petitions in Michigan, where the Nader campaign accepted organized Republican Party support, then please do bring this up and document it. I want to know and I want the Wikipedia article to be accurate. So far, the information I have suggests that these accusations against the Nader campaign are false.

With regard to ballot access in Michigan, if you are willing to study the full story of Nader's initially being denied ballot access in Michigan, it would be difficult to read your preferred edits as other than showing anti-Nader POV. The Democratic Party's attacks on Nader, including their intense efforts to keep Nader off the ballot in Michigan, do seem relevant to the topic of how Nader's expected effect was perceived by others (under the rubric "effects on major part candidates"). But simply to repeat (and to credit) those attacks by suggesting a Nader-Right collaboration (beyond what is warranted by the facts) is not accurate.

The discussion of the Reform Party's nomination in 2004 likewise tends to be considerably misleading, as noted above in this Talk section. Worse still, trying to pin "Swift Boat" stuff on Nader seems a rather Willie-Hortonesque device; this line of attack was originated by the anti-Nader groups, and (especially because of Nader's actual antiwar views) it seems not unworthy of Karl Rove himself. If you believe that this sort of stuff is important to include, you really need to check the facts carefully and document them (and not just by relying on UPforVictory), including providing an opportunity for the Nader campaign to be heard.

The point of going state by state is that this method could well bear out (or disprove) my information that there was virtually no organized Republican support for Nader's campaign. Instead, it appears that most of the information about supposed Republican support was circulated, misleadingly, by dedicated anti-Nader groups, for immediate political gain. To repeat generalized allegations (in the nature of attack ads) seems highly inaccurate and partisan. But if the details are there to bear it out, then that would be a different story.

Despite your protestations that the point of your preferred edits is not to smear Nader as a "sleazeball," the discussion has been framed in such a way as to invite exactly that reading.

Let's take thee time to gather actual FACTS, and not simply recite political attack material. I'm willing to work with you on this. The first place to start, would be to determine where the Nader campaign did accept organized Republican help, and what the circumstances were.

You continue to approach the whole topic from the point of view of "anti-Nader attacks" and "accusations against the Nader campaign" (your phrases). My concern is that the approach you suggest seems likely to result in a much greater level of detail of facts relevant to those subjects, with the result of obscuring the subject I was trying to address, namely the assessment of Nader's likely impact. It seems we need two sections. The section about "Effect on major-party candidates" would be based on the earlier version, with a cross-reference to a new section, which would focus on charges and responses about whether Nader was collaborating with the right. Some readers will be most interested in the indications that Republicans thought Nader's candidacy would help Bush. Other readers will be more interested in whether Nader acted honorably in response to what was said and done by people who weren't part of his campaign. (Some of the comments attibuted to Nader belong in the "Effect" section, though. For example, if he denounced the Swift Boat ads, that fact strengthens the implication that those donors were supporting him because they thought he'd hurt Kerry. His comment about Republicans donating to Kerry cuts the other way.) Such a separation would deal with the problem that a lot of this information, such as the detail about ballot access litigation in Michigan, is irrelevant to the undisputed point that both major parties thought a ballot line for Nader would help Bush. JamesMLane 22:27, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

___

First, I would note that it is not entirely undisputed that both major parties thought ballot access for Nader in 2004 would help Bush. Some people within each of those two parties no doubt had some such perception, but if you read the information toward the bottom of this message, you might agree that there is some reason to doubt that these supposed perceptions were in fact held by strategists in the two major parties.

To characterize the information disseminated by UPforVictory, StopNader, etc., as "anti-Nader attacks" does not seem inaccurate (or POV). Indeed, attacking Nader was the whole mission of those groups (just as it does not seem "POV" to say that the SwiftBoat ads were an anti-Kerry attack).

It seems quite in keeping with one of your aims in this section (namely, to show that some Democrats felt that Nader would hurt Kerry), to mention those attacks by Democratic Party groups, who evidently felt that, by attacking and hurting Nader, they might help Kerry. Likewise, to the extent it can be shown that some Republicans also felt that Nader would lower Kerry's results, accurate information about specific Nader-supporting actions by those Republicans would also be relevant for this purpose. (One of my points, though, is that, in order to write accurately about supposed organized Republican help, if indeed there was any beyond the Michigan petition drive, it is necessary to provide actually verified information, and not just repeat the generalized allegations of "Nader being in cahoots with right-wingers" leveled by the anti-Nader partisans.)

It seems a far cry from NPOV, simply to recite as factual, without further documentation, accusations against Nader that were made by UPforVictory, StopNader, etc.

I'm not sure what you mean, by "For example, if [Nader] denounced the Swift Boat ads, that fact strengthens the implication that those donors were supporting him because they thought he'd hurt Kerry." First, it's not yet proven (as far as I can tell) that anyone directly involved in the Swift Boat 527 group gave anything to Nader's campaign. I've heard an allegation that at least one donor to the pseudo-independent 527 group that ran the Swift ads also made an individual donation to the Nader campaign. Is information about support for Nader from Swift Boat veterans verified by the FEC reports? Did Nader's campaign accept money from Swift Boat operatives, and, if so, did it knowingly accept this money? Did these same individuals, if there are any, also give to other political campaigns and, if so, to which ones? If the same individuals also gave money to John Corzine or Nancy Pelosi, for example, this information could shed light on the whole story.

Does it make a difference to the "implication" you feel is strengthened by Nader's denunciation of the Swift ads, if it turns out that Nader denounced the first Swift Boat ad immediately, within days of its having first been broadcast, before anyone had ever made any allegation (which originated with UPforVictory and StopNader) that Nader had received campaign money from individuals who had also donated to the pseudo-"independent" group that ran the awful Swift Boat ads?

Maybe you are right, that more than one section is needed. I guess your idea is that one section could discuss assessments (or perceptions) of Nader's likely impact. Another section could try to sort out the details (relevant to the truth or untruth) of the various allegations and perceptions. Still another section could lay out what the actual campaign finance practices were of the Bush campaign, the Kerry campaign, and the Nader campaign. When the discussion makes Nader's campaign the only campaign under scrutiny with respect to allegedly "improper" donations, some necessary context is missing. (It would be relevant to mention in this connection that Nader's campaign at least to some extent took a principled approach to campaign finance, by refusing corporate PAC money altogether. This exercise of restraint is worth noting, especially in light of the fact that there was no restraint at all shown by the Kerry or Bush campaigns. If it turns out that Nader violated his own self-imposed principles, or if it turns out that some of the individuals who gave the Nader campaign donations were actually Bush operatives, it will be important to find this out. But to establish this requires facts and documentation, not innuendo.)

On the issues of Nader's likely impact and perceived likely impact on the 2004 election, below you can find some polling information (the gist of which was available to the Democrats and to the Republicans months before November 2004). This polling information supports the conclusion that Nader was not actually "taking net votes away from" Kerry in the Kerry-versus-Bush contest in 2004.

One creative theory that might give Karl Rove too much credit is the suggestion that some top Republican strategists thought it would be clever to leak information about Nader hurting Kerry, in order to trick the Democrats into diverting some warchest resources into attacking Nader (similar to the "leaked" Republican polls in late October supposedly showing that Hawaii was leaning toward Bush-Cheney); whether or not this was a deliberate strategy, it seems likely that the Republicans were not unhappy to encourage the impression that they expected Nader to hurt Kerry, if they thought this would make Kerry's campaign waste some resources hitting Nader. Another theory is that some of the Democrats' attacks against Nader were not necessarily even based on their own belief or perception that Nader might take votes away from Kerry in the 2004 election. The top Kerry strategists knew about the polls and knew by August or September that it was not likely that Nader would have an effect. Instead (according to this theory), the Democrats were mostly concerned to keep young activists from being drawn into the Nader campaign, where they might become dangerous critics (from the left) of the Democratic Party's rightward "centrist" slide the past fifteen years or more. So (according to this theory), the Democrats played along with the scare tactic of Nader as bogeyman, rather than actually being frightened about Nader in the 2004 election. They sought to diminish and revile Nader because Nader was accusing both major parties (including their own Democratic Party) of being corporate-dominated; such accusations are ultimately (regardless of any expected or unexpected 2004 election result) extremely threatening to the Democratic Party in the longer term, because the Democratic Party generally tries to position itself as the party of the "people" ("the party of working families" seems to be the newer phrase), in contrast to the Republican Party, which the Democrats characterize as the coporate party or the party of "the rich," etc. I'm not endorsing any of these alternative theories, but I think they are interesting because they are perhaps supported by data that tend to dispute what you said was undisputed (regarding perceptions within the two major parties of the likely effect of Nader's candidacay).

From the November 2004 Ballot Access News: "NADER MAY NOT BE HURTING KERRY The Washington Post carried a story on October 22, quoting officials of four leading national pollsters that Nader’s presence on the ballot does not hurt Democratic nominee John Kerry. Frank Newport, editor in chief of the Gallup Poll, said his research has shown for months that when Nader is removed from poll questionnaires, the margin separating the two major candidates is unaltered. Scott Keeter of the Pew Research Center, Scott Rasmussen of Rasmussen Reports, and Richard Bennett of the American Research Group, agreed."

The Washington Post story referred to above in Ballot Access News is evidently the article by Manuel Roig-Franzia and Jonathan Finer, "A Fading 'Nader Factor'?; Consumer Advocate Has Been Stripped of Much of His Support," The Washington Post: Oct 22, 2004. pg. A.01. The abstract from that article reads: "A survey conducted this month for the Democratic National Committee by pollster Stanley Greenberg showed [Ralph Nader] averaging 1.5 percent of the vote in a dozen battleground states where his name appears on the ballot, compared with about 3 percent in the summer. It also showed that most of the support Nader lost had shifted to [John F. Kerry] and indicated that his remaining backers would be as likely to vote for Bush as for the Massachusetts Democrat, if Nader were not running. Other studies indicate that Nader supporters are unlikely to support either major-party candidate. Pew's [Scott Keeter] said the majority of the Nader voters he has tracked do not identify with either major political party. Richard Bennett of the New Hampshire-based American Research Group said: "Especially since the debates, where Kerry shored up his base, it does not appear that many of the remaining Nader voters would vote for either Bush or Kerry."

Even assuming these polling numbers are accurate (and that this was known months before November), of course, it does not follow that the Democratic Party was therefore not concerned about Nader's potential effect. For example, the Democrats could have fully believed these polls, but still also believed that it was only through their own ongoing successful efforts to demonize Nader that the polls were showing Nader to be a non-factor.

My discussion on this page has largely been critical of what I take to be the inadvertent advancement of a polemical anti-Nader position. I don't suggest that this is your intention at all, but it could be the effect. I'll conclude for now, by saying that I think we should be able to work out a genuinely improved NPOV discussion, but it might take some time.

I think the statement about the prevailing opinion within each party during most of the campaign is accurate. The main reason for doubting that Nader would hurt Kerry was the growing evidence, as Election Day neared, that Nader was going to draw many, many fewer votes (from anyone) that he had in 2000. I think most experts expected him to decline, but few expected him to decline so precipitously. At any rate, from the point of view of describing the major-party reactions, the late-October poll you cite doesn't affect the fact that many Democrats were campaigning against Nader, seeing him as a threat. It might well be the case that Democrats devoted less resources to that front than they did in 2000, but if so, it was because of Nader's overall fade, not because they changed their assessment that he'd provide a net benefit to Bush.

You're correct that I think the article should mention major-party attitudes toward Nader, as a way of gauging his likely effect -- but that doesn't mean that every such statement or action needs to be included. Describing all the "UP for Victory" type groups would be too much detail on that point for a general bio of Nader. That's why the section I wrote just stated the general point and gave a few examples. It would be unfair to Nader to have his bio dominated by the subject.

The point of my comment about SBVT was that, if Nader denounced those ads, then that makes it even more clear that people who helped get the ads on the air weren't giving to Nader because they liked him or agreed with his views. They were donating to Nader for the same reason they donated to SBVT: to hurt Kerry.

You write: 'When the discussion makes Nader's campaign the only campaign under scrutiny with respect to allegedly "improper" donations, some necessary context is missing.' This article is about Nader, not about campaign finance in general. In any event, there's no claim of "improper" donations that I know of. The donations shed light on the donors' assessment of the race, not on the recipient's campaign finance practices.

Finally, with regard to sources, there are plenty of sources available online that have an agenda. We don't normally just dismiss them entirely. If UP for Victory or some other source makes a statement about a matter of fact, like campaign contributions, some Wikipedia editor who doubts it can find and cite opposing data. JamesMLane 23:44, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Continued: Making the article NPOV

You are surely right, that it was conventional wisdom that Nader's presence in the 2004 presidential race would be expected to reduce the number of Kerry votes more than it would be expected to reduce the number of Bush votes. And it is not at all unreasonable to imagine that some Democrats, and some Republicans, believed they should take action based on that conventional wisdom.

But I think it will take careful writing, to avoid oversimplifying this "common sense" idea to the point of inaccuracy. For example, based on the verified information now available, it would not be accurate for the article to give the impression that Nader's campaign was generally soliciting or generally accepting organized Republican donations. You offered to list (or at least to identify in this discussion---maybe you're right that the details do not belong in the article itself) each of the states where Nader's campaign is supposed to have accepted organized Republican assistance in 2004, with some documentation of the exact type of assistance that was accepted. If there is documented evidence that Nader accepted organized Republican help other than in the case of the non-coordinated Michigan petition drive, please share any such information. If you can find evidence that Nader's campaign accepted organized Repubican contributions of campaign money, that would also be very important and I would appreciate learning about it.

If it were so clearly true that the Republican Party in 2004 was eager to promote Nader (as part of a strategy to hurt Kerry), one might have expected the Republicans to take some steps to help Ralph Nader get into the 2004 presidential debates. As you probably know, the supposed "commission" on presidential debates is essentially a joint creature of the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. As it actually happened, however, the Republican Party appeared every bit as opposed as the Democratic Party, to opening up the debates to Nader (in 2000 and in 2004).

You write that you do not want to be unfair to Nader, and I agree that fairness is a worthy aim. I would urge that it is unfair to repeat, uncritically, unsupported allegations from political groups that were created with the specific mission of attacking Nader and/or taking votes from Nader (mostly by disseminating information alleging that Nader was associated with right-wingers). It would not be fair for the article about Nader to perpetuate the false impression that Nader was being substantially financially supported by the Right, without checking into the falsehood/spin/veracity of the partisan-orchestrated statements upon which the article relied in creating that impression. Because the Nader campaign states that the allegations are false and/or misleading, some verification should be in order before those allegations are simply repeated as if true.

About the Washington Post article: I thought you might be interested in the October Post article. (I want to point out that the article discussed similar polls that had been reported much earlier than October, but I'm not disagreeing with you, that the polling results reported in that Post article are consistent with the idea that the early Democratic Party attacks on Nader were effective.) I didn't (and still don't) claim to know what conclusion (if any) to draw from the polling.

Nader did denounce the SBVT ads. I'm going only from memory now, but I think Nader referred to those ads as deceptive covert slime sponsored by Bush proxies (through a 527). (Nader was also critical of 527 Kerry-sponsored ads.) I'm still not sure what your inference is, about Nader's denunciation of the SBVT attack ads. I think it would take more information and analysis before it would be warranted to conclude, from the fact (if it is a fact) that donor-X donated to fund-Y (a 527 fund) and also donated to the campaign committee for candidate N, that it is obvious exactly what X's intentions were. (Political money moves in ways that are not always obvious.) Another basic step is to check the actual FEC records, which are publically available on the web from www.fec.gov. I also think some context is required, so that readers have a frame of reference for understanding the scale of any donations, typical practices, etc.

If it turns out that the organized Democratic Party attacks on Nader were largely false and/or misleading, the falsehood of those attacks (if they were false) should become highly relevant to the article on Nader's 2004 campaign, especially in the context of discussing major party perceptions of, attitudes toward, and actions regarding Nader.

A very important element of Nader's presidential campaigns (at least, as far as I know) has been self-imposed principled limits on the sources of campaign funding, so I think an article about Nader properly mentions his approach to campaign finance, which sets him apart from the big party candidates. What I think the article should not do, however, is to repeat unverified "scandal"-misinformation about Nader's campaign finance practices. (Verified flat-out hypocrisy should of course be fair game.) Or, if such allegations are included, then the article should offer appropriate context so that readers are not left with a mistaken impression. For example, if my own campaign broadcasts an attack ad stating that one of my opponents is taking money from Big Tobacco and is therefore profiting from killing our kids (say, based on a $500 contribution from PM-PAC), an encyclopedia entry shouldn't simply repeat the gist of my unverified attack ad to show that my opponent was supported by the cigarette industry; and, if the article does repeat that information (properly attributing it to my attack ad, and properly characterizing it as such), it would only be fair to point out, if true, that my own campaign had received $10,000 from the same PAC, or that every politician in the state had received money from the same PAC, or whatever other trthfulu information would help the reader better understand what was really going on. (I'm pretty sure Nader has refused to accept any PAC money, which means that his presidential campaigns have received money from individual donors only. If true, this is an interesting fact, isn't it?)

I noticed that there is another, separate, Wikipedia entry for the 2004 Presidential campaign of Ralph Nader. It seems mostly to have collected some possibly incomplete ballot access information as of some time in October. I don't know whether or not that would be a more appropriate location (with a proper cross-referencing link) for some of the more detailed information.

Anyway, I guess this discussion is now very long, probably too long. Thank you for discussing this with me.

P.S. REGARDING THE REFORM PARTY & NADER in 2004:

After thinking that I had signed off for the night, I just now looked at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article that is linked from the Wikipedia article, quoting Reform Party Chair Shawn O'Hara (to the effect that Mr. O'Hara voted for Bush in 2000 and is working to keep John Kerry from becoming president). This quote seems to have been included to show that elements from the "Right" (namely, the Reform Party) supported Mr. Nader, presumably in order to get Mr. Bush elected. What the Wikipedia article does not say is that the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article actually quotes Mr. O'Hara as saying that Republican President George W. Bush "has lied to the American public" about the "illegal war in Iraq." The selective quote in the Wikipedia article from Mr. O'Hara was used to build the case that Mr. Nader was being supported by the Right, but this case could not have been made if the article had also included the following adjacent passage from the Post-Gazette article, quoting Mr. O'Hara (but again this was omitted from the Wikipedia article): <<>> "I'm not a George Bush fan anymore. My man's Ralph Nader," O'Hara said. <<>> The same selective and out-of-context quote that is included in this section of the Wikipedia article was also used by the anti-Nader groups, to create the impression that the Reform Party was insincere in its support for Ralph Nader. The anti-Nader groups, like the Wikipedia article, never mentioned that Mr. O'Hara said that he was disillusioned with both Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry and was now supporting Ralph Nader. The anti-Nader groups did not quote Mr. O'Hara's expression of support for Ralph Nader's opposition to the war in Iraq. Instead, the quotes used by the anti-Nader groups (and, unfortunately, repeated by the Wikipedia article) were designed to make it appear as though Mr. O'Hara (and perhaps the rest of the Reform Party) is actually supporting Mr. Bush. What did the Post-Gazette article actually quote Mr. O'Hara as saying? - - - -"I'm not a George Bush fan anymore. My man's Ralph Nader," O'Hara said.- - - - Another instance of somewhat misleading information about the Reform Party's nomination of Nader is the Wikipedia article's statement that conservative Pat Buchanan was nominated by the Reform Party in 2000. Although that bare statement is not untrue, the implication in the context of the article is that Nader in 2004 was being supported by the same right-wingers who had taken over the Reform Party in 2000 (in a struggle the Buchananites won against Jesse Ventura, John Hagelin, and even Perot himself to some extent). However, what happened to the Reform Party after Buchanan's dismal showing in 2000 is that the Buchanan supporters bailed out of the Reform Party after draining its pot of money and most of them went elsewhere, including many who went over to the so-called "America First Party," which endorsed the ultra-conservative Constitution Party presidential candidate in 2004. The 2000 Buchanan supporters did not nominate Ralph Nader in 2004. The Reform Party convention in 2004 can be criticized for having been very small, but it is false to say that the Reform Party in 2004 was a right-wing organization. As I explained earlier, the Reform Party had to some extent become a shell that offered potential ballot access in about seven states. If, as appears true, most of Mr. Nader's support within the Reform Party came from people who actually agreed with Mr. Nader's views on issues of war and peace, campaign finance reform, reining in corporate abuse, etc., then it is misleading to cite the Reform Party nomination as an example showing that Ralph Nader was being propped up by the Right. That's not what actually happened.

My sense is that the discussion of the Reform Party nomination within this section of the Wikipedia article was perhaps an instance of uncritical recital of information originating from the spin generated by anti-Nader groups. It is this kind of mistake I'm hoping we can avoid, by carefully checking the facts and not simply repeating the attack talking points generated by UPforVictory and other such axe-grinding groups.

I hope this P.S. helps clarify. Thanks again.

When I have time I'll make the two separate sections, and also remove some of the pro-Nader POV. For example, it's not neutral to say that O'Hara "clarified" he'd become disillusioned with Bush, a phrasing that accepts his politically convenient assertion as truth. Beyond the POV issue, I thought this article already had somewhat too much discussion of general issues of third-party politics. It's a bio of Nader, who, after all, never joined the Green Party and who chose not to work within the Green Party structure in 2004. The additional detail about whether the Greens should continue their relentless sabotage of any hope for progressive politics in America -- uh, pardon me, I mean the additional detail about possible courses of action for the Greens -- would be more appropriate to the article about the Green Party. JamesMLane 17:05, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

_______ _______

"Political extremists"

Come on, I'm hostile to Nader and even I think this categorization is absurd. In fact, the category is inherently POV. It should be deleted. Anyone who wants to chime in on the question is invited to visit Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Political extremists and comment or vote. JamesMLane 20:32, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Trimming the article

I think some of these trims go too far. The deleted material was incorporated as a result of the lengthy discussions above, to present assessments of Nader's effect on the 2004 race while being fair to him. In particular, I don't see the point of trying to "shorten" an article by deleting inline references, which appear simply as bracketed numbers. What's the rationale for the deletions? JamesMLane 12:54, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The main reason for shortening the article is that once wiki articles get over 35-40 kb, browser problems increase exponentially. That's why, for example, an article about the nation XYZ will (or, at least, should) include a short synopsis of its history, with a wikilink to a separate article "History of XYZ" for more detail. Come to think of it, that would be a good idea here: A two- or three-paragraph discussion of the 2000 race, with much of this material moved to a separate article linked from here, probably including the material that I deleted.

(That's also why I archived part of the Talk ... this page was so long my browser choked. It's still longer than recommended levels, but I couldn't break up the enormous chunk of text just above this.) (See Wikipedia: Article size for discussion)

Readability suffers in overlong articles, too. The main point of an encyclopedia is not to provide vast reams of details for people already knowledgeable about a subject, but to give an overview and context for casual readers. If, say, a Kenyan who had barely heard of Ralph Nader was interested in figuring out what effect he had in the 2000 election, there is so much detail here that it would be very difficult for him/her to figure it out. Americans who followed the election and already know the story might be helped, but everybody else would be flummoxed. Breaking it up into separate articles could help that, too - the hypothetical Kenyan wouldn't have to follow the links to the more detailed article.

Finally, Wikipedia has always frowned on external links within the text, because when you follow them, you can't easily return to wikipedia. One of the major points of creating this encyclopedia was to have a huge sea of interlinked knowledge - sending readers outside the sea hurts that. We're not trying to recreate the Web. The links can be included as external links at the bottom for those who want to know more, but we shouldn't break up the text with them. - DavidWBrooks 14:07, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree that Wikipedia frowns on external links in text. It's definitely our policy to cite your sources. Let's take a specific example, the first citation deleted from this article. As you can see earlier on this talk page, an ardently pro-Nader anon questioned whether there was indeed organized Republican backing for Nader's campaign. I inserted an inline link to a July 20, 2004 article by Jeff Cohen, found at http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0720-15.htm, although, to minimize disruption to the text, I used brackets to make it a numbered link: [6]. Here are three ways to deal with that citation:

• Using APA style. In articles on scientific subjects, APA style seems most prevalent. The format is described at Wikipedia:Cite sources#An example citation style. I gather this is what you mean by referring to links "included as external links at the bottom". In this instance, it would mean that the example citation would be replaced by "(Cohen 2004)" in the text, with the Cohen article then listed in a bibliography near the end of the article. I think the intrusion of "(Cohen 2004)" is more disruptive than a simple numbered link. Furthermore, it's less convenient for a reader who wants to do a quick check of the cited source. That reader has to go down to the bottom of the article, find the reference, and then, after reading it, return to the Wikipedia article and try to find his or her place.
• The method I used is described at Wikipedia:Cite sources#Embedded HTML links for citations. The advantages and disadvantages are discussed there. In the citations involved here, I don't think the mentioned disadvantages are significant. Many of these, like the Cohen article, are citations to online sources. If the Common Dreams website folds, that article won't be available to the reader no matter how much bibliographic information is given in a References section.
• Eliminating all the citations. This alternative means that controversial points are simply asserted. The reader has no way of knowing whether there's any support for the statement, let alone assessing the reliability of the source, and also can't go to the source for more detail. This is the worst of the three alternatives, yet it's the one now in place in this article for several significant points.

On the general subject of article length, I agree with you that articles shouldn't get too long. Nevertheless, we shouldn't deal with the problem by losing valid information. (See Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Long article layout: "[W]e must remove information from entries periodically. This information should not be removed from Wikipedia: that would defeat the purpose of the contributions. So we must create new entries to hold the excised information.") In this instance, the information in question is significant enough to be in an encyclopedia, so it should be included either in this article or in Ralph Nader presidential campaign, 2004. I'll look at that article later and see how we might allocate information between the two. For now, I don't even see a link to that article in this one, so I'll add it. JamesMLane 21:02, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

photo vandalism

Boy, what is it with this article and anon vandals replacing the picture with a really really funny (to a 12-year-old) photo-mash? It must be on the bookmark list at some middle school ... - DavidWBrooks 20:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Veep for McGovern?

What is the source of the story that Nader was asked by George McGovern to be his running mate in 1972?

Good question. I just tried Googling this and I can't find any substantial source for McGovern asking Nader to be his running mate? Anybody have a source? Griot 23:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)Griot

I'm going to remove this Veep reference. I can find no evidence of it anywhere. Griot 00:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fair. Could you determine who had added it? Schizombie 00:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It was added long ago. I asked for a citation way back in October 2005. It was in the article back then. I'm not that much of a detective. :) Griot 00:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It appears it was 12.217.121.245 possibly citing "The Making of the President, 1972." Schizombie 00:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC) See the 05:28, 2 December 2005 and 01:44, 3 September 2005 edits. Schizombie 02:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Nader makes this claim in Crashing the Party: Taking on the Corporate Government in an Age of Surrender, pages 37-38. Schizombie 04:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I think I've tracked down the contemporary origin of the story that George McGovern asked Nader to be his running mate in 1972. What I found tends to undermine the notion that McGovern extended an actual offer to Nader, although McGovern did mention Nader's name in public. The accurate story would seem to be be that Nader's name was mentioned by McGovern in a hypothetical list of "fresh faces," who were not Democratic Party political insiders, but who might have characteristics that would make them potentially worthy of selection as a running mate. The source I found was a news story written by William Greider in the Washington Post, from August 4, 1972, covering a McGovern press conference announcing that several Democratic Party Senators had declined to become his replacement for Sen. Eagleton. This is consistent with Nader's statement in *Crashing the Party* (pp. 37-38) that after Eagleton withdrew as the vice-presidential nominee, George McGovern called Nader and "asked if I would be willing to be considered for the vice presidential nomination." According to Nader's account, the "would you be willing to be considered?" overture from McGovern was considerably short of a direct offer.

SOURCE: "3 Reject Offers by M'Govern" By William Greider Washington Post Staff Writer The Washington Post, Times Herald (1959-1973); Aug 4, 1972; ProQuest Historical Newspapers The Washington Post (1877 - 1990) pg. A1: Greider's report of McGovern's list of names that included Ralph Nader (and Jacob Javits and John Garnder) begins with the phrase, "Without trying to suggest that they are under active consideration, McGovern mentioned, for example . . . " The "three" referenced in the title of the article who rejected an offer from McGovern were Senators Humphrey, Ribicoff, and Kennedy.

Sorry re:photo revert

Sorry, everyone, I accidentally reverted the photo back to the original. I think I changed it back to the latest (bigger) one, but if I didn't, can someone please do it for me? I didn't realize what "rev" meant.

Apologies!--ViolinGirl 19:28, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Pie in the face.

I think the bit about being pied should remain in the article, but, as an event that occurred in 2003, it is out of place in the middle of a section about his 2000 campaign. -12.217.121.245 07:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Jan D. Pierce, Karen Sanchirico, and other Vice Presidential stand-ins

I had added that little bit to the article about Jan D. Pierce, but now I wonder if it is too trivial for the intro and if it should be deleted or moved below to the section on 2004. I did add it to the Ralph Nader presidential campaign, 2004 article with more specifics, and also another stand-in I hadn't been aware of, Karen Sanchirico. Does anyone know why these people appeared instead of Peter Camejo, and who they are? Schizombie 10:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

This page http://www.drivingmrnader.org/chapter4.htm has some information about stand-ins in Nader's 1996 presidential campaign. I don't know if they were only on the petition to get on the ballot, or if they actually appeared on the ballot (although at least one of them, Muriel Tillinghast, did). Schizombie 22:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Third parties in Florida

Regarding recent edits by Griot and Ben Manski: If Bush's margin over Gore in Florida was 537 votes, the Green, Reform, Libertarian, Natural Law/Reform, Constitution, Socialist Workers Party, and Socialist Parties all got more votes than that margin http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2000/2000presge.htm#FL . Schizombie 02:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

That's correct Schizombie, you've got your facts straight. 76.166.123.129 01:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

References

I remember reading in one of michael moore's books - either stupid white men or dude where's my country - moore comments on helping out with ralph nader's election campaign, but see i cant remember the exact book or reference, anyone else care to post?

New Link?

I was wondering if this could be added under the appearances section or perhaps an external link. I thought the link was a funny testement to the pop culture icon Nader has been made. http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/nader.php Cjflash 02:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)cjflash

POV

This article had a large section that asserted that Gore lost the election to Bush because of Nader's votes. I removed the section. It was opinionated. It sounded like the usual rhetoric vomited up by the Democrats. Check it out. The Republicans stole that election through illegal means. Dubya was appointed by the Supreme Court. No matter how many or how few votes Nader got, Bush would have been in. This is all POV and has no place in a Wikipedia article. Here are just 2 out of many links that demonstrate this.
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=27&row=2
http://elandslide.org/display.cfm?id=181 thewolfstar 05:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

?

Can you come back with a reasonable debate to this? I'm just going to keep editing your pov out until you can show othewise. thewolfstar 07:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

POV and NOR tags on articles

I don't agree with labeling these tags as "vandalism", but I do agree that they're not justified, so I'm removing them.

A neutrality dispute tag on an article is proper only if there is a good-faith argument that the article doesn't conform to the policy stated in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Thewolfstar, your objection is that sections of this article "sounded like the usual rhetoric vomited up by the Democrats." That's why it's proper to include that material, because the policy instructs us to "assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves." It would be improperly asserting opinions for us to say, "The arrogant and self-aggrandizing idiot Nader foolishly ran a third-party campaign that gave Bush the election, thus permanently destroying what would otherwise have been Nader's honorable legacy and condemning him to the obloquy of decent people for generations to come." That's fairly close to my personal opinion, as it happens, but it is just my opinion, which, as a standard for assessing the content of Wikipedia articles, is worth zero. Our article shouldn't and doesn't say that.

It's a different matter, though, to report facts about opinions. If there's a notable opinion on a subject, we report it. If one of the two major parties in the U.S. usually asserts (or, if you prefer, vomits up) a particular opinion about an election, then that opinion is notable. The article doesn't adopt the opinion, but correctly informs the reader that some people hold the opinion. It also informs the reader that other people (Nader supporters) hold a contrary opinion. In fact, I haven't looked at this article in a while, and I don't remember it as being so heavily laced with the Naderite POV. The section could usefully be tweaked to present both sides fairly, though I don't think the current pro-Nader bias is so great that a neutrality dispute tag would be justified.

The links you've provided don't show any bias or error of fact in the statements made by Wikipedia. It's undeniably true that many Democrats blame Nader. Your opinion is that they're mistaken, but there's no quantum of fact that you could cite in support of your opinion that would change the fact reported in the article, namely that many people disagree with you. Furthermore, the article's extensive coverage of the countervailing Naderite POV notes the salient factual points from the articles you link.

As for "original research", you seem not to have commented on that at all. You'll note that the template you applied directs the reader to refer to this talk page for details, but there are none here. Please spell out any specific respects in which you think that the article violates the Wikipedia:No original research policy. You can raise your concerns here without putting the template on the article. I suggest you consider that this article has been extensively edited for years now by experienced Wikipedians holding a wide variety of political views. If people who are experienced in applying the NOR policy haven't flagged this article for violating it, you might want to tread a little more cautiously in making the claim. JamesMLane t c 13:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't add the tags, but there is a general lack of citations in the article which may be what invited the NOR tag. The way the info about the 2000 election is presented does seem a little biased, in that it doesn't mention other things such as that the number of Democrats in Florida who voted for Bush also exceeded the difference in their vote totals (but a citation would be needed for that too). Шизомби 19:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Speeches

Ok, my first post to Wikipedia... I'm sure there are lots of things I should know before posting, so apologies for any blunders.

I'd be very interested in sub-pages of speeches given by Nader, if anyone knows of any that are available. Leaving out speeches he's made to groups of young people, while including his entertaining quotes, is a little misleading about the way he gets his message out.

I heard Nader speak once, at U of Michigan, around '95 or '96, and I must say it was the most "interesting" speech I have ever heard. He spoke about big corporations that would kill 10,000 of their own employees to avoid a few dollars in safety improvements, and other "interesting" ideas like that.

I don't really think this article (though very balanced in his accomplishments and positive effects) fairly discusses or mentions his methods.

It's likely that it'd be impossible to have a balanced neutral-point-of-view (NPOV?) entry on the content of speeches he's given, but the speeches themselves would make interesting reading and really flesh out the comments on political extremism mentioned.

-Kevin

2008

Is Nader running in 2008? Somewhere in this article should mention whether or not Nader is running. -- Wikipedical 02:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Because of his age, it may be a little unwise to speculate about him in the 2008 election. Wouldn't want to be throwing names around of deceased people, now would we? -24.92.41.95 02:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Could somebody fix the last sentence in the "2008" section, which is clearly incomplete: "He says that his decision to run will be influenced, especially if the Democratic Party chooses Hillary Clinton." Thanks! — Malik Shabazz | Talk 22:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Public Citizen

The section on Nader and the Activist Movement suggests that Public Citizen, founded in 1971, prompted the formation of OSHA and the EPA, both of which were created in 1970. If this is true then it should be clarified and if not then it should be removed. It should, perhaps, be noted that the Public Citizen article does not list anything that is contained in this paragraph. -- Robbie 14:03, 27 Aug 2006 (UTC)

Consumer protection organizations in other countries

An anon editor added this to the External links *http://www.3cs-dpsvk.co.nr www.3cs-dpsvk.co.nr]Consumer Care Council, Delhi Public School Vasant Kunj. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with Naderr diectly, but I'm retaining it here in case anyone knowledgable wants to comment. DJ Silverfish 20:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Note: This article has a very small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and currently would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 23:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Minor Edits

Sorry, just a very minor edit that I do not know how to fix. I have yet to learn how to link names in editing, however, I noticed that someone had his sister's name as "Laura Nader Milleron" this is not correct, Prof. Nader's name is not "Milleron," I have had occasion to meet her, and her name is Professor Laura Nader. I do not know how to link this to the article about her. However, if someone would like to do this while I learn, I would greatly appreciate it.

WHY was this deleted? Nader on the "Israel lobby"

Can anyone give a justification for why the following paragraph was deleted:

In August 2004 during his presidential campaign, Nader was criticized for expressing what many saw as antisemitic attitudes when he "suggested that President Bush and Congress were 'puppets' of the Israeli government" [7] [8] [9]. Nader is quoted as saying that: "The days when the chief Israeli puppeteer comes to the United States and meets with the puppet in the White House and then proceeds to Capitol Hill, where he meets with hundreds of other puppets, should be replaced" [10]. Nader's statements regarding the Israeli influence on American foreign policy and American politicians brought him much criticism from the Anti-Defamation League and other Jewish organizations. Abraham Foxman, the head of the Anti-Defamation League, was quoted soon after Nader made the comments, stating that "What he [Nader] said smacks of bigotry" [11]. Foxman, in an open letter to Nader about his comment(s), wrote: "...the image of the Jewish State as a 'puppeteer,' controlling the powerful U.S. Congress feeds into many age-old stereotypes which have no place in legitimate public discourse" [12]. Nader's response to Foxman can be found here, and Foxman's counter-reply to Nader's letter is here.

It is well sourced; so why was it deleted? --WassermannNYC 15:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

As has been explained on the other 4 articles into which you attempted to POV-push this trivia, it was a tempest in a teapot, and the only person who still cares about it is you, the person who is also obsessed with identifying the "Jewish lobby" and all the rich Jews in the United States, along with claiming David Irving is a "Scholar of the Holocaust". Jayjg ^(talk) 16:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

First off, I don't appreciate your smear tactics; I expect better from an admin. committed to the principle of NPOV -- and PLEASE explain yourself more fully; your ONE SENTENCE does not justify deleting valid, relevant, and well sourced information. Yes the info was inserted in to 5 different articles, but you fail to add that they were all RELEVANT articles and that identical information is copied/pasted and crosslited on Wikipedia routinely if it pertains to multiple articles. Also, anything reported in the Washington Post and investigated by the ADL (along with other reliable sources) that was said by a former presidential candidate (a multiple presidential canidate actually, and well-known national figure) is not mere "trivia." I simply cannot understand why you keep saying that this is "trivia" when that assertion is a blatant falsity; the Washington Post is (as you know) one of the top newspapers in the USA. I am not "obsessed with identifying the 'Jewish lobby' and all the rich Jews in the United States" as you write: they are simply articles that I am interested in and seek to expand/enrich with factual, well-sourced, and relevant information (how many times must I say this?) -- also, must I remind you that around 80% or more of your own edits deal with Jewish-themed articles, many of which you and other admins. fiercely protect and watch in shifts, preventing other good editors from even touching them. However, I would like to ask: isn't the job of admins. to watch/police the entirety of Wikipedia instead of having 80% or even more of your edits (and the edits of some other admins. are close to 100%) on Jewish themed-articles? (as I said, this is not just you: many other high-level admins. edit Jewish articles almost exclusively to the detriment of the rest of the project, which you all seem to conveniently ignore to spend the vast bulk of your time and energy on Jewish-themed articles).

Again, please assume good faith, as you have noticed that ALL of my edits were not vandalism; they were all made in good faith in the interest of furthering the project of an OPEN and FREE encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit. I am very interested in Jewish businesspeople in the USA (and the other List of Jewish Americans) and American-Israeli relations, and this is why I spent all of that time expanding that list only to have it unjustly deleted by you in the blink of an eye (and hence my high edit count in regards to these particular articles).

As for your other smear: "...claiming David Irving is a "Scholar of the Holocaust"...that IS NOT what I said. If you had read it correctly, I wrote: "I see that we don't have a 'Category:Independent scholars' here on Wiki. Though I find Irving's views pertaining to Jews and the Holocaust absolutely despicable..." -- I simply proposed to create a 'Category:Independent scholars' (for not only Irving but many others) as pertaining to Irving's history books that were written independently of any university or organization. Such a category would also be relevant for any other scholar or researcher that has published outside of the academic system yet still have valuable and well-researched views on their primary subjects; this had nothing to do with his personal views on the Holocaust, which I immediately denounced (Irving has never written a book on the Holocaust exclusively as far as I can find, only on WWII history). So, if you would please stop misquoting me I would certainly appreciate that. Also, since you canvassed this over my own canvasses on the pages which I added the Nader info that you later removed, I'm going to go ahead and copy/paste this response to the other smears in order to offer a rebuttal to your smearing. --WassermannNYC 03:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I found that in the section on Nader's alleged "spoiling" of the 2000 election, there was no reference to the well-known allegations of vote fraud, which if true would refute the idea that Nader spoiled anything. I added to the article a paragraph mentioning that allegation, and somebody must have deleted it. Whoever did that was NOT a very nice person, and I've restored the paragraph.

The Atlantic Monthly Making Nader 96th Most Influential American

The opening paragraph of this article quotes the Atlantic Monthly magazine's making Nader number 96th on its list of influential Americans. The Atlantic is an extremely well-respected magazine, and I believe this belongs in the article. Someone, however, has been removing the quotation from the magazine that explains why the editors of the Atlantic put Nader at number 96 -- a short 17 word sentence: "He made the cars we drive safer; thirty years later, he made George W. Bush the president." Without the quote, citing the Atlantic is kind of pointless. Because the quote is short and because it encapsulates Nader's career well, I think it should remain in the first paragraph. Griot 16:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

+ Griot and other silent editors who revert back to this passage show no support for its appropriateness to a biography or any lack of bias, save their personal opinion, which is not sufficient for purposes of inclusion. Reasons for removing the quote are sound. The quote clearly construes a form of criticism and bias (see http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200409/littlefield2 and http://www.slate.com/?id=2064804&entry=2064909 for evidence) not appropriate to a biography, and best left out or moved to criticism. In addition, the conclusions asserted by the quote are recognized by numerous political analysts to be an inacurate assesment of Ralph Nader's involvement in the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections (see 'Dude Where's My Country,' Michael Moore, 'Addicted to War,' Joel Andreas, "An Unresonable Man" and other sources). Furthermore, if it is the intention of 'The Atlantic Monthly' to contend that Ralph Nader's influential status in the United States, albeit worldwide, is reducible to one who "made George Bush the president," then the quote is not merely inaccurate but, as the Wikipedia article illustrates, blantanly obtuse.

In sum, The 'Atlantic Monthly' has been shown to be heavily biased (see http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/Quality_Problems_at_Reuters_and_Atlantic_Monthly.asp, and http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/12/21/18339484.php for further evidence). As Mike Pesca states in "Nader Seen as Eroding Kerry's Support, "The national correspondent for The Atlantic Monthly [James Fallows] is a former Nader Raider-cum Democrat." ('The Nation,' April 26, 2004, see http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1851372). To retain the quote "Because the quote is short" is arbitrary and absurd, and "because it encapsulates Nader's career well" has also been revealed to be false. Motion to remove quote, not appropriate to biography, or move to criticism. 76.166.123.129 22:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

That the quote could be construed as criticism is not a reason to exclude it from the article. However, I do hear what you are saying. Perhaps we can reach a comprimise on this, rather than continuing an edit war over it. Here's my suggestion. (1) Include the fact that AM rated Nader as the 96th most influential American -- certainly not a criticism, and notable in a biographical article on the person. (2) cite the fact as coming from AM. (3) Put the sentence quote in the citation, rather than in the article itself. -- Pastordavid 23:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The quote from Atlantic needs to be included. It sums up Nader's career (in the view of a very respected publication) and tells reader's right away why the Atlantic put Nader in their Top 100 list. As I mentioned above, we're talking about precisely 17 words. It's not as though the ranking is followed up by a treatise. I'm just curious why this anonymous user is so dead-set against putting the quote in. It comes from an extremely well respected publication. It's not as if the quote comes from a blog or right-wing hate site. Griot 23:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

+Pastordavid, sounds like an interesting proposal. Please edit to show citation section with quote, how that would appear in the article.I think you're referring to the footnote? Thanks 76.166.123.129 23:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Griot, IP User has explained above his/her objection to the quote. I happen to agree with the quote, but also agree that it is not a NPOV assessment of Nader. Yes, AM is well-respected ... it also (like many well-respected publications) occassionally reports with a distinctive POV -- again, the fact that I usually agree with the POV does not change the fact that it is POV. I am going to edit the article as proposed above in a little while. -- Pastordavid 23:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The Nervous Mermaid deleted half the article with this edit while removing the quote we have been discussing. I have restored the article. -- Pastordavid 00:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I have edited the article per this talk page, making clear that the statement in question was an editorial statement. -- Pastordavid 00:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Entschuldigung! I'm sorry, I did not mean to delete the article, only the 'Atlantic Monthly' sentence. I think maybe this is what happened with IP user, too? Yes, the solution to edit-wars is a good one, also. Thank you for inviting me! Bitte, The Nervous Mermaid 01:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right, apologies if it did, not intended. Btw, we've been having a great chuckle over the quote! If it were true that Ralph Nader "made George Bush the president" I must say, God certainly bestowed immense power to Ralph Nader! All hail Ralph Nader! *LOL* And, if that's true, Mr. Fallows, why isn't he Number 1?! It couldn't have been that Al Gore lost the popular vote in his own state. And it couldn't have been that the Repulbican party exploited the Clinton "sex scandals" during the election year, or that there were many and various unconstitutional activities surrounding the vote count in Florida, as well as other states, or, as viable sources reveal, that Al Gore did, in fact, win the popular vote in Florida! Or that John McCain was forced out of the presidential nomination. And, no, no WAY would a DEMOCRAT have waged war in Iraq, despite that fact that 'The Socialist Worker' and Howard Zinn report that Barack Obama has stated that he plans to attack Iran because of their "nuclear program," which is like calling a neighborhood bake sale a gormet French restaurant! And, no John Kerry did not state that he intended to send 40,000 ground troups into Iraq, rather that provide an exit stratagy. No, it is all the very-powerful Ralph Nader. The emperor IS wearing clothes. It wasn't me, Ralph Nader "made" me do it! Let's make bumper stickers :) 76.166.123.129 01:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This isn't about our judgements of the merits of Nader's campaign. It's not about God. It's about the Atlantic Monthly's reason for making Nader number 96 in their influential Aemricans list. I have restored the quote. It has the merit of an editorial judgement from one of America's leading magazine. The anonymous contributor's argument above ranges from Fallows to God to Gore to McCain to Howard Zinn to Barack Obama to John Kerry. Let's stick to the topic, shall we? The Atlantic has stated its opinion -- a carefully merited one. Why all the fuss? Griot 02:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, hello again, Griot. Well, my above post was in response to the Nervous Mermaid, not to your editing tirade. But, here we are... again. I thought we had achieved a wonderful compromise, but, alas, no, Griot is right, in spite of all evidence, and the opinions of others, yes. Only Griot can see "what this is about." So tell me, Griot, does an "editorial judgement ," which, by defintion constitutes a POV, belong in a NPOV biography, simply because, apparently, it appeals to your own? "Why all the fuss?" indeed! You may want to address your own question. "Editorial judgement, " by definition, constitutes POV, and an encyclopedia biography strives to remain NPOV . It appears this fact is not getting thorugh to you. Okay, here it is, again: a POV, even if you think it is the most ACCURATE AMAZING POV in THE KNOWN UNIVERSE, does not belong in a NPOV section. It needs to be removed or relocated to criticism. Can you understand? Why all the fuss? Can we remove a POV from a NPOV section? Please, accept that the quote clearly expresses OPINION, which appears to be yours, but "what this is about," Griot, is NOT opinion, yours, or anyone else's. It is about an encyclopedia, i.e., NPOV, biography. Pastordavid, I implore you, please reinstate the edit. 76.166.123.129 02:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

"The Atlantic has stated its opinion -- a carefully merited one." Goodness! Opinion, editorial... in a bio? I can't agree. A "carefully merited one"... really? Interesting opinion, but, not fact. Is Wikipedia an encyclopedia, or an editorial? The Nervous Mermaid 03:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is a carefully meritted, well reasoned opinion. But it is opinion, and opinion is, by definition, POV. Please leave it out of the lead of this article.

As a reminder: Everyone please comment on the content, not on the contributors. -- Pastordavid 03:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Any assessment of Nader might be considered an "opinion." How can you sum up someone's life without having at least a whiff of an opinion. The point about this quote, though, is that it was carefully arrived at by eight scholars. And I appreciate the idea that it could go in the 2000 election article, but the quote -- the first half especially -- applies to Nader's career, not to the election. Astruc (talk) 19:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

"An Unreasonable Man" played at Sundance and really offered a lot of insight from one political analyst from Harvard, an admitted Democrat, as to why the notion that Nader "spoiled" the 2000 election can't be true. The filmmakers are Democrats, also, so it's very interesting, they show many sides to the argument. They said they came to the same conclusion, through the process of making the film. You might want to check it out. But, as you say, it's not really relevant. Opinion is opinion. The editorial doesn't belong. Telogen 04:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the Atlantic's assessment is pretty much the common assessment of Nader. It should stay. Ask most people what they know of Nader and they'll mention cars and the 2000 presidential electin. 71.139.27.85 06:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

"pretty much the common assessment of Nader... Ask most people what they know of Nader and they'll mention cars and the 2000 presidential electin" is irrelevant, and *highly* debatable. Wikipedia aims to educate beyond "the common," without pushing editorial views. You may want to read Wikipedia policy regarding NPOV. The passage constitutes POV and does not belong in the body of the article. I think Pastordavid has proposed a fair and reasonable compromise, to move the quote to the footnotes. Persisting in this way only serves to alienate yourself and others. It is disrespectful, and you have been kindly asked to stop. Please stop. 76.166.123.129 09:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with 76.166.123.129. 71.139.27.85's argument is fallacious, and impertinent. The quote doesn't concern "the 2000 presidential electin" but a a specific POV with regards to Mr. Nader's involvement in the 2000 U.S. Presidential election, which is not conducive to NPOV policies. "Ask most people what they know of Nader and they'll mention cars and the 2000 presidential electin" is obtuse and untrue, in Europe as well as in other areas of the world. Please stop reverting. If you refuse to stop, which is truly unfortunate, I motion that we bring in an administrator to help solve the matter. The Nervous Mermaid 10:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Reverted to Pastordavid edits. Telogen 10:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Fellicius and impertinent"? Enough of this melodrama. You guys seem to agree that the Atlantic Monthly is a worthy publication and therefore its list of Influential Americans is fine, but you object to the magazine's reasoning for putting Nader on the list. You can't have one and not the other. You object to the magazine's reasoning, so you want to bury the magazine's reason for putting Nader on the list in a footnote. If you notice, the References section of this article contains only citations to publications -- it doesn't have footnotes. The Atlantic quote clearly doesn't belong in the References section. Please don't attempt to bury it there. Griot 14:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

From WP:NPOV: "assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves." I think, other than the compromise I offered above, another could be to put the AM quote elsewhere in the article. To put it in the lead is offering as uncontested fact. To put it elsewhere -- a different place in the article or in the reference --- is to place it in the context of the debate about people's opinions about Nader's legacy.

That said, we seem to be getting nowhere fast on this. I am going to list this article on requests for comment, hoping that will move us one way or the other. -- Pastordavid 17:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'd like to lend some credence to the idea that "the common wisdom" has some relevance, even in the rarefied atmosphere of a (supposedly) NPOV encyclopedia article. The common person's opinion, even if less than factually well-founded, is often the determinant in swaying the direction of elections, jury decisions, the success or failure of commercial products, the course of historical events, etc. Without the prevailing (but unofficial) anti-semitism prevailing in France at the time, would Dreyfus have been convicted and sent to Devil's Island? If the German people didn't have the opinion that they had been short-changed (read emasculated) by the Treaty of Versailles, would Hitler's brand of hypernationalism ever have found any traction? If the American people hadn't been induced to have an overblown opinion of the the threat posed by the Soviet military and Soviet ideology, would Senator Joseph McCarthy's witch-hunt for "fifth-columnists" in the US Army (and government) ever have gotten off the ground?

How does this apply to the current tiff about Nader? Well, I think it is a widely-held opinion in the US (and, to a lesser extent, outside that country) that Nader's obstinacy and resistance to forging a common front with other progressive polities (to oppose neo-fascism) siphoned votes away from Gore and, in effect, handed Bush his victory. Whether this is strictly true or not does not detract from another "truth": millions of people believe this about Nader, and it is not a belief that falls in the moon-is-made-of-green-cheese category. It is not utter nonsense. Further, this attitude, spurious as it may be, explains a good deal about American politics and about Nader himself. To discard or ignore this significant undercurrent of the story is to sign-up to a sanitized view of contemporary events. Unfortunately, NPOV is sometimes equivalent to putting on a set of blinders.

In practical terms, I think PastorDavid's solomonic solution is good and largely appropriate. However, as we will also recall, the solomonic solution calls for killing the baby. Griot is largely on the right track, I think, but he overplays his hand. The Atlantic's reasons for putting Nader on its list are based more on "the common wisdom" than on any probing analysis. The dozen or so words the magazine used to justify its action were glib, not definitive. The reasons have value to the extent that they recognize "the common wisdom" (even if this wisdom is not quite as common as some would like to believe); the Atlantic's reasons simply acknowlege the widely-held (but omnidirectionally disputed) view that one can draw a clear line from Nader to the Patriot Act and Guantanamo. I think the entire controversy should be laid-out in the Nader article. Leave in the fact that Nader made the Atlantic's list. Leave out the Atlantic's glib explanation of its reasons. No footnote. Then, devote five or ten thousand well-chosen words to a thorough exploration of the controversy about Nader's effect on the 2000 election.

Don't take a path that sweeps the still-living controversy under the NPOV rug. Don't kill the baby out of some misguided sense of "fairness". PeterHuntington 17:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

You would have to leave out the quote if it was indeed "glib." Perhaps a dozen or two-dozen word encapsulation of anyone's life is bound to be "glib." I don't know. I don't find the quote as "glib" as I find it succinct. BTW, comparing Nader's actions to the anti-Semitic gov't of France's in regard to Dryfeus is, I think, far-fetched. The simple fact is that the Atlantic's summation of Nader is what most believe about him. And again, as for moving this to a "footnote," I remind you that there are no footnotes in this article. There are only references to articles and Web sites. So moving it to a "footnote" would be pointless. Griot 20:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I would support moving the quote - and even the AM ranking - out of the lead, and moving the entire thing into a section on the 2000 election. -- Pastordavid 20:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not a valid solution. The ranking by the Atlantic and the quote apply to Nader's entire career, not what he did in the 2000 election. I appreciate the attempt at a compromise, but it would stick out like a sore thumb in that part of the article. Griot 20:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

"Please review the Wikip policy regarding POV. The point of view policy is about individual contributors to wikipedia expressing their points of view. It doesn't oppose a point of view referenced by a reliable source. Griot 14:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)"

Let's stick to Wikipedia policy, which states, "Stick to the facts... the least cumbersome way of handling NPOV concerns would be to improve the article or the category description, so that it is no longer POV." --Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial 76.166.123.129 02:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem with the Atlantic quote is. Of course it's a gross over-simplification. Nader didn't single-handedly make American cars safer, nor did he make Bush president — but those are the two things that he will always be remembered for. Regardless of whether you like the assessment, or agree with it, it's a pithy summary of his perception by the American public. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 05:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Sorry to all for taking so long to get this listed as a RfC (real life interrupted). The dispute on this page centers around a quote from the Atlantic Monthly. Griot argues for including it in the lead, along with the AM ranking of Nader as the 96th most influential American (example). When I arrived on this page, it was because of an IP editor repeatedly removing the quote (example) later explained to be because the quote represents the editorial POV of AM, not the reporting of fact. I proposed a compromise of moving the quote into the citation attached to the AM statistic (example). Since then, Peter Huntinton has proposed another option (in the talk above). Other comments and rationale can be seen in the comments in the section immediately above. (If I have misrepresented anyone's opinion or perspective, please accept my apologies and feel free to correct me). -- Pastordavid 20:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Responses from uninvolved Editors

I don't think Nader made cars safer. See de Toledano's work on the subject. Nader certainly made trial lawyers richer, but that's not the same thing. The quote belongs in the article as an example of the public perception of Nader, and the introduction should feature his spoiler role in 2000 as the major event of his life in history, but I can see leaving the quote out of the introduction. The PastorDavid compromise seems reasonable, other than that Nader's presidential campaigns should be in the first sentence or two, rather than demoted to the second paragraph. -- TedFrank 21:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi TedFrank, where can I obtain a copy de Toledano work? Could you please provide the author's full name and book title? 76.166.123.129 03:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Ralph de Toledano, "Hit and Run." It's cited in the article already. Nader used meritless litigation to harass the author, and deter future journalists from investigating him. -- TedFrank 20:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, right, I spotted the author and title yesterday. Appreciate the synop, but I think I'd prefer to read it before making any conclusions. Sounds like it could be an interesting account of one man's experience. Searching for the book, it's fairly obscure, out of print. I noticed some used copies floating around on Alibris. 76.166.123.129 22:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The quote is great! It's sourced and it has both negative and positive sides to it. Critics and fans of Nader can each find something good in it. futurebird 22:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The quote is vivid and well-sourced. Those who hold the Atlantic Monthly to be biased will be warned because the quote is attributed to them. Sections on the arguments on both points belong in the article; to what extent the other side belongs in the intro is a question of undue weight. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Additional comment from previously involved editors

My comment, from above: Let's stick to Wikipedia policy, which states, "Stick to the facts... the least cumbersome way of handling NPOV concerns would be to improve the article or the category description, so that it is no longer POV." --Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial

Whether an "opinion" is "commonly held" or not is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not an opinion depository. Wikipedia, as with any encyclopedia, provides information for the purposes of education. Positive or negative, POV is POV. The only place for any POV is in a critique or editorial.

Motion to retain the PastorDavid compromise until the dispute is resolved. 76.166.123.129 03:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Motion? I'd just like to reiterate my position. The editors of the Altantic Monthly see Nader has a highly influential America (96th of all time). To explain why, they wrote 17 words in their article. If we agree that the historians whom the Atlantic employed to compose the list are worthy individuals, it follows that we include their quote as well as the mention of Nader's ranking (especially given the fact that the quote is succinct, which is necessary in the opening paragraph of an article). Griot 23:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I support Pastordavid's view that the quote and The Atlantic's ranking should be moved out of the lead. Clearly, the inclusion of Nader on the magazine's list does not represent one of the highlights of Nader's illustrious career. At best, the magazine's action is just an argument for considering Nader an important person, one worthy of an encyclopedia article. Since this is something that was never seriously in question, it is inappropriate (and superfluous) in the lead of the article. To my mind, Griot's arguments are unpersuasive. Need we spend more time on something so trivial? PeterHuntington 23:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Here here! Well articulated, PeterHuntington. Please, read my note on content.

Griot, we cannot "agree that the historians whom the Atlantic employed to compose the list are worthy individuals," because The Atlantic Monthy employed no such persons. AM lists are created by AM employees and editors, in this case, James Fallows, who has publically declared his bias against Ralph Nader. Sad, actually, that AM lost its former editor, Michael Kelly, whose integrity and objectivity were renowned. Regardless, the status of The Atlantic Monthy and its lists are irrelevant. Your position is irrelevant. Wikipedia policy states: "Stick to the facts... the least cumbersome way of handling NPOV concerns would be to improve the article or the category description, so that it is no longer POV." In support of and adherence to Wikipedia policy, I revert to Pastordavid's edit. 76.166.123.129 03:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The list was not constructed by James Fallows. The Atlantic hired a panel of eight historians to construct the list. Your and Peter Huntington's fondness for adverbs and adverbial clauses notwithstanding, the Atlantic is not "irrelevant." I think all can agree on that. Griot 15:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I will try to use short words from now on, so you can get it. Now get this: give it up, back off, you lose, next case. PeterHuntington 16:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The quote doesn't belong in a biography. Personally, I don't think it belongs in the article at all. It's biased rhetoric, not encyclopedia content. Let's move on, like PeterHuntington says. More attention to vital matters... Telogen 06:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Griot and 76.166.123.129 are both partially correct. The list is was complied by The Atlantic, along with ten "eminent" historians," who are not identified, ergo, could be entirely biased. BTW, it says nothing about these "historions" being "hired," and over 1/3 of the names that made their list "just happened" to be past AM contributors. "Insight," i.e., editorial comments and "quotes," or justiciations, were created by AM. See http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200612/influentials-main for further details. Here's my conclusion, short and sweet: very significant data is being removed, while POV editiorials are being reverted. This does nothing to support Wikipedia. Give it up, is right. The Nervous Mermaid 01:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a farce: The Nervous Mermaid is wholly interested in Ralph Nader and has not commented on any other article in Wikipedia except for Seasons & a Muse, Inc, an article that has had only two contributors, one of whom, not coincidentally, is 76.166.123.129, who is often a commentator on the Ralph Nader article. Meanwhile, there's Telogen, who only comments on Ralph Nader and one other article, Jeanne Marie Spicuzza, an article which also happens to be visited extremely often by user 76.166.123.129. Would you guys cut this out? Griot 02:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The only evidence of conspiracy is that which you're creating. It appears there are several editors, myself included, who disagree with your position, so you're resorting to personal attacks. You're removing editors' contributions that are sourced and accurate. You're admittedly trolling these editors' histories, then attacking them, which is, by Wikipedia standards, bad faith. The fact is, I've contributed to various articles, some of which have existed for years. Conspiracy? Illuminati? No. Please stop the personal attacks. Accept that your argument is unpersuasive and move on. We can work together, respectfully. It will only serve to make Wikipedia as accurate and educational as it can be. Shouldn't that be the goal? 76.166.123.129 06:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, wait, now I'm not really myself, but four or so people put together??? To be perfectly frank, I'm just starting out, and am so bombarded with all the "fixes" required to articles I'm contributing to, i.e., this one in particular-- I wonder why!-- I don't have time for anything else. Btw, not very nice, hunting around and messing with our articles and edits. Jeez, paranoia soon destroya. Way to make us feel welcome! For the record, I'm not a mermaid, I'm a guy. Concur with Peter and 76.166.123.129... Can we PLEASE move on? Telogen 08:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• I was asked to comment by Telogen. First, the NPOV policy applies to editors and their own points of view, not to notable sources. If that was the case, the Time 100 would be listed in other people's articles, but not the reasons for the listing. I agree, I don't think it makes much sense to not include why Atlantic Monthly put Nader on the list; however, I don't think a footnote is that poor of a solution. I also don't think it is optimal. It would be preferable to include the quote after the ranking, in one sentence, no more, no less. But it is not a bad compromise to put it in a footnote; most readers, I believe, will see it if they really care. This simply isn't a large issue, in my opinion, this one magazine's rankings. Both sides might want to see how the Time 100 people have their ranking incorporated into their articles. But one thing should be clear: NPOV applies to us, not to notable sources of high-regard. Putting in AM's ranking is not POV-pushing, just like putting in the Time 100 rankings is not POV-pushing. That policy isn't for them, it's for us. --David Shankbone 20:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I made this comment higher on the page last night, but I copied it here so it wouldn't be over-looked.

"I don't see what the problem with the Atlantic quote is. Of course it's a gross over-simplification. Nader didn't single-handedly make American cars safer, nor did he make Bush president — but those are the two things that he will always be remembered for. Regardless of whether you like the assessment, or agree with it, it's a pithy summary of his perception by the American public." — Malik Shabazz | Talk 14:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's an additional thought that might be a compromise (or it might not satisfy anybody): "One magazine summarized Nader's legacy by saying 'He made the cars we drive safer; thirty years later, he made George W. Bush the president.'" In other words, don't mention the historians or the ranking. The summary is, IMO, solely the Atlantic's. Just a suggestion. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 14:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Malik Shabazz that the quote is fine as a summary (a "pithy summary," pithiness being exactly what is needed in an article intro). The problem with "one magazine summarizes" is that the Atlantic isn't just "one magazine" but maybe (along with Harper's and the New Yorker) the most prominent magazine in the United States. Including the magazine's name gives the quote authority. Hashaw 18:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with MS, it's AM editorial, and it really sticks out in the lead/bio, because it's not really a summary-- let's be honest-- it's a criticism. I don't agree with keeping it in the lead. But if it is very important to some editors, while clearly other editors object, how about, "While one magazine summarized Nader's legacy by saying 'He made the cars we drive safer; thirty years later, he made George W. Bush the president, other sources have quickly refuted both claims. Clearly, Ralph Nader remains an influential and controversial figure of the twenty-first century." Something like that. Thoughts? Telogen 18:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I think we've heard from a lot of involved and uninvolved eds. I'm going to give the above compromise a try. If any editors remain opposed, please, get involved here. It's time to end this edit war and address other aspects of the article. The goal is to make WP a great source that more and more people will want to use. Telogen 05:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you DavidShankBone for taking time to respond thoughtfully. Okay, given that many editors have very strong opinions re: AM article, I think it best to come up with a compromise we can ALL agree on and END THE EDIT WAR. My position is, the AM editorial, however respected, etc., reflects POV that doesn't belong in a lead or bio for an encyclopedia article. It's a Nader article, not an AM article, and I'd personally like to see it go. BUT we are talking about COMPROMISE. My contention is, if certain editors INSIST on including this POV, then I propose that these editors consent to an immediate follow-up of rebuttal POV, NOT in the footnote, but in the article. And I still contend, in either case, the AM mention doesn't belong in bio/lead. However, if certain editors insist on this, too, I argue that we either include the editorial in the footnote (Pastordavid proposal), or include rebuttal POV in the article, too- NOT in the footnote. Ultimately, I think, if it stays, it belongs in the 2000 section.It reads out of place in the lead. Can we hear from the Con and Pro-AM sides? Reminder, this is NOT a forum to argue political opinions, but to agree on some kind of compromise. As a community. Thanks, everyone. Your thoughts are welcome. Telogen 07:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's necessary to include the Atlantic's name. The magazine is one of the most respected in America, which makes its Nader judgement worth putting in the article. I have put a "discount his role in 2000" into the opening paragraph. Nader's role in the 2000 presidential election is of course debatable. Probably the judgement on Nader will be different five or ten years from now when the Bush II presidency is over. But while Bush is president, many will continue to speculate on what might have been if Nader had not run and Gore had been elected. In the meantime, the judgement of Nader as put forth in the Atlantic Monthly is very much the thinking of many Americans. The historians that the Atlantic assembled I'm sure weighed their judgement on Nader carefully. MiFeinberg 15:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Reading much better, more balanced. Thanks MiFeinberg. Anyone else want to add anything? Please discuss here, sans reverts. Hopefully we can keep this aspect as-is and move onto other areas of the article. I'm really proud, the way we worked this out as a community, with democracy. Thanks everyone who participated! Telogen 21:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Presidential Candidacies

I'm noticing that this article is heavily weighted towards Ralph Nader's candidacy in the 2000 and 2004 U.S. presidential elections and debates surrounding, at times reading more like a political debate than an encyclopedic article. Request assistance from willing editors to supply more data, such as lecture content previously suggested and other pertient biographical information. Italic text

Frankly, I think there's a very good argument to be made here to have an entry on Nader's Candidacies, and a much briefer outline of them on this page. The page is heavily weighted towards a frequent but minor part of his 50 years of advocacy.Thespian 01:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I utterly agree! Thespian, would be great if you would assist on this. Thank you... Telogen 05:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Ralph Nader's presidential campaigns - Thespian 07:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking good Thespian! Very good. And we've got to work on the Ralph Nader article, making it less weighted towards election controversies and more biographical to include his advocacy, activism, and consumer and workers' rights' contributions. After seeing the "An Unreasonable Man", I'm very curious about the development of his "Raiders", his meetings with Carter and other govt administrations, events that led him to run for pres, etc. Excellent work! Telogen 21:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

multi-millionaire

if this man is such an advocate for the poor and is so anti corporate, then the fact that he is worth millions of dollars is relevant. Keltik31 15:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

And the article discusses it at length, in the appropriate place. Nader's net worth isn't note-worthy enough to be mentioned in the opening paragraph, no matter how many times you put it there. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 03:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion that Nader is hypocritical for not being poor, despite his advocacy for the poor, is irrelevant. I've put in a request for this User to be banned on the admin board for consistent disruptive editing. --DavidShankBone 04:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

banned for telling the truth? Keltik31 17:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Banned for disruptive edits. Telogen 19:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

i read the policy about opening paragraphs. now understood. Keltik31 15:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Source?

Quote from the 2008 election section:

However, when asked on "Hardball with Chris Mathews" if he was going to run for president, he stated:" I certainly will. And I am going to run as a Green candidate. I am going to spend, let's just say, a lot of money on this election because I want to get at least 7% of the popular vote". 

I saw this on here and it did not give a source. I looked online and could not find one confirming it. Is there anyone who has a source or can confirm that he did in fact say that on Hardball? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.165.77.200 (talk) 02:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

I deleted that part because it is too big a claim to make, without any proper citation. I searched pretty hard for any kind of source that backed the statement and couldn't find one.

The two claims bellow it, about his personal life, that have no source, are true. Although they are not paraphrased dead on, they are close and the facts are most likely true. They were stated in "An Unreasonable Man."

Added sources in lead

"Others, such as "Progressive Review" and An Unreasonable Man, refute spoiler claims pertaining to the 2000 presidential election. " 76.166.123.129 23:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe for a footnote, it's okay. But these don't rival the Altantic for objectivity. 71.139.18.27 19:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

"punk"

i know it's totally crass and relatively unimportant, but i think there should be some sorta mention of the support he has in the activist-punk community with artists like Jello Biafra, Patti Smith, Thought Riot, Partyline, Hungry March Band, and Propagandhi just to name a few. all those are sourced on their respective pages, w/ the possible exception of propagandhi, who actually include green party speeches as interstitial tracks on their records. just a thought, i know it's not important, but certainly no less so than including a reference to nofx... yeah i know bush's page doesn't include a ref to britney spears' support of him, but i think this is of particular note considering that most of these bands would ordinarily identify only w/ anarchism and didn't even participate in electoral politics until they found out about nader

Bill Clinton's book

I don't know what Clinton's "My Life" is doing in the notes section, so i boldly removed it. Llamabr 16:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

It would help if you'd said why you did that in your edit summary. I don't know why someone added it, either, but maybe because Nader is mentioned on pages 358, 636, 731, 928, and 929 (hardcover edition). If they want to put it back, I'd suggest they name the pages they think are important. Korky Day 05:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. However, we can hardly list every book that mentions Nader by name 5 times. Llamabr 15:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

1980 and Jimmy Carter

This section is totally irrelevant to Nader running for president or teasing or hinting at a run. I have no idea why this keeps getting edited back in, but it has nothing to do with a Nader candidacy. It has as much relevance to the section as Nader's 1984 backing of Mondale does: NONE. It's well-cited, so use it somewhere else in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikesmash (talk • contribs) 10:05, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

it's just another petty and pretty flimsy attempt to smear nader - these demoncrats are seriously deluded - maybe they should look up what carter did with a little place called East Timor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.67.207.15 (talk) 04:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Georgetown

I removed a reference to Georgetown, the D.C. neighborhood where Nader lives, being Washington's most expensive neighborhood. By median home price and tax assessments, that honor belongs to Massachusetts Avenue Heights.[[13]]Carlaclaws 00:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit Protected

{{editprotected}} Could an admin change the succession box on the bottom which currently reads:

To the following:

Since it is a locked template, I figured that I should just clean up the entire template so I don't have to request further changes later. Thank you!
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 19:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

ok -- Y not? 19:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} 'Atlantic Monthly' sentence should go. Might work in a criticism section, e.g., 2000 elections, but sticks out like a sore thumb in the bio and intro. It's also untrue. CGijits 07:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. It is an accurate quote and it is correctly quoted. To be more specific, of course, the people who voted for Ralph Nader made GW president, but that's being too picky. 199.125.109.107 15:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Wait for protection to expire. And then there should be consensus for this change. --MZMcBride 03:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I hope you meant, and then only if there is consensus for this change? 199.125.109.68 00:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

There's consensus to change the sentence and somebody changed it back, see discussions on topic above these. Also 199.125.109.107 comment violates no personal attacks rule and therefore shouldn't be counted. CGijits 09:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Once the protection is lifted, someone please add this category to the bottom of the page: Category:United States presidential candidates, 2000. Thanks. Allixpeeke (talk) 00:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Moved here from article

Pop culture appearances

• Nader is very popular with many in the punk rock community with artists such as Patti Smith, The Buzzcocks, Hungry March Band, NOFX, and Partyline, with particular support from anarcho-punk circles with artists like Propagandhi, Thought Riot, and Jello Biafra.
• Nader was one of the first people to be "roasted" on The Dean Martin Celebrity Roasts, a regular feature of 1973-74 season of The Dean Martin Show.
• The Greg Bear Science fiction novel Eon featured a large contingent of self-proclaimed "Naderites"--followers of Ralph Nader's environmental and humanitarian policy--centuries in the future.
• On one of the program's most memorable episodes of the early nineteen seventies, Nader appeared together on the panel of The Mike Douglas Show with African-American comedy pioneer Moms Mabley.
• Ralph Nader appeared in an episode of The Simpsons that aired after the 2000 presidential election in which he is portrayed as a clandestine member of the Springfield Republican Party and is thanked for all the fine work he has done for the Republicans. Nader appeared five times on the television show Saturday Night Live, hosting the show once, on January 15, 1977. He has also appeared on Da Ali G Show, where interviewer Ali G persuaded him to try out his rapping skills.
• He is portrayed in Tom Robbins' 1980 novel Still Life with Woodpecker as Princess Leigh-Cheri's love interest. Nader was also mentioned in the Greg Bear novel Eon as having a significant role in world politics (as a martyr).
• Ralph Nader also made a cameo appearance in the movie Fun with Dick and Jane (2005) opposite Jim Carrey and Téa Leoni. In the movie, Nader criticizes Carrey's character Dick Harper on a television show called "MoneyLife", about the financial and business dealings of Harper's company, Globodyne. Initially, Harper spills his drink on live television when the "Moneylife" host announces that Ralph Nader is on the air. Dick says, "Hey Ralph... Love your stuff" with Nader replying, "I wish I could say the same for you sir but I don't know how you sleep at night."
• Nader is the subject of the satirical song "Nader: A Nuclear Saga" by The Prince, featuring lyrics by Comrade Freedom, in which Ralph Nader builds nuclear bombs to use on big business in order to obtain the presidency.

Nader and the Bush presidency

I find it highly odd that no one is discussing this edit war. I'm a bit of an outsider here, so I thought I'd get the ball rolling. My two cents: User:CGijits's edit description is silly because there is obviously no consensus. That said, the footnote solution looks very attractive to me, and I support that version. It avoids undue weight in the article, it avoids cluttering up the lead, it retains the nice pithy quote, but it correctly shows that there are differing views. Cool Hand Luke 07:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You'll find in "The Atlantic Monthly Making Nader 96th Most Influential American" section on this page a consensus was reached there. There is no justification for the current version. CGijits 04:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the section, there was no such consensus. Besides which, consensus can change, and a supposed consensus in March is no reason not to be bold. Again, I think your preferred version is better, but you're flat wrong to say someone "can't" revert. See WP:BRD. That said, you're right that they should discuss the changes now. Cool Hand Luke 05:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

If you look at that section again, you'll find that the reversion I did is the consensus at that time. Check again, around June or so, there are several people. You read to the bottom of it, bingo. It's important to revert to that version because it's the latest agreed, not the current one. Reverting is a no-no, because further edits need to be discussed here on the talk page, not changed to something that isn't agreed on. That said, my vote is to take the quote out, and possibly with it the ranking altogether. It doesn't belong, it's an op-ed criticism, not biographical. Thanks for your input CHL. CGijits 09:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

"POV"?

The talk about "Republican support for Nader" and "Nader taking Republican money" is "POV" from the word go, and the entire supposed issue is artificial. Both in 2000 and in 2004, the Democratic support for Bush (and the Republican support for Gore and then Kerry), via both money and votes, was significantly greater than all the support for Nader from Democrats, Republicans or anyone else. People can continue to say, if they like, that labelling this particular charge as an attempt to discredit Nader is "POV", but as a matter of fact it IS an attempt to discredit Nader, and nothing but. The idea of protraying Nader's campaign as a creature of Republicans originated in Democrat focus groups, and is a plain and simple distortion. The proof is that every article I've read which maintains this position, including this Wikipedia article, fails to mention the interminable attempts by Democrats to prevent Nader from attaining ballot status by paying their workers to nitpick his ballot access petitions. I use the word nitpick advisedly, because the technique in question is to look for trivial errors such as signatories omitting or adding middle initials. Perhaps if Kerry in 2004, for example, had not taken over $11.5 million (about five times the total contributions received by Nader from all sources put together) from PACs that had already endorsed Bush, Democrats would have some business accusing Nader of being "Republican-supported", and Wikipedia would have some business repeating such disingenuous nonsense. Tom129.93.17.229 22:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this "Republicans support Nader" verbiage is misplaced POV. In an article about a man whose record of public service spans 40 plus years, what possible relevance could this have. Perhaps if this were are article about Republican donation habits in the 2000 election or the influence of campaign contributions on election outcomes or some other semi-related topic this information would be useful. The personal finances section is only slightly more relevant but its also an obvious attempt to paint Nader as a hypocrite. Lets at least not hide our bias and call the section "Critism of Naders Investments" or something along those lines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.24.202 (talk) 01:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Whether these arguments are attempts to discredit Nader or are biased are irrelevant considerations. They are notable statements that are made about Nader. Wikipedia should not adopt them as true but should report them. Undisputed facts should be stated; any opinion should be attributed to a prominent spokesperson, with citation. I personally think that the Naderites' response about Republican contributions to Kerry is garbage, but that is their response, so it should also be reported, on the same terms. The kind of judgments that are reflected in the two comments above are for the readers to make, not the Wikipedia editors. JamesMLane t c 16:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. You don't add every relevant fact about someone's life to an article just because you can source it. We need to think carefully about what details are important to a reader attempting to learn something about Ralph Nader and remove the details that are inserted into the article solely as comments on his character. Look at the structure of this article, we have 1) what schools he attended, 2) his entry into public life, 3) books he's written, 4) foundations he's started, 5) presidential campaigns he's run in, and 6) his personal finances? How does that last one even remotely fit in with the rest of that stuff? Its possible that consolidating that section and the Republican's for Nader text in a Criticism section might be more worth while but I doubt it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.29.43.1 (talk) 18:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You don't think we should add every relevant fact. Fine, neither do I, nor did I ever say any such thing. What I actually said was that we should include these points because they're notable. We're not talking about some lone anonymous blogger. The objective fact is that a significant number of people are angry at Nader and cite the Republican role in his campaign as a factor. We don't censor such facts just because some Wikipedia editors disagree with the criticism or question the motivation of the critics. On the other point, objective information about a bio subject's personal finances is certainly a legitimate subject for the article. It shouldn't be presented in a POV way that tries to paint Nader as a hypocrite. On the other hand, the information that Nader is a millionaire shouldn't be suppressed just because some readers will conclude that he's a hypocrite, or just because some of his detractors will use the information to disparage him. The current text is a simple recitation of salient facts, without any spin that jumps out at me. JamesMLane t c 21:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

"The objective fact is that a significant number of people are angry at Nader and cite the Republican role in his campaign as a factor." That sentence clears everything up. It tells you exactly why those sections are in the article. People are critical of Nader for the following reason... But the finance section doesn't say that. It just says that he is rich, which points the reader to the conclusion that he is a hypocrite. If the section said something like "some people accuse Nader of hypocrisy because of his vast personal wealth[cite]", it would be much better. It's obvious that the section is there as criticism of Nader but the article doesn't present it as such. This is the difference between POV ("look reader, he's a hypocrite") and your objective presentation of fact ("these people think he's a hypocrite because..."). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.24.202 (talk) 03:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

No, you're quoting me out of context. My reference to people being angry at Nader was with regard to the right-wing support for his campaign. The information about his personal finances is on a different footing. (Please note my transitional phrase: "On the other point...") It's objective information and I think it's a significant part of a person's bio. Any charge of hypocrisy, of the type you refer to, could be added if it were a significant criticism and were properly attributed to a prominent spokesperson. I'm dubious about whether a criticism would meet those criteria, but we can consider it if someone adds it. With or without such a criticism, though, I think the information is significant. That some people cite this objective fact in criticizing Nader is irrelevant. I'm sure some people have criticized him because of his Arab ancestry. That doesn't mean we should suppress the objective information that his parents were Lebanese, just because that fact is seized on by some critics, nor does it mean that we can't mention that fact unless we put it in the context of criticism of Nader. JamesMLane t c 06:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hitler's 2nd cousin?

I don't know what Idiot put it, all I know it I am getting rid of it. Is Ralph Nader not Jewish? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.195.17 (talk) 16:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Just some silliness, most likely from a friend of gays. Thanks for reverting, otherwise nothing to see here. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 16:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought he was Jewish too, but apparently he's a Maronite. IronCrow 05:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

2000 election

{{editprotected}} Change "his votes in the key state of [[Florida]], among others" to "his votes in [[New Hampshire]] and [[Florida]]", as there were no other states other than those two. Look at the cited reference.[14] Gore already won in Wisconsin so don't bring that one up. Ditto for all the "others". 199.125.109.68 04:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. 199.125.109.68 18:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Or at least it was done. Now it needs to be put back. The only two states that Nader had enough votes to swing the election were New Hampshire and Florida. Read the data if you don't believe it. 199.125.109.107 06:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The whole arguement is based on the false premise that without Nader each of the people who voted for him would have voted for Gore or would have even voted at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.255.227 (talk) 17:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a silly argument. The whole premice is based on the extremely high likelihood that all of the people who voted for Nader would have voted for Gore, or to be more precise, 7,112 of the 22,198 votes in NH or 538 of the 97,488 votes for Nader in FL. Another way of looking at it statistically is that half of Nader's votes went each way the election would still have swung to Gore because of both New Hampshire and Florida. 199.125.109.68 20:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not a question of what you, I, or any Wikipedian thinks; the more important question is what reliable sources say happened; if reliable sources do not establish a consensus, and the matter is still under debate, the article may as well reflect that. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

 Not done No consensus for a change. east.718 at 20:41, 11/4/2007

Read the reference. This is non-controversial. It says "Nader won about 3 percent of the vote in the 2000 election; Gore and Bush each won 48 percent. Nader's presence on the ballot proved crucial in at least two states. In Florida, Bush won by 537 votes even as Nader won 97,488. In New Hampshire, Bush won by 7,211 votes as Nader won 22,198." Anyone who thinks there are "other" states other than New Hampshire needs to read the references. Bush mathematically eliminated Gore in every other contest he won even if you add all the Nader votes. Read the references if you don't believe me. As to whether Nader had an effect, you can argue that until you are blue in your face. The references say that he did. Don't be silly by putting factually wrong information into the article. Florida and others means that there were at least three states. There were only two, and it is useful to name them. It is possible that the writer of the quote above didn't take the time to check all 50 states to see if there were any others, but you can if you wish, all the data is in the references. You won't find any. 199.125.109.32 05:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The passage in the article is referring to Democratic criticism of Nader. The criticism is partly that his votes in Florida and New Hampshire gave Bush his victories in those states. I agree with the anon commenter that "his votes in the key state of Florida, among others" is inaccurate. Another part of the Democratic criticism, however, is that his presence on the ballot in other states hurt Gore in other ways. For example, Gore might have campaigned less in some of his "sure" states that were made less than sure because Nader was on the ballot. Without Nader, Gore could've ignored those states and spent the time in swing states, possibly carrying one of them and becoming President. There are other ways that Nader hurt Gore. The Democratic criticism isn't limited to the issue of the vote totals in Florida and New Hampshire, although that's probably the single most important component. JamesMLane t c 06:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Right now the article makes the statement "his votes in the key state of Florida, among others, exceeded the difference in votes between Gore and Bush". That's the only sentence that I am asking be corrected. A minor additional correction should also be made - that there were "seven other candidates", not "seven candidates" in Florida. See [15] 199.125.109.107 00:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why the article about Nader should mention the candidates who finished fourth through whateverth in Florida. JamesMLane t c 05:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

•  Not done - please get a consensus for change before replacing the PER template. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No one has disagreed with the edit. 199.125.109.107 18:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Lawsuit by Nader

Nader has now brought a lawsuit against the DNC and some other organizations that "conspired" to reduce his vote total. (Some of us thought this was called "campaigning".) Whenever the protection is lifted, mention should be made of the suit. Reference: http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-7036571,00.html The suit is a reflection of Nader's views of the campaign. Furthermore, the discovery process has the potential to uncover extensive new information. For example, the defendants' attorneys will be entitled to examine Nader under oath, in a forum where he can't refuse to answer questions that he finds inconvenient or intrusive. JamesMLane t c 00:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It's called "illegal" too. Just ask Ken Starr. 76.87.47.110 10:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring

By the way, I find it frustrating that the page is protected yet there's nothing on this talk page focusing on whatever precipitated the protection. I urge those of you involved in the dispute to set out your positions here. JamesMLane t c 00:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree about the protection needing to be explained. Looking through the edit history it looks like there was a contentious passage about a magazine naming him the 96th most influential person in the world that a couple of anon's were edit warring over. Not sure what the arguments were one way or the other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.29.43.1 (talk) 18:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I would say it stems from a ridiculous denial that Nader is one of the 100 most influencial Americans in history. Let's see, there was Abraham Lincoln, and oh yes George Washington, and um am I up to a hundred yet? Nixon made the list but not Kennedy or either Bush, the second of course being America's worst ever president, according to another magazine, Rolling Stone. 199.125.109.68 20:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Gore won. The rest is history. The quote needs to go. 76.87.47.110 10:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain why you don't think the quote should be in the article? 199.125.109.68 23:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Non-POV - Anyone can edit

NOT! What bullshit shitipedia is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.238.215.190 (talk) 06:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

"Section titled "Consumer advocacy, public interest, and civic action

The section reads:

Because his early work stressed consumer (and worker) protection from unsafe products, Nader is often referred to as a "consumer advocate." This description should not be misinterpreted to suggest that Nader is an advocate of consumption. On the contrary, his message of civic engagement (citizen activism in the public interest), like his harsh critique of "rapacious" corporations, calls for resistance to excessive consumerism.

There is no evidence that anyone has construed "consumer advocate" to mean "advocate for consumerism." Nader's description as an advocate for protection from unsafe products is well in keeping with the accepted definition of "consumer advocate." This paragraph should be removed, or at least extensively rewritten. Graymornings 05:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Atlantic Monthly quote

From the article:

The Atlantic Monthly, in its list of the "100 most influential Americans", ranked Nader 96: "He made the cars we drive safer; thirty years later, he made George W. Bush the president";[1] others discount his role in the 2000 presidential election.[2]

Could someone delete everything after the semicolon and [1]? That fragment looks pretty ugly hanging off that sentence like that, and the controversy over his 2000 presidential campaign is addressed later in the article. It's the Atlantic Monthly, and not Wikipedia, asserting that he made George Bush the president; it doesn't need the "some argue"/"critics point out" treatment (not that anything does, but that's an argument for elsewhere).

70.138.15.110 01:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I notice nobody's replied to this - I'd just like to point out that I tried to carefully avoid the controversy mentioned above about the quote itself, and it's only the other clause I have a problem with. Whether the quote belongs there or not, it's ugly writing and really just looks like some editor inserted it by way of disagreeing with the quote. It's either an NPOV violation or a weasel words or another one of those silly terms we have around here.

75.12.151.59 04:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC) (same person as 70.138.15.110 above, not the same as any of the other IPs on this discussion page, esp. the one below)

I agree with you. Somebody should remove what's after the semi-colon, but I believe the tail end of this sentence is the result of a compromise of some kind between biographers and people who don't think Nader had anything to do with the 2000 election. 71.139.23.162 17:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Atlantic Monthly

Gore won. The rest is history. The quote needs to go. 76.87.47.110 01:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Please explain why you think the quote needs to go. The quote is a part of history, no? 199.125.109.107 18:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Atlantic Monthly

Gore won. The rest is history. The quote needs to go. 76.87.47.110 21:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You really need to explain your reason. 199.125.109.68 05:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Nader-Related Sites

Can we add some Nader-initiated sites:

• http://www.seventeentraditions.com/
• http://www.citizen.org/

I'm sure there are at least another 20 to be added here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.108.131.228 (talk) 18:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The Corvair -- worse than other cars or not?

There is an obvious possible reconciliation between the claim that a 1972 National Highway Transportation Safety Commission report exonerated the Corvair as no worse than other cars and the claims in John DeLorean's 1979 On a Clear Day you can see General Motors that the Corvair did have systemic design flaws that were fixed in the last year or years of Corvair production -- namely, that this NHTS study referred to late-model Corvairs where the design flaws had been corrected. 137.82.188.68 (talk) 06:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced or poorly sourced claims

"According to FEC records, the majority of donors who gave the maximum allowed donation to his campaign ($2,300)also gave the maximum to the Bush campaign." I removed this immediately, without prior discussion, according to wikipedia policy on unsourced or poorly sourced claims in living biographies. The FEC site is extremely difficult to use to verify this claim, since you can only look up contributers alphabetically, so a general reference to "FEC records" is a poor source to cite because it's all but useless for a reader who wants to see the supporting primary source. If someone raked through the FEC site to come up with this claim, it is original research and should be excluded for that reason. I went to OpenSecrets.org to do a sanity check before deleting the sentence - there you can sort donors by amount given. I went through the first 63, alphabetically, of Nader's 2004 $2,000 donors, and searched under Bush donors for each one by name and verified by city of residence. I found 9 of the 63. It's extremely unlikely that 110 or more of the remaining 180 or so $2,000 Nader donors were also $2,000 Bush donors. The fact that the sentence also incorrectly states that the maximum contribution in 2004 was $2,300 also indicates to me that the editor was not being careful about factual accuracy when adding the sentence. $2,300 is the maximum for the 2008 campaign - it was $2,000 in 2004. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.170.138 (talk) 07:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed from Clash With Auto Industry section: "In his 1975 book Hit and Run: The Rise, and Fall of Ralph Nader, journalist Ralph de Toledano suggested that Nader had falsified and distorted evidence of faults with the Corvair. Mr. Nader sued de Toledano and the protracted case eventually was settled out of court, causing de Toledano's financial ruin." Repeating allegations of potentially criminal conduct that prompted a libel suit, with no reference to evidence other than that book itself, is itself potentially libelous, especially when presented so as to echo the claims made in Salon.com and realchange.org articles referenced in the External Links section that impugn Nader's character in the same way as the sentences I have removed.

In External Links, I've removed:

• Nader's Glitter Opposing view by Thomas Sowell.

Reason: It's an opinion piece, not a biographical reference, and it makes no sense to have an "opposing view" to a bio page that is supposedly taking no point of view

• Skeletons in the Closet page on Ralph Nader 2000

Reason: This article is nothing but a laundry list of potentially libelous and uncorroborated claims, in fact the entire website is dedicated to that particular bold exercise of free speech in regard to all sorts of political figures. More power to them, but clearly this is not a source that Wikipedia or any encyclopedia wants to reference as a source of reliable objective facts for living bios.

• Salon - The Dark Side of Ralph Nader

Reason: This article contains at least these two potentially libelous claims: 1) "If he were a corporate CEO, subject to the laws governing publicly held and federally regulated firms, there can be little doubt he would have been removed long ago by his company's board of directors." This statement is only supported by allegations discussed in the article that the article itself states could not be corroborated.

2) "Every study after the election determined that almost all of Nader's votes would have gone to Gore if Nader hadn't run, but Nader continues to insist that he bore no responsibility." This statement is just false. In fact, exit polls in Florida actually asked the question "If these were the only two presidential candidates, who would you vote for? [Gore and Bush]", and the result was 49% Bush and 47% Gore. 1% of respondents said they would have switched their vote from Bush to Gore or vice versa. http://www.msnbc.com/m/d2k/g/polls.asp?office=P&state=FL People's electoral behavior and strategies are complex. Many voters strategize to try to get a party split between the presidency and Congress, for example. And here is a 2002 study that concluded just the opposite of what the article claims "Every study after the election determined": http://prorev.com/green2000.htm . The article was published two years after this study, so clearly Salon.com did not fact-check well at all. Of course, I'm not saying this particular study is a good study or an unbiased study, just that it existed when the article was written, and that the article tries to give the false impression there was no serious debate among political analysts about what would have happened if Nader hadn't run.

• Salon.com Citizen Nader

Reason: This bio sketch has nothing in it that is potentially libelous, in fact it's a bit syrupy and slanted toward "Saint Ralph" sentiments, but telling from the poor handling of facts in the other Salon.com article discussed above, it's clear that Salon.com is not a reliable source for objective or accurate information about Ralph Nader and the Wikipedia should avoid directing readers to Salon.com for further objective information on the subject, or giving the impression that it relies on Salon.com for its information on the subject. 71.236.170.138 (talk) 21:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed from "Activism" section: "In an article published in The New Republic in 2002, it was reported that Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch had received heavy financial support from South Carolina anti-union textile trade magnate, Roger Milliken. Miliken and his D.C. Republican aide, Josh Nash, later helped to raise funds for both Nader's 2000 and 2004 presidential campaigns." Reason: I tried to find the New Republic article. Turns out it was published on Jan 10, 2000, "Silent Partner" by Ryan Lizza, and is no longer available on-line except in this old discussion board posting: http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/1999/1999-December/023032.html. The person who cut and paste the article in entirety in posting there made the same mistake as the editor who inserted the sentences I removed in mis-reading to article to be saying that Roger Milliken gave money to Public Citizen. In fact the article says a rumor was going around to that effect and that Public Citizen would neither confirm nor deny it. Later Joan Claybrook, head of Public Citizen not only did deny it in print in the New York Times but quoted the author of the New Republic article also stating in the May 1 2000 issue of The New Republic that he never claimed in the article that Roger Milliken gave money to Public Citizen, just that there were left-right anti-globalization movement alliances involving Public Citizen and Milliken-supported groups, hardly a secret at the time:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C06E1D6173BF936A25754C0A9669C8B63&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/C/Claybrook,%20Joan

As for Milliken raising money for Nader presidential campaigns, I can find no source for such a claim. The FEC site, which is good for looking up a single individual's contributions, shows that Milliken never gave money to Nader's 2000 or 2004 presidential campaigns. 71.236.170.138 (talk) 07:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed in 1992 Presidential Campaign paragraph: "and received little more than 3000 votes. " and replaced with: and received 3,054 of the 170,333 Democrat votes and 3,258 of the 177,970 Republican votes cast. Reason: The sentence cites discredited Salon.com article as its source despite the fact that that article makes absolutely no reference to the 1992 campaign at all. But fortunately I found a NY Times article on-line from 1992 that covers the information well, and it also says Nader ran as both Dem and Repub, so I looked up, included and cited both the Dem and Repub New Hampshire Primary results posted by the New Hampshire Secretary of State's office. I also posted the votes received and total votes cast exactly as posted on the results tables on the NH SOS site, to avoid POV languge such as "little more than". Readers can judge the significance of his vote totals for themselves this way. I've left the final sentence untouched, because I can't find a source to support or refute it but it's too confusing and self-contradictory to be controversial - what does it mean to be a write-in candidate yet somehow manage to appear at the top of the ballot (are MA write-in candidates actually printed on the ballot? Confused...), and what on earth does that tell us about who Ralph Nader is (more confused...)?

Removed in 2000 election paragraph after "Many Democrats blame Nader for throwing the 2000 election to the Republicans and George Bush;": " Reason: The article cited at the end of the sentence supports both clauses of the sentence in a relatively NPOV way, so the mid-sentence citation is unnecessary and inferior as a supporting cite because it is just a heated example of anti-Nader sentiment whereas the article cited at end of sentence gives a much more detached summary of numerous "blame Nader" opinions. Since the article cited mid-sentence is unnecessary and an inferior source, its presence could be construed as an attempt to use a citation as a means of directing readers unwittingly to biased material while giving it the color of objectivity that an encyclopedia source entry carries. If other editors feel that the article cited at end of sentence does not give enough detail about "blame Nader" opinions, I would suggest this L.A. Times article reposted at the commondreams site as a replacement mid-sentence cite at semi-colon: . I don't think it's necessary, though. 71.236.170.138 (talk) 12:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit requested

{{editprotected}} In "Life and Early Career" please immediately remove the sentence, "He is currently married to Barbara Suarez, a prominent historian of the Boston intelligentsia." It cites no source and googling on the supposed spouse's name and his together and separately and with "spouse" or variants of "marriage" produces no reference to such a marriage nor any reference to a historian named Barbara Suarez. I think it is highly unlikely that Nader is married, and even if he is, there is no citation given and no source I can find supporting it. He is, after all, almost notoriously a commited bachelor and has stated on national television (Hardball with Chris Matthews during the 2004 campaign season) that he has chosen on principle to remain unmarried because the kind of non-stop public citizen life he leads would be unfair to any spouse or child he might have. That means if this sentence is true, Nader is a liar. Implying he is a liar, however indirectly, is something that ought to be very strongly sourced or removed immediately. The sentence is so obtuse, really, that it looks like outright vandalism. If there really is an historian named Barbara Suarez, leaving this in for another moment unsourced would be most unkind to her as well. Jautumn (talk) 08:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Yikes. I also couldn't find a source, and he's famously either single or very private about his marital status. It was a reckless claim, and I've removed it. Cool Hand Luke 08:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

In "Activism" the list of organizations Nader founded includes "Gay Rights Convention" and "1991: GLAAD Sponsorship Committee" but I can find no reference through Google (other than referring back to this bio page) or NY Times archives search relating the term "nader" to either one, in fact I get the same null result searching Google and NYTimes for either of these organization names by themselves. Nader's support for gay rights and gay marriage comes from his strict support for equal protection under the law and his strong support for individual privacy rights, and he's stated he doesn't partake in identity-based politics, so it's very unlikely he helped found any gay rights organizations. Please remove them as unverifiable claims. Looks like more vandalism to me. Jautumn (talk) 12:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Activism - Many Gaps To Fill

There are many areas of Nader's activism only touched on in the list of organizations which, as we are constantly reminded by the Wikipedia genie, needs to be cleaned up and replaced with real paragraphs. I've added a paragraph on his role in the anti-nuclear movement for starters. I'll tackle his anti-NAFTA coalitions and anti-globalization movement in the nineties next, since that leads up to the Battle in Seattle and forms the backdrop of his 2000 and 2004 presidential campaigns. Other issues that come to mind are his coalition with Phyllis Schlafly against curriculum geared towards standardized testing and the commercialization of public schools, and his right-left coalition efforts involving Grover Norquist to oppose corporate welfare and the Patriot Act. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.170.138 (talk) 13:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Atlantic Monthly warring

I move to strike the sentence entirely, or put it in a criticism or 2000 US presidential election section. It doesn't belong in the lead bio. It looks like someone pushing POV and glares at you in kind. It's also not even accurate. The Supreme Court ruled W pres, despite Al Gore winning the popular vote. All the anti-Nader stuff that he "made" Bush Jr. president is stupid and naive. SeeknDistroi (talk) 23:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

You just joined Wikipedia yesterday. This topic was debated and a consensus was reached. Please respect the editors who came before you. Astruc (talk) 03:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I've read this page about this issue with great care. You are reverting to use of the quote in the lead bio. That is not the consensus. Please respect other editors' views posted here. Thank you, SeeknDistroi (talk) 19:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

You arrive at Wiki, find this place first, read it "with great care," don't post anywhere but this article, and then leave. You're part of a mysterious trend around here. I expect you will not edit any Wiki articles except this one and never be heard from again. Am I right? Astruc (talk) 23:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. And you've lost the argument. SeeknDistroi (talk) 00:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

First, there are no "arguments" here. The question is whether a telling, descriptive quote from an excellent source belongs in this article. I don't think anyone can doubt that the source -- the Atlantic Monthly -- and the way in which that magazine obtained the quote -- from its polling of leading American academics. Some editors, however, want to turn this into a political debate. I will look to see whether you contribute to other articles at Wiki besides this one. I hope you do. It would give you a modicum of credibility. Astruc (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

There are arguments here. Please refer to the article talk page, above. The consensus is to remove the sentence. Your opinions, while relevant, are not in the majority. Furthermore, the POV of the Atlantic Monthly and its academics, however seemingly prestigious, is clearly false. The Supreme Court ruled GWB US president despite Al Gore winning the popular vote. Concurrent with this, such criticism is inappropriate in a lead bio. Finally, I will ask that you refrain from making uncivil remarks. A "modicum of credibility" is hardly WP:AGF or CIVIL and, quite frankly, coming from a user who preaches rules he doesn't himself follow, lacking in credibility or foundation for vicissitude. SeeknDistroi (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Foundation for vicissitude? Wha? Astruc's point is that this conensus you find doesn't exist. There are plenty of opinions on both sides, if you read carefully above. The compromise (not conensus) that was reached was to include the quote and then, after a semicolon "others discount his role in the 2000 election" with ample footnotes. Howaever, some editors here can't abide any criticism of Nader. I think most Americans at this point know Nader from his role as a presidential candidate, not his role as a consumer advocate. The Atlantic quote introduces readers to his consumery advocacy, which I thought was good, and also acknowledges his role in the 2000 election. It captures Nader well. Notice in the discussion above that some didn't think Nader was much of a consumer advocate. Please read the above carefully. Griot (talk) 05:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

actually there was a very clear consensus on this very talk page under heading 36 - i think you'll find peter huntington, pastor david, the nervous mermaid, telogen, and several anon users, agreed that the quote did not belong in the intro. that it provided no context, was very obviously pov (and a very demonstrably incorrect pov at that, considering the election fraud as well documented by Greg Palast, and the fact that gore actually won the election anyway), and should be moved to another section. the only user who participated in the debate who thought it belonged in the intro was griot. you can't just disregard the consensus because you lost the debate. (talk) 09:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

That is a very selective reading of the debate that took place here, as I will demonstrate shortly. Griot (talk) 15:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

i don't think you have any right to edit other people's signatures, griot. how is it "selective"? it's "selective" to state the laughably obvious, that no one except you was in favor of the quote being in the intro? no one seemed to have a problem with keeping the quote, but in the intro it shows clear pov bias and provides no context. you lost the debate - deal with it.90.240.172.139 (talk) 16:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to go to work. But tomorrow or this weekend I will lay out an exhaustive look at who said what and when, with reference to which contributors only edit at the Ralph Nader article and which ones do Wiki the favor of enlarging the entire encyclopedia. I am concerned about the number of anonymous and newbie contributors to this article, some of whom appear to be sockpuppets (Toes+umbrellas chacha, who started the edit war yesterday, has been indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia!). In my analysis I will note who signs their names to their ideas and who doesn't. I spent quite some time examining this page last night and I was suprised to find out that, absent anonymous contributors and two or three people who are now blocked from editing Wikipedia, the majority of editors favored including the Atlantic Monthly quote in this article in one way or another. To do justice to these editors, I will present a summary of everyone's views with links to their edits on this Discussion page as well as links to their Contributions pages so that objective third-parties can examine this matter in good faith. What you call the "laughably obvious" is not "laughable" or "obvious." Moreover, Wiki does not have "winners" or "losers" (as you and SeeknDistroi keep asserting) but only truthseekers. I hope you will sign your name next time. Griot (talk) 16:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

We're still waiting for your fascinating explanation as to why the above debate, wherein no one save you was in favor of the quote's inclusion in the introduction, doesn't constitute a perfectly tenable consensus on this issue. None of those users are sockpuppets as far as we can see, (I've reviewed Toes and Umbrellas' edits, and they seemed to be perfectly good faith attempts at removing a clear violation of NPOV policy, so I really don't understand what your point is about that user being blocked for a simple 3-revert of vandalism). Wikipedia is supposed to be a non-hierarchical democracy - and the votes were counted - it's just like a democrat though to not understand who actually won and bear a grudge against the people who try to show them the actual results. Not to mention the fact that the comments you left on Astruc's talk page shows a very clear bias on your part, that you simply dislike Nader, and confirms everyone's suspicions that this is not simply an issue of you wanting a highly POV quote, despite the consensus in favor of its being placed in a different section, but that you're just using wikipedia as your own personal coloring book to slander. 84.67.30.51 19:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey 84.67.30.51 (Contributions): Don't worry, I'm working on it. I'm still fascinated why so many people who claim to know all about this debate -- which stretches back many months and has many twists and turns -- can't sign their names to their opinions and only joined Wikipedia on the day they wrote their opinion. Toes+umbrellas chacha (Contributions), who did sign her name and whom you mention, has been banned from Wikipedia. I smell a rat. We're talking here about an objective, consensus quote from the Altantic Monthly. Wikipedia isn't a place to defend or promote politicians like Nader. It's a place to describe what is known about them. REmember that. Griot 18:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Umm - I'm not exactly "promoting" him. I'm a Democrat, and I voted for Gore. But the consensus of several users - in fact, EVERY user except you - was very clearly in favor of the quote being removed from the introduction. The quote provides no context, is blatantly POV, not to mention terribly inaccurate and silly, considering what actually happened with the election fraud (see http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1104-36.htm) and the fact that Gore actually won anyway. So how did he make Dubyah the president? . This, like the quote, is not true at all, but merely an ill-researched fallacy. Does this mean we should write in Cass' introduction that she is best known for having choked on a ham sandwich? No, because it simply isn't factually based or accurate at all. Even if it was accurate, it still wouldn't be appropriate for the introduction as it provides no context. Pretend you are someone who didn't know anything about him, and you saw this quote that he "made George W. Bush the president"-what would that mean? Is he the magical fairy who goes around granting wishes and making people president with his magical fairy wand from Lollypopland? You need to provide context and a detailed account of what actually happened before you provide such a glib, not to mention factually inaccurate, summary. As I said before, I've reviewed Toes+umbrellas chacha's edits, and none of them appear to be vandalism, but a pretty good faith attempt at removing something which not only constitutes a huge violation of NPOV policy, but also violates the consensus as reached on this talk page months ago. So again, I don't know what your point is about that user being banned, when the offense seems to be only the fact that they removed vandalism well over 3 times. To me, your offenses of violation of NPOV, violating consensus when no one agrees with you, and editing other user's sigs seem a twinkle more extreme than theirs. I invite everyone to look at the comments that Griot left on Astruc's talk page wherein he revealed his very clear bias on this issue-he accused Nader of being a "Maoist"-and he is clearly just using Wikipedia as his own personal coloring book to slander him in violation of NPOV policy, and in violation of an irrefutable consensus on this issue. 84.67.30.51 10:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Your saying "the consensus of several users - in fact, EVERY user except you - was very clearly in favor of the quote being removed" clearly shows that you haven't read through the arguments on this Disucsson page. Your comparing Nader's role in the 2000 election to Mama Cass's death by choking is crass. You write, "I've reviewed Toes+umbrellas chacha's (Contributions) edits," but this person -- who is now banned from Wikipedia for vandalism -- did not even venture a comment on this Discussion page; she merely reverted edits time and time again on the Article page in what amounted to a temper tantrum. My reference on Astruc's page refers to the Red Guards's action of white-washing history and expunging portions of history books, something you are trying to do by expunging the Atlantic quote; I do not believe Nader is a Maoist or even a socialist.

Nobody objects to the first part of the Atlantic quote ("He made the cars we drive safer"); the objection comes to the second half: "thirty years later, he made George W. Bush the president." You and many others believe Nader's role in the 2000 election was negligible to the outcome, but many, many others, including some of Nader's former backers in 2000, disagree, and the Atlantic quote appeared in this article because it represented this idea better than any other quote. Nader in the popular consciousness of most Americans represents two things -- a consumer advocate and the candidate who swayed the 2000 election in Bush's favor in Florida. I believe that should be covered in the article, not expunged from it.

It's pretty hard to read or hear anything about Nader anymore without a reference his actions in the 2000 election. As an experiment to find out what the popular idea of Nader is, I Googled "Nader's legacy." Here are the top-ten articles the search found:

1. "Three things have soured Nader's legacy even more: his 2004 attempt at a repeat of the 2000 ego-driven disaster (this time without help from the Green Party, to credit them with learning a valuable lesson); the full scale of disaster that the Nader-enabled Bush administration has proven to be, fully in line with my warnings in 2000 and contrary to the Nader claim that Bush and Gore were equivalent; and finally, the decline of the PIRG movement into an anti-labor, union-busting political machine that seems to be betraying its roots." Nader's Legacy: First George Bush's Presidency, Now Union Busting (newspaper article)
2. "Has his runs for President ruined it as a consumer advocate? I say yes, my only memory of him is this year and 2000 as a raving maniac." Commonground (a forum)
3. "The name that comes to mind for me when I think about consumer advocacy or consumer mentality is Ralph Nader." A Consumer Mentality" or "Nader's Legacy" (a sermon)
4. "In the documentary "An Unreasonable Man," Nader often appears to be a man who can't help himself, a tilter at windmills whose campaigns have led to safer cars, cleaner drinking water and, to hear his aggrieved critics in the Democratic Party tell it, the election of George W. Bush." Consumer crusader or political spoiler? (newspaper movie review)
5. "When Ralph Nader announced his 2004 run for president on February 22, most political commentators were predictably outraged. So was a good portion of the voting public. After all, wasn't Nader responsible for Bush's razor-thin 'victory' in the 2000 election?" Ralph Runs Again: What Does Nader Really Want?
6. "But Ralph Nader's legacy will be far worse. As the ultimate enabler, Ralph Nader's legacy will be that he was the person who visited this nightmare on us. Ralph Nader gave us George W. Bush." Progressive Ideas in Action: Nader the Enabler (blog entry)
7. Same as number 1; different source
8. Same as number 4; different source
9. "Both parties expect a close race in November, as in 2000, when Nader is believed to have pulled votes from Democratic nominee Al Gore. Nader, who ran on the Green Party ticket, received nearly 100,000 votes in Florida, which Bush carried by a mere 537 votes. In New Hampshire, Bush beat Gore by 7,000 votes; Nader captured 22,000 votes there." Democratic's Nervously Await Nader's Decision
10. "In any case, Nader's legacy, which might have been so much good he's done in the areas of consumer product safety and related things, will forever be the Bush presidency." How Did Leiberman Lie? (forum)
11. Nader admirer and former talk show host Phil Donahue adds, with deep regret, that Nader's role in the 2000 election 'is going to be the first line of his obituary.' But the makers of this superb movie, while giving plenty of air-time to Nader's many critics, set out to make sure that doesn't happen. # Nader Reconsidered: Without whitewashing the 2000 election, a terrific new documentary helps to rehabilitate much of Ralph Nader's legacy (movie review)
12. "Could it be that his recent controversial strategies will preclude his earlier activism? For now, at least, the collective progressive memory of Nader seems to have been erased, and nobody can remember quite why they actually liked the guy in the first place.""An Unreasonable Man" (movie review)

As you can see, 8 or the 10 entries go into Nader's role in the 2000 presidential election. If this is how Nader is popularly viewed, should the Wikipedia article ignore this? Should it white-wash his role in the 2000 election because some editors are uncomfortable with criticism of Nader? Griot 19:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

So what are you saying? You know Gore won anyway, you know about the election fraud, but it's all Nader's fault? What's your point? If the Greens had voted for Gore, Gore would've won by even more than he already had- is that your point? He already won! It was the Supreme Court's decision, including many democrats, Ted Kennedy, Paul Wellstone, and even Gore himself who let Dubyah steal it. Gore is so wonderful anyway right? Maybe you should look into a little thing called Operation Desert Fox, in which the Clinton-Gore whitehouse bombed Iraq and killed many, many innocent civilians. Or maybe you should read into the economic sanctions that they placed on the country, which nearly stopped all food and medical supplies - Unicef estimates that over half a million children below the age of 5 were killed because of them- OVER HALF A MILLION CHILDREN BELOW THE AGE OF 5. Not to mention the fact that he supports the current war and has spoken out against a diplomatic resolution with Iran. Or maybe you should look into the fact that he own stock at Occidental Petroleum, which drills for oil in environmentally sensitive areas, and destroys the lands of the indigenous people in South America. And his family owns a tobacco farm which profiteers off the deaths of thousands. And his electric bill is the highest in his state. And his documentary contains 20 factual errors which they acknowledge but refuse to correct in a revised edition. And he neglects to mention that if everyone did everything he said to do in that movie, that it would only reduce carbon emissions by about 20%, and the consensus these days among climatologists is that to avert further disaster, especially for the most vulnerable people (like the poor, ie New Orleans), emissions need to be reduced by at least 75%. And he doesn't mention the fact that 50% of the oil used in the US is used by the military. And he insists that it's all about what individual poor people can do, and it has nothing to do with corporate control or the fact that Exxonmobil all by itself accounts for 5% of all carbon emissions in the world. And he tours the world in a private jet that could hold about 50 people but only carries him and his wife Tipper, the queen of music censorship (you know what they call those parental advisory labels on records? TIPPER STICKERS) - She wrote a book endorsing this guy who insists that the star of David is a symbol of satan, and that your kids wearing hightop sneakers is a sign that they are listening to heavy metal or part of a gang and should therefore be deprogrammed at one of their christian rehabilitation camps. Not to mention, you know this "rendition" thing that's been all over the news with the bush administration saying it's okay to torture people, no matter how flimsy the "evidence"? Well, that policy was inducted by the Clinton-gore whitehouse. But that isn't even the issue up for debate here. Remember, I myself voted for Gore and this isn't about me "promoting" Nader but simply restoring neutrality to his page, as per not only wikipedia policy, but the consensus reached months ago. I stand by Gore and the democratic party, but anyone who blames Nader for what happened, in spite of the well-documented election fraud, in spite of the Supreme Court, and in spite of the fact that Gore actually won anyway, anyone who continues to blame Nader in spite of all these indisputable facts is not only a massive crybaby, but clinically insane. Being that the quote's allegation isn't at all factually sound, given the plethora of evidence, and given that your only reasoning for wanting it included rests on the fact that it's what most people think of when they see him, despite its being demonstrably untrue, I think you should ask yourself who you think you're kidding. A widely believed fallacy is still a fallacy. Just because a lot of people think something is true, that doesn't make it true. I hear the earth is round now. Wikipedia is the place for facts, not flimsy and easily disproved beliefs based on pouty sour grapes. There was a debate on this issue and the only user who agreed with you was Astruc, and there is some suspicion as to whether that's a sockpuppet of yours. So far, I've counted a total of 15 users who were in favor of the quote being moved to another section. Pastor David, Peter Huntington, Telogen, the Nervous mermaid, Toes + umbrellas chacha (yes, I know you're quite a fan of pointing out the fact that this user is banned, as if that goes somehow to furthering your point, but I will point out to you again that their only offense was reverting vandalism over three times), SeeknDistroi, Septentrionalis PMAnderson, CGijits, Luna Santin, CoolHandLuke, myko2, and several anon users. None of those users appear to be sock puppets as far as we can see, but I really don't know how to confirm that either way(there may be one, I really don't know), just as I can't confirm whether or not you and Astruc are sockpuppets. Did I miss some secret meeting where everybody just decided that 11 was a smaller number than 2? You've been out-voted - everyone is in favor of the quote being removed from the introduction - the only thing left for us to decide now is where to put it, or to keep it in the article at all. Personally, I quite fancied the idea of putting it in a footnote, but this is indeed a democracy, non-hierarchical and open to anyone. 84.67.30.51 20:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Let's stick to the topic at hand, anonymous user number 84.67.30.51 (Contributions) First you write a 1500-word diatribe against Clinton and Gore followed by "but that isn't even the issue up for debate here." (Very true.) Then you write, "I myself voted for Gore and this isn't about me 'promoting' Nader but simply restoring neutrality to his page." (Doubtful, given the diatribe.) Then you allege some sockpuppet stuff and mention names, several of whom I cannot find on this page. I am not concerned with people who reverted on the Article page, but with people who wrote their opinions on this Discussion page and, preferably, signed real names, not IP numbers, to their opinions. For example, try searching the Discussion page for that Toes person. He/she never wrote anything here. I find many people besides me on the Discussion page who voiced the same or nearly the same position as me -- that the quote should remain.

I really wish you would address my last post here. My Google experiment made it very clear that Nader is associated in most people's minds with the 2000 presidential election. You haven't explained why we should ignore this. If not the Atlantic quote, how do we convey the fact that Nader had a great deal to do with the outcome of that election. I don't believe in white-washing facts like that, and if you can come up with a way to present this fact, I would like to know about it. Griot 22:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

First, believe it or not, I am indeed a registered Democrat. I support Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel, and I like a good deal of what Bill Richardson says. I've never once voted Green. Not once. Never voted for Nader - not once. What I mean by standing by Gore is that, living in a swing state, I held my nose and submitted to the lesser of 2 evils cabbage, and I stand by that decision. I still have faith in what the Democratic party can still be, but I recognize its definite flaws, and I support anyone who offers an alternative when the choice is between a mass murderer and a mass murderer.

Second, I would very much like to know which users you're talking about when you say they agreed with you, besides Astruc. Sorry, some of the users I mentioned did not express their opinions on this page but on user talk pages - including yours. Even if you only counted the ones found on this page, however, they would still well outnumber you and Astruc. One of them is even an admin. Sorry.

Third, why do you want to know my name so badly? Are you flirting with me you saucy devil?

Fourth, no I'm not in favor of "whitewashing" - but as I continually show you, the quote's allegation is simply not based at all on what actually happened when you consider those pesky little things like facts and see the well-documented election fraud, the Supreme Court, and the fact that Gore actually won. And as I said before, even if it were true, it still wouldn't exactly be appropriate for the intro because it provides no context. To a reader who comes to this article knowing nothing about him, it simply wouldn't make sense. How did he "make" Dubyah president? With superpowers? With his well-connected family? Is he the CEO of Diebold? You need to provide a detailed account of the facts to provide context before you include such a weird little soundbyte. I thought I told you that it doesn't matter if the election is what people think of when they see him if it isn't at all based in fact, but simply childish crybaby denialism disseminated by corporate media- I thought the Mama Cass analogy was quite apt in that just because it's what they're most famous for, it doesn't mean it's true, and it doesn't mean it belongs in the intro. The consensus is very clear on this issue. 15 to 3, if you count anon users. 11 to 2 if you only count registered ones. Why do you persist with this issue? 84.67.30.51 23:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, good to know we have something in common. I also like Bill Richardson very much and may vote for him in the primary.

In my reading of who supports what, I stick to this Discussion page only. Obviously, I can't go running around to others' Talk pages to find out what they think. If they care enough to have an opinion on this matter, they will write it here on this Discussion page, where it belongs, and sign a name to it. Here's my count:

Keep quote - 6. These editors wanted to keep the quote: Griot (Contributions), David Shankbone (Contributions), Astruc (Contributions), Michael Feinberg (Contributions), Malik Shabazz (Contributions), and Hashaw (Contributions).

Keep but in modified form - 4. These editors favored some form of compromise in which the quote remains but is not put in the intro or is put in the intro with a disclaimer (such as "others discount his role in the 2000 election"): PastorDavid (Contributions), TedFrank (Contributions), Pmanderson (Contributions), Peter Huntington (Contributions) (Huntington wanted to devote most of the article to the 2000 election: "Griot is largely on the right track, I think, but he overplays his hand...the Atlantic's reasons simply acknowlege the widely-held (but omnidirectionally disputed) view that one can draw a clear line from Nader to the Patriot Act and Guantanamo. I think the entire controversy should be laid-out in the Nader article.")

Remove altogether -3. These editors thought the quote didn't belong in any way, shape, or form: CGijits {Contributions), Nervous Mermaid {Contributions), Telogen (Contributions)

You may note that editors in the third category, "Remove altogether," didn't contibute to many articles besides "Ralph Nader"; their tenures on Wikipedia were very short; and they were very contentious. I don't think they understood very well what Wikipedia is about or what being an editor means (just my judgement).

You asked why I would like you to sign a name. Because it indicates to me that you take your opinions seriously and you want to develop a history here as an editor. It indicates whether you are a good member of this community. Why don't you want to sign a name to your opinions?

We can't argue about whether G.W. Bush won the presidency. He was the certified winner. A number of factors came together to make him president -- butterfly ballots, the Supreme Court's decision, the fact that Kathleen Harris, his campaign manager in FLA, certified the votes in that state, Gore's inability to win in Tennessee -- the list goes on and on. And Nader played a role too. I don't think there can be any question of that. He campaigned in Florida and other close states when his own former Nader's raiders asked him not to. He was much more critical of Gore than Bush. How big a role he played is, of course, a matter of opinion, but that he played a role can't be argued about. As my Google experiment showed, the majority of people now remember Nader chiefly for the 2000 election, not his consumer advocacy. Again I ask you: How do you want to cover this in this article if not with the even-handed Atlantic Monthly quote? Griot 01:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, I want to provide a detailed and objective account of what actually happened to provide context before we include such an overly simplistic and well disputed summary like that. What do you think I wanted to do, just remove all the controversy about the election altogether? I have no problem with the quote being in the article, but in the introduction, it shows clear favor for a certain POV. Can you tell me where these users voted, I don't see the debate on this page - I'm not arguing, mind you, just asking. I see Malik Shabazz, but he never said he wanted the quote, in fact he called it a gross oversimplification. I understand why many users don't use this talk page to vote or voice their opinion - it's very cluttered and in need of archiving, there's a good 4 sections or so about this quote controversy alone, so it's very confusing, plus many people may not see the point - after all, their objections have already been so well articulated by many other users already - what else can they say but "YEAH"? I don't like signing my edits, sorry. I don't really like how some users treat wikipedia as a social thing. I didn't start editing to make friends. And my previous edits have no bearing whatsoever on whether I'm right on this issue or not. I can tell you I've never once vandalized a page though, so I'm quite a trustworthy user if that's the issue. I understand your suspicion of sockpuppets, but the fact that some editors have user names doesn't make their opinions any more valid or merited than those who choose to work anonymously. Open to anyone, remember? Btw, your judgment seems pretty selective - you mention that some users mostly only worked on this page, but I've reviewed their edits and Astruc has done this too - Telogen seems to have contributed to just as many as Astruc - if he doesn't edit this page, he edits election or green party pages. Plus you forgot Toes - I reviewed their contributions, they don't have a history of vandalism, and their edits don't appear to be Nader-centric at all. You also forgot cool hand luke, who happens to be an admin, who voiced their support for the footnote version under heading 48 on this page. Plus me, don't forget me, ha. But I guess anons don't count. Even so, the vote's in our favor. 84.67.30.51 04:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

So User number 84.67.30.51, it looks like we've come to an impasse here. I don't know what else to do. You write, "I have no problem with the quote being in the article, but in the introduction, it shows clear favor for a certain POV." Where do you propose to fit it in the article? And what can we do about editors who don't want it in the article at all -- people like Toes who just revert the article any time the quote gets put in it without ever discussing it on this page? I'd appreciate it if you or someone else would come up with a solution for this. The article as it stands goes into great depth about Nader's consumer advocacy, but it says not a single word about the 2000 election, the event for which he is also mostly known. In other words, the article is incomplete. Suppose you come up with some kind of compromise so that this article doesn't continusouly get reverted? Griot 10:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, this is me, my IP address just changes occasionally, usually to something beginning with an 8. I very much agree that the election controversy should definitely be covered - in an evenhanded manner, with all points of view given equal consideration and time. That's what the quote doesn't do, at least in the introduction - it tips the scale undeniably in the favor of a certain POV. I really don't care where the quote goes. Perhaps in a subheading entitled "Recognition" along with his other notable criticisms and notable accolades, perhaps in a section about the criticism of his campaign, perhaps in a footnote. But you can't deny the quote shows a very pronounced bias in the intro like that, without even considering other equally reputable points of view. 84.64.208.188 14:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you work up an outline of the article -- a version that introduces Nader’s role in the 2000 election in a just way? We could take it from there, fill in the details, and in so doing maybe create an article that makes everyone happy.

I can see your point about how placing the Atlantic quote early in the article sends the article in the wrong direction. Keep in mind about the quote, however, that the quote is actually very flattering of Nader. It states that Nader is the 96th most influential American who ever lived. This is really something. And the explanation as to why he is ranked 96th states foremost that “he made the cars we drive safer.” The Bush statement comes second. Putting the Atlantic scholars ranking of Nader in the article gives readers a sense of what an important figure they were reading about. I felt the quote was good for that reason alone.

BTW, I wrote a personal message to you on your Talk page. If you change IP addresses again, you may not notice it, but you can read it here. Peace. Griot 18:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to weigh in here, even though (or because) I am ambivalent about the Atlantic Monthly quote precisely because, as Griot points out, whatever its problems are it does reflect the judgment of ten eminent historians that Nader is a major figure in American history. First, sorry for the length of this post. I did a lot of research and thinking and I have edited and re-edited this posting very carefully for over a week, so though it's long, I hope you'll find it's packed with useful observations, references, reasoning and suggestions. I composed most of it before Griot and various-IP (not meant as a jibe, BTW) came to an understanding. So I'm glad to see there is headway in resolving the dispute. I have to vote against the complete re-write that Griot suggests, though. I think it's much better to evolve the article incrementally than to toss it out and start over. I certainly don't want to see all the work I've just put in to clean up the article's many poorly sourced statements tossed out.

As for the 2000 election, I thought details about it had already been forked to the Nader Presidential Campaigns article. I think the jury is still out whether the 2000 election is really a more important chapter in Nader's long career as a self-styled "public citizen" than the dozens of other controversial melees he's involved himself in. Most libertarian-minded conservatives, for example, would probably want to focus almost entirely on his role in creating EPA, OSHA and strengthening the domestic regulatory powers of the federal government in general, because libertarian-conservatives tend to believe government regulation is very significant because it is, in their view, so very very dangerous to civil liberties, property rights and democracy. In the end, it probably isn't true that most people consider the 2000 election as important a part of Nader's legacy as other things he's done. Most Americans are not Democrats, after all, and most people who might read the Wikipedia are not Americans. I think we should focus on completeness of coverage of the verifiable tangible impact Nader has had on society, not on what some people think other people think about him, because that's pretty much the definition of innuendo, isn't it? And innuendo is precisely what an encyclopedia entry is diamaetrically opposed to being. In any case, I think only a certain percentage of Democrats and some others care that much about Nader's role in the 2000 election anymore - even Gore himself doesn't seem to care: http://www.politicalcortex.com/story/2006/6/21/155528/265 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ8xOOm7aRg

I have to respond to threats on this talk page to "discredit" editors by proving we only edit the nader bio, or that we are new to wikipedia editing. Being new to wikipedia editing does not mean being new to the difference between good reference material and bad, or to civil and productive collaboration. I have to imagine, also, that most people who edit Wikipedia don't edit a bunch of articles, and shouldn't. I'd frankly be more suspicious of the motives of people who edit tons of articles - who has so much knowledge about so many subjects? In any case, I don't want to traffic in broad-brush suspicions at all. NPOV, V and NOR are excellent principles to guide us here and anyone who adheres to them faithfully, along with all other wikipedia policies and guidelines, is obviously beyond reproach on these pages whatever their motivations may be.

So I want to disclose three facts about myself. First, I am the IP-signed editor who started the "Unsourced Claims" and "Activism - ..." sections of this talk page. Second, I was a local volunteer for Nader's presidential campaigns in both 2000 and 2004. Third, I care about the wikipedia as a frequent user of it, despite the fact that I may never contribute to any article that does not involve Ralph Nader, because I think it's how I can best contribute to the Wikipedia with the scarce free time that I have. That may change, largely depending on how productive and positive my experience editing this page is. But I do know a lot about Nader, though not an expert per se, so here I am to share.

I want to re-emphasize that I am strongly against re-writing the article from the ground up. That's a massive revert, really, and I think the worst way to approach collaboratively improving the quality of the article. The article really needs a lot of basic fact-checking and gap-filling and a re-write would just open up more potential holes and gaps, and bones of possible contention that could end up repeatedly winding us up in edit protection, which really puts a hamper on constructive efforts to improve the article. I think most disputes can be handled with acknowledgment of opposing sides' legitimate underlying concerns, and a common effort to do enough research to find common ground in new quality content for the article. Rewriting with no better sources and no better coverage ultimately adds nothing to the article, just re-shuffles the same deck that's missing half its cards.

So I have done quite a bit of research to come up with a proposal to resolve this Atlantic quote dispute while addressing the concerns of each side of the argument. Here we go:

I think there are several key issues to this dispute, and teasing out their nuances may help us avoid harming Nader with our handling of the Atlantic quote or POV-ing the lead section, while at the same time not throwing the baby out with the bathwater:

1) What exactly does the Atlantic Monthly mean by stating that Nader "made George W. Bush president"? Is it just plain false? Is it hyperbole?

Well, what does it mean to make someone president? Legally, the electoral college has sole authority to make someone U.S. President, and voters elect state reps to the electoral college. So even the statement that one editor made on this page that the voters made GWB prez is not really true - any more than the voters made the Patriot Act the law of the land. Normally it would be acceptable to assume that electoral college reps vote to express the will of their constituents, but we already know that in the case of the 2000 election this assumption proved unwarranted. Bush's Florida electors did not do the right thing and vote Gore in to express the will of the Florida electorate that includes those denied the right to vote because they had the same names as felons. Clearly the Atlantic editors know all this so they don't mean Nader made GWB president in the Constitutional powers sense.

So it's not strictly literal, but is it hyperbole? Reading the Atlantic article carefully, nothing in context or rhetorical device would indicate that it is meant as hyperbole. The Atlantic appears to be genuinely asserting that Nader made GWB president, or at least asserting that many of its ten invited historians believe so.

All this begs the question of just exactly what the Atlantic or the ten historians believe Nader's exact role was in making GWB president, and why that role is of such grand historical significance that it is one of only two reasons given to justify the ranking. Unfortunately, the entire Atlantic article says absolutely nothing to shed light on this question.

First, note that the Atlantic is saying more than just, "If Nader hadn't run, GWB would not be president." It's a logical fallacy to conclude from this last assertion that Nader made GWB president, just as one cannot conclude from "If GWB hadn't run, GWB wouldn't be president" that "GWB made GWB president". It just doesn't follow. There has to be a material causal connection linking Nader's action and GWB becoming president, not just a "but for". And Nader's actions have to be more decisive than Gore's actions or GWB's own actions; otherwise the statement is still no more true than "GWB made GWB president" or "Gore made GWB president". Furthermore, Nader's role in causing GWB to be prez has to be so much stronger than Bush's or Gore's that it constitutes half the reason for choosing Nader as the 96th most influential American in history, over the likes of Ruth Bader Ginsburg who was the architect of women's equality under the law (comparable to Thurgood Marshall who played a similar role for racial equality and came in at number 84).

But since GWB himself does not make the top 100, nor even the top 33 list of "Living Influentials" (thus ranking below Martha Stewart, Stan Lee and Hugh Hefner)Top Living Influentials, even if Nader had rigged the electoral college and actually made GWB president, would it make sense that making such an apparently unimportant president the president is half the reason he is the 96th most influential American in history? Alfred Kinsey, which the Wikipedia states was the inspiration for Hugh Hefner's entry into the field of sexuality, would have to get more influence points just for inspiring Hef than Nader for making GWB prez. And Kinsey doesn't make the top 100.

It's very unlike historians to reduce a public figure's significance to one aspect of it. Wouldn't one expect something more akin to: "Ralph Nader is American's most renowned and effective crusader for the rights of consumers and the general public, a role that has repeatedly brought him into conflict with both business and government."Ralph Nader Biography: Making Government and Business Accountable

or something like "He founded the consumer rights movement, symbolized the common person's struggle against big business and big government, and made George W. Bush president."

There is one other plausible explanation, however, for why many of the ten historians might consider Nader to have "made GWB president", and why they might consider that to have been of great historical significance. It's plausible if they believe Nader's influence on the election outcome as a third-party candidate was unprecedented and historic in some sense other than who it purportedly made president. So when I did a search for political science research on Nader's impact on the 2000 election to see what hard evidence there was that Nader "made GWB prez", I also kept an eye out for something more significant about his run than the "spoiler" effect, since that effect is not unique to Nader's run - Perot is widely credited with making Bill Clinton president. I did run across a possible reason why Nader's 2000 run is of historic significance other than for who it may have made president - see my answer to question 7) below for details.

2) It really does appear that the Atlantic is dead serious in making this statement. But suppose it isn't. If the Atlantic means it as hyperbole, or anything other than as a literal and sincere statement of opinion about what Nader really did and its real consequences in 2000, then does quoting it in an encyclopedic context, without clarifying that it is not meant literally, portray the Atlantic's act of publishing it in a false light?

I think it does, without clarifying that the Atlantic wasn't saying this seriously. In any case, if it's hyperbole, it probably doesn't belong in the article, definitely not in the lead portion. If it's hyperbole, I vote for complete removal because Wikipedia policy is to maintain a serious, encyclopedic tone. We should use nothing sardonic or hyperbolic or satirical or otherwise rhetorical that relies on some unspoken background knowledge on the part of the reader - an encyclopedia entry should be accessible to those with no relevant background knowledge to the topic at all.

3) Does attributing a statement of opinion to a reliable news source create a false impression that the wikipedia is presenting the opinion as verifiable fact? (e.g. "The New York Times reported that ... " and then quoting something from a NT TImes editorial or an editorial comment within a feature article).

Yes, I think it does, unless strongly qualified and placed in a context in which the publication's editorial opinion is related directly and explicitly in the article to the bio subject's historical signficance and significant influence on society. The Atlantic quote has never been framed properly in this sense by the editors who have put it in.

4) Does deciding whether a statement is "reporting" or "editorial" in a feature article published by a reliable news source, and excluding the quoted statement from a living bio, constitute the insertion of original research on the part of a wikipedia editor?

No, I don't think so, because I think it would be absurd to read the NOR policy to mean that we have to trust everything a source deemed "reliable" says wholesale, without exercising editorial judgement as to whether a given statement in a given article in an otherwise "reliable" source is in fact not reliable at all. If we don't exercise that judgmement, we aren't encyclopedia editors at all and the Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia - it's Newsmax.

5) Is the Atlantic a reliable source for facts about living persons?

Selectively, yes, but the Atlantic is a literary journal focusing on politics and culture, not a news publication. So I don't think there is a clear line drawn in the Atlantic between its editorial stances, the opinions of its contributors, and its fact-checked reporting. I think they're all mixed together in its articles. It's not a newspaper or a news magazine, so it just doesn't have the same kind of internal discipline about separating opinions from facts. To do so would greatly detract from its value as a literary magazine, I believe, because it really aims to raise people's hackles and get people debating with some heat. For example, here's a real spark lit by an Atlantic report about a Bill Clinton speaking appearance:

James Bennet of the Atlantic Monthly Makes His Play for the Stupidest Man Alive Prize

Here's Michael Kinsley, former editor-in-chief of The New Republic, liberal co-host on William F. Buckley's Firing Line, liberal co-host of Crossfire and columnist for the L.A. Times, complaining about an Atlantic writer's disgruntled hack job on Bush's chief speechwriter:

Ghost Wars

As for balanced editorial POV, the Wikipedia's bio of the Atlantic's 1999-2002 editor-in-chief Michael Kelly discusses his bias:

In September 2002, Kelly criticized former vice president Al Gore for a speech that strongly condemned the Bush administration's efforts to drum up support for the coming invasion of Iraq. In a column in the Washington Post, Kelly said the speech was "wretched. It was vile. It was contemptible." He said Gore's speech "was one no decent politician could have delivered" and was "bereft of anything other than taunts and jibes and embarrassingly obvious lies."[1][16]

And here's Eric Alterman, one of the most adamant Nader critics on the left, about Kelly: "To Kelly, Nader voters were "pea-heads," including, presumably, TNR's campaign correspondent, Michael Lewis, and political columnist Ronald Steel." http://www.thenation.com/doc/19991025/alterman Navigating The Atlantic (This was published in 1999 and Alterman was talking about Nader's '96 run - Alterman now seems to have come around since then to Kelly view of Nader voters.)

And here is a quote about Larry Sanger from the Atlantic's article "The Hive" about the Wikipedia:

"Sanger made two great contributions to Wikipedia: he built it, and he left it. After forging a revolutionary mode of knowledge building, he came to realize—albeit dimly at first—that it was not to his liking." http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200609/wikipedia/5 The Hive

Should that quote be inserted into the lead of Sanger's wikipedia bio because it appears in the Atlantic? It's factually fair and accurate, right? But wait -- doesn't it sort of say, "Good riddance" to Sanger? But it does so with such subtlety, panache and sophistication ... In the Atlantic's article the writer Matthew Poe was clearly pro-wikipedia, waxed lyrical about Wikipedia, and made a big point about doting and jubilating on the fate of his own bio page in the article. One could really make a good case, really, that the Atlantic is nothing more than a manual of style for high-brow insults, innuendoes and velvet-fisted provocation - let the white gloves fly and the dueling begin.

But enough Atlantic bashing, albeit really fun and Google-easy to do. Most importantly, the Atlantic pitches to a well-read and politically and culturally sophisticated audience, so it assumes a lot of background knowledge on the part of the reader. Its role is more commentary than news or factual reporting. In a certain sense, it's really a tertiary source of news and it is worthwhile to avoid taking any statement that it publishes as literal fact without first corroborating it with an actual reliable news source or scholarly work.

6) If the Atlantic does literally mean to assert the quoted statement in dispute, and it is not insertion of original research to judge whether a statement in a feature article is editorial or reporting, then is it clear from the article that the statement is a fair summary of the judgment of the ten historians who voted on the top 100 list, or could it be that the statement reflects an editorial stance of the Atlantic that may not actually accurately summarize the collective reasoning of the ten historians for voting Nader in as number 96?

I ask this because I found nothing in the Atlantic article that actually says the summary sentences in the Top 100 list accurately reflect the collective reasoning of the ten historians for voting as they did. The article discusses many of the judges one by one and discusses their very different approaches to defining and ranking "influence", so it would be very difficult to sum up in one or two lines such different and complex reasoning from ten historians about the influence of each individual on the list. Historians in general chafe at such pithy summations of historical figures and events, which is why they write such long books and articles about narrow historical topics, after all. I doubt ten historians could ever agree on a two-line summation of most of the top 100 figures' influence, given that the article makes a point that they don't even agree at all what defines "influence".

So it seems pretty obvious to me that the one or two line summations are the work of Atlantic editors, and not a serious attempt to summarize the probably often contradictory reasoning of the ten historians. Is this disingenuous, is it sleight of hand? Well, this is not scholarship, so no, it's just smart, competent magazine editing in the face of a deadline.

But if the statement isn't really what the ten historians collectively consider to be Nader's influence, then it really is an editorial stance of the Atlantic itself. In any case, it's unclear which it is, or how much of which it is, but fairly clear that it's some mixture of the two and needs to be properly qualified as such if quoted in an encyclopedia.

7) Are historians the most reliable scholarly sources for evidence that Nader made GWB president, and in a way that is of great historical significance? If not, who is and what do they have to say?

No, political scientists are much better sources than historians for evidence of Nader's impact on the 2000 election because they strive to quantify different kinds of influence and they justify their conclusions using rigorous statistical analysis. Historians generally do not try to quantify historical influences or prove them statistically, just identify and explain them.

I ran an EBSCOhost search and a Google Scholar search on Nader and found several poli sci papers directly examining Nader's impact on the 2000 election, presented at reputable conferences and/or published in reputable peer-reviewed journals. For citations, see footnotes to my proposed re-framing of the Atlantic quote below. The findings were complex and inconclusive as to whether Nader could have influenced many of his voters to switch to Gore instead of Bush even if he had tried.

One of the studies, however, does suggest that Nader might have had more influence on the election outcome than either Bush or Gore. One study analyzed National Election Survey data ( the data is available, btw for download at or on-line and queryable at [17]) to conclude that Nader was the preferred candidate of more voters than Bush or Gore, that for every Nader voter there were 6 Gore voters and 4 Bush voters who preferred Nader over either Bush or Gore, and that Nader would have defeated Bush or Gore in one-on-one contests against either one. (Minor Parties in the 2000 Presidential Election, p.3) It said this is the only known case in U.S. history where this was true of a candidate who did not go on to win the election and become U.S. President. This fact makes it more plausible that Nader really did make GWB president, because he may well have had a larger following among the electorate than Bush or Gore, and had he chosen to he may have had a strong enough influence among swing voters to create a landslide in either direction. Perhaps the election ended up so close precisely because Nader managed to convince swing voters that there was no significant difference between Gore and Bush.

This paper, I should clarify, does not try to measure what influence Nader actually would have had if he had withdrawn from the race and endorsed Gore as the Democrats hoped we would. But it does make it at least plausible for someone to believe that Gore would have won handily had Nader done so. And that supports the idea that the Atlantic Monthly or many of its ten invited historians might believe literally what the quote says, that by not endorsing Gore Nader "made George W. Bush the president".

I should explain also why I attribute the quote either to "the Atlantic's editors" generally, or to many of the ten historians, but not to Atlantic associate editor Ross Douthat, who has the byline for the article. Ross Douthat is on record as believing Nader was not the dominant cause of GWB becoming president. He writes elsewhere, "I think Reihan's absolutely right that Gore could have turned Nader's run to his advantage;" (Giulani's Nader?) And nowhere in the text of the article itself does Douthat suggest Nader made GWB president. In fact, he ends the article thus:

"And if George W. Bush's imprint is still strongly felt in 2056, then Al Gore's few Florida ballots (or one Supreme Court vote) short of the presidency will be (barely) remembered for the influence he never had the chance to wield."

No mention of Nader here as a factor in depriving Gore of his chance at influence.

Conclusion and proposal:

After reading the entire Atlantic article carefully, it's clear to me that the 96 ranking was sincerely and genuinely arrived at through the collective votes of ten genuinely eminent historians (most are named and quoted in the article). The only problem with the quote is that it cannot possibly justify the ranking, given how low GWB ranked, unless it reflects an understanding on the part of those historians of the little-known fact found in a political science paper by a Harvard professor concluding that Nader would have beaten Gore or Bush one-on-one. If that is what was important to the historians about Nader's influence on the 2000 election, though, the quote should have read instead "... he used his unprecedented degree of third-party influence on swing voters to make GWB president." I think it's most likely that the historians and the Atlantic editors were not aware that so many voters favored Nader over Gore and Bush, and that the article's summation of Nader's influence is simply inconsistent with their ranking of GWB and not an accurate reflection of the historians' reasoning behind Nader's high ranking. But even if the historians did know how unprecedentedly strong Nader's following was, the quote does not summarize that knowledge properly.

Griot, I have to disagree completely with your assertion that the quote is an "even-handed" summation of Nader's influence on society, and I hope to convince you of this as follows. While your Google search only really proves that people obsessed with Nader's role in the 2000 election post a lot about it on the Internet and know how to position their websites high in Google, I would agree that most people who pay attention primarily to mainstream media and the first pages of Google searches probably do think of auto safety and the 2000 election when they hear Nader's name nowadays. But it's precisely these people who come to this wikipedia bio to learn more about Nader than just those two things. We do our readers a disservice by tossing at them unqualified a quote that puts a seeming stamp of authoritative approval on their ignorance about Nader. The quote as it stands is only an even-handed summation of what people who know next to nothing about Nader believe about his influence.

The Atlantic quote is a very very poor summation of Nader's influence on America and most likely of the ten historians' judgement of his influence, and I cannot restate enough that it is contradictory to the historians' ranking of GWB below Hugh Hefner, Martha Stewart and Stan Lee. The quote mimics widespread ignorance about the "thirty years" in which Nader did many other historically significant things including in part: 1) leading the anti-nuclear-power movement that has successfully steered the U.S. away from dependence on nuclear power production for thirty years, 2) inspiring and advising activists who passed auto insurance reform in California in 1988, which proved for the first time that citizen and consumer advocacy groups could defeat heavily funded insurance lobbies at the ballot box, 3) mobilizing citizens via talk radio to stop a 51% Congressional pay hike, demonstrating the populist organizing power of talk radio, 4) starting with Poletown (and notice the Poletown wikipedia article mentions Nader, but our bio of Nader here doesn't mention Poletown) in the 1980's led citizen, consumer and legal campaigns against the use of eminent domain for corporate welfare, culminating in a Michigan Supreme Court ruling in 2004 overturning its Poletown decision , then a 5-4 loss in the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2005 that such uses are constitutional Kelo v. New London, Nader on Kelo, but followed quickly by a sweep of state law revisions to tighten down on the practice, 5) forming right-left coalitions to combat commercialism in schools, teaching to standardized tests, corporate welfare, the Patriot Act and NAFTA/GATT, 6) led anti-globalization campaigns culminating in the Battle in Seattle in 1999 Unverified site - claims Nader edited anti-globalization anthology and co-founded IFG, 7) led campaigns against corporate lobby attempts to destroy the deterrent power of liability lawsuits through "tort reform" which Nader calls "tort deform", 1995 NY Times Article on Nader, discusses Tort Reform 8) and let's not forget his role in the passage of the Freedom of Information Act and the creation of OSHA and EPA.

In fact after noticing the Poletown article mentions Nader, I decided to do an advanced Google search for all en.wikipedia.org pages that mention Ralph Nader but do not mention the words "talk", "user" (to exclude talk and user pages), "Gore", "election", "candidate", "party" and "parties" and found 154 articles (wikipedia policy says no links to search urls, so I won't - but in Google advanced search put Ralph Nader in the exact phrase field, exclude the words I listed and put en.wikipedia.org as Domain), including for example this one: Biomedical_equipment_technician

Even more telling is that an on-line NY Times Archives query NY Times Archive Search for "Ralph Nader" between jan 1 1981 to dec 31 1999 produces 1,504 articles, or one every five days on average, and this was the 20 years in which so many people think he was doing nothing. A search on all NY Times articles 1980 and earlier produces over 3,000 articles. So were those 4,500 articles pretty much all retrospective pieces about how Nader had "made the cars we drive safer" back in the late sixties? That's what the Atlantic quote would have us believe.

The Atlantic's editors do read the NY Times, don't they? So they know all of the things Nader has been involved with, no doubt, which makes it even more glaringly obvious that their reduction of his entire career outside the 2000 election to the belittlingly understated "he made the cars we drive safer" (so did I - I had new tires installed on mine) is just the execution of the oft-repeated warning or threat levied at Nader that his legacy will be erased and he will no longer be remembered for all the other important things he has done.

But it's our job here, not the Atlantic's, to summarize and cite proper sources for all of these historically significant activities.

So I propose that the quote be reinserted, and it should be in the lead section because it reflects, if misstates, ten eminent historians' judgement about Nader's general overall influence on society, but I propose that it only be re-inserted along with mention of Nader's various other Top 100 honors, and with the vague counter-comment after semicolon replaced with heavily sourced qualifications as follows:

"In 1999 an NYU panel of eminent journalists ranked Nader's book Unsafe At Any Speed no. 38 among the top 100 pieces of journalism of the 20th century.MEDIA; Journalism's Greatest Hits: Two Lists of a Century's Top Stories, NY Times, March 1, 1999, p.2 In 1990 Life Magazine Washington at Work; Eclipsed in the Reagan Decade, Ralph Nader Again Feels Glare of the Public, NY Times, Sep. 21, 1990, and again in 1999 Time Magazine American Program Bureau Ralph Nader bio "A Triumph of the Newsmagazine's Craft" (mentions Nader as one of the Top 100 Influentials attending a Time 100 dinner), named Nader one of the 100 most influential Americans of the 20th Century. In 2006 the Atlantic Monthly, in its list of the "100 most influential Americans" in history, ranked Nader 96: "He made the cars we drive safer; thirty years later, he made George W. Bush the president";"The Top 100: The Most Influential Figures in American History.", Atlantic Monthly, (December 2006) p.62] But scholarly research on Nader's impact on the election of George W. Bush is divided, complex, inconclusive and insufficient to justify a literal reading of the Atlantic's rhetorical comment.abstract of THE ROOTS OF THIRD PARTY VOTING The 2000 Nader Campaign in Historical Perspective. By: Allen, Neal; Brox, Brian J.. Party Politics, Sep2005, Vol. 11 Issue 5, p623-637, 15p, 3 charts , http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content?content=10.1080/07393140600680015 abstract of If it Weren't for Those ?*!&*@!* Nader Voters we Wouldn't Be in This Mess: The Social Determinants of the Nader Vote and the Constraints on Political Choice. By: Simmons, Solon J.; Simmons, James R.. New Political Science, Jun2006, Vol. 28 Issue 2, p229-244, 16p, 5 charts, 1 graph , Did Ralph Nader Spoil a Gore Presidency? A Ballot-Level Study of Green and Reform Party Voters in the 2000 Presidential Election,The Dynamics of Voter Decision Making Among Minor Party Supporters: The 2000 U.S. Presidential Election, British Journal of Political Science (2007), 37: 225-244, Minor Parties in the 2000 Presidential Election. Nader's influence on society has also involved far more than merely his role in improving auto safety and his impact on the 2000 election."

(I've changed the ref tags above to in-line quotes because the ref tags don't work on the talk page)

The sources supporting the last sentence above will need to be provided throughout the rest of the article. I've made a start with the paragraph on his role in the anti-nuclear-power movement. I cited a Reagan Administration Commerce Dept document basically declaring Nader public enemy number one in the government's ambition to jump start its then-flailing nuclear power agenda.

I think there is one piece of common ground we can find: many of us seem to share a great concern that the bio not be used to propagate myths about Nader. Some seem to fear propagating the negative myths spread by his critics during and after the 2000 election. Others seem to fear propagating the positive myths from decades of repetition and embellishment that have made Nader perhaps the most widely recognized international symbol of the common person's struggle against the powers that be, the Saint of John Q Public. If we can agree that neither of these mythologies should be propagated by the wikipedia bio, except to the extent hard facts support them, then perhaps we can focus on doing the serious secondary research and meticulous citation work that will actually give us something other than hopelessly POV rehashes of these mythologies to publish here.

The Atlantic did make an attempt at scholarly objectivity and did at least end up ranking Nader in the top 100, if only so grudgingly that they refused to be honest about why.

Jautumn (talk) 11:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

wow- that took me like half an hour to read! I agree that the controversy should be mentioned in the intro but the quote definitely tips the scale in favour of a particular, and hotly contested, pov and doesn't give the reader the opportunity to make up their own mind and consider the myriad of other factors-diebold, voter harassment, the tossing of black votes, other misc election fraud, the supreme court, etc- and irresponsibly, not to mention inaccurately, paints him as a scapegoat. How bout we just say, "Nader has very controversially run for president on four separate occasions," and if you want, you could add the following to that sentence after the comma: "... his role in the 2000 election in particular proving the subject of much political analysis and debate." and then we lay out the cold, objective, evenhanded and extensive details of all factors involved, presenting both points of view in an impartial manner. And I like the idea of putting the quote along with all the others in a new section entitled "recognition", with all his other notable criticisms and accolades from reputable sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.77.138.164 (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to read and respond. I think a Recognition section might work, but we'd have to separate the Atlantic quote from the Atlantic ranking, because the quote would belong in the 2000 election section whereas the ranking would belong in the Recognition section. I think that's appropriate, as I've shown pretty clearly above that the quote is an Atlantic editorial comment that cannot possibly reflect the reasoning of the ten historians in ranking Nader 96, because it contradicts the same historians' ranking of GWB below Martha Stewart, Stan Lee and Hugh Hefner. If we want to keep the ranking and the quote together, though, it should remain in the lead section, and must be heavily qualified right afterwards in the body text to make it clear that the wikipedia is not presenting the quoted opinions as if it has evidence, expert judgment or even necessarily sound reasoning behind it. I agree that the quote is POV, but it is tied however unfortunately to the NPOV 96-ranking. I think we have to respect the fact that the author and copyright owner of both, the Atlantic, put the ranking and the quote together, so there's a slight flavor of inserting original research in separating the two. I would argue that it's okay to separate them, since it's clear they are separate judgments by separate parties, and it eliminates confusion to separate them. But I'm still a bit hesitant because it might be seen as a machination, even though I think I've proven that it isn't. Making sure we avoid even the appearance of tampering with quoted material to push a pro-Nader POV is very important here, though.

Jautumn (talk) 15:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Jautaumn--Thanks for the long, thoughtful entry here. I take it that you believe the quote should be reinserted in the intro section along with Nader's other honors ("So I propose that the quote be reinserted, and it should be in the lead section because it reflects, if misstates, ten eminent historians' judgement about Nader's general overall influence on society, but I propose that it only be re-inserted along with mention of Nader's various other Top 100 honors"). That's okay with me. I do think, however, that the qualifications you want to insert after the Atlantic quote should go in a footnote. Many people would object to the other Nader accolades you mention -- NYU panel journalists making Unsafe At Any Speed no. 38 among the top 100 pieces of journalism of the 20th century, Time and Life also making him a top 100 influential American -- if only on the grounds that they are out of date, as they were given to Nader prior to the 2000 election. If Life and Time were to name the top 100 Americans today instead of in 1990 or 1999, would they take into account Nader's role in the last two presidential elections? They certainly would. It's unfair to the Atlantic's scholars to single them out for criticism without singling out Time and Life, for example. Griot (talk) 18:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete quote per (User talk:SeeknDistroi) 216.7.150.82 (talk) 02:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

SeeknDistroi, thanks for your vigilance and investigative work, but I have to assume good faith until the case you've made is formally submitted and dealt with by administrators. Even if you're right, the Atlantic quote still is not a simple case of POV, because the ranking it purports to justify is NPOV, and because it is properly attributed to the Atlantic. And the principle of saving by amending and enhancing toward consensus rather than reverting has to be observed with great earnestness or the Wikipedia will become no more than a vast shoreline littered with ever-melting sandcastles. See the Unsourced Claims section of this page to see many items I've removed as easy cases needing no discussion - this is a hard case and needs full discussion. What do you think of my proposed solution, various-IP's and the response I just posted to various-IP?

I think I've shown that the argument that Nader made GWB president can be made if premised on evidence that Nader had a strong following among swing voters deciding between Bush and Gore, which I've provided some evidence to support, and I provide more in my answer to Griot I'm about to post below. So I don't think your earlier stated view that the claim "Nader made GWB Prez" is "stupid and naive" is justified, though I agree it is both POV and inflammatory. I think it's much worse, and definitely stupid and provably false a thousand times over, though, that the Atlantic quote glosses over Nader's thirty years of intense activism between Unsafe At Any Speed and 2000 as if it were not of significant influence. That aspect of the quote may actually be potentially libelous, at least it would be if we take it and put it in an encyclopedia bio without stongly qualifying and bracketing it for what it is - a provably false and absurd editorial POV. It contrasts sharply, and profoundly contradicts, the Atlantic historians' 96 ranking of Nader in all of U.S. history, which may be the highest honor ever bestowed upon Nader - only 16 U.S. Presidents, four U.S. Supreme Court justices and one or two journalists were ranked above him. He came in above Nixon, Jimmy Carter, GHW Bush, JFK, William Rehnquist, Warren Burger, William Brennan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Rockefeller. I think that may be why the Atlantic stuck in its barb at Nader, because its editors didn't like its own invited ten historians' objective assessment of Nader's importance. If we remove the quote entirely as you suggested, I still think it would be remiss of us not to mention the ranking. But if we mention the ranking without the quote, our citation would direct readers to the quote anyway and give the impression that we regard the quote as an accurate summary of the reasons for his ranking, which I cannot repeat enough that I've shown to be impossible. I hope I can convince you that the most objective approach, and the most clear, honest and helpful to our readers, would be to include the quote but qualify it heavily to make clear it is not justified by any reliable evidence and does not, cannot possibly, be an accurate summary of the reasons for the ranking.

Jautumn (talk) 15:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reading my long posting, Griot, and for your response. Again, sorry for the length of my response but I feel this discussion needs to dive deep for common ground. Here we go:

- Footnoting the qualifying statements, unfortunately, would give the appearance in the body text that the Wikipedia considers the Atlantic's deliberately slanted editorial statement to have reliable evidence or expert judgment behind it, which I have shown above that it cannot possibly have. The claim that Nader made GWB prez has been studied by scholars with no clear answer, so any claim one way or another is POV. The implied claim that Nader did nothing of significant influence for thirty years is provably false and absurd. For both reasons, the quote must be qualified right in the body text to make it clear that we, as Wikipedia editors, know and can cite sources proving that the quote is false and misleading POV published under false color of objectivity. If you're not convinced of this, please explain why my argument does not convince you and present a counter-argument if possible.

- The NYU School of Journalism panel's ranking is not contradicted by a contentious, misleading statement published alongside it; the Atlantic's ranking is, and it is the Atlantic's unjustified statement - not its ranking or the rankings by NYU, Time and Life - that I've shown to be reckless POV-pushing. The problem with the Atlantic quote is not that some people find it objectionable, but that it is unfounded editorial rhetoric rather than an honest summation of the reasons for the ranking. So it doesn't matter who objects to any of these rankings - they are rankings made either by scholars (NYU, Atlantic) or by reputable news sources (Time, Life). The NYU panel, convened by a reputable university's journalism dept, would also seem to hold more weight than a gathering and collation of separate scholarly opinions by a commentary magazine such as the Atlantic, moroever, because it was hosted and managed by some of the scholars themselves, not by magazine editors with the power to insert their own POV in the final report at their whim.

- Are the other rankings out of date? No, not at all. It's 2007 - there's nothing out of date about recognition for being influential between 1900 and 2000. Should we not report in people's living bios their honorary doctorates earned before 2000 just because some people don't think they deserve them anymore? I'm sure some people never thought they deserved them in the first place. Regardless, anything Nader has done in the 21st century obviously would have no bearing on his ranking as an influential of the twentieth century. Even if it did, surely it would only add to his significance, not subtract - you aren't arguing that his influence on recent elections has reduced his overall influence in history, or somehow warped time and erased the influential things he's done in the past that earned him those rankings back then, are you? And the old rankings are likely more objective than post-2000 ones precisely because they know nothing about his more controversial presidential runs. I know there is rhetoric out there that his presidential campaigns "erase his legacy", but that is just logically nonsensical but emotionally effective campaign rhetoric from his opponents - a legacy is, by definition, that which is not erasable. Nader's response to this charge was, "Are they going to start ripping seat belts out of cars?" What Nader did to earn him his earlier rankings still remains what it was and is, and remains voluminously documented in those 154 wikipedia articles and 4,500 NY Times articles I mentioned, just as it does not erase the impact of Isaac Newton's theory of gravitation, or his Optics even, that after publishing these monumental works he spent the remaining decades of his life devoted to speculating on theological notions that no one takes seriously today.

The only way I can make sense of your claim that the rankings are "out-of-date" is if you believe evidence has emerged since the year 2000 that Nader never really did the notable things he is reported heavily to have done in the past. I have found no evidence to support that, though, just some libel from Salon.com and elsewhere that accuses him of financial and labor misbehavior, accusations I have proven to be self-contradictory and unreliable elsewhere on this talk page. If you can produce any such evidence, I'm all ears, but I've searched for it myself and turned up nothing. To be honest, my own opinion of Nader evolved opposite to his ex-admirers in that I never admired Nader UNTIL his 2000 run, because until then he seemed too elitist and too believe-in-the-system for me. So I have looked very hard for evidence to discredit him because for two decades I saw him as a dangerous gatekeeper. I have good research skills, and I've found nothing to support my prior suspicion but badly supported, and usually badly written, innuendo or expressions of personal bitterness from people whose prior idolization and pedestalization of the man in and of itself raises doubt as to their own capacity for balanced, reasonable character assessment. I have no patience for cult-follower types.

- You completely misread what I wrote above when you claim I'm singling out the Atlantic scholars for criticism. On the contrary, I exonerated the Atlantic's scholars from discredit - by proving that they could not possibly be responsible for the reckless quote the Atlantic published about Nader. Time and Life, I believe, don't engage scholars for their rankings so they don't try to dress their rankings in the garb of scholarly objectivity. Their rankings reflect their judgment of the newsworthiness of each ranked person's actions, and being a reputable news source means having some objective authority on newsworthiness. Not that I personally agree with what the NY Times, Time or Life believe to be newsworthy, but Wikipedia policy is to rely on news sources with a solid reputation for fact-checking, and Time, Life and the NY Times fit that description whereas the Atlantic does not. That's why the Atlantic had to invite ten historians to give credibility to its rankings. So the Atlantic rankings are well-sourced; the Atlantic's editorial inflammatory rhetoric glossing its Nader ranking is not.

But I want to do more than just pick apart the text of your arguments, Griot. I know that behind them you are trying to get at something important, and I do appreciate that you have a worthwhile concern about Nader's bio properly registering the difference between his work prior to 2000 and after. But we are biographers here, albeit amateurs, so we need to look for consistency and cohension in Nader's life's work, a way of recounting his influence that does not reduce to pro and con or love him or hate him, or he suddenly turned bad because (insert favorite insult or innuendo here), because this is not a place to pass jugdement on Nader positive or negative. I could find you plenty of published quotes that claim Nader is saving the world with his presidential campaigns, but I won't. They are clearly opinions colored by hopes. The places on the web to find such hope or fear infused commentary are legion. Rare is the spot where those emotional colorings are suppressed enough to reach a semblance of thoroughly researched and fully presented documented fact that can deepen people's basic understanding of the topic at hand, a place to step back and contemplate the provable consequences of Nader's existence, not speculate on unproven consequences good or bad or stand in judgment of his existence based on one's fears or hopes. Nader, to me, is a great hope, if a complex and incomplete one, and to you he is a great threat and menace, if perhaps in some ways a sympathetic one. This bio is not the place to project either my hopes with reservations or your fears and regrets about them onto the facts of his life and work. Naturally hope and fear will tend to highlight and downplay very different aspects of Nader's life, but we can't include conflicting emphasis in the article the way we can include conflicting points of view. We can only be fair in emphasis and coverage by taking a very broad, long view of what we consider "noteworthy", and give fair space in the article to all the tangible documented impact Nader has had on different aspects of society. Our readers should feel they are being given a thorough but succinct walking tour of his career from start to present day.

So should half the article be about the 2000 election? A quarter? If it weren't for the enormous impact Nader had on society in myriad ways before 2000, maybe. But the fact is, if Nader is a menace, it is precisely because he has such an enormous reputation and influence due to his work prior to the 2000 election. He was a public figure in the campaign that eclipsed Gore and Bush that year, despite the media and both major parties' attempts to stop that from happening. If it weren't for pre-2000 Nader the restless celebrated crusader making news in the NY Times as a private citizen every couple three days, there couldn't possibly have been Nader the post-2000 (insert favorite diminution or deprecation) because he would not have had the political capital to become such a purported menace. So no, it's impossible to understand Nader's impact on the 2000 election without first understanding just how broad and deep his influence and reputation had been prior to that time. The debate over his 2000 impact has been misdirected - it isn't really about shifting 538 votes from Nader's hard-core supporter column to Gore's. It's about moving 269 Nader-preferring strategic swing votes from Bush's column to Gore's, and the fact that Nader refused to endorse Gore to swing those voters over to him despite pleading from all sorts of people on the left. It's really, objectively speaking, about Nader's enormous influence on the mainstream swing voting public, coupled with his break with the left politically.

Influence on voters: For example, even in 1988 when his public stature and influence was supposedly at a low point in his career:

As the battle of the ballot initiatives heated up, an opinion poll taken in California produced the following finding: Among state residents who admitted knowing absolutely nothing about the four rival proposals, 67 percent said they would vote for Prop 103 simply because it was associated with Ralph Nader. That compares to 13 percent who said they would vote for Prop 104 because it was being pushed by the insurance industry. - Martin, Justin. Nader: Crusader, Spoiler, Icon, Basic Books, New York, NY, 2002, p. 225.

This enormous influence over uninformed, authority-following voters is really the source of Nader's critics' accusation that he is a pied piper. But addressing this concern directly would remind people of the enormous popular influence and broad appeal Nader has, so his critics avoid being straightforward about their fears and concerns in this regard. Nader supporters see his critics tongue-tied in this way and just leave it be. Both sides of the debate seem to settle on this stalemate of silence on Nader's influence. Anti-Nader: He tipped swing votes to Bush, but we won't be honest about how because that acknowledges his widespread influence on centrist swing undecided voters and hence his legitimacy as a major mainstream presidential candidate who really could have won the election if given a fair chance. Pro-Nader: Nader critics' denial of the fact that Nader is electable contradicts their other more supportable claim that he's a pied piper, so both their arguments cripple each other and if we keep quiet we won't have to argue much against either. The wikipedia bio should not be hamstrung by either side's rhetorical strategems. It should neither get tongue-tied about Nader's enormous influence on mainstream American voters, nor pretend there is no serious pied piper issue for Nader - it should source and describe Nader's enormous past influential activities so readers can understand just exactly what the real threat Nader posed to the two major parties was in 2000, and how he probably was in a position to mislead a significant bloc of swing voters who trusted him on his word, whether or not one thinks he actually did mislead them.

Break with the left: The break didn't happen suddenly in 2000. It had been brewing ever since he ran as a write-in in both the Republican and Democrat N.H. primaries calling himself "none of the above", and later aligned with Perot and Buchanan against Clinton's NAFTA the following year. The fact that at his childhood dinner table his father used to regale against both the Democratic and Republican parties as two sides of the same coin also puts Nader's obstinance on that point in a more consistent and cohesive light, and is consistent for his stated reason why he has never actually joined the Green Party, because he promised his father he never would join any political party. Nader's alliances with organizations and individuals alike have always, it seems, been alliances of convenience toward his own aims, based on what he deems at any given time to be in the public interest. He has never been loyal to the left, the right or anything in between, just loyal to his own view of what is in the public interest.

I think the fairest, objective way to allocate coverage of Nader's life work is to do so chronologically based on the material available for each year of his working life, in proportion to how newsworthy his actions are deemed by reliable news sources at the time and how significant they have been regarded to be in scholarly papers or government documents. I think it's a well established fact that he does nothing but work pretty much, day and night. So we know he was working on something almost every day of his career, and if it gets reported in the NY Times or some other reputable news source, then obviously it is of some note. Another measure that seems to be used for Nader especially is to calculate how many lives "he saved", which is POV language that must not be used. But calculating how many lives have been saved by regulatory measures he has supported is fair game, I think, as long as we don't do the calculating, but if it's calculations reported in a reliable secondary source. Right-wing critics would like to calculate how many lives his regulations have cost, and if we find such calculations presented with factual evidence and sound reasoning in a reliable news sources, by all means we should include them.

Put aside the notion that he is a prophet/angel or hypocrite/devil and try for a moment to categorize him politically. Socialist? No. Libertarian? No. I find it most useful to consider his ancestry which traces back to Phoenicia, the birthplace of townhall democracy, or not so far back to Zahle, the hometown of his parents in what is now Lebanon, and an independent democratic city-state within the Turkish empire until the Turks razed it to the ground during WWI. One right-wing commentator offered "authoritarian" as Nader's creed due to Nader's belief in the net benefit and necessity of government regulation of both industry and individual public conduct. Non-controversial should be the term "genius" applied to Nader, top of his class at Harvard law and editor of the Harvard Law Review, had read the entire Congressional Record front to back by the time he started college, knows every congressperson's playbook and stats like he knows basketball players', a brilliant lobbyist and a formidable legal or political opponent. These facts about him are as troubling as they are encouraging to me about his potential role in future politics, so I feel I am not projecting positive feelings on him by stating them as such. If we want to provide a good historical account of Nader's role in the 2000 election, we have to explore not just the fact that he burnt a thousand political bridges all of a sudden, but whether it was really so sudden, where and why those bridges first got built, who traveled them for what reasons while they stood, how they had decayed or hadn't decayed before he burnt them down, etc. The best way to do this without engaging in original research or injecting POV is to stick to V, verifiable facts, gather them from everywhere we can and summarize them as succinctly and accurately as we can. 4,500 NY Times articles is a gold mine of V to start chewing on. Any takers?

Unless someone can counter the evidence and arguments I've made, the Atlantic quote has to be treated differently than the ranking, but not necessarily separated from it. I don't see how we can do better than to include the quote but immediately qualify it in the body text with heavily sourced statements clarifying that there is no clear answer from scholars as to whether Nader made GWB prez, and there is a mountain range of evidence that the Atlantic quote absurdly and recklessly understates Nader's influence by omitting mention of thousands of influence points documented in NY Times articles over the same thirty years the Atlantic quote glibly skips over. The Atlantic has a sense of humor - it carried out a journalistic version of a hit-and-run on Nader's career, a drive-by roasting. In the end, it does rank him 96, one of only four living people in the top 100, which proves that the Atlantic didn't really mean what it said in the quoted sentence and that the Atlantic knows it is false and absurdly understated. I really think it was meant as a wry joke to its readers and nothing more, and a rib at Nader to say, "Yes, of course we know you're one of the greatest Americans in history, but you really really piss people off, buddy, really really really." Let's not take that joke here and turn it into something actually libelous by repeating it as if it was meant in all seriousness. Seriously, journalists failing to mention the Freedom of Information Act as part of Nader's historic accomplishments? Is there even one political article the Atlantic has published in the last thirty years that doesn't rely to some degree on some FOIA'd document somewhere? I believe that if the Atlantic were accused of reckless editorializing, they would say it's absurd for anyone to believe they meant the quote seriously, and that their promulgation that Nader ranks 96th most influential in all of American history proves they were only kidding.

What do you think of various-IP's suggestion that we create a Recognition section (and I think it should come right after the lead section), and my suggestion that we mention the ranking there but move the quote to the 2000 election section?

Jautumn (talk) 15:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

To answer your question, the Recognition section is fine, but the dozen-word quote from the Atlantic would have to accompany the Atlantic's recognition of Nader as America's 96th most influential person, just as a short quote from other sources that have recognized Nader belongs as well. These quotes are necessary to explain why Time, Life, the Altantic etc. have acknowledged Nader in some way. BTW, I do not see that the Atlantic quote is incendiary, inflammatory, and especially not libelous (I would remind you that libel charges are not considered by American courts, and we should all be grateful that our first amendment rights trump libel charges).

The article as it stands now is pretty poor. It offers a laundry list of Nader's accomplishments without explaining how he accomplished anything. The "Activism" and "Non Profit Organizations" sections are just lists of organization names. Did Nader found these organizations? Did he oversee them? The article also barely mentions Nader's role in the 2000 election, and yet this is what Nader is chiefly remembered for today (unfairly, probably, but that's how it is). That Nader played a role in 2000 is not debatable; therefore, it needs to be explained.

I'm baffled by this statement: " what the NY Times, Time or Life believe to be newsworthy, but Wikipedia policy is to rely on news sources with a solid reputation for fact-checking, and Time, Life and the NY Times fit that description whereas the Atlantic does not. That's why the Atlantic had to invite ten historians to give credibility to its rankings." You have this all backward. The Atlantic did not come up with the list and then ask historians to validate the names; it invited the historianas to make the list. Further, the editors didn't attach the Nader quote to the historians' rankings. The historians provided the Nader quote, just as they provided a short summary quote as to why they put the other 99 names on the list. I'm also baffled by your notion that the Atlantic doesn't fact-check as thoroughly as the NY Times or Time magazine.

Last, to paraphrase Shakespeare, brevity is not just the soul of wit. Griot (talk) 17:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)