Talk:Ralph Nader/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

2000 election

The text in the article discussing Nader's votes that could have tilted NH and FL to the Democrats seems to contain a self contradictory sentence, even though by the reference to the NY times article, it seems clear what the intended meaning was:

Exit polls showed the state staying close, and within the margin of error without Nader[41] as national exit polls showed Nader's supporters choose Gore over Bush by a large margin[42] well outside the margin of error.

It first says "the state staying close without Nader" but then says that exit polls showed Nader's supporters choose Gore over Bush (in what, the hypothetical poll question "if Nader wasn't in the picture?" I assume so) The cited NY times article clearly states that polls asking "if Nader would be out of the picture who would you have voted for", the majority said Gore. The sentence in the article isn't clear, to me anyway... 70.81.15.136 (talk) 18:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Where is the controversy section?

When I visited this article a few years ago it listed the controversies surrounding him, such as that the Corvair automobile he went after in "Unsafe at Any Speed" was no more or less safe than any other automobile at the time. It looks like since then someone has selectively edited out anything negative about Nader, effectively white-washing this article. That's a problem. JettaMann (talk) 16:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

"Controversy" sections are not good style. Information about controversies is to be incorporated into the rest of the article in the appropriate place(s). --Orange Mike | Talk 16:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Seconded.. Having not checked this page since long before the elections, this has obviously been whitewashed. If a controversy section is not "in style" then before such an important detail should be removed, the remover should have to relocate all of the data throughout the article.. otherwise it is censorship. With this being the page of a presidentital candidate "known for his secrecy" as in the article.. it smacks of bias editing. (anon-having login issues today-will return to reattach ID 10/10/08)

Thirded.. This article reads like a PR piece. The Third Party Votes Controversy section, in particular, cites only sources that are apologists for Naders impact on the 2000 election. Mystylplx (talk) 00:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

2008 Campaign removal of edit

Repeated deletion of three sentences pertaining to Nader's potential Guiness World Record for campaigning and a statement of the focus of his campaign have proven to be suspect. I will revert the edits along with respectable and objective references. Below find the cut and paste from the Talk page of the user Arthur Rubin that show an adversarial bias towards the subject of this article.Sigmundane (talk) 17:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reason you reverted the edits to the Ralph Nader page? The three sentences were relevant to his 2008 campaign for President and cited reliable references. The focus of his campaign and the fact that he has potentially broken a Guiness World record for campaigning in the process are two noteworthy pieces of information for a third party presidential candidate. Just wondering. Sigmundane (talk) 15:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the alleged "Guiness World" record for campaigning as notable. The focus of his campaign (if he, in reality, has one) probably is. He certainly has the US record for campaigning for a Presidential candidate who does not have a mathematical chance of winning, not being on enough ballots. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

After careful consideration, those parts which are valid (ignored by mainstream media is not sourced) should be moved to the 2008 presidential campaign, and possibly summarized here. If you don't take care of it in the next few hours, I will. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

"largely ignored by mainstream media" has now been referenced. Relevance of the Guiness World Record apart from its inherent notability goes towards the point that Nader campaigned just as vigorously in this campaign if not more so than in previous campaigns but has received a diminished role in American politics reflected by the medias lack of attention (or caused by depending on what you think about that matter). I do not work or volunteer for the campaign. This is strictly objective observations of a notable event and notable person. Sigmundane (talk) 20:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

He's largely ignored by the mainstream media because he's only a spoiler; he's not on the ballot in enough states to win the election. But this is {{or}}, for the moment. Please put information into the election article, and summarize it here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we have a disagreement here, but you seem more than a little defensive about the topic. The point of the first sentence of my edit was to establish that Nader seems to have been relegated by the media to "spoiler" status despite campaigning everybit as vigorously as in previous elections. For the record I went to his campaign site and found that he is on the ballot in 45 states and a "write-in" candidate for the rest which is more then enough electoral college votes to be elected president, although that point is moot as he is running as an alternative to the two major parties. I also disagree with your defining the information as {{or}} as it is cited and referenced clearly. Thanks for your service to the wikipedia project. It is appreciated.Sigmundane (talk) 02:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

In its present state, the 2008 campaign section gives the impression that Nader did not declare his candidacy or run a campaign, which is obviously very misleading. Copana2002 (talk) 15:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

This is subjective, but he sure didn't seem to run much of a campaign. About a month before the election I saw him on Dr. Phil and he didn't even mention he was running for President--he DID mention his new book though... Apparently he was more interested in selling his book than running for President Mystylplx (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC).

New "Uncle Tom" section

Delete WAAAAAY too large for this article and reads FAAAAR too POV. Addressed in detail on election page. Also, removing blog ref, not a source and in no way a credible or notable one. EagleScout18 (talk) 10:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

This is interesting: http://vberryhill-soulvoice.blogspot.com/2008/06/nader-hits-obama-between-eyes.html. EagleScout18 (talk) 11:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Nader chose a rather politically incorrect way of charging that Obama is in the pocket of big business. If he had simply said it the way I put it, though, no one would have paid attention. I reckon he had to get one last shot in, before heading off into the sunset of his career. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if you Google the phase "Uncle Tom" as applied during this election, it may surprise. Political correctness is in the eye of the beholder. Thusfar, it would appear that "White" liberals, Dems and media are (conveniently!) far more offended at Mr. Nader's statements than African-Americans who have commented, e.g., above. Personally, I'm deeply offended that a national newscaster referred to the "Independent Party" without a shred of public notice or retribution. Not to mention Rev. Jackson's remarks. EagleScout18 (talk) 01:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I was offended. I find it amazing that one presidential candidate criticizes the other in terms of an offensive racial stereotype. Can you image this? Nixon (in 1960): "Kennedy won and we wish him well. But whether he behaves in the oval office like an Irish cop or an Irish drunkard remains to be seen." Nader's use of the word "Uncle Tom" didn't get more play because, franky, Nader didn't get much attention throughout the campaign, and because on election night most newspeople were too busy focusing on the historic Obama victory (you know, first African-American elected president). If Nader had made his "Uncle Tome" comments a week before the election, it would have had more airplay, just as his earlier "He talks white" comments made the news. 71.139.23.95 (talk) 17:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Disagree with these statements entirely. As a member of a biracial family, I wasn't offended, not at all. But clearly there are those who who are colored by a contempt for Ralph Nader, who will find a reason to highlight criticisms and use sensationalism under the guise of "offense." Btw, Fallacy of equivocation on the Kennedy remark. EagleScout18 (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it has excessive coverage for the parent article on him. But then the whole article is excessively weighted towards his presidential campaigns as opposed to the work he spent most of his life on. Шизомби (talk) 03:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind this occurred on Fox News, which is hardly a bastion of liberalism. Interviewer Shepard Smith immediately jumped on that comment and offered Nader the chance to retract or restate, but he wouldn't do it. For Nader to call the relatively low-key Shepard Smith a "bully" is about as stupid as the Uncle Tom comment itself was. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment states "media." And still no mention of Smith's incitements, hardly "low-key," or misstep on "Independent Party" remark. It's incredible how many so-called liberals and Dems claim to despise conservative sensational tactics; that is, until turned on their perceived enemies-- let's hear it for bulging hypocrisy. Ken Starr anyone? EagleScout18 (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Why should I keep that in mind? Or are you responding to someone else? I still maintain this article is flawed by WP:RECENTISM Шизомби (talk) 18:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you seriously comparing the phrases "independant party" and "Uncle Tom" as if they were equivalently offensive? I hate conservative sensationalism as much as anyone, but Smith's comments hardly rise to that level. Nader made a racist comment, Smith was amazed and asked if he didn't want to take it back, Nader defended his comment and called Smith a "bully." That's the long and short of it. Mystylplx (talk) 02:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it was eagle who was commenting on liberals being more offended, yet it was an interviewer on the conservative-leaning Fox News that challenged Nader after he said it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

See above. EagleScout18 (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

As noted above I moved the "controversial statements" section to the "Presidential Campaign 2008" section along with all the other notable details of his 2008 campaign for President. Nothing has been changed and I am not refuting nor endorsing the inclusion of the interview in this article. I am going to delete it from this page so that there is no redundancy.Sigmundane (talk) 03:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Sigmundane. Last time I checked, WP strives for concise articles, NPOV. EagleScout18 (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Racist?

"I am an Obama supporter. However I am not dogmatic, where I cannot listen to a critique. You see, I was not offended by Ralph Nader's words. I am black. The term Uncle Tom is quite fitting to describe black politicans who sell out their communities to side with the "ruling class" or rich white people and corporations." -Rhondacoca

"The term Uncle Tom is quite fitting to describe black politicans who sell out their communities to side with the "ruling class" or rich white people and corporations." Unfortunately, that's code for, "Any black person who disagrees with me politically is an "Uncle Tom." If a white person disagrees with us politically we just say they are wrong, if a black person disagrees with us politically they are an "Uncle Tom" or even a "race traitor." The racism comes in the fact that when white people disagree they are just on different sides of the political aisle, but if a black person is on the other side of the political aisle they must be demonized. Obama isn't even on the other side of the political aisle, but still, people like Nader feel the need to demonize him simply if he doesn't agree with them enough. Enough aleady. Obama is no "Uncle Tom," no matter how you slice it, and even suggesting that he might be is about as low as you can get before you're looking up at the undersides of your toenails. Mystylplx (talk) 05:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/11/06/18549432.php EagleScout18 (talk) 05:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's keep the discussion restricted to how to improve the article: talk pages are not for general discussion of the subject. If you are suggesting that quote or that URL should be included in the article, please say so (also keep in mind it would need to comply with WP:Reliable sources). -kotra (talk) 02:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It would be interesting to include, but I don't think it meets with WP:Reliable sources qualifications. EagleScout18 (talk) 18:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. -kotra (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Recognition

I edited this section per WP:NPOV; unless we're naming every publication ranking him influential and particulars of that ranking, the former version reads like overly detailed criticism, not recognition. EagleScout18 (talk) 23:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. I felt that their reason should be quoted fully or quoted not at all, and not at all is fine since it's not particularly notable. -kotra (talk) 00:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree, and took it out. CassiasMunch (talk) 04:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Lebanese American presidential candidate

The intro says, "Nader is the first Lebanese American presidential candidate in the U.S." I wonder if this is really that notable. I think it would be better to just say he is Lebanese American, if you like. Steve Dufour (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I took it off. It is a very trivial distinction. Besides that, the only way it could be confirmed (even if a "reliable source" said so) is to investigate every person in US history who ran for president to see if any were Lebanese. I also changed "Eastern Orthodox" to "Eastern Orthodox Christian" for two reasons. 1. Christianity is the religion, Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant are describers of it. 2. There are some people for whom the word "Orthodox" calls to mind Judaism, not Christianity. Not you I know, but some people who might read the article. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Left out / left in

No Political Positions section

Political positions is missing from the article. I can see how it happened, as Nader was once best known for his consumer safety activism, but it has always been appropriate to ascribe to him political positions, and it is now also required.

Lede

The lede needs work; the mangled and fringey sounding final sentences in particular. The first meaning for 'perennial' in the Wiktionary is, of course, for plants. The sentence would be better without it, ie "...and candidate for presidency as an independent candidate for President of the United States in 2004 and 2008, and -as- a Green Party candidate in 1996 and 2000." I think -as- should be added as well, as shown. Anarchangel (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

See perennial candidate in WP. Nader and "perennial candidate" gets a lot of google hits -- and since Obama used the term about Nader "Mr. Obama, campaigning in Ohio, said: “Ralph Nader deserves enormous credit for the work he did as a consumer advocate. But his function as a perennial candidate is not putting food on the table of workers.”" [1] it would appear to be a valid use of the word. Collect (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

infobox link

Since the election is over, shouldn't we use nader.org instead of votenader.org? Samuell Lift me up or put me down 00:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Article Improvement, NPOV

This article needs a lot of work. Far too much petty criticism, not enough content worthy of encyclopedic biography. Suggest section by section improvement. CassiasMunch (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It reads like a PR piece as it is... what petty criticisms are you talking about? Mystylplx (talk) 00:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletions, explained

Check out the comments above under Recognition. I'll add that the Atlantic Monthly clearly ranked Ralph Nader per POV, tongue-and-cheek, more for criticism than recognition. Belongs in a criticism section, if at all. As for the statement about 2000 controversy, it's vague, unsourced, and not appropriate for concise, encyclopedic bio lead, IMO --- CassiasMunch (talk) 06:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

"Making George Bush president" is not inherently a criticism. Even if it was a negative comment, is would still be a recognition. The Atlantic Monthly article appears to be recognizing both the positive and negative considerations for all the people on the list. By nature, positive and negative attributes can be very subjective. However, the placing of him on the list is a recognition of his influence. The article is about the most influential Americans in history, and the Atlantic monthly recognized Nader, and it should be at the very least in the recognition section. Although, I am in favor of leaving the quote in as well. -Thejka (talk) 6:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Thejka. Also, the notion that the article was "tongue in cheek" is false. The Atlantic had a team of scholars rank the top 100. As for the 2000 controversy, it is a controversy. Nader is now chiefly remembered by most Americans for his role in the 2000 election, not his consumer advocacy. Reverting. Douglemeister (talk) 16:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Douglemeister is a sockpuppet of User:Griot. CassiasMunch (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Exit polls don't prove how people in Florida really would have voted. For all we know, they might have all stayed home, and then the election would have turned out the same way. This gets into a really slippery slope of POV-pushing (and sour grapes). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of exit polls, it plays a huge role in his legacy and how he is perceives. Perception is a key component in someone getting recognition. The article doesn't mention exit polls, just how Ralph Nader is perceived to be influential by the American public. -Thejka (talk) 1:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Baseball Bugs. Thejka, I see from your user page that you bear a particular dislike for Ralph Nader, and that your first edits out are Ralph Nader and related articles. You might consider editing articles that do not conflict with your personal POV. CassiasMunch (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

But by taking it out, you are taking it out because your own point of view, because the exit polls are irrelevant to this conversation. The Atlantic does not even talk about exit polls. The Atlantic put a list of the 100 most influential Americans. Ralph Nader made that list, as recognition of his accomplishments and influence. That list should be included in his recognition. Thejka (talk) 18:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

My point of view??? CassiasMunch (talk) 23:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Referring to Baseball Bugs's comment, in which he detailed exit polls which have nothing to do with the recognition or deletion. Him being put on a list is not a criticism. It is a criticism from your POV. Thejka (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I think someone's headed for a block party. CassiasMunch (talk) 04:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I have not done anything wrong to require a block to my knowledge. I am responding to your comment. Thejka (talk) 07:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The comment about the 2000 election is certainly relevant, but might need to be expanded or reworded a little. Nader WAS important to that election, the debate is over what role he played; thus, the controversy. Cassius, are you saying that Nader is not known for the 2000 election? As for the "Influential Americans" article, I haven't read it, but I think that being recognized that way by a major magazine is worth mentioning. Bennie Noakes (talk) 00:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

See my comment at the top of this subheading for clarification. CassiasMunch (talk) 10:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a more precise and sourced comment about the 2000 election would be better? Are you suggesting that Nader is not well-known for the 2000 election, above all other elections he's run in? When people think of "Nader for President", they think of 2000, not 2004 or 2008. That was his most well-known and historic campaign.

Regardless of the Atlantic's opinion about Nader, they did include him in the list, making it noteworthy. I don't see what the argument is on that second point. If the tone was disparaging, however, that should be noted in the article as well, so as to not misrepresent the Atlantic. ---Bennie Noakes (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I think if we were add "In December 2006, the Atlantic Monthly named Nader one of the 100 most influential figures in American history." That shows no bias and does not include the quote. We have not reached a consensus yet, but I believe this is something everyone can agree on. There is no POV or criticism in this quote. Thejka (talk) 00:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Contributors to this discussion may be interested in reading the sockpuppet report about CassiasMunch. He/she has been deleting the Atlantic Monthly quote from this article for nearly two years. CalBear44 (talk) 17:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

User:CalBear44 is a sockpuppet of User:Griot. CassiasMunch (talk) 07:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

CU evidence for anyone who doubts. -kotra (talk) 15:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Third-party votes controversy?

This section minimizes the 2000 election controversy in a very POV way. Even the title is a misdirection--the controversy was not about "third party votes," it is about whether or not Ralph Nader influenced the outcome of the 2000 election in George W. Bush's favor. The section (like much of the rest of this article) reads like something one would find on Nader.org. The spin is incredible, with the strategy being to point out that there were other factors besides Nader that also affected the outcome, thus dodging away from the fact that Nader was a decisive factor in determining whether Al Gore or GW Bush won the election in 2000. The entire section is spun that way, and all sources cited are spun that way. There's no mention of his pledge to avoid campaigning in swing states. There's no mention of the fact he broke his pledge, largely concentrating on swing states, especially including Fl., in the final two weeks of the election.

I know this isn't a forum, and I admit I have some emotional feelings about this, but that section in particular is so biased on the pro-Nader side it's about to tip over. If the article is to mention that "controversy" at all it at least should provide a fair description of both sides. What we have, instead, is a PR statement from Nader.org masquerading as a Wikipedia article. Spin and all. This is not what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. Mystylplx (talk) 03:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Several of your points are directly addressed in that section currently. Both "a decisive factor" and "largely concentrating on swing states" are addressed, admittedly in support of Nader. I agree that there should be more views of the controversy given, but reliable sources are key to any additions. This is a very heated and political topic, and people on both sides are very convinced in their views, so finding an objective opinion may be impossible (unless the Burden citation is objective). In the absence on objective opinions, a fair distribution of biased, but authoritatively biased sources may be acceptable, as long as it's made explicitly clear what conflict of interest or bias there is.

For example, concerning the "strategy to point out that there were other factors besides Nader", that part is explicitly attributed to Nader himself ("Nader typically points to..."). I don't think it's presented as fact, just Nader's views. If we can find a statement from Al Gore or then-DNC chairman Joe Andrew, that should help balance it, I think.

As for the section title, "Third-party votes controversy" seems fairly neutral to me, if a bit overly broad. Perhaps "Spoiler effect controversy" or "Alleged spoiler effect" would be more accurate. -kotra (talk) 18:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

religion

can I source be cited for him being a Maronite Catholic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.179.237 (talk) 08:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I've never seen his religion discussed, nor heard him mention it. He may be "non-practicing," "spiritual but not religious," agnostic, atheist, who knows. Шизомби (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

the summary box states 'Religion - Christian' and cites reference 1, but that article doesn't address his religion...; this is should be clarified; —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaydlewis (talk • contribs) 05:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, so in line with WP:BLP I'll delete the stated religion; if someone can found a reliable source for his religion then it canbe put in with a citation. -- Timberframe (talk) 16:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Third-party votes controversy Section Biased?

The section "Third-party votes controversy" seems biased to me in favor of Nader not affecting Gore's chances the election. There is one sentence stating that he did, followed by an entire paragraph of rebuttal. The article, Ralph Nader Presidential Campaigns, for example, shows a more neutral stance on this issue. Sept. 20/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.140.150.195 (talk) 19:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It is a "straw man" argument which essentially points out that there were other factors which ALSO affected the outcome and implies that somehow those other factors negate the undisputable fact that Nader was a decisive factor in getting Bush elected. Obviously Gore would have won Florida if more people had voted for him, if fewer democrats had voted for Bush, if the SC hadn't interfered, etc., but it's also true that Gore would have won if Nader had merely kept his promise to avoid campaigning in swing states. In fact he largely focused on swing states in the final two weeks of the election, especially Fl. There is no other single person who had as much of an impact on the outcome of the 2000 election as Ralph Nader (Other then Gore and Bush themselves, perhaps.) Even the SC had to get 5 votes to have the level of impact that Nader had.Mystylplx (talk)

Can you provide a source to the words Nader used when he said he would avoid campaigning in swing states? His defense is that he stated that he was, and I quote, "not going to go out of my way to go into the swing states". If there is a source with him quoted as promising "to avoid campaigning in swing states", that would help your case. Severisth (talk) 00:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

5 election runs?

The article claims he's run for president 5 times, but Nader himself corrects the introducer here saying it was only 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KR-V6bl41zU

The first time, in 92, his "run" was just in one state and just in the primary, from what I've read. In 96 he was just a write-in candidate. 2000 was his first "real" nationwide campaign (also according to the FEC I believe).--Joelrosenblum (talk) 15:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Nader says he "stood" for President twice but only "ran" three times, but under normal usage of the word he ran 5 times. Mystylplx (talk) 00:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

"The first time, in 92, his "run" was just in one state and just in the primary, from what I've read. In 96 he was just a write-in candidate. 2000 was his first "real" nationwide campaign (also according to the FEC I believe).--Joelrosenblum (talk) 15:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)"

Yes. He was running FOR PRESIDENT in just one state, and only in the primary. Mystylplx (talk) 18:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Nader was not a write-in candidate in 1996 he just refused to spend over $5,000 at which point he would be required to file financial discloser, and statement of candidacy forms. He appeared on twenty some ballots (most notably California) and was a write in candidate in a few others. In 1992 Nader was only a write-in candidate in the New Hampshire primary in both the Republican and Democratic primaries (Doing better in the Republican one). Nader did this to protest what he felt was a poor set of candidates for both parties. 2000 was his first real run. I don't know what you've been reading but I suggest you pick up a copy of Nader's book 'Crashing The Party' this will correct the poor quality of info you say you have read. As for runs for the presidency he ran in one primary in '92 (seeking not the presidency but the nomination of one or both parties) and in '96, '00, '04, '08 he was a candidate for president so the correct answer is 4. Highground79 (talk) 04:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

What is his PLATFORM?

Why isn't there a single word in here about Nader's platform or beliefs? Doesn't anyone think anyone trying to read up on Nader would want to know this? 72.177.34.13 (talk) 09:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

There's plenty in Ralph Nader presidential campaign, 2000. We don't print folks' entire platforms here. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Nader and the Supreme Court

A number of edits trying to push the idea that Nader is a candidate to replace Souter on the Supreme Court. Doesn't seem very likely, and I've searched on it and come up with message board posts that don't seem of any real significance. Can we keep this out of the article? Шизомби (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

At a minimum, the editor who keeps adding the edits should offer a citation. If it's "on the internet", why haven't we been given a link? This material shouldn't be added back until it comes with an adequate supporting reference. — Aldaron • T/C 21:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

That means a reliable source, not the rumor mills and hyperpartisan conspiracy blogs. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

If there's some editor who's actually pushing this, I wish he or she would contact me so that we could set up a bet. There's no way that Obama would appoint Nader. The most I could believe would be that someone in the administration had leaked Nader's name to try to curry favor with the Naderites, by leading them to believe that their hero was being considered. JamesMLane t c 19:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

My above statement may be poorly worded. The edit suggested "an online movement was launched to urge consideration of Nader." AFAICT there are some individuals who think he'd be a good idea, but no notability to their opinions, and no actual "movement." Шизомби (talk) 19:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

New Pic?

This is definitely minor but his picture doesn't look to happy or even positive, can we get a picture that doesn't make him look so pissed off? haha 72.220.125.54 (talk) 01:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

When you restrict yourself to freebies, you have to settle for what you can get. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Suggest subhead or hyperlink for Nader's Raiders

Dozens of former Nader's Raiders have gone on to influential positions in society, many of them quite surprising. For instance, did you know that Bruce Wasserstein, recently deceased investment banker of Wasserstein Perella and Lazard Freres, was once a Nader's Raider? I think it'd be interesting to start a list, either within the larger article or as a separate article. Here are just a few:

Mark Green, president of Air America and former Consumer's Advocate of NYC James Fallows of the Atlantic Ed Cox, son-in-law of Richard Nixon (married to Tricia Nixon)

Brooklynbookworm (talk) 01:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The top of this page ?!

What's with the un-signed "debate" at the top, repeated three times? Frankly, it looks rather ... um ... silly. - DropShadow (talk) 19:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see what you're referring to? What debate where? Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 23:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Seriously?! - DropShadow (talk) 10:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

Why is the neutrality of the "Third-party votes controversy" section disputed? I could not find the discussion? Stovl (talk) 04:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea why the neutrality is disputed. It's just facts, and it accurately portrays the conflict over the issue. Plus, it's full of citations. I think the tag should be removed. --N-k (talk) 12:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Terry McCauliffe attempted pay off of Nader

Another editor is persistently removing important, relevant verified information regarding the actions of Terry McCauliffe in 2004. First, "bribery" is not a crime, per se. I asked that the dictionary be consulted (try Webster's College vs.); apparently it wasn't. I would ask that you get the semantics right before overturning other people's work. At a minimum, you could have changed that one word, perhaps to "pay off", instead of removing an entire paragraph. Perhaps the person that added that material would care to comment? Jack B108 (talk) 00:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree to include it. Aslo, I have removed the quote from the Atlantic Monthly; may remove the rank altogether from Recognition, since it's really criticism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.114.230 (talk) 00:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Recognition does not necessarily have to be positive, so I have restored the point. Markvs88 (talk) 02:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I removed it entirely, it belongs in criticism, or 2000 section, it is clearly tongue and cheek not meant to be "recognition". I welcome other people to join in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.93.195.124 (talk) 04:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

And I've restored it again, zero sum game. Again, recognition is not always positive. IE: Adolph Hitler, John Wilkes Booth, Tanya Harding, etc. You're reverting a cited quote of someone else's from a reliable source. Markvs88 (talk) 11:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you think we can reasonably agree to move it to criticism? Would be great to hear from others, as well. 99.93.195.124 (talk) 21:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'm fine with that. Markvs88 (talk) 21:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I did that, adding a new section :-) 99.93.195.124 (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Criticism

I am told it is best to eliminate this section, as it tends to give undue weight. Now I can see why this is a policy. There is waaaaay too much criticism coming in, coming across as axe-grinding, strictly op-ed. I vote to remove it. 99.25.216.198 (talk) 02:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

If you remove the criticism section you have to remove the recognition section as well. Until recently this article read as a puff propaganda piece and it still tilts in that direction. Mystylplx (talk) 13:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. Please state why you think [[2]] applies. I see no rationale at this time. Markvs88 (talk) 16:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

See Barack Obama artcle talk page. 99.25.216.198 (talk) 02:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Talk:Barack Obama has 17 sections plus 71 pages of archives. I'm not going to search for what you mean and figure out the context for you... can you please be a bit more specific? Markvs88 (talk) 03:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It's the Section marked "Criticism": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barack_Obama#Criticism_section 99.25.216.198 (talk) 04:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

In that section they also say the recognition section should be removed. I agree. Both sections should be removed. The very fact there was even a recognition section at all is another indication of what a puff piece this is. Then the criticism section was added to balance the recognition section... Both should be removed. Mystylplx (talk) 09:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I change my mind about both sections being removed. WP:BLP has this to say, Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. The material is sourced to reliable secondary sources and is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. It is representative of both recognition and criticism Nader has received in many reliable sources over time. Mystylplx (talk) 15:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Note: The tone of the reliable sources criticizing and praising him may not be disinterested, but the way it's presented here at Wikipedia is. Just the facts, and just from reliable sources. Mystylplx (talk) 15:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The third-party votes (spoiler) controversy

This article as it was until recently (and still to a great extent) comes off as a pro-Nader propaganda piece where everything positive is covered in good detail while everything negative was glossed over and soft-balled. Calling that section "The third party votes controversy" is one example. The controversy was not about "third party votes;" it was about whether or not he ran as a spoiler. "Spoiler was the word used at the time and is the word used in most of the cited sources. Let's call it what it is instead of soft-balling. Mystylplx (talk) 13:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

OPPOSE - The term "spoiler" is POV charged and violates NPOV. 99.25.216.198 (talk) 02:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest it's the opposite. The term "spoiler" is the term the controversy was all about. By not using the term it soft-balls it and violates NPOV. Mystylplx (talk) 09:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

DISAGREE - Let's keep the article about the subject it represents. This is not a forum for political soap-boxing or axe-grinding. There is too much weight given to the issue here as it is. 99.34.58.117 (talk) 21:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Like it or not this is a major part of what Nader will be remembered for.

- This is your opinion. It is not shared by all, particularly those off of the continent. 99.34.58.117 (talk) 07:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It is shared by enough reliable sources to mean it should be included. And please stop vandalizing the talk page by editing other peoples posts. If you continue I will ask an administrator to block your IP.Mystylplx (talk) 17:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

And when I started the same amount of the article was on this--it was just all defending Nader.

- Again, this is your opinion. I for one do not see evidence of this.99.34.58.117 (talk) 07:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Look in the history.Mystylplx (talk) 17:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

In fact the whole "third party votes" section barely mentioned any controversy and was all Nader's defense.

- Same as above.99.34.58.117 (talk) 07:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Same as above.Mystylplx (talk) 17:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

By soft-balling it and calling it something other than what it was commonly called it violates NPOV.

- You have failed to convince me, and merely repeat this anthem without support.99.34.58.117 (talk) 07:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Look, I'm not the one who wants to remove all criticism of Nader and leave the recognition.

- I acutally *created* the criticism section, and was later informed that it causes problems, such as the ones you appear to be creating. 99.34.58.117 (talk) 07:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

You are the one soap-boxing and ax-grinding, not I.

- I will conditionally accept this statement upon proof of claim. Making such a statement doesn't make it so. Kindly supply proof of your accusation.99.34.58.117 (talk) 07:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I came into the article and it was a pro-Nader propaganda puff piece.

- Again, I disagree, and your saying it, again, doesn't make it true. In fact, if it were to be structured like a encyclopedic biography, it would be chronological, biographical and factual. Your attitude and language indicate a negativity towards the subject. Is this correct?99.34.58.117 (talk) 07:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to add balance.

- I think you are adding negativity. If you were interested in balance, your contributions would reflect factual data, not merely negative data. 99.34.58.117 (talk) 07:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

My contributions are all factual data. You are trying to scrub everything negative. I'm trying to add balance.Mystylplx (talk) 17:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

If I came in and it was an anti-Nader hit piece I would be adding positive stuff to try to balance it.

- Why would you not be aiming for NPOV instead?99.34.58.117 (talk) 07:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

As it is it needs to be less soft-balled and show some real balance.

- Take it to a political web site, then. THis is an encyclopedia. "soft-balled" and "balance" are matters of opinion. Why not focus on facts?99.34.58.117 (talk) 07:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

There was never a "third party votes controversy."

- Yes, there certainly is. 99.34.58.117 (talk) 07:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

No there never was. It was never called the "third party votes controversy." The controversy was over whether or not he ran as a spoiler."Mystylplx (talk) 17:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

What the controversy was about was whether or not he ran as a spoiler. Mystylplx (talk) 17:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

- A term rejected by Ralph Nader and others. It's about third party voting.99.34.58.117 (talk) 07:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Nader rejected it, of course, but it's the term that was used and is important. Stop shilling for Nader.Mystylplx (talk) 17:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

You may not like that but it's the fact.

- Fact? All I've read are your opinions. 99.34.58.117 (talk) 07:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Call it what it was instead of bending over backwards trying to make Nader smell like roses.

- By what evidence am I "trying to make Nader smell like roses"? What justifies such an accusation? I think you've got a lot of nerve. I hope that others with contribute in an appropriate way to this article, and can communicate the process without being presumptuous or offensive.99.34.58.117 (talk) 07:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

First off, please sign your edits with 4 tildes. Please stop editing other peoples posts on the talk page. And as for how you're violating POV, among other things, you want to soft-ball the spoiler controversy title itself by calling it something it was never called "the third party votes controversy" and you want to remove all criticism and keep the recognition. Nuff said.Mystylplx (talk) 17:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Mystylplx (talk) 01:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a note: I googled the phrase "third party votes controversy" and all the results were mirrors of this page. The whole phrase was invented here in order to softball what was actually a controversy about whether or not he ran as a spoiler. "Third party votes" are not controversial. Running as a spoiler is.Mystylplx (talk) 19:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

2000 section

I propose migrating a good deal of this section to the 2000 article. I see that this has been done in the past. Too heavily weighted here for a bio article. 99.61.113.84 (talk) 21:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

You can migrate stuff from the 2000 campaign section to the subarticle as long as it's not already mentioned in the 2000 article. It's really not that long though. The subarticle is not overdone. However, you cannot move stuff from other sections, such as criticism to that article. The criticism section has no subarticle. And I don't think it would be appropriate to make one. Thus the criticisim section stays in the main article. Thus you cannot delete cited material just because you disagree with it. Mystylplx (talk) 22:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, I propose migrating a good deal of this section to the 2000 article. I see that this has been done in the past. Too heavily weighted here for a bio article. 99.61.113.84 (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

And I see it has been overruled in the past. This is a major part of Nader's Bio. Continually trying to hide it away in a subarticle violates WP:NPOV. There is far more WP:RS quotes on this than are present. What we have now is a small but representative sample. Please stop trying to hide what WP:RS sources have said on the issue. Mystylplx (talk) 22:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Where was it overruled? Who is hiding content? Are you referring to the content you're removing? 99.61.113.84 (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

You are the one who keeps trying to remove content. Please stop removing references and putting back unreferenced stuff that's merely in praise of your hero. Mystylplx (talk) 16:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

So, from your response, I gather:

1. There is no proof that migrating material to the 2000 article was overruled; in fact, there is support for migration on the basis that a 2000 article was created and a good deal of content was migrated. Apparently, you rely on false statements to support what must be a weak position.

It is sometimes appropriate to move stuff from a subsection to a branch article. It is never appropriate to move stuff from other subsections to an article which is not a branch of that subsection. When you do that you are deleting, not moving. 208.53.80.254 (talk) 17:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

2. Your edits reflect persistent removal of sourced material.

One time I accidentally removed source material because you had mixed in a bunch of new source material with your repeated attempts to remove other source material. You, however, continue to remove source material, not accidentally, persistently, and with no justification. Mystylplx (talk) 00:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

3. I have provided valid references, which you are removing.

One time, by accident. Mystylplx (talk) 00:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

4. You are unable to communicate without making false insinuations; thus, your position is weak and unconvincing.

I have made no insinuations only flat out accusations, and all of them have been accurate.

I encourage others who work well with others and who are mentally secure enough to maintain a NPOV to civilly contribute to the article and discussion.

99.61.113.84 (talk) 19:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me the 2000 section could use some work. It should be a summary of the notable aspects of the campaign, but it is weak on those, and the later half is apologist type stuff for the spoiler controversy for which there is already a subsection. 208.53.80.254 (talk) 17:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem here is this is an encyclopedia article, not a pro-Nader propaganda piece. That means it should accurately reflect what wp:rs has said on the subject. For the most part the article is OK, but when it comes to the spoiler controversy part it is nerfed to the extreme. Before I came in it was even worse, but even still it reads like an apologist piece. Even the name "third party votes" is an example of how slanted and POV this article remains. Who ever heard of a "third party votes" controversy? The controversy was over whether he ran as a spoiler. It had nothing to do with "third party votes." There have been "third party votes" in every election, before and since, but it's never been controversial before or since Nadres run in 2000.

As an encyclopedia article it needs to accurately reflect what wp:rs says about him. The continual attempt by an IP User to sanitize and remove any and all negative content which comes from wp:rs and "move" (hide) it to lessor read articles is a violation of wp:npov. It is an attempt to turn an encyclopedia article into a pro-Nader propoganda piece. This is wikipedia, not Nader.org. It should reflect what is there in wp:rs, not what Nader himself would like to see. Mystylplx (talk) 00:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that this is a Wikipedia article on Ralph Nader, NOT an article about the 2000 election, the so-called "spoiler" controversy or the "third party votes" controversy, or any other subtopic. It is not a political forum. Stacking the article with excessive criticism and quotes that slam the subject is NOT the way to create an NPOV article, and in fact violates NPOV. No one is hiding content, but moving it to the article to which the content belongs. There is no NPOV violation, save yours, which is apparent from your edit history and personal attacks on this page. History reveals other editors working together, while you push your POV and falsely accuse others without any efforts to compromise with or AGF anyone who challenges that POV. Meanwhile, these same editors you accuse of vandalism and POV add references, which YOU have reverted, an act that actually DOES constitute vandalism, when he/she/they are working to improve the article. 99.59.98.198 (talk) 05:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It is hardly "stacked" with criticism. The great majority of the article is quite positive. Excessively so. The article should reflect what has been published in wp:rs. At this point there is still far more criticism in wp:rs than is reflected in the article. And you are the one causing problems. Your persistent attempts to remove content have been reverted by at least 3 other editors yet you just stubbornly keep deleting and reverIf your feelings towards the subject of the article and its contributors are so hostile that you cannot control your negative behavior, I suggest you step back and work on ones that are less personal for you. I see little to NO improvement to the article reflected in your edits, and your presence has already stirred up excessive trouble for others. ting. I only removed references once, and as I already said, it was by mistake. You had added in a bunch of references at the same time you also (again) deleted content and I didn't pay enough attention to notice that. This is an encyclopedia article, not a propaganda piece on nader.org. It should accurately reflect what has been said about him in wp:rs, including both negative as well as positive. Please stop trying to remove everything you perceive as negative while leaving only the positive. Mystylplx (talk) 12:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I did not say that "it", i.e., the article, is stacked with criticism, but that YOU are stacking the article with criticism under false impression that it creates NPOV, when in fact it opposes NPOV. Are your telling me that your false accusations of vandalism did not stimulate the recent problems reflected on ANI? Why, pray tell, then, did you then apologize for doing so? Which THREE editors are you now referring to? You stated "several" editors in another post-- which is it? How is moving content to the appropriate article in your world removing? As I stated before, if your feelings towards the subject of the article and its contributors are so hostile that you cannot control your negative behavior, I suggest you step back and work on ones that are less personal for you. I will no longer contract any contact with you, and I will tell you why. Your posts are negative, your CONTRIBUTIONS are negative, and negative can only destroy itself and take whatever it attaches itself to with it. I want NOTHING further to do with you. I will contribute to improve the article. Any further correspondence from you will be refused for cause.

The editors in question are listed on the protection page. You have been reverted by at least three editors yet seem unwilling to seek consensus and just keep stubbornly reverting no matter what. And you should take your own advice--step back and work on articles that are less personal for you. There's nothing personal for this for me. The article as it stood did not reflect what was out there in wp:rs on the subject, and now it's closer to doing so. Your continual attempts to remove everything negative are not helpful. Mystylplx (talk) 19:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

BTW< you claimed I was a liar when I said Markvs88 had also reverted your attempts to delete content. [[3]] You don't even seem to remember how many people have reverted you on this and yet you just keep stubbornly edit warring against consensus and everyone. Mystylplx (talk) 08:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Refused for cause. 99.59.98.198 (talk) 09:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. The 2000 election is what Nader is most famous for, so should be covered thoroughly.PopeStephen (talk) 20:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Right, in the 2000 article, it should be covered thoroughly. With NPOV. "The 2000 election is what Nader is most famous for" is provincial. And POV. The argument was made previously with no success. 99.59.98.198 (talk) 09:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Provincial? It seems to me you are the one trying to violate NPOV. As it is the section has his own words, and those of both his defenders and critics in a way that is representative of what was said in reliable sources at the time. It looks to me like you are trying to remove everything critical, which is blatantly POV. 207.231.4.168 (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

IP 207.231.4.168, are you Mystylplx? 99.59.98.198 (talk) 09:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. That is me. Mystylplx (talk) 10:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The IP user 99.59.98.198 has been edit warring against everyone in an attempt to delete anything s/he thinks seems negative about Nader, engaging in ad hominem attacks (like calling you "provincial") and generally s/he is right while everyone else is wrong. The 2000 section could use more detail on the campaign though, not less. If I haven't already gone on the record then I will do so now and oppose the deletion of any more content. Mystylplx (talk) 20:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Refused for cause. 99.59.98.198 (talk) 21:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Page semi-protected for 3 days

The (I believe) single editor on multiple IPs who keeps trying to add Nader's name in arabic drew my attention to himself, and I have semi'd the page for 3 days. The anonymous editor is free to discuss the matter here. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

And how is the fact that he's an arab american disputed information? This might come as a shock to you, but the "Lebanon" in the article is referring to the country Lebanon in the middle east, not Lebanon, Ohio. Most Arab Americans, have translations for their names in arabic, I don't see what your objection here is, do you have something against arabs that you even refuse any translation of Arabic names of arab americans into arabic? You're completely contradicting yourself, when saying "His parents were Lebanese. Neither makes him 'an arab'"; Is it then up to you to decide which arab american is "an arab" and which is "plainly american"?(you can also enlighten me on what "plainly american" means according to you) I hope you can respond rationally this time.--94.187.78.9 (talk) 10:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. I have noticed that your IP address changes a lot. It would be helpful to everyone involved if you registered an account, so that you'd get your own talk page and your edits would be properly attributed.

Now, I'm actually not sure why the Arabic translations of Nader's name are being removed. Certainly, it's not very common on other articles, but I can't tell why it would be wrong. The situation seems similar to Isaac Asimov, a prominent Russian-America whose name appears Russian (and in this case, he didn't speak Russian, as Nader speaks Arabic). It would help if there were other instances of sources noting his Arabic name. I don't even see that in book-length biographies about him.

What I do commonly see in biographical literature, though, is that he is an ethnic Arab. Note that Lebanon is a country, and so "Lebanese" may refer to the nationality of members of any ethnic group (and there are Lebanese Persians, Jews, Armenians, and so on, who are not Arabs), and so this is why there was some objection to your claims. All confusion could have been dispelled if you had cited a reliable source to demonstrate that he is in fact Arab. I don't think that ethnicity and religion automatically merit inclusion in biographies, but in this case, Nader is often cited in profiles of Arab-Americans as one of the country's most prominent members of that community. And you can take your pick of reliable sources to that effect: Time Magazine, The New York Times, The Economist, The Encyclopedia of Contemporary American Culture, Arabs in America: Building a New Future, and so on. After the protection expires, I would support adding a sentence about his Arab ancestry relying on these sources. Dominic·t 00:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Well thanks for the support, but from past experience, I know that if the admin says the Earth is flat, and the dynamic IP contradicts him, the admin is the one who's right. And if I contradict her a second time, I'm as good as blocked(beleive me, they'll always find some vague WP: reason to block me). So I think I'll just let it go.--94.187.70.243 (talk) 18:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the point is it's not necessary to give the Arabic spelling, and doing so over-emphasizes the point... Imagine if someone went around and started putting the Hebrew spelling of everyone with a Jewish last name... The page already mentions he's Lebanese American in the very first sentence. It's not as if the fact is being hidden. Mystylplx (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

He is a spoon collector!

He is! I saw a sampling! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.167.9.178 (talk) 03:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Removal of or moving cited content, June 2011

Would the IP editor please be so kind as to point out where the consensus is that he or she keeps removing the "The "spoiler" controversy" and the "The Atlantic Monthly" points? All I'm asking for is the date (and which archive it is in), because I simply cannot find it. Thank you, Markvs88 (talk) 12:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, again, I am not removing the content, but moving it to appropriate sections and/or articles. The majority of the content in question belongs in the corresponding 2000 article to which it was moved.

Kindly check talk page records starting 1/2006 regarding consensus. You will find other editors' agreement from that time up to the present, and evidenced by a fairly static consensus, save banned editor User:Griot/meat/socks.

I am happy to see that you wish to discuss the issue, but disappointed that you reverted back to sock/meat contributions in the wake to these discussions. I recommend that the present version be left undisturbed in good faith. I will assume your good faith in this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.63.196.51 (talk) 20:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

From the history it looks like only one person wants to remove the content. This is 2011, not 2006. This person (99.63.196.51 (talk)) also appears to be engaging in name calling and other irrational behavior.74.93.21.110 (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

user:99.63.196.51, I went through all of archive 1 and cannot find anything like consensus. Please quote from the archive the EXACT point of consenus you are referring to. Also, accusing me of sockpuppetry is absurd. I have never used an alt. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 19:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I did not accuse you of sockpupptery. I am stating that there are others who are. 99.93.194.84 (talk) 06:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The AM passage is obvious criticism that does not belong in the lead of this article. 184.59.23.98 (talk) 04:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Two problems here: 1) It is not necessarily criticism (that's opinion) and 2) it's been a week and the consensus point has not been posted out of the archives. If it is not posted for another week, I will take that as proof of none. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 14:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

1. Pretty obvious criticism nd 2. Here are at least two people that think it doesn't belong. I don't have time to check through everything, but that's pretty poor logic that if doesn't post something that's lack of evidence.

The Life Magazine passage is obviously praise. The AM passage is balance. Trying to call the spoiler controversy the "third party votes" controversy is another example--the controversy was never about "third party votes" (it was about whether he ran as a spoiler) and continually trying to call it something other than what it was called simply because it sounds more favorable to Nader violates WP:NPOV Mystylplx (talk) 16:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not the same. The Life mention is a fact. The AM thing is snarky. Blatant political agenda. No one could reaonably equate them.

Life chose him as one of the 100 most influential Americans. AM did as well. Both are facts. Or neither is a fact. You don't get to pick and choose which facts you like and which you don't. Picking and choosing like that violates WP:NPOV These incessant attempts to remove all criticism and leave all praise are blatantly POV. Are you the same person as user:99.63.196.51? Mystylplx (talk) 04:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Life passage states a fact, AM passage states a fact with obvious snarky political agenda. NOT that same. I'm hardly removing "all criticism," I'm pulling a quote that `1. does not belong in the lead of the article and 2. reflect obvious political agenda that has no place in biography. List both, without the snarky political agenda, or none, if that makes you happy, I don't care. And no, I'm not the same person. Why do you ask? Are you? Are you somebody else? Do you dislike Ralph Nader, what's YOUR AGENDA? Because it's pretty clear to me you're the one who's pushing points of view. Answer or don't bother writing to me anymore, because I don't like YOUR attacking tone. 184.59.23.98 (talk) 01:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Apparently it's a fact if you like it and "snarky" if you don't. That's what they call POV. The reason I asked if you are the same person is your edits are identical even including the claim it's OK to delete validly cited content against consensus as long as it's been "moved." The thing about IP users is you can't tell if it's a different person or the same person from a different computer, or on vacation, or whatever. The IP user whose IP starts with 99 has been here pretty consistently for months, then s/he disappears and you show up making identical edits. And just like hir you insistently remove cited content in spite of getting reverted by numerous other editors.

The main point is you cannot remove valid cited content without (or in this case against) consensus. Mystylplx (talk) 02:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

No, it's snarky. So, are you another person? You didn't answer. What concensus are you taling about? Prove it. And, answer my questions. 184.59.23.98 (talk) 20:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The consensus of at least three people who have reverted you just recently. And more than that in the past. And no, I don't dislike Ralph Nader--I just don't think her's a saint. I think the article should accurately reflect what has been published about him in reliable sources, the good, the bad, and the ugly, and not constantly be being scrubbed of anything perceived as negative. Mystylplx (talk) 14:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Moot. Since the IP user has nor or cannot point to any consensus that was reached six years ago, it is allowed back in per WP:CHALLENGE : All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source. As The Atlantic Monthly is a realiable third party source, it may not be removed without good reason. The IP editor has refused to make any arguement why the cited content must be removed to another article, other than he considers it criticism of the person in question. That isn't enough. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 14:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Not Moot. For highly personal reasons I have been absent. It does not change the fact that a consensus was made years ago to eliminate the the passage from the article and the lead. 99.93.194.84 (talk) 06:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Er, yes, still moot. Please show the EXACT point of consenus you are talking about, as I have looked and cannot find it. You've had over a month to do so and to date still have not. Until you do so, you have no grounds whatsoever to try to remove the content. Right now I see you and Mystylplx are going back and forth about moving the The Atlantic Monthly part from one section of the article to another. I strongly suggest that the two of you discuss here WHY it should be in one section or another and stop edit warring before either or both of you get blocked for wp:edit warring. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 12:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Er, no, not moot. Again, for highly personal reasons, I've been absent. Thus, I haven't had one month. I've had much more important and pressing matters to contend with. I still have more important and pressing matters. Your not locating consensus does not mean there isn't any-- it means you haven't located it. I haven't moved anything, I've been absent, again, as I've stated. I'll have nothing to do with Mystylplx, who is a sock/meat of Griot. The consensus is plain as day. Months will go by without any warring until Griot and his socks/meats show up, then it's nothing but trouble. This evidence, months free from this Griot behavior and warring and false accusations of vandalism, plus article talk page comments and notes others have made in edits removing or moving the quote, like "Does not belong in the lead" and "Does not belong in the article," is clear. In fact, I see that there are SEVERAL editors from 2006 on who vie for the quote to be moved or removed, and only one Griot/sock/meat, until you, inserting it.

Now, let's get to the heart of the matter. If you wish, post to the community, and see what the community wants. By community, I don't mean Griot/Mystylplx/meats/socks. Let's see a sincere and bonafide discussion, and not one riddled with political agenda. I say the quote belongs in the 2000 article, if at all, and certainly not in the lead of the main article. 99.12.181.184 (talk) 02:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Removal to sub-article discussion is closed. My not locating the alleged consensus after wasting an hour of my life reading through the archives means it does not exist. Frankly, I don't know if you've been gone or not but you've still had over a month to post it and (if there was such a point of consensus) you could have just posted its location in the archives now instead of reiterating that you've been away. I don't really care either way, as it has been a more than reasonable amount of time.
Thus I can safely say that at this point the subject matter cannot be removed to the sub-article. It is validly cited and is something that people do discuss regarding Mr Nader. To move it is an ommission, and wp:burden is on you in this case. There is nothing else to discuss on this point, the matter is closed (unless you can come up with that consensus in the archives).

However, I do agree that this constant back-and-forth reversion needs to stop, so I am factoring it out below. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 14:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I have been absent. Serious personal matters. I must reiterate if you continue to question my word. It certainly causes me concern that you continue to question my word. I cannot reveal the specific nature of my absence, since it is very private, but can assure you its gravity left me no time to read, much less address, your request. If I can find the time, I will locate the many points of consensus that I have no difficulty recalling and at times locating on the talk page archives and edit notes since 2006. I'm sincerely sorry that an hour of your life was wasted; that was, however, your decision, for which I cannot accept responsibility. Thank you, I do appreciate your willingness to patiently assist. 99.67.41.164 (talk) 00:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

That's all well and fine, but I am not questioning your word... I am simply following the rules. As I cannot find what you claimed was in the archives, the issue is dead until/unless it can be found. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 01:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Movement not removal

I see no reason for the constant revisions by Mystylplx (and Griot?) & 99.12.181.184 (and other IPs?). The wikilink for "the New York Times" vs. "The New York Times" under Background and early career is likewise no biggie, I think we can all agree on that. My guess is that the renaming of The "spoiler" controversy to " The third party voting controversy is a point of contention, as is the location of the The Atlantic Monthly section.
I ask the two of you to hash out your differences and politely make your rationales here and (no matter what version is current) PLEASE not keep reverting while discussing it. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 14:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree I will not change it from the present status. I have stated my reasons for its removal, movement, etc. 99.67.41.164 (talk) 00:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

"Griot" seems to be a figment of the IP users imagination. S/he constantly accuses me of being "griot" and has accused you of the same thing. Attempts have been made to hash out the diferences, but all I get is name-calling and weirdness from the IP user. Mystylplx (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Mystylplx, I am aware of the past and we've completed that discussion and are now on to if we can come to an agreement regarding the movement of the text from one part of the article to another. Do you have any opinions on the matter, or can it remain where 99.67.41.164 moved it? Do you care about the NYT wikification or the spoiler/third party titles? Best, Markvs88 (talk) 19:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the 2000 election deserves at least some mention in the lede as it's arguably what Nader is most famous for. Putting the Atlantic Monthly quote at the end of the 2000 section seems odd as it appears orphaned and inappropriate (what did auto safety legislation have to do with the 2000 election? What does him being one of the 100 most influential Americans have to do with the 2000 election?) there and there's a better symmetry putting the two magazines that called him "One of the hundred most influential Americans" together. I think the Spoiler Controversy section should be called what it was actually called at the time. There was never any "third party votes controversy." All elections have third party votes--the controversy was about whether he ran as a spoiler. That's what all the debate was about at the time--it had nothing to do with "third party votes." I think calling it The Third Party Votes Controversy is an attempt to soft-sell and whitewash the importance of the controversy. It's a form of misdirection by implying the controversy was really about something entirely different from what it was about. Not sure what you mean by "NYT wikification." Mystylplx (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

My prior comment was deleted. Per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page#Editing_comments, I would request that my comments be addressed, not deleted. It is productive to note anyone using his logged out IP to avoid culpability for going against the requests of the moderator, to create an appearance of consensus and/or to evade WP:3RR. 99.90.147.10 (talk) 01:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I deleted your prior comment per the "removing harmful posts" clause of the very policy you cited. Accusing a fellow editor of sockpuppetry without hard evidence constitutes a personal attack and is a violation of WP:AGF.--JayJasper (talk) 04:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I find it productive, and not harmful, to note anyone using his logged out IP to avoid culpability for going against the requests of the moderator, to create an appearance of consensus and/or to evade WP:3RR. I therefore request that my comments be addressed, not deleted. Policy requires honoring that request. 99.25.218.227 (talk) 15:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that as having gone through Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, which makes it a baseless claim at this point and JayJasper was quite right to remove your post. I don't know what policy you are referring to, but I think you might want to re-read it. In any case, since no one has countered Mystylplx's point from the 28th, the information is not movable at this point. The whole idea here is to DISCUSS the proposed move. Do not move it again, thanks. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 16:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC

~~I don't always remember to log in, but I've never claimed to be anyone else and I'm not the "Griot" person the IP user keeps accusing me of being. Mystylplx (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)~~

The agreement was to keep it as is, thus I have maintained that agreement. The point has been refuted many times. 2000 election OpEd does not belong in the lead of a subject article. Some, like myself, do not believe it belongs in the subject article at all. The consensus on this point has been made since 2006 by several editors besides myself on the talk page of this article and in edit summaries. I have already compromised by leaving it in the 2000 section, against my position. 99.25.218.227 (talk) 19:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
The agreement is to keep it, and thus far you have not maintained the agreement of the other editors to discuss moving the content within the page. Ah, the consensus again! Wonderful. Tell me exactly how to find it: I need to know which archive it is in, and the date. It doesn't matter "that you've compromised already", that doesn't automatically give moving it a "bye" for the next issue. Personally I don't care, but I'm tired of all this constant reverting. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 19:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Per your talk page note, you asked that the version of July 26 be kept as is, which is the version I've reverted to. Logged out Mystylplx changed it back, so I reverted to the version per your talk page note. You are reverting against your own request. You are grossly mistaken. 99.25.218.227 (talk) 19:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
And I just put it back, that one was my mistake. Now, please answer Mystylplx above. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 19:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, 99.25.218.227 (talk) 19:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I've already responded to the matter, above. 99.101.130.72 (talk) 22:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
As the IP user seems unwilling to discuss his changes I'm going to restore the article to the previous longstanding version. Mystylplx (talk) 14:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Consensus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ralph_Nader/Archive_2#The_Atlantic_Monthly_Making_Nader_96th_Most_Influential_American — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.101.130.72 (talk) 22:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
~~By my count four people in that thread were infavor of leaving the quote in the lede, three opposed. Mystylplx (talk) 14:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)~~
Markvs88, you'll note that Griot/Mystylplx is repeatedly reverting against your wishes. Also, his math and conclusions on consensus to remove the quote are way off. Thanks, 99.59.98.144 (talk) 03:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I am OK with having the Atlantic Monthly comment about Nader making GWB the president in the body (and not in the lede), provided some sort of brief and neutral comment is put in the lede, such as "Experts disagree over whether or not Nader's participation in the 2000 presidential election led to Al Gore's defeat in Florida." As for the accusation that Mystylplx is a sock of a banned user, this sort of talk does not belong in an article talk page; many editors (myself amongst them) have advised the IP-anon to either bring up this issue at WP:SPI or drop it, and his/her continued flat refusal to follow accepted procedure in this regard is (IMO) an unacceptable breach of WP:NPA. Until and unless the SPI process decides to label Mystylplx as a sock — something that isn't going to happen if a case is never put forth in that forum — his/her contributions to this article are entitled to be treated on their own merits. Richwales (talk · contribs) 04:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Disagree I don't agree with the inclusion of a statement(s) like "Experts disagree over whether or not Nader's participation in the 2000 presidential election led to Al Gore's defeat in Florida" or other 2000 election specifics. Such a topic is not the subject of the entry. Furthermore, it is inappropriate for the leading paragraph(s) of an encyclopedia entry, as evidenced by other encyclopedia entries on the subject, like Encyclopedia Britannica, Encyclopedia Americana and Encyclopedia.com, all of which do not include these specifics. Also, Markvs88 stated for the get-go that once a consensus was located, the matter would be closed; thus, I consider it closed. We do not need new reasons for User:Griot socks/meats to edit war on this entry any longer.

Btw, the proper term is '"lead," not "lede," which is reserved for news articles. As for my so-called "flat refusal?" Please get your facts straight, for in addition to reports to Wikimedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hersfold#Requesting_Your_Assistance

Now, given your concern for rules and procedures, what are you going to do about the the following immediate violations: Griot/Mystylplx has repeatedly reverted against consensus and the express directive of Markvs88, and has used his logged out IP on at least two occasions to evade the WP:3RR/edit-warring and to create the illusion of consensus? 99.59.98.144 (talk) 05:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Given that I now see you've tried (via Hersfold) to pursue your SPI accusation in a proper forum, I will withdraw my "flat refusal to follow accepted procedure" comment. Please note that Hersfold currently claims not to have received e-mail you said you had sent; I don't know what this means. Also, note that Hersfold is currently saying he is skeptical of your sockpuppet claim. In any case, I still say it is not appropriate to continue making sockpuppet / meatpuppet accusations here in an article talk page, and Mystylplx is entitled to WP:AGF until such time as he/she is subjected to enforcement measures.
Response I hoped you would apologize for for the remark, not merely withdraw it. Frankly, there is too much evidence on my side to WP:AGF. Which will be reported soon enough. And yes, I have sent an email. What I am seeing here is a lot of WP:AGF for a user I know to be disingenuous, and none where I am concerned. That is a problem which I would like addressed. 99.90.145.111 (talk) 23:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Added Response I just checked the Hersfold discussion page. Where do you find such a claim, that Hersfold didn't receive my email? What do you mean, you "don't know what this means"? You refer to WP:AGF where the other user is concerned, but I'm not seeing much of this good faith in my direction. Hersfold has not yet seen the data, and I've since indicated a key similarity, so kindly tell me, what are you saying? Again, I am not making accusations, I'm stating facts, which are overwhelming, and which I will happily present in the SPI you've urged me to initiate and which I have. 99.90.145.111 (talk) 23:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I was referring to "Still awaiting your reply email" here. I don't have an explanation for why Hersfold apparently didn't get your e-mail. Or did I misread this, and did he mean that he got your e-mail (with your data showing why you believe Mystylplx is a sock of Griot), and he replied to you, and he's still waiting to hear back from you again? And with regard to WP:AGF, that policy does not require me (or anyone else) to accept accusations against another editor without seeing any proof thereof. I do accept that you, in good faith, honestly believe Mystylplx is a sock — and I believe you have been trying to convince people of this for some time (see, for example, this in my own user talk page from last May, which I am surmising was you despite the different IP address, please set me straight if I'm mistaken) — but you have not yet (as far as I know) convinced anyone else that Mystylplx is a sock of Griot, and (also AFAIK) your accusation has never been handled in the correct forum (WP:SPI), and this article talk page is not the appropriate forum for discussing the matter. Richwales (talk · contribs) 00:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
You did misread. I've responded since that post. The WP:AGF I am referring to, sir, is your post regarding your assumptions per SPI, Hersfold, "what it means," etc. I am not trying to convince anyone of anything, and don't care what anyone else believes. It is what I know based upon data. So, back to the issue at hand: where is your WP:AGF in relation to me? An apology regarding your prior assumption? 99.90.145.111 (talk) 00:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I have already said everything I feel is necessary for me to say regarding this issue. If you choose to continue to take offence because I am unwilling to join you in denouncing Mystylplx as a sock in spite of your evidence not yet having been presented or evaluated in the proper forum, I don't really think there is anything further I can say. Richwales (talk · contribs) 01:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I take offense to your rude nature. I take offense to your hypocrisy. You fail to apologize, to acknowledge or accept responsibility, for your false assumptions and unfounded suspicions. Thus, I have nothing more to say to you. 99.34.59.30 (talk) 03:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand that the use of the "lede" spelling in Wikipedia is controversial, but for better or worse, it doesn't appear to be going away anytime soon (see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (lead section)/Archive 13#Lede revisited). As for your claim that Mystylplx is defying current consensus, I'll certainly take a look at this and come to my own conclusion (for what that might be worth) as to whether I think it should be reported as edit warring. Keep in mind, as always, that consensus is not immutable (see WP:CCC). Richwales (talk · contribs) 05:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Response He is also reverting, repeatedly, against the wishes of the moderator. When it was thought I'd done so, again, I was called out. Now, will the matter be addressed with the other?

I don't see any recent instance of a 3RR violation by Mystylplx (either logged in or under IP's apparently being used by him/her). The content dispute involving Mystylplx, Markvs88, and the IP-anon is spread out over several days, and given the extended discussion / argument going on here on the article talk page, I do not plan to report anything at WP:ANEW.
Response He is also reverting, repeatedly, against the wishes of the moderator. Will that matter be addressed? 99.90.145.111 (talk) 23:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Given the contentious nature of the argument here, I don't think I'm saying anything strange if I suggest that (1) people should try to remember to log in whenever they edit, and (2) the IP-anon could help in this regard if he/she would get an account and use it (especially since he/she doesn't have a static IP address). For what it may be worth, I customized my own account's look and feel a long time ago (see User:Richwales/common.css), and I use a non-default skin (Monobook) in my preferences, so Wikipedia looks distinctly different to me when I'm logged in — hopefully making it much less likely that I would accidentally edit anonymously.
And yes, I know it is not absolutely necessary for editors to use accounts — but given the arguments at WP:ACCOUNT, I fail to see any convincing reason for an ongoing, habitual editor not to get any account. Consider, too, that if a dispute like this were ever to be reported as disruptive, I think there's a good chance that an admin seeing an apparent edit war involving an IP-anon using dynamic addresses might choose to respond by having the page semi-protected (which would make it impossible to edit the page any more without using an account). Richwales (talk · contribs) 05:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Response I do not wish to get an account. It is my prerogative, in my understanding of rules, not mandatory. 99.90.145.111 (talk) 23:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I would be in favor of having the page semi-protected again. This would not be the first time this has happened in relation to this IP-user. And BTW, in case anyone is taking the accusations of the IP_user seriously, as far as I could tell "Griot" was purely a figment of his imagination until I saw there actually was such a person in the discussion page he posted. In either case, that person is not me. I have only one account, always have and always will. Mystylplx (talk) 20:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I see three things going on here:
The consensus 99.59.98.144 is pointing at doesn't look like consensus to me, as at no point does anyone say "This is the verdict". Unless another (uninvolved) editor wants to weigh in on this, I can't see how this counts as wp:consensus as the numbers are basically tied and there was no resolution that both sides agreed to. If anything, this discussion ends with inclusion and not exclusion. Also, please note that I said if there was consensus to move the point that it would be considered and that the matter of removal from the main article was closed until it was found.
Response The consensus is to leave mention of the 'Atlantic Monthly' rating but not the quote. It is quite apparent to me, and though not agreeable to me, I will accept it, because that was the agreement I made with you as the moderator. 99.90.145.111 (talk) 23:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Mystylplx has been reverting the article back to the spoiler section despite my request to leave it at a particular date until the discussion on movement or not is settled. PLEASE leave it at the 23:34, 6 August 2011 version until this is settled, as this constant reversions don't help anyone.
Response Thank you. 99.90.145.111 (talk) 23:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Neither Mystylplx nor 99.59.98.144 has debated each other's points for as to why the text in question should be moved/reworded or not. 99.59.98.144, it is your move. So far you have not laid out a rationale for rewording "The "spoiler" controversy" section heading nor moving the Atlantic Monthly text, which is the next step (that is, to the reply to Mystylplx's post of 20:44, 28 July 2011).
Response I stated from the beginning on your talk page that I would NOT communicate with this individual. My response to the matter on the article talk page to use of "spolier" versus "third party voting" or "third party votes" is that the latter phrases are widely accepted. "Spoiler" is a construction of a single party, which has been used to defame the subject. It is not neutral, but rather politically charged and, again, not appropriate to the article. The other publications I have listed, Britannica, Americana, and several on Encyclopedia.com, do not employ this term. CONSIDER THIS MY RESPONSE TO THAT ISSUE. I have debated throughout my rationale why the text must be removed. I will resign to the consensus because it was our agreement. I see no point debating it further, since we are upholding that agreement. 99.90.145.111 (talk) 23:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Added Response From above, I don't agree with the inclusion of a statement(s) like "Experts disagree over whether or not Nader's participation in the 2000 presidential election led to Al Gore's defeat in Florida" or other 2000 election specifics, including Atlantic Monthly. Such a topic is not the subject of the entry. It violates WP:NPOV. Furthermore, it is inappropriate for the leading paragraph(s) of an encyclopedia entry, as evidenced by other encyclopedia entries on the subject, like Encyclopedia Britannica, Encyclopedia Americana and several publications listed on Encyclopedia.com, all of which do not include these specifics. For this and other reasons, I do not agree with these inclusions in the article, particularly in the lead and outside the 20000 section. I am willing to concede to the consensus as agreed, to keep mention of the Atlantic Monthly ranking without the quote in the lead of the article, in order to maintain integrity of the original agreement. If it is not your intention to maintain the integrity of said agreement, CONSIDER THIS MY RESPONSE TO THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY ISSUE.. 99.88.145.8 (talk) 05:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Best,Markvs88 (talk) 17:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen 99.59.98.144 make any points as to why the text in question should be moved/reworded. I've explained why I think it should remain in the (previous) longstanding version. I'm not sure why it should stay in the changed version while being debated (or, as the case may be, not debated) rather than leaving it at the longstanding version, but I will leave it at the altered version for now. Mystylplx (talk) 20:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that is what we are now waiting for. The reason is to cease the constant reverting back-and-forth, and I thank you for agreeing to leave it alone. We will give user:99.59.98.144 some time to reply. If he has not replied by 00:00 UTC on Thursday (which is over 72 hours) or has not replied with a reasonable arguement for the move & change, your version will become the one to not revert without discussion. I'm hoping that eventually the two of you can craft something you both find agreeable. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 20:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Response Markvs88, that is not in keeping with our agreement. 99.90.145.111 (talk) 23:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Just an FYI, I am asking for help with the matter of enforcing the consensus. Kindly respond within 24 hours of this post if you wish to add anything to the matter. Otherwise, I will revert to that consensus version, which was your original proposal and which I agreed to. 99.88.145.8 (talk) 05:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
~~For what it may be worth, I agree that this is a reasonable approach, and I hope it will lead to a reasonable result. Richwales (talk · contribs) 20:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)~~
~~Resolution~~
~~This is a copy of a part of a conversation out of user talk:Markvs88.~~
I've replied. Three times. No allegations, sir, facts. Some of which I've just emailed to Hersfold. Thank you for your time, bis vivit qui bene vivit, 99.90.145.111 (talk) 00:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I posted an FYI on the article discussion page, too. I'm asking for help in this matter re: consensus. Also, I'm waiting for a response from Hersfold. De aequitate, 99.88.145.8 (talk) 06:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello 99.88.145.8. If you want to be upset with me that's your right I suppose, but I'm working with what I have. Per wp:consensus I have to find what you pointed to didn't cut it -- there was no agreement (other than to keep the content), there was no attempt at "Consensus-building by soliciting outside opinions". Right now we're working within WP:TALKDONTREVERT, as M has agreed not to change versions back and that has held now into the third day. I see your discussion with Hersfold, and bear in mind I was making the suggestion to not mention it on the talk page, not to not pursue it. I am not on either side here, and I am striving to treat you both equally. I will refactor M & your points and I again ask you both to discuss those two points and see if you can come to an agreement. If after the "location & renaming" discussion you want to ask for a new consensus on if the text should be in there at all that would be best to get us out of this constant tit-for-tat (after all.. "adde parvum parvo magnus acervus erit"). It's up to you, I'm little more than a spectator. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 14:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello Markvs, since I've apparently been name-dropped a bit here I felt I should drop in with a note regarding the sockpuppetry claims. IP editor did, as he said, send me an email, but the evidence he provided proves nothing. All I am able to see is the edit warring and harassment of Mystylplx you refer to above. Just thought you should know. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 14:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Hersfold, I did look up the discussion on your talk page. I am staying out of any sockpuppet investigations, trying to work with two opposingly polarized editors is hard enough for me. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 14:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello Markvs88, I've responded to Hersfold and, utterly disagreeing with his conclusion based upon data and evidence, forwarded the information to the legal department at the Wikimedia Foundation. I will do what I can to remain calm in this matter. Understand that regardless of others' views, I know who this "M"/"G" individual is, and will not have any contact with him. So, I thank you to take the information I have supplied and act with equanimity. Btw, you may want to check each "contributor" per the consensus. There are at a number of sockpuppets of User:Griot, whose weigh-in cannot be counted. Failing that, I agree to a compromise moving the text into the 2000 section. I really cannot keep spending time on this, truly. As we've discussed, I have some very pressing personal matters I really must attend to. Pax et Bonum, 99.12.180.203 (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
My findings:

99.x.y.z has retired from the discussion for whatever personal reason. Further, since 99.x.y.z either can not or will not discuss the matter directly with Mystylplx, it makes coming to an agreement difficult if not impossible.

user:Hersfold was tapped by 99.x.y.z, but could not find any evidence of sockpuppetry by user:Mystylplx.

The consensus alluded to by 99.x.y.z from 2007 failed to meet the requirements of consensus. Even if it had, there is no good way after four years to confirm that neither side were canvassing or likewise engaged in sockpuppetry and as pointed out by Richwales, Mystylplx could still have theoretically called for a new one.
My conclusion:
Taking the thread into account as well as the section from my talk page, there is little to no chance for anything like a solution (let alone a timely one) to the debate between these two editors, and civility has been breached... well, let's just say more than once. As things stand this is what I find:
The "spoiler" controversy section heading should remain as it is a common term in media parlance (CNN, WSJ, FOX, NPR have all used the term) and therefore cannot be POV.

The Atlantic Monthly statement is exactly like the Life magazine statement and is fine per LEADCITE. If one is moved, then the other must also be moved. Therefore, failing someone editing the page to make a chronological history section (instead of cutting it up between Early/Activism/Presidential campaigns), I see no reason for it to be moved out of the lede.

The revision as of 16:59, 10 August 2011 is the one that should stand, and any further debate between these editors on these topics should be taken to the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard as it is doubtful that another debate would get anywhere. Thanks to everyone whom has been invovled. If Richwales or another editor has any points to make I'd be keen to hear them. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 21:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I believe what is currently there is basically OK. I would prefer to see a little something additional in the lead section, counterbalancing the Atlantic Monthly comment about Nader making Bush the president in 2000 — possibly a one-sentence or one-clause summary of the 2002 Progressive Review study mentioned in the "spoiler controversy" section. But I'm not going to fight a major battle over this if no consensus for such a change can be found. Unfortunately, I do have to agree with your summary — pointing out additionally that the IP editor is now apparently unwilling to discuss anything with me either, because I was not prepared to endorse his sock denunciation without any evidence and based solely on his word. I'm also concerned that the IP editor's comments about taking his beef to the WMF legal department is either crossing or stepping on the "no legal threats" line — though I'm not sure how someone without an account or a static IP address could be effectively blocked per WP:LEGAL. Richwales (talk · contribs) 23:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Strongly disagree Markvs88, for reasons I've stated, I do not agree with this conclusion. No other encyclopedia online or in print that I have encountered, i.e., more than seven, includes POV editorial in a lead of an article, nor content that is a subtopic of the article. Richwales continues a pattern of strawman arguments. I do not correspond with him because he has not exhibited good faith, has made false assumptions, and has failed to apologize for his behavior. He is informed of my position but persists in falsely stating it. I do not correspond with "Mystylplx" because I am aware of his RW identity, past handles and pattern of cyberstalking and harassment on Wikipedia and other web sites, as evidenced by his IP address. I will go to the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard in the hopes that an article proper to an encyclopedia is constructed. I have also responded to the Wikimedia Foundation legal department. In the interim, I will work on shifting the data, including the Life Magazine mention, into appropriate sections. Thank you, 99.25.218.98 (talk) 01:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I have updated the list of involved users at WP:DRN#Ralph Nader to include Mystylplx, Markvs88, Hersfold, and myself (in addition to the IP editor). If by "RW identity" the IP editor means he knows (or believes he knows) Mystylplx's "real-world" identity, I would urge him to read or re-read WP:OUTING and be careful not to post such information in any public place on Wikipedia. Richwales (talk · contribs) 01:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
That's so interesting that Richwales brought this point up. There are several pages on Wikipedia that cite a RW person as the contributor. The pages were not amended or deleted, nor was the user citing outed. 99.25.218.98 (talk) 02:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Putting the controversial Atlantic Monthly quote in a footnote makes it less prominent, but I'm not sure it really fully addresses the question of bias. I think this change is a step in the right direction, but it seems to me that there is still too much detail here for a lead section. Can the Progressive Review reference be cut down to a single sentence — possibly something like "However, a 2002 study by the Progressive Review disputed the claim that Nader's participation materially influenced the outcome of the 2000 presidential election."? Also, saying something like "disputed the claim", as opposed to "found no correlation" and "they conclude from this", seems a more impartial way of reporting what the Progressive Review said. Richwales (talk · contribs) 15:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Just so everyone will be aware, I saw in WP:ANI that the IP editor has been blocked per WP:LEGAL, and this article and talk page have been semi-protected for three days in hopes that the dust will settle. Richwales (talk · contribs) 19:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)