| Revision as of 18:42, 20 October 2011 editMystylplx (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers1,715 edits →Neal Allen and Brian J. Brox study in section on spoiler controversy← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:43, 20 October 2011 edit undoMystylplx (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers1,715 editsm →Neal Allen and Brian J. Brox study in section on spoiler controversyNext edit → | ||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
| Personally I think the study doesn't need to be mentioned at all--it is not about any spoiler controversy but merely about examining the Nader campaign in context with other third party campaigns. The Burden study looked at a completely different question--namely did Ralph Nader run (intentionally) as a spoiler and examined the question of whether Naders campaign strategy was consistent with that theory. The two studies are not at all similar. The text I removed was <blockquote>An analysis and study by Neal Allen and Brian J. Brox titled "The Roots of Third Party Voting" draw similar conclusions to B.C. Burden, comparing Ralph Nader's 2000 presidential campaign to that of third parties throughout U.S. history.</blockquote> It's the "draws similar conclusions" part that is inaccurate. We could leave it, <blockquote>An analysis and study by Neal Allen and Brian J. Brox titled "The Roots of Third Party Voting" compares Ralph Nader's 2000 presidential campaign to that of third parties throughout U.S. history.</blockquote> and that would be accurate but not particularly pertinent in the section. | Personally I think the study doesn't need to be mentioned at all--it is not about any spoiler controversy but merely about examining the Nader campaign in context with other third party campaigns. The Burden study looked at a completely different question--namely did Ralph Nader run (intentionally) as a spoiler and examined the question of whether Naders campaign strategy was consistent with that theory. The two studies are not at all similar. The text I removed was <blockquote>An analysis and study by Neal Allen and Brian J. Brox titled "The Roots of Third Party Voting" draw similar conclusions to B.C. Burden, comparing Ralph Nader's 2000 presidential campaign to that of third parties throughout U.S. history.</blockquote> It's the "draws similar conclusions" part that is inaccurate. We could leave it, <blockquote>An analysis and study by Neal Allen and Brian J. Brox titled "The Roots of Third Party Voting" compares Ralph Nader's 2000 presidential campaign to that of third parties throughout U.S. history.</blockquote> and that would be accurate but not particularly pertinent in the section. | ||
| The inaccurate text was put back (with accusations of |
The inaccurate text was put back (with accusations of vandalism) by the IP, twice. So I fixed it so at least it accurately says what the study really says on the spoiler question (the '''only''' thing the study says on that question) and the IP reverted again with accusations of vandalism. | ||
| Should the inaccurate characterization be returned? Should it be left as it is? Or should it be removed entirely? | Should the inaccurate characterization be returned? Should it be left as it is? Or should it be removed entirely? | ||
Revision as of 18:43, 20 October 2011
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ralph Nader 2000 presidential campaign article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | Links from this article which need disambiguation (check | fix): ], ]
For help fixing these links, see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Disambiguation/Fixing a page. Added by WildBot | Tags to be removed | FAQ | Report a problem |  |
|
Tip: #section links are case-sensitive on most browsers
Links from this article with broken #section links : |
 | United States: Presidential elections Start‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
ASGP nomination description?
I think that this article really needs at least a couple of sentences outlining the nomination process that occured in 2000 (where, who, when). As I recall, it was the ASGP, and I think the nominating convention was in Denver. This is an essential section completely missing from the current article. Volunteers?Jack B108 (talk) 21:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Third Party Voting Controversy
Article focuses too heavily on third part votes controversy IMO. It hardly reflects the scope of Ralph Nader and the 2000 election at all. Perhaps a separate article for such a subject is in order. 99.34.58.117 (talk) 21:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- It's what most people remember. Mystylplx (talk) 01:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I will conditionally accept your statement upon proof of claim. Kindly supply evidence, and include global view. 99.34.58.117 (talk) 07:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Alleged spoiler role in article Intro
The whole spoiler role (alleged) of Nader in the 2000 US presidential election is a topic in the Intro of the main article about Nader in Wiki. Just thought it should go in the Intro here as well since this article is about Nader in the 2000 election. If it can go in the Intro in his main article it should go in the Intro here as well IMHO (see discussion page in the main Nader article for background). Salutem multam dicit. 207.158.4.64 (talk) 17:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Makes sense. It is (arguably) the most notable aspect of the campaign--certainly the most famous--and so deserves to be mentioned in the lede. Mystylplx (talk) 17:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Neal Allen and Brian J. Brox study in section on spoiler controversy
 |
|
Personally I think the study doesn't need to be mentioned at all--it is not about any spoiler controversy but merely about examining the Nader campaign in context with other third party campaigns. The Burden study looked at a completely different question--namely did Ralph Nader run (intentionally) as a spoiler and examined the question of whether Naders campaign strategy was consistent with that theory. The two studies are not at all similar. The text I removed was
An analysis and study by Neal Allen and Brian J. Brox titled "The Roots of Third Party Voting" draw similar conclusions to B.C. Burden, comparing Ralph Nader's 2000 presidential campaign to that of third parties throughout U.S. history.
It's the "draws similar conclusions" part that is inaccurate. We could leave it,
An analysis and study by Neal Allen and Brian J. Brox titled "The Roots of Third Party Voting" compares Ralph Nader's 2000 presidential campaign to that of third parties throughout U.S. history.
and that would be accurate but not particularly pertinent in the section.
The inaccurate text was put back (with accusations of vandalism) by the IP, twice. So I fixed it so at least it accurately says what the study really says on the spoiler question (the only thing the study says on that question) and the IP reverted again with accusations of vandalism.
Should the inaccurate characterization be returned? Should it be left as it is? Or should it be removed entirely?
Categories:- Start-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- Start-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- Start-Class United States presidential elections articles
- Unknown-importance United States presidential elections articles
- WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- Misplaced Pages requests for comment