Talk:Ralph Nader/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Edit requested

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

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

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

Y Done. Sandstein (talk) 06:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please replace the reference to [1] with this reference: Nader Reports Big Portfolio In Technology. This Salon article is really an anti-Nader editorial presenting facts in a misleading way to imply Nader is a liar. It relies on information from a Washington Post article that is the true secondary source for the information about Nader's finances. The article claims, without any substantive evidence, that Cisco is a monopoly, hence implies Nader lied in stating he had not invested in any monopolies. The original Washington Post article requires payment so it cannot be used as a reference: [2]. Googling shows that the article is reproduced under a false pro-Nader headline at commondreams.org and with correct headline on a discussion board, but obviously we can't use those as references here (especially with the false headline!) because the Post wants folks to buy it from them. So I'm offering as a reference a free NY Times Archive article from that time instead, which combines some info from the Post article and some from a Sun article. I can find no personal finance disclosure docs at the FEC website (maybe I just don't know how to find it), and opensecrets.org only seems to have disclosures of people currently in office.

Please also replace the entire sentence "Nader held an additional $2 million-plus in Fidelity and other mutual funds," which has no supporting source, with:

"He also held more than $2 million in two money market funds."

and move reference to NY Times article from end of previous sentence to end of this one.

I did try to find a reliable source for the sentence mentioning Fidelity. What I found only stresses the importance of removing the sentence or any mention of Fidelity from the bio. Here is what I found:

The Post article on Nader's finances mentions no mutual funds. The NY Times article on Nader's finances mentions "two money market funds" but doesn't name them. So I tried to find a secondary source, but all I got from Googling were two anti-Nader editorials, one published on worldnetdailynews.com, another on Salon.com, and a webpage derivative of the Salon article. The Salon article states that Nader owned $100,000 - $250,000 in the Fidelity Magellan fund and presents Fidelity's holdings (large in comparison to Nader's portfolio but actually a tiny percentage of Fidelity Magellan's $100 Billion portfolio) in Occidental Petroleum and monopolistic or munitions companies to mislead readers into believing Nader had significant holdings in those companies (thus implying Nader is a liar since he had stated that he specifically avoids monopolies and munitions companies, and a hypocrite because his supporters had lambasted Gore for family holdings in Occidental Petroleum). The Salon article states: "Nader said the stocks he chose were "the most neutral-type companies ... No. 1, they're not monopolists and No. 2, they don't produce land mines, napalm, weapons. But this is not true. The Fidelity Magellan fund owns 777,080 shares of Raytheon, a major missile manufacturer." Fidelity Magellan is a $100 billion fund, Raytheon traded at $23 in 2000, so calculating yields Nader owned (777,080 x $23)/$100 Billion x $250,000 = $50 worth of Raytheon, which at 20 cents/share of quarterly dividends [3] means Nader raked in 4q x 2 shares x $.20 = $1.60 in ill-gotten Raytheon gains that year. The sentence is also written to suggest that Fidelity is the major portion of the $2 million Nader held in mutual funds, but the Salon article's numbers of $100,000 - $250,000 mean it is only 5% to 12.5% of the $2 million. Clearly the reason the sentence mentions Fidelity specifically is not because it is a high percentage of the $2 million, so it must be mentioning Fidelity to indicate it is notable in some other sense. It looks as if the sentence is meant specifically to echo the emphasis of the Salon.com article. This sentence in the bio, like the Salon.com article it echoes, is misleading about the extent of Nader's holdings in companies he claims to avoid investing in, and its only effect in the bio here is to provide Google keywords (Googling "Fidelity Nader" brings up the salon article and another anti-nader derivative site as the first four hits, followed by Wikipedia bio which currently reinforces the first four hits) that lead directly to Salon's potentially libelous material. Alternatively, the wording of this sentence might also be taken verbatim from the right-wing attack editorial published on the worldnetdailynews site that states, "Nader held an additional $2 million-plus in Fidelity and other mutual funds." The writer says nothing more about Fidelity but complains that he has no idea why an uncle he once idolized, who played pro football then made millions as a Merrill Lynch exec, voted for Nader in 2000, but felt people needed to be warned that "Nader is a hypocrite." He also falsely accuses Nader of delivering "another of his eye-twitching fulminations against capitalism (and not just Enron's corrupt brand of crony capitalism)", elsewhere insinuates falsely Nader is a socialist in a derogatory manner, amid a litany of insults including the contemptuous reference to Nader's "eye-twitching" without mentioning that it likely is the result of his bout of Bell's Palsy years ago. The Salon article calls Nader "supremely hypocritical" and uses misleading numerical presentations to represent his investment decisions in a false light as support for this factually unsupportable claim, and is clearly potentially libelous. Emphasizing Nader's holdings in Fidelity in his Wikipedia bio when only one other holding, Cisco, is specifically mentioned, when Cisco is over 25% of Nader's portfolio but Fidelity is only 2% - 5% cannot serve any rational purpose other than to provide a stealth reference either to the nearly profane and malicious, and potentially libelous or invasive of privacy, worldnetdailynews editorial or to the potentially libelous material on Salon.com regarding his Fidelity holding. I can find nothing else notable about the Fidelity holding that would explain why an editor would have inserted mention of Fidelity specifically here in his bio. This is not just POV - it functions to convert the wikipedia bio into a search keyword and phrase conduit for web traffic toward these two contentious and possibly libelous or privacy-invasive editorials. Jautumn (talk) 15:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} The final sentence of the "Personal Finances..." section is unsourced, but its content indicates that it relies in part on a sentence in the original Washington Post article on Nader's financial disclosure that explicitly mentions his donations to PIRGs. Neither the Salon.com articles on the topic nor the NY Times article mention PIRGs specifically, just "civic projects" or "public interest organizations", so it's odd the Post article isn't cited but the Salon article is when the Post article would serve also to source this sentence while the Salon article does not. Whatever the intent, this has the purpose of herding Wikipedia readers to inferior sources with contentious content. This last sentence is written in such a way as to imply that Nader has an ownership or control of the PIRGs and other organizations he donates money to, which borders on an accusation of tax fraud. It says that Nader gave money to "his" PIRGs and other non-profits "under his umbrella", when in fact while Nader helped found the first PIRGs decades ago and has collaborated with them on various lobbying efforts, he is not an employee or board member of them now and certainly does not bear an ownership or control relationship to any of them as is implied by the reference to them as "his". The phrase "under his umbrella" also implies that he exercises some sort of conglomerated control over these organizations, but there is no source cited to support this statement and it clearly bears only a contentious polemical, not a factual, relationship to the topic of his "personal finances". The only other sources I can find for these allegations of Nader being some kind of mafioso-like svengali are old right-wing attack articles against Nader from the time he was ramping up his campaign against Tort reform in the early nineties. So rather than searching harder for a source for this irrelevant implied claim, I request that the last sentence be changed to remove the implied claim with the nearest claim I can find a reliable source for. The strongest statement from a reliable source that I can find stating that Nader has contributed to organizations he founded is in an encyplopedia bio of him that is posted on his own website: "From his Washington, D.C. headquarters, the Center for Study of Responsive Law, Nader has provided the moral leadership, political and legal advice, and seed financial support for a sprawling network of more than four dozen groups that he has founded. While most of them are now formally independent of Nader, they frequently collaborate as the occasion arises."Ralph Nader

So to eliminate the contentious, potentially libelous implication, please change the sentence from:

The largest recipients of Nader's donations have included his own Public Interest Research Groups (PIRGs) and other non-profit organizations under his umbrella.

to:

Nader has donated seed money for many of the over four dozen non-profit organizations he has founded.

Jautumn (talk) 15:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

These are not minor changes, and should wait until the article is unprotected. Please work to resolve the disagreements that led to protection and then request unprotection at WP:RFPP. Until then, it isn't appropriate for admins to continue making changes of this sort to the article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the original sentence implied tax fraud, I think it is meant to show that Nader directs the majority of his donations to groups he helped form. Your revision deletes the content of where Nader donates money and inserts the redundant statement that Nader helped form organizations.Xpanzion (talk) 06:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} There needs to be a reference added in the personal finance section. The information about cisco stock and such is hard to find, but Jautumn found some good links, like this one [4]. I think this is a good article with similar information [5]. I searched through FEC reports for Nader and found the following pages, this FEC page is a wide angle look at Nader's 2000 campaign finances, and this has more specific reports. I can't find anything relating to stocks owned, all these reports have are campaign contributions and spending. The wide angle page should be added to external links. Xpanzion (talk) 06:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I know the sentence doesn't direclty imply tax fraud, but it borders on it because in context it forms part of attack arguments that have been made that he's contributing, under the guise of charitable contributions, to political activities of organizations he secretly controls. The contributions to "his" PIRG's, coupled with the allegation of secret control over PIRG's, does imply tax fraud. This is the gist of the Accuracy In Media article you found. Accuracy In Media is not a reliable source, as it promotes fringe views with no factual support. The article you found on Nader, for example, has virtually no factual content at all. The only Verifiable statement it makes is that it has no evidence for any of the other speculations and claims it makes in the article. The Salon article you cite is also an attack piece with no verifiable content it didn't draw from the original Washington Post article - please read my analysis of it above. I didn't reference it because the Wikipedia policy says not to reference contentious claims poorly sourced even in talk pages or user talk pages. The fact that you read what I wrote about the article, then sincerely went looking for better cites, only to find the same Salon article and mistook it for "good", as I first did before reading it thoroughly and carefully, only reinforces my point that this section needs to be cleared out of the "Fidelity" keyword. It leads only to poorly sourced, deceptively couched, contentious, potentially libelous or privacy-invasive webpages, and there is simply no reference to Fidelity to be found in any article on Nader's finances from a reliable source. The fact that the entire sentence currently in the article referencing Fidelity is lifted verbatim from a right-wing attack article that also makes derogatory reference to Nader's eye-twitch (he had Bell's Palsy for years) makes it not only a stealth reference to that hit-piece, but potential plagiarism of it as well.

I do wish like you that we could find a reliable source that doesn't require payment (as the Washington Post's does) for the info about donations to PIRG's. I'm inclined to think it's true, but the reason it's hard to find a source for this info is that Nader only releases private financial info he's required to by law, on principle. I think he's always been sensitive to the conservative criticism that his promotion of government regulation makes him hostile to privacy rights, and he makes a point to argue for both strong government regulatory measures to protect consumers and strong protections of individual privacy from government intrusion. This principled commitment to what he sees as two countervaling necessities that must be balanced and made to work together in a healthy tension, a tension relieved and resolved in his view by mandating government regulatory agencies to provide mechanisms for private citizens to form watchdog groups to keep those regulatory powers transparent, accountable and tightly tailored to public interest needs, is precisely what the attack articles attempt to prevent anyone from understanding, by basting over it a lot of innuendo about his supposed hypocrisy for advocating for and conducting himself in accord with both sides of that tension. If the point of a Wikipedia bio is to help readers understand the views and actions of the person in question, we should work on finding proper citations and explication of Nader's views on resolving conflicts between privacy and government regulation, not cite facts whose origin is in attack articles designed specifically to prevent people from understanding those views and actions by framing them in a false negative light.

I'm making the changes I requested under edit protection. But this section needs to evolve into a fuller treatment of the ways in which his public life and his views and stances on privacy and the relation between government and citizens have informed his actions in relation to disclosure of private information such as his tax returns. On Hardball in 2004 he said tax returns can contain a lot of very private information, such as identifying information about disabled children someone may be providing financialy support to, for example. Privacy is a very important issue running throughout Nader's career and activism - remember that his famous victory over GM was in getting GM to settle and apologize for Invasion of Privacy.

Jautumn (talk) 07:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Activism - Many Gaps To Fill

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

His "early activism" is the corner stone of his legacy in the US, and there is very little to show for on this page other than a couple of lists. This section could use drastic improvements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.0.22.194 (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

ALERT : Myth in the media about what Nader is saying

I just wanted to point this out. The introductory paragraph of Nader's page contained a statement that Nader himself claimed the Democrats were to blame for Al Gore's loss to Bush in 2000. The reference provided no source that actually quoted Nader as saying that, so I removed it. It is true that the mainstream media is reporting this (without providing references of their own), but this is not the same as Nader actually saying it. So I revised the sentence in order to reflect this alleged claim (if someone has a source that supports that claim by all means then re-include the statement). In the meantime I HAVE heard what Raph Nader is saying and it is quite different to the story that mainstream news is splashing on the headlines today (24.Feb.08) - some refs are in the wiki page already. In an interview a few weeks ago (31 January 2008, on DemocracyNow.org, with Amy Goodman) Ralph Nader stated that he believes the election was, quote: "stolen" from Al Gore in Florida, by the Secreteary of State, Jeb Bush and ultimately the Supreme Court. The claim is a very different one. This so far is the only reference i've come cross that actually reports what Nader is saying. I would ask that this claim not be altered unless a good reference warrants it.

Interview link: http://media.switchpod.com/users/democracynow/ftp/dn2008-0131-1.mp3
NOTE: to find the relevant section, skip the headlines and first section of the interview regarding John Edwards' departure from the race. After this, Ralph Nader is interviewed. The relevant quote comes from the second part of this interview with Nader (first question after middle break).

related links:
Article: "Dispelling the Myths of Election 2000: Did Nader cost Gore the election?" : http://www.cagreens.org/alameda/city/0803myth/myth.html -
Speech on Impeachment by Ralph Nader: "Things are a lot worse than we thought", panel discussion 11 October 2007, Washington DC: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIO-tCPSfHA&feature=related
- examples of mainstream media report on the above issue: 1) "Obama, Clinton fight for votes as battle rages ti take on McCain" - FOXNews.com, 24 Feb 2008: http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/02/24/new-poll-puts-obama-ahead-of-mccain-as-clinton-claims-to-be-better-equipped-for-general-election-fight/ - 2) "Nader says he's running for the US Presidency again" - J. Brinsley in Bloomberg.com (25.Feb.2008): http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=ax2Gl.yw13nY&refer=home - 3) http://www.suntimes.com/news/elections/810644,nader022408.article - "Ralph Nader to run for President" (24.Feb.2008) Chicago Sun-Times: Jordzen (talk) 06:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Swiftboat Veterans for Truth

Should someone include information about Nader's history of receiving support from Republicans as a tactic to draw votes away from Democratic voters towards Nader - thus improving the Republicans relative poll numbers. See this article on The Nation and can be easily cross referenced on campaignmoney.com. 69.203.13.29 (talk) 05:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

During a Q&A for the with Henriette Mantle and Steven Skrovan at the opening of "An Unreasonable Man", someone asked them about this issue. Apparently a study was done in 2004 to see how many what percentage of Nader's contributions came from registered Republicans. The number was extremely low, less than 3 or 4 percent of his total contributions, as compared to 15 percent that the major parties donate back and forth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.0.22.194 (talk) 14:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this was debunked bank in 2004. I don't remember what the numbers are, but John Kerry received much more money from Republicans than Nader did. Bennie Noakes (talk) 18:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

With the announcement comes the vandalism

The guy announced this morning and I'm seeing a trickle of vandalism. Changed the party affiliation under his photo from "Covert Republican" to "Independent." Just might want to watch out for this page.71.199.176.189 (talk) 18:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

At 04:32, 25 Feb 2008, user GearedBull changed Nader campaign graphic to anti-Nader graphic. The graphic has been deleted.T g7 (talk) 05:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Jautumn Fillibuster

Jautumn, it's becoming plain to me that what you are doing on this Discussion page amounts to a fillibuster, a form of obstructionism, a sort of fog machine of words that doesn't shed any light on this topic. You have expended literally tens of thousands of words trying to discredit whatever publications or persons disagree with your point of view about Nader without addressing any points that other editors have brought up. You don't like the Atlantic quote, so you go out of your way to try to discredit what is a major and very worhty American magazine. You don't like the Salon article about Nader, so you claim it is an anti-Nader editorial posing as an article. Publications that are critical of Nader are inflammatory or libelous.

I just noticed in today's newspaper an ad for a documentary about Nader to be shown this week on PBS ("An Reasonable Man"). The tagline on the ad reads, "Nader, spoiler or savior? You decide." Nader is in many people's minds the spoiler of the 2000 election. This needs to be addressed in this article. As of now, it is half of Nader's legacy, the other half being his consumer activist work. If Jautumn, doesn't like the message, he needn't kill the messenger. The Atlantic quote and other discussions of Nader's role in the 2000 election belong in this article. Maybe we should just start from there and decide which quotes to include without trying to drown others' opinions in steatorrheaic argument. Griot (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I have a response, but unless anyone objects I'll save it to post after the holidays. Good cheer, everyone, see you next year!

Jautumn (talk) 18:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "speak now or forever hold your peace" comes to mind. But try to keep your response under a hundred words. 199.125.109.68 (talk) 18:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I second that. Use the extra time to summarize, summarize, and summarize. Griot (talk) 21:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Griot, you're wrong about my personal bias. I am biased against groupthink, especially when it demonizes or ostracizes people or POV's. I am in favor of resolving disputes not by the kind of "compromise" reached last March, which only served to compromise both V and NPOV, pretty much assuring an edit war, but by finding Verifiable facts upon which to anchor an NPOV narrative, from which notable attributed POV's can be presented without making it appear the article itself is slanted toward any of those POV. I find it unfortunate that much of the discussion of the Atlantic quote has been back-and-forth assertions about what is obviously true or obviously false to editors, with no fact-finding to ground the discussion. So I undertook to do thorough research and analysis of every claim put forth during the March discussion as justification for treating the quote x, y, or z way. Yes, that takes a lot of verbiage to present, but it took far more work for me to do the research than for anyone else to read the results. For the record, I apologize for the length of my postings for the umpteenth time, but my postings are packed with relevant information so they are not obstructionist at all. Edit wars are obstructive, and I have not taken part in any.

The editorial issues raised by the Atlantic quote are complex, and insufficiently complex treatment of those issues are what have perpetuated this dispute. I believe I have established enough verifiable ground on which to resolve the dispute in ways that respect all POV's on Nader's 2000 impact, give reasonable weight to the issue as a whole in the article, and permit us to include the Atlantic's editorial POV, its historians' expert POV (Nader 96 ranking is still POV, not V because not peer-reviewed established fact within the discipline of American history as a whole) in a way that does not give the impression those views are tacitly endorsed or treated with deference by the article.

My "steatorrhea" as you put it, has consisted of conducting a thorough analysis of all unproven claims made in that March discussion, including your view that the Atlantic and its ten invited historians are a reliable source and that the quote thus states verifiable fact. That view was dismissed by other editors. I did not dismiss it. I bothered to look for grounds upon which it could be based, along with grounds for the extreme opposite view, that the quote is facially false and that the Atlantic is an unethical, unreliable source that should not be quoted even for POV (because the Atlantic allegedly repeated a claim about Ariel Sharon in 2005 that Time had retracted after it was proven false in court [6] Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre - find "Time mag" on the page ). But examining that issue, I found that the Atlantic statement was too vague to be certain it was referring to Sabra and Shatila - the Atlantic is very savvy.

As a result, I have done far more hard work to support your point of view than you have done. I have presented evidence and reasoning in favor of:

- including the Atlantic quote in the body text

- keeping it in the lead

- finding "Nader made GWB Prez" plausible from secondary sources (hence "Nader didn't make GWB Prez" unverifiable POV, not the "obvious fact" many have asserted it is)

- finding the Atlantic historians' rankings legit expert POV

- assuming your good faith.

You just don't seem to like that my analysis also provided strong evidence that:

- the Atlantic quote doesn't jibe with the historians' rankings (big surprise, ten eminent historians not source of slanted two-line summation of controversial figure's career)

- nobody really knows for sure what would have happened if Nader hadn't run for prez in 2000 (surprise again - behavior of 100 million humans defies armchair speculation),

- Nader was very influential btw Unsafe and 2000 (shocker - consistent $400,000/yr speaker in the news every 2-3 days not a has-been),

- the post-neocon Atlantic is not a good source for dry NPOV encyclopedic facts because its purpose is to publish provocative, stylistically rich and sophisticated commentary with a point of view.

I'm not saying you have to give me the last word. Please engage my research with more research and show where I'm wrong, but please don't dismiss or profane my research or evade it with ad hominems. I have undertaken my research in good faith, and by Wikipedia policy you are supposed to assume my good faith as I have assumed yours.

And my criticism of Salon.com in the Unsourced or poorly sourced references section is the same as it is with commondreams.com - their sloppy, unreliable, unethical journalistic practices, not their POV.

It appears you believe sincerely that Nader is primarily responsible for all of GWB's alleged crimes, and that's fine for you to believe, but the version of the article MFeinberg posted, with the Atlantic quote text in the lead with a weak clause stating others disagree, which is the version you have repeatedly reverted other editors' attempts to remove, balance or qualify, trumpeted that opinion to the world under the color of objectivity or tacitly endorsed authoritative opinion. You have mischaracterized as pro-Nader POV other editors', and now my, presentation of evidence that the Atlantic is heavily POV in its assertions generally, even questionable in its integrity for the Sharon claim, and that Nader's primary responsibility for GWB's presidency is far from verifiable fact. When presented amid dismissals of "Nader made GWB President" as facially false, I can understand why you would see attacks on the Atlantic's credibility as biased, but I went out of my way to find evidence supporting the plausibility of the "Nader made GWB President" statement, found it, and I looked for evidence pro and con that the Atlantic is a reliable source for Verifiable facts, and found a lot more con than pro. Even the Wikipedia article on The Atlantic Monthly discusses its consistency problem ever since David Bradley bought it, turned it into a neocon bullhorn, then swung it against Bush when Bradley soured on Bush. He's now hired Andrew Sullivan who's had a similar trajectory re Bush and the Iraq war and whose Wikipedia article also cites inconsistency of POV. The Dec 2007 Atlantic cover is a pro-Obama piece by Sullivan, who has personally endorsed Obama, and Bradley has maxed out contributing to Obama, Clinton and Mitt Romney. The Atlantic is POV-pushing like mad, and from no consistent ideology. That's fine, the Atlantic never was meant to be a news magazine or an ideological fulcrum, and it's less of one now than ever before. The opinions it publishes are notable because of its historic place in American publishing and because of its influential readership. But it is not a good source for Verifiable facts, nor since Bradley took over has it been the bellweather it once was of a widely held school of thought among learned and influential people. It's become rather erratic and idiosyncratic in its POV, hard to say where its POV is coming from or who shares it, or how widely held it is. That said, I'm still in favor of regarding its POV's as notable.

Like you, I want a representative sample of conflicting and varying opinions presented in the article. But I also think it's critical to include along with those views a statement of the fact, backed by scholarly citations, that none of these views are proven by scholarship, hence none are authoritative. With such a heatedly contested topic, it will be impossible for our article to make a selection of quotes that will come off looking balanced to myriad readers or editors on both sides of the debate, so having that statement citing the Verifiable neutral scholarship makes our NPOV depend far less on the futile task of finding a perfect balance of quotes. So it gives us a bit more breathing room to agree on a set of quotes that may not look perfectly balanced from every point of view, because at least by citing the neutral scholarship we're making it absolutely clear the article itself isn't tacitly endorsing any perceived imbalance in its presentation of quotes. I can guarantee you we are not going to get a strong consensus here about which POV on the "Nader cost Gore" question deserves what weight - I can see another edit war looming over the weighting - so let's undercut that potential edit war by making the weighting less than a paramount issue from an editorial perspective.

Would you agree that including the brief statement citing the scholarship makes the article more informative, more edit-war-proof, and strengthens its adherence to the principles of NPOV, V and NOR? Please also respond to my revised proposal in response to JMLane's posting in the Atlantic Warring section 4. Thanks.

Jautumn (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a source, but those Gore voters who 'accidently' voted for Pat Buchanan didn't help Gore either. GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Another edit requested

{{editprotected}} Ralph Nader has hinted at his endorsement of 2008 presidential candidate Ron Paul in his blog. I think this should mentioned under the presidential campaign section for 2008. The key sentence is: "Unless my campaign starts showing some signs of life, I might just vote for [Ron Paul] next November." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timberlax (talk • contribs) 06:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

That site is satire.71.190.24.251 (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Note: The above edit-request was made by Timberlax [7] - not sure why it didn't get autosigned - and should have been inserted below, not above my earlier requests below. Jautumn (talk) 13:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying the site's words are those of Nader? It seems legit to me, unless there is something obvious about it I'm not seeing. -Timberlax (talk) 08:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Read the top left corner "these blogs are not real". Oh and check out what GWB "said" while you are there.[8] 199.125.109.45 (talk) 19:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Atlantic monthly compromise

I would sugjeetst that as a comparomomize we include the Atlantic Monthly quopte in the body of the article insstead of in the lead, in the section on the 2000 election. 199.125.109.45 (talk) 19:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit requested 3

{{editprotected}} I believe it should be noted in the Notes section that An Unreasonable Man was aired as part of PBS's Independent Lens series on December 18, 2007. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Not necessary. There is already a Wiki-link to the movie that lists the places it has shown. 199.125.109.45 (talk) 16:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

N Edit declined. No consensus. Sandstein (talk) 14:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Religion

The Wiki page on the Maronite Rite Catholics lists Nader as a member of that rite and thus ultimatly a Catholic. Does anyone know if that is true and if not, how did it get onto the Maronite page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.13.27.206 (talk) 03:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found it. It just wasn't listed on politics pages. It appears that his family is that religion but does anyone know if he is a practicing Catholic? Some of his policy possitions suggest against it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.13.27.206 (talk) 03:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Which policies suggest against it? IgorBlucher (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

If he was born into the Maronite Church, that's not odd at all. The Maronites are an Eastern-rite Catholic group which is the largest church in Lebanon, where his family comes from. I really don't think he remains a practicing Maronite, though. Tom129.93.17.174 (talk) 23:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Vast Improvements Needed

This is an article about one of the most important and influential citizens of the 20th century and one of the most controversial political figures of the early 21st century. A lot of the information in the article is short and vauge. Little information about his public interest work in the 60s and 70s is covered, and virtually no mention is made of his decline in influenece in the early 80s. The information on his presidential runs are very filled with a lot of accusations and rebuttles. I feel that a good layout for his page would be as follows:

1. Early Life- Briefly tough on his childhood in Winstead and education history 2. Clash with Automobile Industry- Write about his dealings with GM, from the writing of Unsafe at Any Speed to the GM private investigators to the passing of the National Highway Safety Act 3. Activism- Talk about his work with the Freedom of Information Act, National Mine Health Saftey Act, EPA, ect and talk about his raise to national prominince. Appearing on Newsweek wearing a suit of Armor, hosting Saturday Night Live, ect 4. Naders Raiders- Discuss the history of Nader's raiders, how it came about, the books, and what they've accomplished. 5. Groups- A brief overview(not just a list) of the civic groups he has founded and some of their accomplishments 6. Later Years(with a better name)- Discuss his fall from popularity in the Reagan years, what he did accomplish in the area. 7. Presidential Aspirations- Discuss the details of his campaigns and platforms. Create a sub section for critisicms and rebuttle to critisicms.

Again, this is possibly the most important private citizen of the 20th century, and one of the most divisive political figures of his time, he went from overwhelming popularity from liberals to overwhelming contempt. This article needs to be much, much better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.0.22.194 (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree much work needs to be done to fill in gaps. I think any account of a decline in influence in the 80's should either be backed up by some statistical evidence or left to be implied by fewer notable activities described in those years. He was active in the 80's, but had less direct influence on government as a Washington lobbyist due to Reagan-Bush's deregulation agenda. But he claims he had even less lobbying clout with the Clinton administration in the 90's. One has to wonder, though, if the 80's diminished his clout on Capitol Hill so much, why there was so much fear among his enemies in Congress that Bob Dornan found it necessary to read an entire Forbes attack article against him into the Congressional Record in 1990? Congressional Record, October 11, 1990, Page: E3198. This was right when Nader began a campaign against Tort Reform, and two years after his first foray into electoral politics, successfully campaigning to pass Prop 103 in California against the heavily funded insurance lobby's competing initiative and two other competing initiatives. According to the biography Nader: Crusader, Spoiler, Icon by Justin Martin a poll had shown that 67% of California voters admitting they knew nothing about the insurance initiatives would vote for 103 solely because it was associated with Nader.Nader: Crusader, Spoiler, Icon p. 225 That kind of clout among undecided voters is something for elected officials to fear indeed, and whatever it may have done to his access to the White House or Congress, clearly the 80's hadn't greatly diminished his public stature or popularity.

So I think his decline in influence in the early 80's is a bit of a myth. I've suggested that going through every article mentioning Nader in the NY Times archives for every year of his career and summarizing what was found would be a good way to get a handle on just what he was doing that was newsworthy year by year - not that the article should be organized that way, but that this is a good way to start gathering, sizing up, sifting through and verifying the enormous amount of information, and misinformation, out there about him. Obviously his various biographies are a resource as well.

I think your suggestion is a good start, but as themes arise we may need some sections broken out on their own from the Activism section. My search on the Congressional Record from 1995 to present showed 159 references to "Ralph Nader".Congressional Record Search Results on "Ralph Nader" My search on the 101st Congressional Record 1989-90 gave 31 hits. Congressional Record

I like your suggestion that we actually describe what his campaign platforms were. I think the section should remain titled "Presidential Campaigns" though, since in 92 and 96 he disavowed having any actual presidential aspirations. I think the Recognition section I just added should remain right after the lead, as well.

There's a lot of research to be done, and I suggest we do it incrementally, using the Activism section to develop sentences into paragraphs on different significant areas of activity, then into separate sections if they get multi-paragraph. The Nader's Raiders section could start there and grow until there's enough to make it a section of its own. I think it's very important, though, to put absolutely nothing down without a solid reliable citation. The NY Times on-line archive is a great resource for that, I think.

BTW I moved this section down from top of page, because as i understand it new talk page sections are supposed to be appended at the bottom, so the page flows chronologically top-to-bottom. Otherwise it gets really hard to tell what's new and people may not even notice a section's been added.

Jautumn (talk) 11:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Question on category inclusion

I don't want to cause any flamewars, but Ralph Nader has repeatedly and publicly declined (not to say refused) to become a member of the U.S. Green Party or any other political party. Is the fact that the Greens nominated him for the Presidency sufficient justification on its own for his inclusion in Category:Green Party (United States) politicians (especially as he has since run for the Presidency as an independent, against nominated Green candidates), or should that inclusion be reserved for avowed members of the U.S Green Party? Additionally, should he be listed in the infobox as a Green if he is not a member of that party?

(I don't actually have a dog in this fight, so whatever the consensus is will be good by me, but it's a question that I feel needs asking.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.21.88 (talk) 14:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added "(affiliated non-member)" to qualify the "Green" entry in the infobox. I hope that works. I've looked through the Infobox style guide talk pages and don't see anything that would bar such a parenthetical qualification. I agree it's important to make it clear he's not a member since he's made it specifically clear he does not want to join any political party, but obviously accepting a nomination or endorsement is an affiliation. For that reason, I've also added "Reform (affiliated non-member)" to the list.

Jautumn (talk) 10:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to balk at "affiliated". "Affiliation" is the word that is used on voter registration forms when one is registering to vote as a member of a particular party, and so implies membership. May I suggest "(non-member, endorsed Presidential candidate)"? --7Kim (talk) 15:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

If it was Category:Green Party (United States) members, the answer would be obvious. But he is arguably a "Green Party (United States) politician"; and if you look at this in terms of what readers expect to find when they are browsing thru categories, I think it makes more sense to include him than it would to exclude him. Cgingold (talk) 02:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This argument has a lot of merit, but it seems to me that including him in this category could be a little misleading. For those who do not already know Nader's stance on membership in any party, it implies something that is not true -- that he us a member. If the category name were Category: United States Green politicians (pointing to Green politics without the Party) or Category:Green Party (United States) political candidates, that implication would not be there. Furthermore, describing him as a Green Party politician also suggests a certain level of identification with the Green Party's specific political programme, which is precisely the impression that Mr. Nader is striving hard to prevent by rejecting membership. Now, we're not responsible to Mr. Nader for helping shape his public image, but at the same time we are responsible, I feel, for not being a distribution point for misleading impressions. I see your argument as valid, but it would be nice to distinguish between politicians who are associated with the Green Party (U.S.) and those who are members of the Green Party (U.S.). This is an issue that rarely arises with the U.S. Democratic or Republican Parties, as people who are not members of the parties are rarely if ever part of the public face of either Party (nominal independence and crypto-Republican politics notwithstanding, Joe Lieberman is still a member of the Democratic Party). Perhaps, in the end, the thing to do is talk to the nice folks editing Category:Green Party (United States) politicians and put in writing on the category page that members of the category may or may not be members of the Party. (Clear and explicit inclusion criteria for categories -- a hobbyhorse of mine.) --7Kim (talk) 15:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Article Expansion

Can people please exapnd what he has achieved. The whole article seems so short and please expand on his clashes because he has clashed with more people that just GM motors. and doesn't the Naders Raiders call for a new section? 78.86.95.225 (talk) 18:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)---

OK, I added a couple of extra sections (on Canada and EU), and removed the names of US states for which there is no description of laws. I also removed this sentence from the intro, which doesn't seem very relevant:

The U.S. Supreme Court has observed that the rights of candidates and voters are closely intertwined. Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134 (1972)

Somebody may want to work this into the US section. Bistromathic 11:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Bistromathic, Googling suggests to me that you may be posting in the wrong wiki here. Looks like you want to head over to Ballotpedia - Ballot access.

78.86.95.225, please join discusion of same topic in "Vast Improvement" section above.

Jautumn (talk) 11:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

< http://ballot-access.org > ballot_access Ralph_Nader

• < http://ballot-access.org >.
• Contact Richard Winger:
• P.O. Box 470296,
• San Francisco, CA 94147
• < richardwinger@yahoo.com >.
• (1415)92-2-9779
• (1415)79-4-9779

I am adding this in order to clarify one of the listings that I had found here, in the article.

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 20:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you explain better what you're adding to what, and why? I'm just kind of confused here. Also, Wikipedia style guide for section headings says "Links are never used, in favor of linking the first occurrence of the item in the text." Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Section_headings

Jautumn (talk) 11:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• wikipedia:what_"Ignore_all_rules"_means
• wikipedia:ignore_all_rules

I am not sure that I completely comprehend that; but, anyhow, I have offered no pretense nor advocacy of adding that to the actual page. Secondly, I did not check the links today; but, I had only learned about this agency due to the links in this article. I've likely heard of them previously; but, I went to their page due to their link in this article.

As a result, I've learned more,.....:

• Noel Runyan
• Debby Runyan
• Campbell, Santa_Clara_County,_California 95008

• < http://votersunite.org/info/accessibility.asp >;
• < http://votersunite.org/info/RunyanOnAvante.htm >;
• < http://votersunite.org >;
• < http://electionarchive.org >;
• <

http://electionarchive.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=148&Itemid=84 >;

• Kathy Dopp;
• (1435)65-8-4657;
• Park City, Utah.

This week I have heard some people that I would like to learn more about; two examples of articles that I would like to see are: "I. S. Leevy Johnson" {not "Levi_Johnson"}; & Kevin Alexander Gray|Kevin Alexander Grey.

Thank You,

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 02:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is an effort to learn something a crime?

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 17:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The only places w/ electionarchive are

2004_United_States_presidential_election_controversy_and_irregularities

& Newfoundland general election, various articles.

The only place with votersunite is William_Roger_"Bill"_Moss.

This is what I got next:

• < http://voteraction.org/contact >:
• PO Box 18122
• Seattle, WA 98118
• Office: (206) 723-1941
• Fax: (206) 260-3031
• 48 North Pleasant Street, Suite 304
• Amherst, Massachusetts 01002
• Office: (413) 253-2700
• Fax: (413) 253-2702

No article includes voteraction.

I would like an article that reflects the many doubts about our ballots.

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 01:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Ralph Nader, Ron Paul, and Mike Huckabee Delegation

Here's to the marginals who have trouble giving up. lol 204.52.215.107 (talk) 19:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Naders "very controversial" campaigns

Using the claim "His campaigns have proven very controversial..." really needs a good source. It seems that absent the hysterical and hostile attacks by Democratic Party supporters, there really is no controversy, but rather an interesting debate on the effect his candidacy may have had on the 2000 election. To call his campaigns "controversial" is to make a value judgement of sorts akin to "he started trouble..." and hence to bias in favor of his opponents claims; however, if the Democrats would simply respect his right, and the right of his supporters to have a wider ballot choice, there is no trouble, just a campaign to analyze.Boodlesthecat (talk) 06:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

"Controversial" is not a value judgment. It's simply an objective report of the undeniable fact that people disagree. Search for the word on Wikipedia and you'll find more than 100,000 other uses of it. To see that this is not an instance of "hysterical and hostile attacks by Democratic Party supporters", note that we use the same term about Nader's Democratic opponent in 2004, in an article title no less: John Kerry military service controversy. You are entitled to your personal opinion that the Democrats' criticisms of Nader lacked merit, just as I'm entitled to my personal opinion that the Swift Boaters' criticisms of Kerry lacked merit. Nevertheless, our personal beliefs don't provide a basis for suppressing the factual information about the criticisms that were raised. I'm restoring the description. JamesMLane t c 09:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Must be sourced or will be removed. 76.87.47.110 (talk) 18:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Sedlam's version of 2 Feb 2008 ("His campaigns have proven very controversial, his role in the 2000 election in particular being subject to much analysis and debate") seems accurate and NPOV to me, though I've tweaked "proven" to "been". I agree with JamesMLane that "controversial" is accurate and NPOV here.

We may want to cite this per Boodlesthecat. I hardly think that that will be difficult. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 11:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

JamesMLane, the Kerry example alas seems equally probelematic, in that it biases the representation by identifying Kerry as the source/protagonist of the controversy, when in that case it would clearly seem to be more accurate to use "Swift Boat controversy." My point again is that the terminology biases the the representation. Controversies are typically generated because someone does something that is unusual, and there is a debate about whether perhaps there was something questionable, dishonest, illicit, etc etc. But the issue here is that Nader ran for president--certainly not as one of the two party candidates, but completely within the legal framework of election law. "Controversy" biases by adding an air of illicitness, and supports his opponents contention that he was bad, evil, etc--all demonstrably because they felt he took votes from another candidate. Wikipedia is non-partisan--we should not be reinforcing such a partisan argument. Two guys kiss on the street. Statistically unusual, perhaps, but do we reinforce societal biases with tabloid representations such as "controversial"?

I'm going to try one tweak to try and reframe, feel free to revert if its too controversial! Boodlesthecat (talk) 13:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I've cited the blasted thing to BBC News. The phrasing is IMHO now completely NPOV.

Boodles -- IMHO, reference to Democrats in particular finding Nader controversial doesn't need to go in the Intro. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 20:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Writtenonsand--thanks, but...but...but...if you read the article, you'll see that what it describes (accurately) as "controversial" is the "results in the 2000 election," while the description of him is "many Democrats blame him for handing the election to George W Bush." Which was exactly (one of) my compromise versions of the intro:

"His campaigns have proven very controversial, with Democratic opponents accusing him of siphoning support from their campaigns. His role in the 2000 election in particular has been subject to much analysis and debate. which was cited as being POV."

But that version received no love. So if we must use "controversial," I still strongly feel that for neutrality it has to be specific to the pretty much universally accepted source of that controversy--the fully partisan fits thrown by the pro-Democrat and/or anti-Bush sector. Else readers might get the impression that Nader did something bad rather than exercised a right that a revolution was made to secure! (No offense to the fine folks at the BBC)Boodlesthecat (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This cites the BBC. The phrasing is IMHO now completely NPOV. The word "controversy" is neutral. Completely neutral. .Feedler (talk) 22:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Boodles: IMHO, while there has certainly been much criticism of Nader by Democrats, I think that there has been criticism from other sources as well, and that it's overstating things to say that the Democrats are flatly "the" source of criticism. I think that we should easily be able to find sources for Democrat and non-Democrat criticism and probably should mention both.

IMHO the intro is just fine now: Says that there has been criticism, cites it, and doesn't go into details -- IMHO the details should come later in the article. IMHO "controversial" has no connotation at all of "wrongdoing". Hell, Gandhi was controversial.

I certainly strongly agree that Nader was completely within his rights to run, and that he's received rather shabby treatment from the political mainstream and media. However, this can be discussed in the article.

I don't have time to work on this further right now -- will take a look at it tomorrow or ASAP. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 02:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It would simply be false to state that all the criticism of Nader came from Democrats. For example, here is a link to an article from 2000 by Todd Gitlin, a former president of Students for a Democratic Society, in which he has plenty of criticism of Gore, but concludes that Nader is wrong to run a campaign that could result in a Bush presidency.

It's quite common for people to be criticized by their ideological opponents. The distinguishing point of this particular fracas is that Nader's decision to run was criticized by many of his longtime and natural allies on the left -- some affiliated with the Democratic Party, and some (like Gitlin) closer to Nader's outsider perspective. JamesMLane t c 11:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

JamesMLane--you're pretty much giving the case away with that example--isn't Gitlin advocating quite clearly a vote for Gore (I don;t think he's suggesting defeating Bush by voting for Buchanan). I have no problem with adjusting verbiage to indicate that the opposition wasn't strictly Democratic Party members (I think the Communist Party USA also is amongst this group!), but was pretty much unanimously critics who advocated voting for Gore, not Nader. So, as you are helping to prove, this opposition boils down to "critics" who are trying to get people to vote for someone else (hence, partisan).Boodlesthecat (talk) 15:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why you emphasize "partisan". You seem to be assuming that all the critics had decided for unrelated reasons that Gore should beat Bush, and then criticized Nader strictly as a means to that end. We have no basis for that assumption. More to the point, our article shouldn't embody that assumption. The undisputed point is that the critics included many people who were, broadly speaking, aligned with Nader on the American political spectrum. They concluded before the election that the probable consequence of Nader's run would be to bring about a Bush presidency. After the election, they pointed to the actual results, notably in Florida, as confirming their warnings. We can present the facts about their opinions without falling all over ourselves to tell the reader to disregard those opinions. Of course, we should also report Nader's take on the issue, equally "partisan" though it be. JamesMLane t c 16:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

(<-----leftword move) I'm not following you, JamesMLane. Everything you have been describing is the dictionary definition of partisan. And of course Nader's position is partisan. That, again, is the whole point. and that is why we should indicate the (easily well sourced) partisan character of the opposition to Nader. By simply parroting the "Nader is blamed for the 2000 bla bla bla" without indicating the partisan source of that "blame," we are lending support to the biased hint that Nader did something improper, when in fact, he, (like Bush, Gore, Buchanan, et al) all did the exact same thing. They ran for a political office that only one person can win. Hence, they are all opposed to each other. assignations of blame must have included the source of that assignation, or else it is reinforcing bias. Boodlesthecat (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

We report facts about opinions. I certainly agree that we shouldn't say "Nader is blamed...." with no indication of the source. My comment was precisely the opposite -- that one aspect of the issue that's notable is the identity of the people criticizing Nader, i.e., those like Gitlin who agree with him on many issues. We might quote someone like Gitlin as an example while noting that this isn't just his opinion but that others agree with him. Furthermore, some people who were Nader partisans in 2000 became "repentant Nader voters" and, by 2004, came to agree with the arguments that had been made by Gitlin and others. It's notable for Nader's bio that his 2000 running mate, Winona LaDuke, opposed him in 2004.

Incidentally, your characterization of the criticism as "Nader did something improper" is too simplistic. Naderites often respond to the criticism by acting as if Nader's right to run were being challenged, i.e., as if his critics argued that only Democrats and Republicans should be allowed to run for President. The actual argument, of course, is that Nader had a legal right to appear on the ballot in every state where he met the legal requirements, but that his decision to exercise that right was morally wrong. That's an opinion. It's not something that can be refuted by saying that, "in fact, he, (like Bush, Gore, Buchanan, et al) all did the exact same thing." Our article should report on the conflicting opinions without adopting any of them, and without dismissing any of them as being wrong "in fact". JamesMLane t c 18:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Independant Party presidential candidate?

First of all Independant Party is a contradiction. Secondly, the way I understood it, Nader was running as an independant (no party). GoodDay (talk) 23:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Corrected; he hasn't specified his ballot access plan yet. Boodlesthecat (talk) 00:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi I am not a member of Wikipedia, but was reading this page and I think I found an error in that last section where they listed Ralph Nader as a Reform Party Candidate in 2004. He was part of several different political parties in 04', depending on state by state ballot access, for example in Maryland he was on the ballot under Populist Party. I am not sure what source had him listed as Reform but I don't think that is correct. I don't think it would fit the rules for me to make this change as my father was his campaign spoaks person for that election however. - Alex Zeese —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.75.52 (talk) 20:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Good article reassessment

Good article reassessment. See Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Ralph Nader/1.User:calbear22 (talk) 06:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Reassessment now closed as "delisted per consensus". PeterSymonds | talk 21:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Arab American belongs in the opening

It has been removed a few times with the article on WP:MOSBIO being cited but from that very page I cite this:<br\>

• 3b. Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.

Being the first Arab American presidential candidate in US history is very much relevant to Nader's notability. BillyTFried (talk) 01:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see some evidence of that relevance. --John (talk) 01:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree about the not putting it in the lead, Billy, though if we can find a mention in the press about that first in US history, its definitely worth a mention in the article. I'll see what I can find tomorrow. Makes the point better when you spell out the relevance later on, rather than just mentioning ethnicity in the lead. Boodlesthecat (talk) 02:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

If "Being the first Arab American presidential candidate in US history is very much relevant to Nader's notability", then that is exactly what you should put in the opening. Add "Nader is the first Arab American presidential candidate in US history" at some point in the intro paragraph of the article. The sentence "Ralph Nader is an Arab American politician", on the other hand, does not give you that information, nor does it tell you why his Arab-Americaness relevant. I'm also not sure why the birthplace was restored to the opening, it isn't usually included there (WP:MOSBIO again). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 05:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

On Obama's wiki, it mentions "Born to a Kenyan father and an American mother", yet on Nader's, they seem to want to hide the fact he is Arab American. There is nothing wrong with being of Arab descent. On the "Arab American" wiki page, Nader is listed. This is an important fact. It should not be censored or hidden. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Arab_Americans#Politics —Preceding unsigned comment added by HelloThereNow (talk • contribs) 02:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Ask any American what ethnicity Nader is. They won't know. No news headlines ever focus on his ethnicity, nor do debates. No Arab groups are ever headlined as the primary Nader supporters, and I know of no popular public images of Nader that are suggestive of his ethnicity. He never mentions it as any of his major issues, nor does he use it in his speeches. When I read it as the first line on here my assumption was that editors are trying to make him even more controversial by clogging his article with nonnotable details as the primary first line merely to push emotional buttons. But what else is new? 152.131.10.133 (talk) 22:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Links to facebook, myspace, etc

Can we get these "social bookmarks" added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.74.136 (talk) 17:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

No, http://www.votenader.org is enough. BillyTFried (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Nader has called for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney

http://www.votenader.org/issues/

Is this noteworthy enough to be included in this article? BillyTFried (talk) 07:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe so, IMHO. It's certainly far more relevant compared to all the political rhetoric and propaganda that is flooding the sections on the 2000 election. Most of that stuff is only indirectly about "Ralph Nader", (which is what the article is supposed to be about, duh!), that junk is other people's opinions and interpretations about what they think. But the article title isn't "What people think about Ralph Nader", it's just simply "Ralph Nader". What's worse, all that Gore/Bush spam is put on the article in no less than two different places, and this isn't even the main article for it! No, and as if that wasn't bad enough, the main article title was insidiously wordsmithed. It's not a "neutral point of view" to label Nader as a "spoiler" from the outset. This is an encyclopedia subject not a newspaper headline. You probably wouldn't see that in a traditional encyclopedia, although maybe you would if that's owned by the man. People harshly criticize Wikipedia for being open, but at least that meets the definition of a true democracy. New media is one of the few things that is. Hopefully they won't kill this too.

OTOH, the items from that link you posted are directly from the source. It doesn't get any more direct and concise than that. Imagine that, an article that was actually accurate, with real, truthful facts. The poor guy is censored from the free encyclopedia page in his own name! Apparently the censors would like us to believe there's no room to dispel Ralph's real political platform and ideologies, because people are too busy deleting the truth so they can express their wild opinions 40000 times over about the 2000 election.

If it were any worse, we'd have the Hitler youth here, like Putin's got over there in what's becoming the new USSR.

It's like with a new election coming up they just push the propaganda machine even harder. With all the resources of the two parties, they still cry foul when someone gets 2.7% of the vote. They're pissed that even with all their money they still can't buy those votes. If anything is anti-democratic, by definition it is winning the popular vote and losing the election. It's the voting system that is the root issue, not any one minor party candidate.

Sorry to rant. Someone please add Nader's real policies on the issues, in order to present a balanced, neutral point of view, or otherwise delete all of the political opinions, starting with the 2000 election garbage.

--Mikiemike (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Apparently the censors would like us to believe there's no room to dispel Ralph's real political platform and ideologies

Since Wikipedia isn't a would-be politician's free PR resource, no. --Calton | Talk 18:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you guys are talking about, but my question was: Is a presidential candidate calling for the impeachment of the current Prez and VP notable enough to be included in that person's article? Yes or no. BillyTFried (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if you can source it from a notable secondary source, like an article at New York Times, AP, etc --Enric Naval (talk) 10:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Nader is a resident of which state? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.153.231 (talk) 03:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Why a focus on personal finances?

Why is there a section on personal finances for Nader but not for Obama? Is there some relevance to Nader making money that doesn't apply to Obama or other candidates? It seems like that info should be moved into his personal section like it is for Obama. 152.131.10.133 (talk) 22:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Harold_Edward_Stassen (1948, 1952, 1964, 1968, 1976, 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992) Ralph_Nader (1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008)

Is there an applicable repitition article?

Thank You,

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 02:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Religion?

The article fails to mention his religion. Is he Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Protestant, Maronite, Druze...? Politis (talk) 14:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The infobox says that his religion is Maronite. It should probably be cited, however. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 15:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Tweedledee and Tweedledum

Nader is often quoted (including in this article before I took it out) as saying Bush and Gore were "Tweedledee and Tweedledum--they look and act the same, so it doesn't matter which you get". He didn't actually say this except for the "Tweedledee and Tweedledum" part; the rest comes from a diatribe by a guy named Harry G. Levine.--Teiladnam (talk) 01:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed reference

I removed the following reference from the Personal finances section because it didn't talk about anything in the paragraph. I've copied it here in case it can be used for something else. It's a fairly extensive (if pro-Nader) biography of Nader and his accomplishments:

http://www.nader.org/ecm.html "Ralph Nader", Stephen Brobeck, Stephen; Mayer, Robert N; Herrmann, Robert O eds. (1997), Encyclopedia of the Consumer Movement, Santa Barbara, Calif., ABC-CLIO, 1997, Pp 383-388. (as posted on Ralph Nader's website Nader.org)

-kotra (talk) 06:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Biased article

The Ralph Nader article has no information whatsoever on the criticisms of Ralph Nader. Just about every article on Wikipedia on a person includes criticisms, controversies, et cetera, of a person, but this article appears to be whitewashed of any of them.

Such as how he had stock in the opposing company of Firestone and supposedly lobbied for the recall of Firestone to increase the stock value of the competitive company, many investigations and questions about Ralph Nader being involved in insider trading, et cetera.

I'm not saying they are true, or whatever, but they definitely should be posted here, and there's definitely enough evidence to warrant them as more than just heresy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leviathan2688 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I just created a new section called "union busting." Nader fired his own employees because they tried to form a union. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with the inclusion of that information if it can be properly-sourced. However, the National Review's Q&A section doesn't meet the threshold required by WP:BLP. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ethnicity

IS Nader actually a Maronite? Though his family may come from within the borders of modern Jerusalem, if they weren't Maronite Catholic, he technically is not. Most of the Christians I know from that part of the world call themselves Syrian if they're Eastern Orthodox, regardless of where they're ancestors actually came from. That said, I think he usually refers to himself as Lebanese. So Lebanese but not Maronite? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.226.114.227 (talk) 02:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

More info about his religion

According to his book, "The Seventeen Traditions" (p. 103-106 published in 2007), his family was Eastern Orthodox, but they were "embraced" by the Methodist Church in Connecticut. They even went to Methodist Sunday school. This was not unusual for Eastern Orthodox immigrants, particularly in towns that lacked an Orthodox church-- so it need not mean that he converted to Methodism. That said, his current affiliation is still unknown, I will leave it up to some of the more experienced editors as to how or whether to integrate this information into the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.226.114.227 (talk) 18:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Flexitarian

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.221.29 (talk) 12:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comparison of United States presidential candidates, 2008

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

Lead overly weighted with his presidential runs

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

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

Arab-American

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

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

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

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

The article that is given as the source for Mr. Nader as the first Arab-American presidential candidate [9] bears a certain resemblance to the Wikipedia article around that time.[10] Are there any other sources that confirm he is the first Arab-American presidential candidate? Could this be a case of Wikipedia editors sourcing an article whose author used Wikipedia as a source? Also, the article in question does not mention anything about Lebanese ancestry.copana2002 (talk) 08:20, 01 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are many sources [11][12] [13] [14] which confirm that Nader is an Arab-American. However, the articles listed above by Mynameisstanley were all written after "the first Arab-American presidential candidate" information was added to the page. It is possible that the authors simply used Wikipedia as a source. The original citation for the comment was this article [15] which is from 2000. Is there some reason why this is not a reliable source? copana2002 (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Wrong hyperlink for John Richard

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

Hillary Clinton

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

Article help

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

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

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

Buzzocks!

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

Spouse

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

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

Time 100

I've removed the following:

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

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

Stroke?

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

He has Bell's Palsy[16]. It would be hard to incorporate into the article as there is no personal life section, but if you feel it would add needed info, go for it. However, he is included in the the List of people with Bell's Palsy. Copana2002 (talk) 14:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Uncle Tom quote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The video was also on this page [17] which was linked from Bill O'Reilly's page. There is no question of its legitimacy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Nader's alleded role in the diversion of votes from Al Gore in the election of 2004

I may not be able to cite this fact, since interested parties do not want it to be citable. George W. Bush lost the popular vote in the 2004 election across the nation AND in Florida.

There are scads of critics who claim Ralph Nader takes votes from the democrat in every presidential election. This is false. Nader appeals to people of all points on the political spectrum. He speaks for people concerned with the true problems facing America which receive no media coverage. For example, no one with realistic goals of achieving the Presidency can talk about the incredible degree of inflation in our economy. It is a problem that will be exceedingly difficult to overcome, and sad as it sounds, "liberals" and "conservatives" alike don't want to hear about it due to the drastic changes Americans would be forced to make in their daily lives if a solution were implemented now. Thus, Ralph Nader exercises the true spirit of America by bringing attention to the steroid-ridden, neon-green-glowing elephant in the room regardless of the consequences.

Any interview you see featuring Ralph Nader discussing something terrible that is happening in America, you will hear Nader begin a number of sentences like this: "I tried to warn people this would happen x years ago..."

He really did, because he is aware of the shaky foundations of our economy. Anyone with a brain can tell you it is a bad idea for a bank to give home loans to the unemployed, and it is a bad idea for the unemployed to accept a home loan, regardless of how nice it seems at the moment. Look where we are today?

Do you think gas prices are low for a good reason? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.165.69.14 (talk) 01:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum. Please restrict yourself here on discussing how to improve this article. -kotra (talk) 15:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)