Talk:Ralph Nader/Archive 2

<Talk:Ralph Nader

Older Archives: Talk:Ralph Nader/Archive 1

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.[[1]]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.[2] 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 [3] 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've removed the commondreams link because it is broken and I've found evidence that commondreams.org may permit altered articles to be re-posted - here is a link to the LA Times archive for the article, but it requires payment so it cannot be used as a reference in the article: [4]I don't think it's necessary, though. 71.236.170.138 (talk) 12:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC) Jautumn (talk) 18:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Alert regarding doctored article re-posted on commondreams.org: In researching sources for this section, I came upon a re-posting of a June 18, 2000 Washington Post article that seems to be the main source of most of the information going around regarding Nader's 2000 FEC financial disclosure. Disturbingly, the commondreams.org version of the article replaces the NPOV headline of the original Washington Post article with the misleading pro-Nader POV headline "Nader Donates More Than 80% Of His Substantial Income." It is posted with correct by-line and states it was published in the Washington Post June 18, 2000. This gives the impression that it is a verbatim re-posting. But the true headline for the Post article was, "Nader's Worth At $3.8 Million: Green Party Hopeful Invested Heavily in Tech." This false representation of a headline from a reputable news source is highly unethical, since it gives the false impression that the Post finds the most newsworthy aspect of Nader's disclosure to be his donations, as if it were surprising in some way. But it is well known that Nader gives money to seed activist organizations. The headline makes it seem as if we are being told something surprising about Nader's finances, that he gives a substantial amount to charity, for instance. If readers see the headline and get the impression it means that Nader gives 80% of his money to poor orphans or something like that, then its effect is highly misleading. While Nader supporters may believe that money given to organizations that promote Nader's own particular political and economic agenda is charitable in the same sense, or even a better sense, than giving the money to orphanages, many people would not agree, especially given that many of the organizations are involved primarily in political lobbying activities that a substantial percentage of Americans believe to be harming the country. The Washington Post also now charges for the article, but it is still posted at the commondreams site, raising a copyright concern as well for materials re-posted at commondreams.org. I think we would be wise to avoid commondreams.org as a source, as this article raises serious doubt as to its journalistic integrity. Jautumn (talk) 15:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)