From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Now, to sort it all out 1.1 1992 1.2 Misleading phrases in regard to '04 election 1.3 Debates 1.4 POV, Criticism 1.5 Tone, cleanup 1.6 Moving narrow partisan political POV out of lead (cuz I suspect it violates that BLP thing) 1.6.1 Eric Alterman's vulgar, nasty, unecessary soundbites 1.7 Intro Compromise for opening paragraph 1.8 Alterman's characterizations of Nader 1.9 2000 elections 1.10 2000 section 1.11 Obama and Nader

[edit] 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 Wikipedia has on them fully encyclopedic. I hope people will help. -Thespian 07:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia is about. Welcome aboard! -Thespian 04:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Tone, cleanup

A user has requested comment on this page, but there is an error in the RFC template. Please review the RFC template syntax and try again To add a discussion to RFC: Add {{templatename | section=section name !! reason=a short summary of the discussion !! time=~~~~~ }} Use the name of the RFC tag name in place of "templatename". Warning: ! and = will not work anywhere in the template, except for parameter separation. {{ and }} might work outside of the time parameter. | works again. Do not edit the RFC list directly; the bot will invariably undo your edits. Report problems to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comments.

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 Wikipedia. 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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,"[35] myopic,[36] and a deluded megalomaniac.[37] are "criticisms? even the sentence structure ("He has called Nader...") indicate the insult hurling character of these quotes. When does it stop being "criticism"--when he hits him? And why does a marginal pundit need a whole paragraph? Yes, "Wiki is not the place to judge the "nastiness" or "vulgarity" of criticism," but it is the place to decide if such nastiness and vulgarity belongs in an encyclopdia. WP:BLP advises taking a conservative approach.Boodlesthecat (talk) 22:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Intro Compromise for opening paragraph

As per editors shown below, and the compromise reached, opening paragraph should be:

He received the largest number of votes (2,882,955 [2.74%]) of his four presidential campaigns in the 2000 election.^[1] In that election, George W. Bush defeated Al Gore by 537 votes in the hotly contested state of Florida amidst charges that Republicans had stolen the election.^[2][3] Nader's polled 97,421 votes in Florida, prompting many Gore supporters to accuse Nader of costing the Democrats the 2000 election.^{[4][5][6][7][8]} + Ralph Nader ran for the office of President of the United States four times. In 1992, Nader was a write-in candidate in the New Hampshire primary; in 1996 and 2000, he ran as the Green Party candidate; and in 2004, he ran as an independent.The Nader 2000 campaign also launched a concerted, but ultimately unsuccessful, effort to challenge the inclusion criteria for the presidential debates sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD).^[9]

Please click the links and observe how other editors rejected your edit:

• Me on Feb. 4
• Sedlam on Jan 31
• Snowfire Jan 27

Please respect other editors. Griot (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

*SOCK PUPPET BUSTED--above we see Griot and his sock puppet Sedlam in action. Griot is busted for sock puppetry here Boodlesthecat (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Please respect editors who came before you. Griot (talk) 17:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

A) Who are you talking to, B) please note, compromises are reached on talk pages, they are not asserted in article edits, as you seem to think by offering thse diffs. So please indicate where on the talk page compromises were reached. Boodlesthecat (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You can add me to this list of compromisers. One questions: I'm interested in Ralph's "ultimately unsuccessful, effort to challenge the inclusion criteria of the CPD" Is this covered anywhere in the article? It ought to be as its interesting and also its in the intro whcih leads readers to think it should be in the article too. The article only mentions it twice -- with no background. This should be fixed. Sedlam (talk) 17:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

the intro is now totally garbled. And Sedlam, you are not offering compromises, you are simply offering one of the disputed versions and calling it a compromise. Some funny notions of "compromise" being offered in here! Boodlesthecat (talk) 17:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Boodles is correct. No such compromise exists. Election detail belongs in specified sections. That's what sections and headings are for. 76.87.47.110 (talk) 03:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alterman's characterizations of Nader

Should the sentence "He has called Nader "Bush's Useful Idiot,"[35] myopic,[36] and a deluded megalomaniac.[37]" be in the article, as the last sentence of Alterman's criticisms of Nader? Does this relect undue weight? Is it problematic per Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism?

I direct participants in this conversation also to the BLPN noticeboard, where conversation about is ongoing. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• here. Geo Swan (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Does not belong, per WP:BLP. 76.87.47.110 (talk) 03:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

To reiterate what I already reiterated at the BP, I think it belongs. Griot (talk) 04:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• I believe the sentence violates both WP:BLP and WP:NPOV and should be removed. To summarize my points from the WP:BLPN conversation and hopefully clarify them: In the relevant section on criticism, the the biographies of living persons policy requires that BLPs be written in a neutral, non-partisan manner. As the neutral point of view policy points out, neutral presentation can be offset by disproportionate inclusion of criticism. The views of Nader's critics...indeed, the views of Alterman himself...are amply set out in this article without the inclusion of Alterman's personal opinion of the candidate's sanity and intelligence. While these statements could be contextualized as statements of umbrage, as the article is written they serve only to present Alterman's judgement on Nader's state of mind, his assertion that Nader is too stupid or too self important to understand the impact of his actions. This opinion of one man should not be given disproportionate space in an article to avoid the appearance that we are promoting his point of view. Rewriting the article to contextualize these statements could make their use acceptable, but only if opposing viewpoints (which do exist) are adequately presented and only if other criticism were toned down to maintain weight concerns. Other criticisms are more valuable within the article as they deal concretely with the impact of the candidacy, not abstractly with the candidate's state of mind. I think the sentiments without context are wholly inappropriate by BLP. I think it could be possible to contextualize them so that their use was not inappropriate, but that doing so would require restructuring what's already in the article so as to avoid unbalancing critical perspective. In the absence of that restructuring, which would in my opinion weaken the article by focusing on abstract rather than concrete criticism, I believe that Alterman's vitriolic descriptors of Nader should be removed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

At this point it does not belong. It is an individual's opinion. From WP:Weight:

• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

That sentence is a viewpoint held by an extremely small minority, one person. If those opinions are held by a larger minority it should be easy to rewrite the sentence with reliable sources to substantiate it. Jons63 (talk) 13:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with JamesMLane here. JML correctly points out that the critique of Nader's role is verifiable.

I can't help wondering whether other respondents here would change their opinion -- if they recognized that "useful idiot" was not some random gratuitious insult. The term "useful idiot" is a term with a long historical context. It is highly probably that Alterman was aware of this term's history, and knowingly chose it because it saved paragraphs of explanation.

I think that the authority of BLP is frequently overstretched. Does neutrality really require a total suppression of sources with controversial opinions, or heated opinions? If these sources are properly referenced our coverage of them should remain completely neutral. Sanitizing articles, so controversial material is completely suppressed doesn't serve our readers. And, I question whether it really serves the legitimate interests of the subjects of our articles.

I am afraid I have encountered at least one wikipedian who claimed the authority of BLP to suppress material who turned out to have been completely disingenious. Geo Swan (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Geo Swan--Speculations on Alterman's motivations for using "useful idiot" aside, his intentions are not the issue. What was a seemingly problematic BLP and Undue Weight issue was the synthesis as it appeared in the article: "He has called Nader "Bush's Useful Idiot,"[44] myopic,[45] and a deluded megalomaniac.[46]" While the historic reverberations of "useful idiot" might not be lost on you and perhaps Alterman, the issue is that this formulation cherry picked three separate Alterman articles for the most insulting soundbites available. the end result is not only a synthesis geared for maximum intensity, it in fact--contrary to your worries--suppresses Alterman by misrepresenting his (possible) intent. That is the real issue, regardless of your thinly velied innuendo that some editors are trying to "suppress" material or are "overstretching" BLP in a "disingenious" manner. Boodlesthecat (talk) 00:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) That is interesting, but does not change this particular respondent's opinion. :) If the term is meant to have the force of idiom, then that would seem to be all the more reason to contextualize it, and that only addresses one of several issues, since on two separate occasions Alterman also called Nader myopic & a deluded megalomaniac, both of which terms are also quoted and separately cited in the passage under discussion. No one here or at the BLP conversation I linked in my notice above seems to be arguing that the article requires sanitizing so that controversial material is completely suppressed, merely ensuring that the material is properly chosen and weighted to remain consistent with two of our core policies. The fact that some Wikipedians use BLP disingenuously seems somewhat irrelevant; quite a few of them flout BLP disingenuously, too, but that has no bearing on the suitability of this particular statement. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2000 elections

Again, please keep election content to correpsonding sections. It is disruptive to revert 2000 election content, repeating it in the lead.

Griot, I do not appreciate edits like this, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ralph_Nader%27s_presidential_campaigns&diff=189055562&oldid=188984445. Deleting other editors' comments on article talk pages is a violation of Wikipedia policy. 76.87.47.110 (talk) 10:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey old friend, you drop into this article almost daily and take out that paragraph, so of course I and other editors reverse it. Nowhere do you explain why you object to that paragraph or why it should be taken out. And it took some time for editors to hammer that paragraph out together, so of course people restore it. Griot (talk) 11:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Griot, the editor stated clearly that the information is repeated verbatim in the approppriate section of the article, and doesn't need to be repeated in the lead. Every time you blindly revert it, you leave it duplicated in the article. It would be nice, Griot, if you paid as much attention to the quality of the article as you do to blindly pushing your POV. I addition, I have cited you in the past for deleting my comments from my talk page yet you seem to be continuing this nasty habit with other editors, in violation of basic Wikipedia policy. You also make false claim compromises were reached on article content, than ludicrously supply article diffs, rather than actual talk page discussion, as "proof." In fact, no such compromises were reached, although you regularly falsely claim so in defense of your own minority, POV pushing edits. I have also asked you more than once to stop characterizing good faith edits by editors as "vandalism." Finally, you have yourself written that you have a serious WP:COI with articles pertaining to Ralph Nader, based on your own serious personal grudge against the man. Why are you even editing these articles? I am reverting back the mindless revert you keep making (why not spend some time finding reliable sources and content for the artcile instead. like other editors have?). If you continue in this vein, I will file a formal complaint about you, based on the above and more. Boodlesthecat (talk) 17:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I tried to consolidate these edits and otherwise make it better -- i hope with approval from everybody. This article has way "too many cooks." Mainly I think we should try tofix the sources which are not formatted right. Sedlam (talk) 17:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually it has less cooks than you suppose, if you don't count sock critters who miraculously appear when their alter egos go a little overboard. Some of your edits were needless and in fact added awkwardness to sentences or mangled refs; I will fix those. But of course, you made sure in your strafing of the article to accomplish your primary goal--to reinsert the disputed section back in the lead that your doppelgänger Griot was pushing minutes before you arrived. Boodlesthecat (talk) 18:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Why do you two assume that everyone who edits here besides you is me? It's kind of paranoid, is it not? All that is at issue here is a sentence in the opening paragraph which says that Nader's role in the 2000 election was controversial. That's it! Let's keep this in perspective. If you ask ten people about Nader, eight will bring up the 2000 election. Nader is known for that election and his consumer activism, which should be reflected in this article. Hey user 76.87.47.110, your only work on Wikipedia is to come in here every day and revert. That doesn't make you a valuable member of this community. BTW, I'm going to edit the section about the Sierra Club. What angered the Sierra Club's president was Nader's suggestion that the club would benefit from a Bush victory in the selection, not criticism of Gore by the other chairman. Griot (talk) 18:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

And you know what, to show I act in good faith, I'm going to remove Alterman criticisms, since it occurs to me that's what gets your guys' goat. I hope you will show me good faith as well. Griot (talk) 18:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

And you know what, a show of "good faith" would have been to remove Alterman's insults before I had to take it to the BLP board and before there was significant opinion in favor of deleting it. There really is no end to your disingenuity, is there? Boodlesthecat (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No Griot, read the reference--the Sierra Club president makes NO MENTION of Nader suggesting a benefit of a Bush victory. Once again, you and your sock puppets are disrupting and mangling this article simply to push your own POV, and falsely challenging well sourced edits by other editors (while you and your sock puppets supply ZERO edits). Question: will you voluntarily stop your disruptions and dishonest editing, or must action be initiated against you? Boodlesthecat (talk) 19:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This is from a letter Carl Pope wrote to the NY Times on 1 Nov 2000. It reads: "In a Nov. 1 news article about Ralph Nader, the candidate rationalizes a potential presidential victory by George W. Bush by implying that it would be good for the environmental movement. The Sierra Club, he notes, doubled its membership under James Watt, the interior secretary in the Reagan years. Our membership did rise, but Mr. Nader ignores the harmful consequences of the Reagan-Watt tenure. Logging in national forests doubled. Acid rain fell unchecked. Cities were choked with smog. Oil drilling, mining and grazing increased on public lands. A Bush administration promises more drilling and logging, and less oversight of polluters. It would be little solace if our membership grew while our health suffered and our natural resources were plundered." You can read it here. I'll work this source into the article.

As to your "actions," what actions do you propose to take? User 76.87.47.110's actions were deemed without merit -- because they have no merit. Your actions would have no merit either. Let's stay on topic. Griot (talk) 19:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Same question holds: will you voluntarily stop your disruptions and dishonest editing? Boodlesthecat (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Added to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. I also strongly suspect User:Sedlam is sock puppet of User:Griot. 76.87.47.110 (talk) 20:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Fellas, lots of people disagree with you. They're not sockpuppets. I suggest you direct your energy toward making this a better article and to expanding Wiki in other areas besides Ralph Nader. Griot (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Griot, I have added copious references to this article (one of a number that I work on), corrected errors, copy edited, attempted to achieve balance, supplied facts, sought outside assistance and consensus, etc, all in the face of your intransigent disruptions. Please don't waste space here condescending to me and insultingly mischaracterizing my editing history. I have documented your abuses--either supply evidence for any complaints you have about me or refrain from making empty accusations on the article talk page. Thanks! Boodlesthecat (talk) 21:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Even with sock puppets, "lots of people disagree with you" is completely false. "User 76.87.47.110's actions were deemed without merit -- because they have no merit" is false and constitutes a personal attack. Wikipedia is not a forum to push personal POV, political viewpoints or agenda. It is not a stage for mockery, manifesto and vendetta. Check user will reveal facts about socks. The rest, all disruptive and against policy.

Finally, I ask that you refrain from referring to me by familiar terms like "old friend" and "fella." In context, very sarcastic and condescending. 76.87.47.110 (talk) 22:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Gents, let's keep this article about Nader's role in presidential elections, not about me. I've been excoriated for using the word "fellas," I've been called a sockpuppet, I've been accussed of making "personal attacks" when all I did was defend myself. I have used my copy editing skills to improve literally hundreds of articles on Wikipedia, and I have written and initiated a good dozen articles as well (check out Mink DeVille, my latest). You two seem only to fixate on me and what I'm doing. Let's step up and be good members of the Wikipedia community by contributing broadly. I suggest we start by not using this Talk page to talk about me anymore. Griot (talk) 15:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I am a good member of the Wikipedia community. Leave me out of your personal confessions. Boodlesthecat (talk) 21:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Griot, I am uncertain why you keep reverting 2000 election comment out of section. Articles are organized by section. Content for the 2000 elections belong under that section heading. You edit many articles, but you also use Wikipedia to spew cloak and dagger vitriol at various users, journalists, artists and other respected members of society. Can you see that you become the very sort of person your sociopolitical POV strives to oppose? This might makes right approach is wrong, completely wrong. Why would you insult me, Boodles, so many others? Can you stop? Because if you cannot, in the end, you will ultimately harm no one but yourself. And this holds true for your "stand up friend" Calton, too. 76.87.47.110 (talk) 08:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2000 section

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

[edit] Obama and Nader

I was disappointed to not hear anything about his opinions of Obama, either in this page or Nader's main page. A quick search turned up these interesting links.

http://www.counterpunch.org/nader02022008.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyfSN7B4lYI

Who ever can, please try to insert these insightful opinions into this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waxsin (talk • contribs) 05:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)