Talk:Ralph Nader

More info about his religion

According to his book, "The Seventeen Traditions" (p. 103-106 published in 2007), his family was Eastern Orthodox, but they were "embraced" by the Methodist Church in Connecticut. They even went to Methodist Sunday school. This was not unusual for Eastern Orthodox immigrants, particularly in towns that lacked an Orthodox church-- so it need not mean that he converted to Methodism. That said, his current affiliation is still unknown, I will leave it up to some of the more experienced editors as to how or whether to integrate this information into the main article.

Union buster, bad boss, secretive, funded by Trial Lawyers Association?

Nader has a great progressive platform, I agree with that. But he also is somewhat of a hypocrite on labor issues, and though he did help get us FOIA, his own secrecy is legendary. Can someone do a criticism section? There's sourced criticism (specifically on the union busting) here: http://timshorrock.blogspot.com/2006/06/boss-nader-or-how-i-was-fired-by-ralph.html and some other stuff here: http://www.realchange.org/nader.htm and here: http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Nader.html

Can someone with some time put up at least something about the union busting and Ralph's notion that non-profits have the right to exploit their workers even when they have huge revenues (like the PIRGs)? And also some info about the money he got from the Trial Lawyers Association (see the (VDare re-published) Forbes article) for his opposition to No-fault_insurance, which other consumer advocates/groups support... perhaps it's true that, as Peter Brimelow reported in Forbes, Nader is tied to the special interests of the rich trial lawyers.

Again, I like a lot about Nader's platform, but I hate hypocracy.--Joelrosenblum (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Flexitarian

According to the NY Times, Nader is a 'flexitarian'. He does not eat meat, but fish is sometimes okay. In other words, he is a pescatarian. This might be of some interest to those who are interested in animal rights. Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/30/magazine/30ONLANGUAGE.html

5 election runs?

The article claims he's run for president 5 times, but Nader himself corrects the introducer here saying it was only 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KR-V6bl41zU

The first time, in 92, his "run" was just in one state and just in the primary, from what I've read. In 96 he was just a write-in candidate. 2000 was his first "real" nationwide campaign (also according to the FEC I believe).--Joelrosenblum (talk) 15:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

How much info on embarassing associates should be in a presidential candidate's biography?

The Barack Obama Featured Article, part of this project's scope, now has an important discussion on its talk page (at Talk:Barack Obama#Attempt to build consensus on the details) that could affect other articles, including this one, on other presidential candidates. There is already talk on that page that the articles on other presidential candidates may need to be changed, so editors involved in this article may want to get involved with the discussion there.

Some editors here think that when a U.S. presidential candidate is embarassed by someone associated with that candidate, no information about it should be mentioned in the WP biography article, even if the campaign (and therefore the person who is the subject of the article) was affected. Others think WP should only mention that this person was controversial and leave a link in the article to the WP article on that controversial associate. Still others (including me), think we should briefly explain just why that person was controversial in the candidate's life, which can be done in a phrase or at most a sentence or two. Examples:

• Hillary Clinton and Norman Hsu
• Barack Obama and Bill Ayers (and Jeremiah Wright, and Tony Rezko)
• John McCain and John C. Hagee
• Rudy Giuliani and Bernard Kerik

Whatever we do, we should have equal treatment, so anyone interested in NPOV-, WP:BLP-compliant articles should look at and participate in the discussion. We've started the discussion by focusing on how much to say about former Weather Underground leader Bill Ayers in the Barack Obama article, but, again, this will likely affect many other articles.

If you click on the first link I give here, you'll find a comparison I did of negative information in the Clinton, McCain and Giuliani articles. I've also posted that information on the talk pages of those articles. In that discussion (and at the McCain, Clinton and Giuliani talk pages), I've also posted a comparison of what negative information is presented on each candidate, especially in relation to associates who give the candidates bad publicity. I think editors of this article would find the comparison useful. Noroton (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

On some other pages where I've posted this, people have been responding only beneath the post, which is fine, but won't help get a consensus where it counts. So please excuse me for raising my voice, just to make sure I get the point across: Please respond at Talk:Barack Obama#Attempt to build consensus on the details where your comments will actually affect the consensus!!! Sorry for the shoutin', won't do it again (here, anyway). Noroton (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Comparison of United States presidential candidates, 2008

Other editors here may be interested in helping with Comparison of United States presidential candidates, 2008. Uwmad (talk) 19:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Lead overly weighted with his presidential runs

The lead-in to the article has, it seems to me, way too much about his presidential runs and too little about what he's spent the majority of his life doing. Is there any agreement on this? Also, the article which footnotes the statement "He was the first Maronite and Arab American presidential candidate in US history" makes no mention of his being Maronite, does it? Is it assumed he is because his parents were (actually, is that established?). I don't know that he's a practicing member of any faith. Frankly, little space should be devoted to religion too, it not AFAIK being an important part of his life, as opposed to the values of his family. Шизомби (talk) 22:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I still don't like the intro much, still too much about his presidential runs! Am I alone in this? I'm not sure how to improve it... maybe mentioning that he first came to national attention with Unsafe at Any Speed, if that is true? Шизомби (talk) 02:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

religion

can I source be cited for him being a Maronite Catholic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.179.237 (talk) 08:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I've never seen his religion discussed, nor heard him mention it. He may be "non-practicing," "spiritual but not religious," agnostic, atheist, who knows. Шизомби (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Arab-American

Speaking personally as a Lebanese Maronite, very few of us identify as "Arabs", other than in very abstract linguistic terms (even the language spoken is only partially Arabic). We are in fact about as "Arab' just for living in the middle east as Jews in Israel are "Arab". Indeed, increasingly in the past century, Lebanon is filling up with Arabs and Muslims, but still, Nader is not truly "Arab" ethnically, nor affiliated with Islam or any other Arabic culture. Perhaps you will allow me to change "Arab-American" simply to Lebanese-American? I don't see what harm could come from it, especially since the article correctly specifies that Nader is Maronite Lebanese right away. I am new to Wikipedia, so I don't quite know how the editing process goes. If I am doing something wrong feel free to let me know here... Thanks, everyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.246.210.216 (talk) 00:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

He is an Arab-American as well as Lebanese American. They are both accurate and factual. He is on many lists of Arab-Americans. I have added both to the description.

"Nader is the first Arab American presidential candidate in the U.S." "Additionally, Nader is the first Lebanese-American presidential candidate in the U.S." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mynameisstanley (talk • contribs) 01:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

This is somewhat redundant and again gives excessive weight in the introduction to his presidential runs. I'll combine the two into one statement. Шизомби (talk) 02:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The article that is given as the source for Mr. Nader as the first Arab-American presidential candidate [1] bears a certain resemblance to the Wikipedia article around that time.[2] Are there any other sources that confirm he is the first Arab-American presidential candidate? Could this be a case of Wikipedia editors sourcing an article whose author used Wikipedia as a source? Also, the article in question does not mention anything about Lebanese ancestry.copana2002 (talk) 08:20, 01 August 2008 (UTC)

I think people are probably guessing that he's the first, rather than knowing so. Шизомби (talk) 13:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not a guess. No one else can come up with another Arab-American presidential candidate that has run before him. Here are a few articles. http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1209357142307&pagename=Zone-English-Muslim_Affairs%2FMAELayout

http://www.arabamericannews.com/news/index.php?mod=article&cat=USA&article=1219

http://media.www.thedailycougar.com/media/storage/paper1206/news/2008/07/24/News/Nader.Gonzalez.To.Hold.Rally.At.University.Hilton-3394222.shtml

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080716/pl_bloomberg/aercm5vov0ja

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S20/48/99E78/index.xml?section=newsreleases

Mynameisstanley (talk) 13:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Mynameisstanley

I think it is a guess. Saying he is in an article doesn't mean they researched the question, and if they did, they may be using WP as a source without citing it. Шизомби (talk) 14:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, is there any evidence that Nader has spoken to Arab American audiences before, or that he carried any significant percentage of an arab american vote? That would be worth adding somewhere, if verifiable. Шизомби (talk) 14:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

There are many sources [3][4] [5] [6] which confirm that Nader is an Arab-American. However, the articles listed above by Mynameisstanley were all written after "the first Arab-American presidential candidate" information was added to the page. It is possible that the authors simply used Wikipedia as a source. The original citation for the comment was this article [7] which is from 2000. Is there some reason why this is not a reliable source? copana2002 (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

One source suffices; adding all those others was overkill. The question is, is he really the first, or are people guessing. My guess is, they're guessing. But I also suppose it's fine to say he is, until it's known who preceded him (and I'm quite certain someone did). Most presidential candidates, particularly third-party candidates, don't have their ethnicity mentioned in their articles or campaigns. Another question I have is, how notable is it that he is the supposed first? Is it merely a point of trivia or pride for those who share his ethnicity, or is it perceived to have some importance beyond that? I think that would be a good thing to look at with the Obama article as well, the significance there being African Americans historically being denied the vote, people who wouldn't vote for a black candidate, etc. Whereas being the first Lebanese American is about as significant (AFAICT) as being the first Polish American or whatnot. And the Obama campaign makes use of the historicity of his campaign, as the Hillary Clinton campaign did of hers, whereas AFAIK Nader's never made any point of his being Arab/Lebanese American. Шизомби (talk) 18:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrong hyperlink for John Richard

In Nader's bibliography, one of the co-authors of "Who's Poisoning America" is correctly listed as John Richard. However, the name is hyperlinked to the biography of a different John Richard than the one in question. The hyperlink refers to a Canadian-born judge. The John Richard who co-authored the book is from Binghamton, New York 69.204.245.207 (talk) 09:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton

Under the Ralph Nader 2008 presidential campaign section, it says "it is widely held that Obama would have no chance of winning the general election if he chose Clinton as running mate, due to her high negatives." I object to this statement, and propose that it be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexseattle (talk • contribs) 02:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Article help

This article needs help/NPOV, especially in Polling section:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader_presidential_campaign,_2008

Thanks, 76.171.171.194 (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Buzzocks!

Bizarrely, Nader is (approvingly) namechecked in a Buzzcocks song called Fast Cars. I say bizarrely - very few people in England had heard of him in the late seventies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.89.91 (talk) 13:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Where is the controversy section?

When I visited this article a few years ago it listed the controversies surrounding him, such as that the Corvair automobile he went after in "Unsafe at Any Speed" was no more or less safe than any other automobile at the time. It looks like since then someone has selectively edited out anything negative about Nader, effectively white-washing this article. That's a problem. JettaMann (talk) 16:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

"Controversy" sections are not good style. Information about controversies is to be incorporated into the rest of the article in the appropriate place(s). --Orange Mike | Talk 16:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Seconded.. Having not checked this page since long before the elections, this has obviously been whitewashed. If a controversy section is not "in style" then before such an important detail should be removed, the remover should have to relocate all of the data throughout the article.. otherwise it is censorship. With this being the page of a presidentital candidate "known for his secrecy" as in the article.. it smacks of bias editing. (anon-having login issues today-will return to reattach ID 10/10/08)

Third-party votes controversy Section Biased?

The section "Third-party votes controversy" seems biased to me in favor of Nader not affecting Gore's chances the election. There is one sentence stating that he did, followed by an entire paragraph of rebuttal. The article, Ralph Nader Presidential Campaigns, for example, shows a more neutral stance on this issue. Sept. 20/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.140.150.195 (talk) 19:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

2008 Campaign removal of edit

Repeated deletion of three sentences pertaining to Nader's potential Guiness World Record for campaigning and a statement of the focus of his campaign have proven to be suspect. I will revert the edits along with respectable and objective references. Below find the cut and paste from the Talk page of the user Arthur Rubin that show an adversarial bias towards the subject of this article.Sigmundane (talk) 17:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reason you reverted the edits to the Ralph Nader page? The three sentences were relevant to his 2008 campaign for President and cited reliable references. The focus of his campaign and the fact that he has potentially broken a Guiness World record for campaigning in the process are two noteworthy pieces of information for a third party presidential candidate. Just wondering. Sigmundane (talk) 15:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the alleged "Guiness World" record for campaigning as notable. The focus of his campaign (if he, in reality, has one) probably is. He certainly has the US record for campaigning for a Presidential candidate who does not have a mathematical chance of winning, not being on enough ballots. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

After careful consideration, those parts which are valid (ignored by mainstream media is not sourced) should be moved to the 2008 presidential campaign, and possibly summarized here. If you don't take care of it in the next few hours, I will. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

"largely ignored by mainstream media" has now been referenced. Relevance of the Guiness World Record apart from its inherent notability goes towards the point that Nader campaigned just as vigorously in this campaign if not more so than in previous campaigns but has received a diminished role in American politics reflected by the medias lack of attention (or caused by depending on what you think about that matter). I do not work or volunteer for the campaign. This is strictly objective observations of a notable event and notable person. Sigmundane (talk) 20:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

He's largely ignored by the mainstream media because he's only a spoiler; he's not on the ballot in enough states to win the election. But this is {{or}}, for the moment. Please put information into the election article, and summarize it here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we have a disagreement here, but you seem more than a little defensive about the topic. The point of the first sentence of my edit was to establish that Nader seems to have been relegated by the media to "spoiler" status despite campaigning everybit as vigorously as in previous elections. For the record I went to his campaign site and found that he is on the ballot in 45 states and a "write-in" candidate for the rest which is more then enough electoral college votes to be elected president, although that point is moot as he is running as an alternative to the two major parties. I also disagree with your defining the information as {{or}} as it is cited and referenced clearly. Thanks for your service to the wikipedia project. It is appreciated.Sigmundane (talk) 02:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

In its present state, the 2008 campaign section gives the impression that Nader did not declare his candidacy or run a campaign, which is obviously very misleading. Copana2002 (talk) 15:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Spouse

Does he have a spouse? Is it just not known or is he not married? If it's unknown, you should change it to unknown because by saying None it may be false.

He is indeed unmarried. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Time 100

I've removed the following:

and again in 1999 Time Magazine,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.apbspeakers.com/themes/DefaultView/SpeakerPages/Ralph%20Nader.aspx|work=The American Program Bureau|title=Ralph Nader}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1194028,00.html?iid=chix-sphere|title="A Triumph of the Newsmagazine's Craft"|first=James|last=Kelly|date=2006-05-15|work=Time.com|publisher=Time Inc.|quote=Nearly 100 Influentials were on hand that evening, including U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Ralph Nader, Will Smith, George Lucas, Nobel laureate James Watson, Bill Belichick and Dr. Andrew Weil.}}</ref>

, because Nader was never in the Time 100. The quote "100 Influentials were on hand that evening, including U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Ralph Nader, Will Smith" is erroneous, because no mention of Nader in the Time 100 appears in any of their lists. And definitely not the 20th century as a whole list. If anyone disagrees, please provide a source other than that erroneous quote. Thanks. --Rajah (talk) 16:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Stroke?

I noticed in a recent interview that one side of Ralph Nader's face seems almost paralyzed, which can be clearly observed when he speaks (his mouth is different as one side moves more than the other). Has he had a stroke? I ask because it seems like something is wrong there but the article didn't mention anything about this or his health in general...just curious. Thanks. Mrobviousjosh (talk) 10:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

He has Bell's Palsy[8]. It would be hard to incorporate into the article as there is no personal life section, but if you feel it would add needed info, go for it. However, he is included in the the List of people with Bell's Palsy. Copana2002 (talk) 14:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Uncle Tom quote

There's not a reliable source yet, but I imagine it won't be long. What a way to ruin your legacy. Link Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 18:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It's on Ralph Nader presidential campaign, 2008, with my source. Originally YouTube. Anyway, feel free to ignore. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 18:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Fox New isn't the most reliable source for anything, but still - before you delete: please check the reference = the youtube-vid with Nader commenting the quote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.209.215.35 (talk) 21:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The same video is in my link, but, per Wikipedia:Reliable source examples, "YouTube and other video-sharing sites are not reliable sources because anyone can create or manipulate a video clip and upload without editorial oversight, just as with a self-published website."

Especially in BLPs, we have to be very careful to use reliable sources. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 23:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I added a bit more of the quote to establish context. If it's in there at all, it should contain enough info. to show the meaning of Nader's comment, not just "Nader called Obama an Uncle Tom". If you remove the source, of course remove this as well- Matttoothman (talk) 23:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Good edit. I don't know why that content wasn't already there. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 23:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The video was also on this page [9] which was linked from Bill O'Reilly's page. There is no question of its legitimacy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm just concerned that it doesn't get pared down so that YouTube is the only source. It's been a bone of contention in other BLPs. Anyway, I think that section looks good now. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 17:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree, looks good, excellent job, eds :) EagleScout18 (talk) 01:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I have moved the "controversial statements" section to the 2008 campaign page along with all the other notable details of Nader's 2008 campaign.Sigmundane (talk) 03:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

New "Uncle Tom" section

Delete WAAAAAY too large for this article and reads FAAAAR too POV. Addressed in detail on election page. Also, removing blog ref, not a source and in no way a credible or notable one. EagleScout18 (talk) 10:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

This is interesting: http://vberryhill-soulvoice.blogspot.com/2008/06/nader-hits-obama-between-eyes.html. EagleScout18 (talk) 11:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Nader chose a rather politically incorrect way of charging that Obama is in the pocket of big business. If he had simply said it the way I put it, though, no one would have paid attention. I reckon he had to get one last shot in, before heading off into the sunset of his career. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if you Google the phase "Uncle Tom" as applied during this election, it may surprise. Political correctness is in the eye of the beholder. Thusfar, it would appear that "White" liberals, Dems and media are (conveniently!) far more offended at Mr. Nader's statements than African-Americans who have commented, e.g., above. Personally, I'm deeply offended that a national newscaster referred to the "Independent Party" without a shred of public notice or retribution. Not to mention Rev. Jackson's remarks. EagleScout18 (talk) 01:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I was offended. I find it amazing that one presidential candidate criticizes the other in terms of an offensive racial stereotype. Can you image this? Nixon (in 1960): "Kennedy won and we wish him well. But whether he behaves in the oval office like an Irish cop or an Irish drunkard remains to be seen." Nader's use of the word "Uncle Tom" didn't get more play because, franky, Nader didn't get much attention throughout the campaign, and because on election night most newspeople were too busy focusing on the historic Obama victory (you know, first African-American elected president). If Nader had made his "Uncle Tome" comments a week before the election, it would have had more airplay, just as his earlier "He talks white" comments made the news. 71.139.23.95 (talk) 17:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Disagree with these statements entirely. As a member of a biracial family, I wasn't offended, not at all. But clearly there are those who who are colored by a contempt for Ralph Nader, who will find a reason to highlight criticisms and use sensationalism under the guise of "offense." Btw, Fallacy of equivocation on the Kennedy remark. EagleScout18 (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it has excessive coverage for the parent article on him. But then the whole article is excessively weighted towards his presidential campaigns as opposed to the work he spent most of his life on. Шизомби (talk) 03:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind this occurred on Fox News, which is hardly a bastion of liberalism. Interviewer Shepard Smith immediately jumped on that comment and offered Nader the chance to retract or restate, but he wouldn't do it. For Nader to call the relatively low-key Shepard Smith a "bully" is about as stupid as the Uncle Tom comment itself was. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment states "media." And still no mention of Smith's incitements, hardly "low-key," or misstep on "Independent Party" remark. It's incredible how many so-called liberals and Dems claim to despise conservative sensational tactics; that is, until turned on their perceived enemies-- let's hear it for bulging hypocrisy. Ken Starr anyone? EagleScout18 (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Why should I keep that in mind? Or are you responding to someone else? I still maintain this article is flawed by WP:RECENTISM Шизомби (talk) 18:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it was Eagle who was commenting on liberals being more offended, yet it was an interviewer on the conservative-leaning Fox News that challenged Nader after he said it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

See above. EagleScout18 (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

As noted above I moved the "controversial statements" section to the "Presidential Campaign 2008" section along with all the other notable details of his 2008 campaign for President. Nothing has been changed and I am not refuting nor endorsing the inclusion of the interview in this article. I am going to delete it from this page so that there is no redundancy.Sigmundane (talk) 03:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Sigmundane. Last time I checked, WP strives for concise articles, NPOV. EagleScout18 (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Racist?

"I am an Obama supporter. However I am not dogmatic, where I cannot listen to a critique. You see, I was not offended by Ralph Nader's words. I am black. The term Uncle Tom is quite fitting to describe black politicans who sell out their communities to side with the "ruling class" or rich white people and corporations." -Rhondacoca

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/11/06/18549432.php EagleScout18 (talk) 05:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's keep the discussion restricted to how to improve the article: talk pages are not for general discussion of the subject. If you are suggesting that quote or that URL should be included in the article, please say so (also keep in mind it would need to comply with WP:Reliable sources). -kotra (talk) 02:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It would be interesting to include, but I don't think it meets with WP:Reliable sources qualifications. EagleScout18 (talk) 18:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. -kotra (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Recognition

I edited this section per WP:NPOV; unless we're naming every publication ranking him influential and particulars of that ranking, the former version reads like overly detailed criticism, not recognition. EagleScout18 (talk) 23:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. I felt that their reason should be quoted fully or quoted not at all, and not at all is fine since it's not particularly notable. -kotra (talk) 00:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)