Talk:Ralph Nader/Archive 2

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Responses from uninvolved Editors

message: 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)
replies: text: I utterly agree! Thespian, would be great if you would assist on this. Thank you... Telogen 05:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ralph Nader's presidential campaigns - Thespian 07:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Presidential Candidacies

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Banned for disruptive edits. Telogen 19:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  multi-millionaire 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Source? 

message: "Others, such as "Progressive Review" and An Unreasonable Man, refute spoiler claims pertaining to the 2000 presidential election. "The Top 100: The Most Influential Figures in American History." Atlantic Monthly, (December 2006) p.62. The assertion by the Atlantic that Nader made Bush president was disputed by Sam Smith, publisher of the Progressive Review, in that magazine (Smith, Sam [December 21, 2006] "Myth-Making for Why Democrats Lose."; reproduced in the newsletter CounterPunch). Smith wrote that "Gore lost his home state of Tennessee, Bill Clinton's Arkansas and traditionally Democratic West Virginia; with any one of these, Gore would have won. Nine million Democrats voted for Bush, and less than half of the three million Nader voters were Democrats."" 76.166.123.129 23:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Added sources in lead

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Bill Clinton's book

message: 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)
thread_title: 1980 and Jimmy Carter

message: 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.[]Carlaclaws 00:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Georgetown

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

text: 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)
replies: text: Wait for protection to expire. And then there should be consensus for this change. --MZMcBride 03:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope you meant, and then only if there is consensus for this change? 199.125.109.68 00:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Edit Protected

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Nader and the Bush presidency

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: "POV"?

message: 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)
replies: text: Just some silliness, most likely from a friend of gays. Thanks for reverting, otherwise nothing to see here. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 16:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I thought he was Jewish too, but apparently he's a Maronite. IronCrow 05:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hitler's 2nd cousin?

message: 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)
replies: text: It's called "illegal" too. Just ask Ken Starr. 76.87.47.110 10:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lawsuit by Nader 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Gore won. The rest is history. The quote needs to go. 76.87.47.110 10:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Edit warring

message: NOT! What bullshit shitipedia is.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.238.215.190 (talk) 06:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-POV - Anyone can edit 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Section titled "Consumer advocacy, public interest, and civic action 

message: Gore won. The rest is history. The quote needs to go. 76.87.47.110 01:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Atlantic Monthly

message: Gore won. The rest is history. The quote needs to go. 76.87.47.110 21:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You really need to explain your reason. 199.125.109.68 05:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Atlantic Monthly

message: 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)
thread_title: Nader-Related Sites

message: 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)
thread_title: The Corvair -- worse than other cars or not? 

message: "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)
thread_title: Unsourced or poorly sourced claims