Now, to sort it all out

This article is taken in its entirety from Ralph Nader, which was getting to be a huge mess of a project, with a lot of information that needed to be split off. I suspect that I overdid WP:BOLD, but both articles are *still* getting the warning that they're too long. There are a pile of sub-pages that can be found about Nader's campaigns, and I think this is going to take a lot of slow and patient work to make the masses of information that Misplaced Pages has on them fully encyclopedic. I hope people will help. -Thespian 07:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

1992

Write-ins normally don't appear anywhere on the ballot, how exactly did Nader get to the top of a ballot he presumably wasn't on? --The One True Fred 16:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

No idea. Find out for us, would you? ;-) - Thespian 23:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I found -nothing-, but did pick up an interesting factoid I've used to replace the confusing statement. Everything I've read said he was a write-in only. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The One True Fred (talk • contribs) 03:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC).--The One True Fred 03:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Keen. Exactly the sort of thing that Misplaced Pages is about. Welcome aboard! -Thespian 04:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Misleading phrases in regard to '04 election

Nader is spoken of in this article as having been "rejected" by the Green Party in 2004. The article also speaks of Nader's "failure" in that year to receive the Green nomination.

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

Debates

The presidential debates are not mentioned? That seems strange, as Nader's exclusion and resulting lawsuit it was an important part of the campaigns. Badagnani (talk) 09:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree. 76.87.47.110 (talk) 21:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

POV, Criticism

Let's try to keep POV, however "sourced" it may seem, out of the lead. Editors can create a criticism section on the 2000 election if it's so important to them to push inaccurate data about Nader "making George Bush Jr. the president." The issue was already addressed on the Ralph Nader talk page. 76.87.47.110 (talk) 21:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It's criticism, not "POV criticism." Let's try to present both sides. Griot (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for that. But I still think in presenting various viewpoints, these would be best left out of the leading paragraph(s). What are your thoughts? Would you be interested in creating a new section? 76.87.47.110 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Tone, cleanup

Template:RFC error

The article needs NPOV, clean-up. Please do not remove tags or revert until issues are resolved. 76.87.47.110 (talk) 23:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Why? 71.139.13.219 (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from WP:SP and respect the rules of Misplaced Pages. Thank you, 76.87.47.110 (talk) 03:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"Why?" is an excellent question. You call for a cleanup but you can't say why. How often are you going to sing this "refrain"? Griot (talk) 01:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Reason is stated. Thank you. Please observe WP:CIVIL. 76.87.47.110 (talk) 11:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The above question might be a bit uncivil, but still valid. Please explain what you're referring to as NPOV. You've warned other editors not to remove tags or revert, but you're deleting properly referenced material without discussion. Simply saying "NPOV" after the fact is not discussion. Again, please explain why you feel this correctly referenced material doesn't fit in wikipedia, please. Snowfire51 (talk) 11:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The material you're referring to was moved, appropriately, to the article's 2000 section. It was not deleted, not at any time. See edit history. I've opened the discussion to address making the article compliant with WP NPOV policy, it was not intended to invite incivility from another editor. Thank you, 76.87.47.110 (talk) 09:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

This was discussed as naseum at the Ralph Nader page. Please don't remove material that is carefully sourced. Griot (talk) 17:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, material was moved to the appropriate section, not removed. Thank you, 76.87.47.110 (talk) 03:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Moving narrow partisan political POV out of lead (cuz I suspect it violates that BLP thing)

Griot continues to unilaterally re-insert highly partisan political POV in the lead paragraph, with the somewhat rude charge that anyone removing that POV is "whitewashing." Let's review:

In 2000, Ralph Nader ran for president of the United States. He broke no laws in doing so. Ultimately, slightly less than 3 million (2,882,955) American voters were convinced that Nader best represented their choice for a presidential candidate and voted for him. The general consensus was that he ran, and received those votes, because of a sentiment shared by himself and those 3 million backers that the platform he ran on deserved a voice.
Al Gore was also a candidate for president. He received slightly more votes than the ultimate winner, George W Bush, but lost in the Electoral College.
Leaving aside the likely possibility that the election was stolen, the bottom line is that Al Gore did not convince enough American voters to vote for him in an amount that would have given him an Electoral College victory and the Presidency.
In the aftermath of the election, supporters of the losing candidate Gore (although not Gore himself) continuing a theme they began prior to the the election, rather vociferously blamed Nader (or more accurately, blamed those 3 million-ish Americans who exercised their right to vote for him) for the failure of candidate Gore to convince enough American voters to vote for him in an amount that would have given him an Electoral College victory (as noted above).
This highly partisan opinion became sort of a trope, or as it was described somewhere a "water-cooler explanation." By and large, more thoughtful members of Gore's party took a more serious view, and went about examining the true cause for the failure to gain enough votes.
Griot somehow feels that this partisan bickering blame game fostered by some supporters of the loser (but not the loser himself) belongs in the lead of this article on Nader's campaigns, with an illustrative quote from one of the highly partisan sources (Atlantic Monthly). The end result is that this partisan scapegoating is to put into the lead a POV that basically portrays the subject in a villainous light, based not on a NPOV presentation of the facts, but by highlighting the opinions of political opponents.
There is ample room for these opponents' bickerings, and indeed there is ample discussion in the body of the article. Boodlesthecat (talk) 01:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree there shouldn't be political bickering in an article, especially not in the WP:LEAD. However, all the reasons and writings you've done above are merely political analysis of what happened (or didn't happen, as the case may be). In terms of notability, the common argument (right or wrong) that Nader's campaign cost Gore the 2000 election is pretty big. At this point, I'd say thats as notable as his non-political work. It may need mentioning in the WP:LEAD, although not in a partisan manner, and certainly not affirming the validity of the claim.

Summing up, most people currently remember Nader's political career for the 2000 election, where the popular sentiment is that he cost Gore the election. I think a version of thios statement is perfectly acceptable in the WP:LEAD. Snowfire51 (talk) 01:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. There is no support that the belief that Ralph Nader cost Al Gore the 2000 presidential election is commonly held, or popular sentiment. This view is held primarily by certain Democrats, while many others reject the notion. In facts, events surrounding the election don't support certain Democrats' view. Al Gore won the popular vote, while George Bush was selected by the Supreme Court.

It is a commonly held belief that people in the Middle Ages believed that the earth was flat. This belief is false. "Commonly held beliefs" are not the concerns of encyclopedic data, nor is political POV pushing. Griot's attempts to WP:OWN the article are not appropriate and violate WP policy. 76.87.47.110 (talk) 01:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for the statement "the popular sentiment is that he cost Gore the election"? I tend to think that that isn't the popular sentiment, but rather the sentiment of those who feel he was responsible for the defeat of their candidate. I hope I'm making that distinction clear; in any case, I'd be happy to see reliable sources for the universalist statement "the popular sentiment is that he cost Gore the election." Absent such a source, it aeems to me it doesnt belong there.Boodlesthecat (talk) 02:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Originally this quote was in the main Ralph Nader article. By a compromise, it was moved here. Now you want to remove it here as well. There can be no doubt that Nader's largest impact in regard to his election campaigns was in the 2000 election, if only in how it harmed his reputation and made his own work as an activist harder. I can find you a hundred sources to that effect. If I give you three good ones (besides the Atlantic quote), will you let it stay? Griot (talk) 02:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Please stop mischaracterizing my editing history--I have moved it out of the lead, I didn't "remove it here"--"as well" or otherwise. Please note, "there can be no doubt that..." is not an explanation. so yes, please present your sources; three, 100 as many as you like, and let's see if there is a NPOV way to put in the lead. Because the version you are proposing, I am suggesting, is the partisan POV of disgruntled Gore supporters and one that villianizes the article's subject, rather than something we can have "no doubt" about. Please note also the Atlantic quote is an opinion--it is not a source for a factual claim (in this case, the claim that Nader cost Gore the election) Boodlesthecat (talk) 02:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowfire51 (talk • contribs)

Griot, I continue to remain baffled by your obstinate editing behavior. We had agreed above that you would find sources for claims you keep reverting into the lead (against the wishes of at least 3 editors thus far). You said you could find "hundreds" of such references. Yet instead, you simply keep reverting the same claims, such as that Nader "shifted the outcome of the election in Florida" without a reliable source, and continue to revert in a statement from a partisan political opponent of Nader's--the Atlantic Monthly--making a highly partisan and disputed political claim. Instead of supplying references, you supply insults, you delete editor's comments, you make false claims about editors deleting material that is simply being moved to an appropriate location, you falsely claim that it was agreed to put it in the lead here--you do everything but demonstrate you claim that "I can find you a hundred source" above. You have well exceeded the WP:3RR 3 revert rule, you consistently ignore basic notions of reliably sourcing, and you are intemperate. Don't know what to say. I have found a fair amount of references to support text in this and in the Ralph Nader article. I'll look for more to try and support your claims--which at best are disputed--for example, October 2000 polls that show that in fact absent Nader, Bush gains votes, or factors such as 20% of Democrats voting for Bush in 2000, or even the real common perception, that Bush and the Republican machine--not Nader--stole Florida from Gore. In the meantime, please try and show a bit more civility and flexibility, and please try not to "accidentally" delete this comment. Thanks! Boodlesthecat (talk) 15:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

What is there not to understand here? We do agree that his biggest impact was on the 2000 election. Why was that? Read the Florida vote totals. Naivite is one thing, but willful naivite is quite another. You may try looking at the Ralph Nader discussion page to see how a compromise was reached to move the Atlantic quote to the top of this article. I don't care to copy all those arguments here. I do expect you to respect that compromise, which was reached after much time and consideration. Griot (talk) 15:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Ralph Nader article, no such compromise was reached. In fact, the opposite, to remove the AM quote from the lead, was. 76.87.47.110 (talk) 01:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You're just not graspping this whole WP:RS Reliable source business, are you?Boodlesthecat (talk) 15:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Last I looked, there were nine sources in the opening paragraph. How many more are required to satisfy you? Griot (talk) 09:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Mon ami, I put those nine sources in there to satisfy you, since you have refused to keep your pledge of providing reliable sources. Sheesh. Your serially obdurate obfuscations are getting tedious. Boodlesthecat (talk) 16:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Well thanks for putting them there. I do appreaciate it! And now that they're there, why the objections to the opening paragraph? Sheesh yourself. Griot (talk) 16:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

If you look at another article relating to the Green Party Matt Gonzalez you will see Griot has a history of inclusion or exclusion based on what portrays the Green Party the worst. In the Gonzalez article Griot unilaterally removes well referenced information to down play a Green Party campaign. His desire to include and maintain the quote in the lead follows this pattern and serves as further proof of a biased editing against Greens. 139.102.16.185 (talk) 07:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Eric Alterman's vulgar, nasty, unecessary soundbites

There is more than enough commentary from this marginal critic as is, why do we need his gratuitous and malicious soundbites as well? Please stop reverting them without an explanation of why they add anything useful to the article. The Alterman article is the appropriate place to make the point that he is a foul-mouthed blowhard.Boodlesthecat (talk) 21:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not "vulgar" or "nasty," I think. That is a point of view in itself. Alterman criticized Nader before election day, and his after-election remarks here may be included, I believe, because they refer to N's "spoiler" role in the campaign. Wiki is not the place to judge the "nastiness" or "vulgarity" of criticism. Alterman's criticisms are strident and passionate. Those are the best quotes to have, rather than mealy mouthed neutered words like "controversy" or whatever, in my opinion, which I hope you will respect. Feedler (talk) 22:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

He has called Nader "Bush's Useful Idiot," myopic, and a deluded megalomaniac. are "criticisms? even the sentence structure ("He has called Nader...") indicate the insult hurling character of these quotes. When does it stop being "criticism"--when he hits him? And why does a marginal pundit need a whole paragraph? Yes, "Wiki is not the place to judge the "nastiness" or "vulgarity" of criticism," but it is the place to decide if such nastiness and vulgarity belongs in an encyclopdia. WP:BLP advises taking a conservative approach.Boodlesthecat (talk) 22:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, you're showing your bias. Alterman is not a "marginal pundit"; he's a well-recognized journalist. Moreover, he is an expert on this subject. Do you mean to say that no strong words are allowed in an encyclopedia? That only tepid criticism can go here? Feedler (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Your own bias is keeping you from seeing the difference between criticism and insults, your macho appeals to go beyond "tepid criticism" notwithstanding. And what's the "expertise" it takes to write the same op-ed over and over for years "Nader BAD, He HELPS BUSH!!!" Pulitzer material for sure. Feedler, your reversions of a passage that has been cited as being possibly in violation of WP:BLP is rude and shows a preference for opinion-pushing rather than assuming good faith. I will give you the opportunity to revert it back out and wait until others can weigh in on this page. I will not revert myself and get suckered again into an edit war by a Nader basher. If you dont revert it, I'll have to waste more time taking it to the BLP board. Will you WP:AGF and voluntarily revert it out pending discussion? Boodlesthecat (talk) 22:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's been there for sometime, and you appear to be the only one who objects, so let's have it remain until some kind of consensus is reached. You may take it to BLP if you wish. I am confident it can remain. Alterman is a respected journalist, one who moreover wrote his criticisms in The Nation, which endorsed Nader. If the Nation doesn't object to Alterman's descriptions of Nader why should anyone else? Feedler (talk) 22:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

"If the Nation doesn't object to Alterman's descriptions of Nader why should anyone else?" Uhhh, in case you haven't noticed, this is an encyclopedia, with its own guidelines,not the Nation editorial board. Boodlesthecat (talk) 22:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

PS: By the way, the Nation did not endorse Nader, not that its relevant to the issue of using gratuitous malicious insults in the article.Boodlesthecat (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

2000 elections

Please keep references to each election in the appropriate corresponding section. Thank you, 76.87.47.110 (talk) 07:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)