Talk:Ralph Nader's presidential campaigns

message: Write-ins normally don't appear anywhere on the ballot, how exactly did Nader get to the top of a ballot he presumably wasn't on? --The One True Fred 16:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No idea. Find out for us, would you? ;-) - Thespian 23:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found -nothing-, but did pick up an interesting factoid I've used to replace the confusing statement.  Everything I've read said he was a write-in only. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The One True Fred (talk • contribs) 03:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Keen. Exactly the sort of thing that Wikipedia is about. Welcome aboard! -Thespian 04:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1992 

message: Nader is spoken of in this article as having been "rejected" by the Green Party in 2004. The article also speaks of Nader's "failure" in that year to receive the Green nomination.
The article is thus utterly unclear on the fact that in 2004 Nader stated in advance that he was not seeking, and in fact would not accept, the Green nomination, that he intended to run as an independent and would accept only the endorsement (as opposed to the nomination) of any party. He didn't "fail" to receive the nomination, in other words; he didn't seek it. To speak of the Greens "rejecting" Nader is therefore very misleading, even though it's the usual take of the mainstream media. There were approximately six individuals seeking the Green nomination in '04. To say the Greens "rejected" Nader, because they nominated one of those who sought the nomination rather than "endorsing" someone who had made it clear he would not accept that nomination if offered, is (to repeat myself) misleading. Tom129.93.29.149 03:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Misleading phrases in regard to '04 election

message: The presidential debates are not mentioned? That seems strange, as Nader's exclusion and resulting lawsuit it was an important part of the campaigns. Badagnani (talk) 09:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. 76.87.47.110 (talk) 21:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debates 

message: Let's try to keep POV, however "sourced" it may seem, out of the lead. Editors can create a criticism section on the 2000 election if it's so important to them to push inaccurate data about Nader "making George Bush Jr. the president." The issue was already addressed on the Ralph Nader talk page. 76.87.47.110 (talk) 21:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's criticism, not "POV criticism." Let's try to present both sides. Griot (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm all for that. But I still think in presenting various viewpoints, these would be best left out of the leading paragraph(s). What are your thoughts? Would you be interested in creating a new section? 76.87.47.110 (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 00:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: POV, Criticism

message: The article needs NPOV, clean-up. Please do not remove tags or revert until issues are resolved. 76.87.47.110 (talk) 23:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? 71.139.13.219 (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please refrain from WP:SP and respect the rules of Wikipedia. Thank you, 76.87.47.110 (talk) 03:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Why?" is an excellent question. You call for a cleanup but you can't say why. How often are you going to sing this "refrain"? Griot (talk) 01:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Reason is stated. Thank you. Please observe WP:CIVIL. 76.87.47.110 (talk) 11:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The material you're referring to  was moved, appropriately, to the article's 2000 section. It was not deleted, not at any time. See edit history. I've opened the discussion to address making the article compliant with WP NPOV policy, it was not intended to invite incivility from another editor. Thank you, 76.87.47.110 (talk) 09:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This was discussed as naseum at the Ralph Nader page. Please don't remove material that is carefully sourced. Griot (talk) 17:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, material was moved to the appropriate section, not removed. Thank you, 76.87.47.110 (talk) 03:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Tone, cleanup

message: There is more than enough commentary from this marginal critic as is, why do we need his gratuitous and malicious soundbites as well? Please stop reverting them without an explanation of why they add anything useful to the article. The Alterman article is the appropriate place to make the point that he is a foul-mouthed blowhard.Boodlesthecat (talk) 21:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not "vulgar" or "nasty," I think. That is a point of view in itself. Alterman criticized Nader before election day, and his after-election remarks here may be included, I believe, because they refer to N's "spoiler" role in the campaign. Wiki is not the place to judge the "nastiness" or "vulgarity" of criticism. Alterman's criticisms are strident and passionate. Those are the best quotes to have, rather than mealy mouthed neutered words like "controversy" or whatever, in my opinion, which I hope you will respect. Feedler (talk) 22:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He has called Nader "Bush's Useful Idiot,"[35] myopic,[36] and a deluded megalomaniac.[37] are "criticisms? even the sentence structure ("He has called Nader...") indicate the insult hurling character of these quotes. When does it stop being "criticism"--when he hits him? And why does a marginal pundit need a whole paragraph? Yes, "Wiki is not the place to judge the "nastiness" or "vulgarity" of criticism," but it is the place to decide if such nastiness and vulgarity belongs in an encyclopdia. WP:BLP advises taking a conservative approach.Boodlesthecat (talk) 22:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, you're showing your bias. Alterman is not a "marginal pundit"; he's a well-recognized journalist. Moreover, he is an expert on this subject. Do you mean to say that no strong words are allowed in an encyclopedia? That only tepid criticism can go here? Feedler (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your own bias is keeping you from seeing the difference between criticism and insults, your macho appeals to go beyond "tepid criticism" notwithstanding. And what's the "expertise" it takes to write the same op-ed over and over for years "Nader BAD, He HELPS BUSH!!!" Pulitzer material for sure. Feedler, your reversions of a passage that has been cited as being possibly in violation of WP:BLP is rude and shows a preference for opinion-pushing rather than assuming good faith. I will give you the opportunity to revert it back out and wait until others can weigh in on this page. I will not revert myself and get suckered again into an edit war by a Nader basher. If you dont revert it, I'll have to waste more time taking it to the BLP board. Will you WP:AGF and voluntarily revert it out pending discussion? Boodlesthecat (talk) 22:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's been there for sometime, and you appear to be the only one who objects, so let's have it remain until some kind of consensus is reached. You may take it to BLP if you wish. I am confident it can remain. Alterman is a respected journalist, one who moreover wrote his criticisms in The Nation, which endorsed Nader. If the Nation doesn't object to Alterman's descriptions of Nader why should anyone else? Feedler (talk) 22:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "If the Nation doesn't object to Alterman's descriptions of Nader why should anyone else?" Uhhh, in case you haven't noticed, this is an encyclopedia, with its own guidelines,not the Nation editorial board. Boodlesthecat (talk) 22:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: PS: By the way, the Nation did not endorse Nader, not that its relevant to the issue of using gratuitous malicious insults in the article.Boodlesthecat (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eric Alterman's vulgar, nasty, unecessary soundbites 

message: As per editors shown below, and the compromise reached, opening paragraph should be:
:He received the largest number of votes (2,882,955 [2.74%]) of his four presidential campaigns in the 2000 election.http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2000/prespop.htm federal Elections 2000. 2000 Election Results for the U.S. President, the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives]Federal Election Commission. Washington, D.C. In that election, George W. Bush defeated Al Gore by 537 votes in the hotly contested state of Florida amidst charges that Republicans had stolen the election.James W. Ceaser and Andrew F. Busch. The Perfect Tie: The True Story of the 2000 Presidential Election. Lanham, MD, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. 2001Jamin B. Raskin. Overruling Democracy: The Supreme Court v. The American People. New York: Taylor and Francis Books, Inc., 2003. Nader's polled 97,421 votes in Florida, prompting many Gore supporters to accuse Nader of costing the Democrats the 2000 election.Online NewsHour, Vote 2004 /Politics 101. Third Parties in the U.S. Political ProcessCNN.com. Green Party: Nader mulling independent run. Dec. 23, 2003.NOW with Bill Moyers. Politics & Economy. Election 2004.The Third Parties.Green camp: Democrats turn on Nader in search of a scapegoat: Pundits split on man whose Florida votes led to chaos.Duncan Campbell. Green camp: Democrats turn on Nader in search of a scapegoat: Pundits split on man whose Florida votes led to chaos. The Guardian (London). November 15, 2000.  + Ralph Nader ran for the office of President of the United States four times. In 1992, Nader was a write-in candidate in the New Hampshire primary; in 1996 and 2000, he ran as the Green Party candidate; and in 2004, he ran as an independent.The Nader 2000 campaign also launched a concerted, but ultimately unsuccessful, effort to challenge the inclusion criteria for the presidential debates sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD).Ralph Nader. Crashing the Party: Taking on the Corporate Government in an Age of Surrender. New York: St. Martin's Press, 2002. 
Please click the links and observe how other editors rejected your edit:
* Me on Feb. 4
* Sedlam on Jan 31
*Snowfire Jan 27
Please respect other editors. Griot (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *SOCK PUPPET BUSTED--above we see Griot and his sock puppet Sedlam in action. Griot is busted for sock puppetry here Boodlesthecat (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A) Who are you talking to, B) please note, compromises are reached on talk pages, they are not asserted in article edits, as you seem to think by offering thse diffs. So please indicate where on the talk page compromises were reached. Boodlesthecat (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text: You can add me to this list of compromisers. One questions: I'm interested in Ralph's "ultimately unsuccessful, effort to challenge the inclusion criteria of the CPD" Is this covered anywhere in the article? It ought to be as its interesting and also its in the intro whcih leads readers to think it should be in the article too. The article only mentions it twice -- with no background. This should be fixed. Sedlam (talk) 17:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: the intro is now totally garbled. And Sedlam, you are not offering compromises, you are simply offering one of the disputed versions and calling it a compromise. Some funny notions of "compromise" being offered in here! Boodlesthecat (talk) 17:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Boodles is correct. No such compromise exists. Election detail belongs in specified sections. That's what sections and headings are for. 76.87.47.110 (talk) 03:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro Compromise for opening paragraph

message: I have moved 2000 election content to the appropriate section. 76.87.47.110 (talk) 10:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 2000 section

message: I was disappointed to not hear anything about his opinions of Obama, either in this page or Nader's main page.  A quick search turned up these interesting links.
http://www.counterpunch.org/nader02022008.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyfSN7B4lYI
Who ever can, please try to insert these insightful opinions into this article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waxsin (talk • contribs) 05:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Obama and Nader

message: This page http://www.havelshouseofhistory.com/Ralph%20Nader%20Items%201.htm has a Draft Nader 1976 pin in addition to the 72 one.  Not clear if it was connected to a party. Шизомби (talk) 01:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Draft Nader 1976 

message: I think merging Ralph Nader presidential campaign, 2004 might make the article overlong, and perhaps his 2000 campaign should have its own article.  The 2004 article is overly short, really lacking a lot of information, and could be expanded rather than merged. Шизомби (talk) 00:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Шизомби, the article is too long and detailed to be merged. EagleScout18 (talk) 20:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree as well - too long to merge. I also agree with the idea of the 2000 campaign having its own article.--JayJasper (talk) 21:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

text: It's not a copy-paste job, though looking back and forth I still think it's pretty unwieldy. There's actually more info about the 1992 primary on the main page than there is here. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 11:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggestion: someone make a separate article for the 2000 campaign, and either ditch this one or really develop it. I'm getting a headache trying to sort out the overlapping vote counts and these two treatments of the same topic. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 11:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think FangedFaerie's suggestion is good one. After a seperate article for the 2000 campaign has been created, this article could be merged (after considerable trimming) with the Ralph Nader article.--JayJasper (talk) 20:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering that no one has raised an objection to this idea, (and it has been more than a month since it posted), it seems prudent to make the move.--JayJasper (talk) 18:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

text: --JayJasper (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal