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 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
{{
editprotected}}
In "Life and Early Career" please immediately remove the sentence, "He is currently married to Barbara Suarez, a prominent historian of the Boston intelligentsia." It cites no source and googling on the supposed spouse's name and his together and separately and with "spouse" or variants of "marriage" produces no reference to such a marriage nor any reference to a historian named Barbara Suarez. I think it is highly unlikely that Nader is married, and even if he is, there is no citation given and no source I can find supporting it. He is, after all, almost notoriously a commited bachelor and has stated on national television (Hardball with Chris Matthews during the 2004 campaign season) that he has chosen on principle to remain unmarried because the kind of non-stop public citizen life he leads would be unfair to any spouse or child he might have. That means if this sentence is true, Nader is a liar. Implying he is a liar, however indirectly, is something that ought to be very strongly sourced or removed immediately. The sentence is so obtuse, really, that it looks like outright vandalism. If there really is an historian named Barbara Suarez, leaving this in for another moment unsourced would be most unkind to her as well.
Jautumn (
talk)
08:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} In "Activism" the list of organizations Nader founded includes "Gay Rights Convention" and "1991: GLAAD Sponsorship Committee" but I can find no reference through Google (other than referring back to this bio page) or NY Times archives search relating the term "nader" to either one, in fact I get the same null result searching Google and NYTimes for either of these organization names by themselves. Nader's support for gay rights and gay marriage comes from his strict support for equal protection under the law and his strong support for individual privacy rights, and he's stated he doesn't partake in identity-based politics, so it's very unlikely he helped found any gay rights organizations. Please remove them as unverifiable claims. Looks like more vandalism to me. Jautumn ( talk) 12:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} Please replace the reference to [1] with this reference: Nader Reports Big Portfolio In Technology. This Salon article is really an anti-Nader editorial presenting facts in a misleading way to imply Nader is a liar. It relies on information from a Washington Post article that is the true secondary source for the information about Nader's finances. The article claims, without any substantive evidence, that Cisco is a monopoly, hence implies Nader lied in stating he had not invested in any monopolies. The original Washington Post article requires payment so it cannot be used as a reference: [2]. Googling shows that the article is reproduced under a false pro-Nader headline at commondreams.org and with correct headline on a discussion board, but obviously we can't use those as references here (especially with the false headline!) because the Post wants folks to buy it from them. So I'm offering as a reference a free NY Times Archive article from that time instead, which combines some info from the Post article and some from a Sun article. I can find no personal finance disclosure docs at the FEC website (maybe I just don't know how to find it), and opensecrets.org only seems to have disclosures of people currently in office.
Please also replace the entire sentence "Nader held an additional $2 million-plus in Fidelity and other mutual funds," which has no supporting source, with:
"He also held more than $2 million in two money market funds."
and move reference to NY Times article from end of previous sentence to end of this one.
I did try to find a reliable source for the sentence mentioning Fidelity. What I found only stresses the importance of removing the sentence or any mention of Fidelity from the bio. Here is what I found:
The Post article on Nader's finances mentions no mutual funds. The NY Times article on Nader's finances mentions "two money market funds" but doesn't name them. So I tried to find a secondary source, but all I got from Googling were two anti-Nader editorials, one published on worldnetdailynews.com, another on Salon.com, and a webpage derivative of the Salon article. The Salon article states that Nader owned $100,000 - $250,000 in the Fidelity Magellan fund and presents Fidelity's holdings (large in comparison to Nader's portfolio but actually a tiny percentage of Fidelity Magellan's $100 Billion portfolio) in Occidental Petroleum and monopolistic or munitions companies to mislead readers into believing Nader had significant holdings in those companies (thus implying Nader is a liar since he had stated that he specifically avoids monopolies and munitions companies, and a hypocrite because his supporters had lambasted Gore for family holdings in Occidental Petroleum). The Salon article states: "Nader said the stocks he chose were "the most neutral-type companies ... No. 1, they're not monopolists and No. 2, they don't produce land mines, napalm, weapons. But this is not true. The Fidelity Magellan fund owns 777,080 shares of Raytheon, a major missile manufacturer." Fidelity Magellan is a $100 billion fund, Raytheon traded at $23 in 2000, so calculating yields Nader owned (777,080 x $23)/$100 Billion x $250,000 = $50 worth of Raytheon, which at 20 cents/share of quarterly dividends [3] means Nader raked in 4q x 2 shares x $.20 = $1.60 in ill-gotten Raytheon gains that year. The sentence is also written to suggest that Fidelity is the major portion of the $2 million Nader held in mutual funds, but the Salon article's numbers of $100,000 - $250,000 mean it is only 5% to 12.5% of the $2 million. Clearly the reason the sentence mentions Fidelity specifically is not because it is a high percentage of the $2 million, so it must be mentioning Fidelity to indicate it is notable in some other sense. It looks as if the sentence is meant specifically to echo the emphasis of the Salon.com article. This sentence in the bio, like the Salon.com article it echoes, is misleading about the extent of Nader's holdings in companies he claims to avoid investing in, and its only effect in the bio here is to provide Google keywords (Googling "Fidelity Nader" brings up the salon article and another anti-nader derivative site as the first four hits, followed by Wikipedia bio which currently reinforces the first four hits) that lead directly to Salon's potentially libelous material. Alternatively, the wording of this sentence might also be taken verbatim from the right-wing attack editorial published on the worldnetdailynews site that states, "Nader held an additional $2 million-plus in Fidelity and other mutual funds." The writer says nothing more about Fidelity but complains that he has no idea why an uncle he once idolized, who played pro football then made millions as a Merrill Lynch exec, voted for Nader in 2000, but felt people needed to be warned that "Nader is a hypocrite." He also falsely accuses Nader of delivering "another of his eye-twitching fulminations against capitalism (and not just Enron's corrupt brand of crony capitalism)", elsewhere insinuates falsely Nader is a socialist in a derogatory manner, amid a litany of insults including the contemptuous reference to Nader's "eye-twitching" without mentioning that it likely is the result of his bout of Bell's Palsy years ago. The Salon article calls Nader "supremely hypocritical" and uses misleading numerical presentations to represent his investment decisions in a false light as support for this factually unsupportable claim, and is clearly potentially libelous. Emphasizing Nader's holdings in Fidelity in his Wikipedia bio when only one other holding, Cisco, is specifically mentioned, when Cisco is over 25% of Nader's portfolio but Fidelity is only 2% - 5% cannot serve any rational purpose other than to provide a stealth reference either to the nearly profane and malicious, and potentially libelous or invasive of privacy, worldnetdailynews editorial or to the potentially libelous material on Salon.com regarding his Fidelity holding. I can find nothing else notable about the Fidelity holding that would explain why an editor would have inserted mention of Fidelity specifically here in his bio. This is not just POV - it functions to convert the wikipedia bio into a search keyword and phrase conduit for web traffic toward these two contentious and possibly libelous or privacy-invasive editorials. Jautumn ( talk) 15:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} The final sentence of the "Personal Finances..." section is unsourced, but its content indicates that it relies in part on a sentence in the original Washington Post article on Nader's financial disclosure that explicitly mentions his donations to PIRGs. Neither the Salon.com articles on the topic nor the NY Times article mention PIRGs specifically, just "civic projects" or "public interest organizations", so it's odd the Post article isn't cited but the Salon article is when the Post article would serve also to source this sentence while the Salon article does not. Whatever the intent, this has the purpose of herding Wikipedia readers to inferior sources with contentious content. This last sentence is written in such a way as to imply that Nader has an ownership or control of the PIRGs and other organizations he donates money to, which borders on an accusation of tax fraud. It says that Nader gave money to "his" PIRGs and other non-profits "under his umbrella", when in fact while Nader helped found the first PIRGs decades ago and has collaborated with them on various lobbying efforts, he is not an employee or board member of them now and certainly does not bear an ownership or control relationship to any of them as is implied by the reference to them as "his". The phrase "under his umbrella" also implies that he exercises some sort of conglomerated control over these organizations, but there is no source cited to support this statement and it clearly bears only a contentious polemical, not a factual, relationship to the topic of his "personal finances". The only other sources I can find for these allegations of Nader being some kind of mafioso-like svengali are old right-wing attack articles against Nader from the time he was ramping up his campaign against Tort reform in the early nineties. So rather than searching harder for a source for this irrelevant implied claim, I request that the last sentence be changed to remove the implied claim with the nearest claim I can find a reliable source for. The strongest statement from a reliable source that I can find stating that Nader has contributed to organizations he founded is in an encyplopedia bio of him that is posted on his own website: "From his Washington, D.C. headquarters, the Center for Study of Responsive Law, Nader has provided the moral leadership, political and legal advice, and seed financial support for a sprawling network of more than four dozen groups that he has founded. While most of them are now formally independent of Nader, they frequently collaborate as the occasion arises." Ralph Nader
So to eliminate the contentious, potentially libelous implication, please change the sentence from:
to:
Jautumn ( talk) 15:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
There needs to be a reference added in the personal finance section. The information about cisco stock and such is hard to find, but
Jautumn found some good links, like this one
[4]. I think this is a good article with similar information
[5].
I searched through FEC reports for Nader and found the following pages,
this FEC page is a wide angle look at Nader's 2000 campaign finances, and
this has more specific reports. I can't find anything relating to stocks owned, all these reports have are campaign contributions and spending. The wide angle page should be added to external links.
Xpanzion (
talk)
06:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
There are many areas of Nader's activism only touched on in the list of organizations which, as we are constantly reminded by the Wikipedia genie, needs to be cleaned up and replaced with real paragraphs. I've added a paragraph on his role in the anti-nuclear movement for starters. I'll tackle his anti-NAFTA coalitions and anti-globalization movement in the nineties next, since that leads up to the Battle in Seattle and forms the backdrop of his 2000 and 2004 presidential campaigns. Other issues that come to mind are his coalition with Phyllis Schlafly against curriculum geared towards standardized testing and the commercialization of public schools, and his right-left coalition efforts involving Grover Norquist to oppose corporate welfare and the Patriot Act. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.170.138 ( talk) 13:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
His "early activism" is the corner stone of his legacy in the US, and there is very little to show for on this page other than a couple of lists. This section could use drastic improvements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.0.22.194 ( talk) 19:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to point this out. The introductory paragraph of Nader's page contained a statement that Nader himself claimed the Democrats were to blame for Al Gore's loss to Bush in 2000. The reference provided no source that actually quoted Nader as saying that, so I removed it. It is true that the mainstream media is reporting this (without providing references of their own), but this is not the same as Nader actually saying it. So I revised the sentence in order to reflect this alleged claim (if someone has a source that supports that claim by all means then re-include the statement). In the meantime I HAVE heard what Raph Nader is saying and it is quite different to the story that mainstream news is splashing on the headlines today (24.Feb.08) - some refs are in the wiki page already. In an interview a few weeks ago (31 January 2008, on DemocracyNow.org, with Amy Goodman) Ralph Nader stated that he believes the election was, quote: "stolen" from Al Gore in Florida, by the Secreteary of State, Jeb Bush and ultimately the Supreme Court. The claim is a very different one. This so far is the only reference i've come cross that actually reports what Nader is saying. I would ask that this claim not be altered unless a good reference warrants it.
Interview link:
http://media.switchpod.com/users/democracynow/ftp/dn2008-0131-1.mp3
NOTE: to find the relevant section, skip the headlines and first section of the interview regarding John Edwards' departure from the race. After this, Ralph Nader is interviewed. The relevant quote comes from the second part of this interview with Nader (first question after middle break).
related links:
Article: "Dispelling the Myths of Election 2000: Did Nader cost Gore the election?" :
http://www.cagreens.org/alameda/city/0803myth/myth.html -
Speech on Impeachment by Ralph Nader: "Things are a lot worse than we thought", panel discussion 11 October 2007, Washington DC:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIO-tCPSfHA&feature=related
- examples of mainstream media report on the above issue:
1) "Obama, Clinton fight for votes as battle rages ti take on McCain" - FOXNews.com, 24 Feb 2008:
http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/02/24/new-poll-puts-obama-ahead-of-mccain-as-clinton-claims-to-be-better-equipped-for-general-election-fight/ - 2) "Nader says he's running for the US Presidency again" - J. Brinsley in Bloomberg.com (25.Feb.2008):
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=ax2Gl.yw13nY&refer=home - 3)
http://www.suntimes.com/news/elections/810644,nader022408.article - "Ralph Nader to run for President" (24.Feb.2008) Chicago Sun-Times:
Jordzen (
talk)
06:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Should someone include information about Nader's history of receiving support from Republicans as a tactic to draw votes away from Democratic voters towards Nader - thus improving the Republicans relative poll numbers. See this article on The Nation and can be easily cross referenced on campaignmoney.com. 69.203.13.29 ( talk) 05:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
During a Q&A for the with Henriette Mantle and Steven Skrovan at the opening of "An Unreasonable Man", someone asked them about this issue. Apparently a study was done in 2004 to see how many what percentage of Nader's contributions came from registered Republicans. The number was extremely low, less than 3 or 4 percent of his total contributions, as compared to 15 percent that the major parties donate back and forth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.0.22.194 ( talk) 14:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
The guy announced this morning and I'm seeing a trickle of vandalism. Changed the party affiliation under his photo from "Covert Republican" to "Independent." Just might want to watch out for this page. 71.199.176.189 ( talk) 18:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
At 04:32, 25 Feb 2008, user GearedBull changed Nader campaign graphic to anti-Nader graphic. The graphic has been deleted. T g7 ( talk) 05:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Jautumn, it's becoming plain to me that what you are doing on this Discussion page amounts to a fillibuster, a form of obstructionism, a sort of fog machine of words that doesn't shed any light on this topic. You have expended literally tens of thousands of words trying to discredit whatever publications or persons disagree with your point of view about Nader without addressing any points that other editors have brought up. You don't like the Atlantic quote, so you go out of your way to try to discredit what is a major and very worhty American magazine. You don't like the Salon article about Nader, so you claim it is an anti-Nader editorial posing as an article. Publications that are critical of Nader are inflammatory or libelous.
I just noticed in today's newspaper an ad for a documentary about Nader to be shown this week on PBS ("An Reasonable Man"). The tagline on the ad reads, "Nader, spoiler or savior? You decide." Nader is in many people's minds the spoiler of the 2000 election. This needs to be addressed in this article. As of now, it is half of Nader's legacy, the other half being his consumer activist work. If Jautumn, doesn't like the message, he needn't kill the messenger. The Atlantic quote and other discussions of Nader's role in the 2000 election belong in this article. Maybe we should just start from there and decide which quotes to include without trying to drown others' opinions in steatorrheaic argument. Griot ( talk) 17:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Ralph Nader has hinted at his endorsement of 2008 presidential candidate
Ron Paul in his
blog. I think this should mentioned under the presidential campaign section for 2008. The key sentence is: "Unless my campaign starts showing some signs of life, I might just vote for [Ron Paul] next November." —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Timberlax (
talk •
contribs)
06:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Note: The above edit-request was made by Timberlax [7] - not sure why it didn't get autosigned - and should have been inserted below, not above my earlier requests below. Jautumn ( talk) 13:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I would sugjeetst that as a comparomomize we include the Atlantic Monthly quopte in the body of the article insstead of in the lead, in the section on the 2000 election. 199.125.109.45 ( talk) 19:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} I believe it should be noted in the Notes section that An Unreasonable Man was aired as part of PBS's Independent Lens series on December 18, 2007. — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
The Wiki page on the Maronite Rite Catholics lists Nader as a member of that rite and thus ultimatly a Catholic. Does anyone know if that is true and if not, how did it get onto the Maronite page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.13.27.206 ( talk) 03:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Nevermind, I found it. It just wasn't listed on politics pages. It appears that his family is that religion but does anyone know if he is a practicing Catholic? Some of his policy possitions suggest against it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.13.27.206 ( talk) 03:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
If he was born into the Maronite Church, that's not odd at all. The Maronites are an Eastern-rite Catholic group which is the largest church in Lebanon, where his family comes from. I really don't think he remains a practicing Maronite, though. Tom 129.93.17.174 ( talk) 23:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
This is an article about one of the most important and influential citizens of the 20th century and one of the most controversial political figures of the early 21st century. A lot of the information in the article is short and vauge. Little information about his public interest work in the 60s and 70s is covered, and virtually no mention is made of his decline in influenece in the early 80s. The information on his presidential runs are very filled with a lot of accusations and rebuttles. I feel that a good layout for his page would be as follows:
1. Early Life- Briefly tough on his childhood in Winstead and education history 2. Clash with Automobile Industry- Write about his dealings with GM, from the writing of Unsafe at Any Speed to the GM private investigators to the passing of the National Highway Safety Act 3. Activism- Talk about his work with the Freedom of Information Act, National Mine Health Saftey Act, EPA, ect and talk about his raise to national prominince. Appearing on Newsweek wearing a suit of Armor, hosting Saturday Night Live, ect 4. Naders Raiders- Discuss the history of Nader's raiders, how it came about, the books, and what they've accomplished. 5. Groups- A brief overview(not just a list) of the civic groups he has founded and some of their accomplishments 6. Later Years(with a better name)- Discuss his fall from popularity in the Reagan years, what he did accomplish in the area. 7. Presidential Aspirations- Discuss the details of his campaigns and platforms. Create a sub section for critisicms and rebuttle to critisicms.
Again, this is possibly the most important private citizen of the 20th century, and one of the most divisive political figures of his time, he went from overwhelming popularity from liberals to overwhelming contempt. This article needs to be much, much better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.0.22.194 ( talk) 19:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to cause any flamewars, but Ralph Nader has repeatedly and publicly declined (not to say refused) to become a member of the U.S. Green Party or any other political party. Is the fact that the Greens nominated him for the Presidency sufficient justification on its own for his inclusion in Category:Green Party (United States) politicians (especially as he has since run for the Presidency as an independent, against nominated Green candidates), or should that inclusion be reserved for avowed members of the U.S Green Party? Additionally, should he be listed in the infobox as a Green if he is not a member of that party?
(I don't actually have a dog in this fight, so whatever the consensus is will be good by me, but it's a question that I feel needs asking.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.21.88 ( talk) 14:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Can people please exapnd what he has achieved. The whole article seems so short and please expand on his clashes because he has clashed with more people that just GM motors. and doesn't the Naders Raiders call for a new section? 78.86.95.225 ( talk) 18:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)---
I am adding this in order to clarify one of the listings that I had found here, in the article.
[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 20:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure that I completely comprehend that; but, anyhow, I have offered no pretense nor advocacy of adding that to the actual page. Secondly, I did not check the links today; but, I had only learned about this agency due to the links in this article. I've likely heard of them previously; but, I went to their page due to their link in this article.
As a result, I've learned more,.....:
http://electionarchive.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=148&Itemid=84 >;
This week I have heard some people that I would like to learn more about; two examples of articles that I would like to see are: " I. S. Leevy Johnson" {not " Levi_Johnson"}; & Kevin Alexander Gray| Kevin Alexander Grey.
Thank You,
[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 02:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Why is an effort to learn something a crime?
[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 17:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
The only places w/ electionarchive are
2004_United_States_presidential_election_controversy_and_irregularities
& Newfoundland general election, various articles.
The only place with votersunite is William_Roger_"Bill"_Moss.
This is what I got next:
No article includes voteraction.
I would like an article that reflects the many doubts about our ballots.
[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 01:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Here's to the marginals who have trouble giving up. lol 204.52.215.107 ( talk) 19:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Using the claim "His campaigns have proven very controversial..." really needs a good source. It seems that absent the hysterical and hostile attacks by Democratic Party supporters, there really is no controversy, but rather an interesting debate on the effect his candidacy may have had on the 2000 election. To call his campaigns "controversial" is to make a value judgement of sorts akin to "he started trouble..." and hence to bias in favor of his opponents claims; however, if the Democrats would simply respect his right, and the right of his supporters to have a wider ballot choice, there is no trouble, just a campaign to analyze. Boodlesthecat ( talk) 06:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Must be sourced or will be removed. 76.87.47.110 ( talk) 18:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
(<-----leftword move) I'm not following you, JamesMLane. Everything you have been describing is the dictionary definition of partisan. And of course Nader's position is partisan. That, again, is the whole point. and that is why we should indicate the (easily well sourced) partisan character of the opposition to Nader. By simply parroting the "Nader is blamed for the 2000 bla bla bla" without indicating the partisan source of that "blame," we are lending support to the biased hint that Nader did something improper, when in fact, he, (like Bush, Gore, Buchanan, et al) all did the exact same thing. They ran for a political office that only one person can win. Hence, they are all opposed to each other. assignations of blame must have included the source of that assignation, or else it is reinforcing bias. Boodlesthecat ( talk) 16:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
First of all Independant Party is a contradiction. Secondly, the way I understood it, Nader was running as an independant (no party). GoodDay ( talk) 23:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi I am not a member of Wikipedia, but was reading this page and I think I found an error in that last section where they listed Ralph Nader as a Reform Party Candidate in 2004. He was part of several different political parties in 04', depending on state by state ballot access, for example in Maryland he was on the ballot under Populist Party. I am not sure what source had him listed as Reform but I don't think that is correct. I don't think it would fit the rules for me to make this change as my father was his campaign spoaks person for that election however. - Alex Zeese —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.75.52 ( talk) 20:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Good article reassessment. See Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Ralph Nader/1. User:calbear22 ( talk) 06:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
It has been removed a few times with the article on WP:MOSBIO being cited but from that very page I cite this:<br\>
Being the first Arab American presidential candidate in US history is very much relevant to Nader's notability. BillyTFried ( talk) 01:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Can we get these "social bookmarks" added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.74.136 ( talk) 17:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
http://www.votenader.org/issues/
Is this noteworthy enough to be included in this article? BillyTFried ( talk) 07:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you guys are talking about, but my question was: Is a presidential candidate calling for the impeachment of the current Prez and VP notable enough to be included in that person's article? Yes or no. BillyTFried ( talk) 21:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Nader is a resident of which state? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.153.231 ( talk) 03:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Why is there a section on personal finances for Nader but not for Obama? Is there some relevance to Nader making money that doesn't apply to Obama or other candidates? It seems like that info should be moved into his personal section like it is for Obama. 152.131.10.133 ( talk) 22:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Is there an applicable repitition article?
Thank You,
[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 02:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The article fails to mention his religion. Is he Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Protestant, Maronite, Druze...? Politis ( talk) 14:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Nader is often quoted (including in this article before I took it out) as saying Bush and Gore were "Tweedledee and Tweedledum--they look and act the same, so it doesn't matter which you get". He didn't actually say this except for the "Tweedledee and Tweedledum" part; the rest comes from a diatribe by a guy named Harry G. Levine.-- Teiladnam ( talk) 01:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I removed the following reference from the Personal finances section because it didn't talk about anything in the paragraph. I've copied it here in case it can be used for something else. It's a fairly extensive (if pro-Nader) biography of Nader and his accomplishments:
http://www.nader.org/ecm.html "Ralph Nader", Stephen Brobeck, Stephen; Mayer, Robert N; Herrmann, Robert O eds. (1997), Encyclopedia of the Consumer Movement, Santa Barbara, Calif., ABC-CLIO, 1997, Pp 383-388. (as posted on Ralph Nader's website Nader.org)
- kotra ( talk) 06:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The Ralph Nader article has no information whatsoever on the criticisms of Ralph Nader. Just about every article on Wikipedia on a person includes criticisms, controversies, et cetera, of a person, but this article appears to be whitewashed of any of them.
Such as how he had stock in the opposing company of Firestone and supposedly lobbied for the recall of Firestone to increase the stock value of the competitive company, many investigations and questions about Ralph Nader being involved in insider trading, et cetera.
I'm not saying they are true, or whatever, but they definitely should be posted here, and there's definitely enough evidence to warrant them as more than just heresy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leviathan2688 ( talk • contribs) 02:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
IS Nader actually a Maronite? Though his family may come from within the borders of modern Jerusalem, if they weren't Maronite Catholic, he technically is not. Most of the Christians I know from that part of the world call themselves Syrian if they're Eastern Orthodox, regardless of where they're ancestors actually came from. That said, I think he usually refers to himself as Lebanese. So Lebanese but not Maronite? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.226.114.227 ( talk) 02:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
According to his book, "The Seventeen Traditions" (p. 103-106 published in 2007), his family was Eastern Orthodox, but they were "embraced" by the Methodist Church in Connecticut. They even went to Methodist Sunday school. This was not unusual for Eastern Orthodox immigrants, particularly in towns that lacked an Orthodox church-- so it need not mean that he converted to Methodism. That said, his current affiliation is still unknown, I will leave it up to some of the more experienced editors as to how or whether to integrate this information into the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.226.114.227 ( talk) 18:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Nader has a great progressive platform, I agree with that. But he also is somewhat of a hypocrite on labor issues, and though he did help get us FOIA, his own secrecy is legendary. Can someone do a criticism section? There's sourced criticism (specifically on the union busting) here: http://timshorrock.blogspot.com/2006/06/boss-nader-or-how-i-was-fired-by-ralph.html and some other stuff here: http://www.realchange.org/nader.htm and here: http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Nader.html
Can someone with some time put up at least something about the union busting and Ralph's notion that non-profits have the right to exploit their workers even when they have huge revenues ( like the PIRGs)? And also some info about the money he got from the Trial Lawyers Association (see the (VDare re-published) Forbes article) for his opposition to No-fault_insurance, which other consumer advocates/groups support... perhaps it's true that, as Peter Brimelow reported in Forbes, Nader is tied to the special interests of the rich trial lawyers.
Again, I like a lot about Nader's platform, but I hate hypocracy.-- Joelrosenblum ( talk) 16:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
According to the NY Times, Nader is a 'flexitarian'. He does not eat meat, but fish is sometimes okay. In other words, he is a pescatarian. This might be of some interest to those who are interested in animal rights. Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/30/magazine/30ONLANGUAGE.html
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.221.29 ( talk) 12:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
The Barack Obama Featured Article, part of this project's scope, now has an important discussion on its talk page (at Talk:Barack Obama#Attempt to build consensus on the details) that could affect other articles, including this one, on other presidential candidates. There is already talk on that page that the articles on other presidential candidates may need to be changed, so editors involved in this article may want to get involved with the discussion there.
Some editors here think that when a U.S. presidential candidate is embarassed by someone associated with that candidate, no information about it should be mentioned in the WP biography article, even if the campaign (and therefore the person who is the subject of the article) was affected. Others think WP should only mention that this person was controversial and leave a link in the article to the WP article on that controversial associate. Still others (including me), think we should briefly explain just why that person was controversial in the candidate's life, which can be done in a phrase or at most a sentence or two. Examples:
Whatever we do, we should have equal treatment, so anyone interested in NPOV-, WP:BLP-compliant articles should look at and participate in the discussion. We've started the discussion by focusing on how much to say about former Weather Underground leader Bill Ayers in the Barack Obama article, but, again, this will likely affect many other articles.
If you click on the first link I give here, you'll find a comparison I did of negative information in the Clinton, McCain and Giuliani articles. I've also posted that information on the talk pages of those articles. In that discussion (and at the McCain, Clinton and Giuliani talk pages), I've also posted a comparison of what negative information is presented on each candidate, especially in relation to associates who give the candidates bad publicity. I think editors of this article would find the comparison useful. Noroton ( talk) 17:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Other editors here may be interested in helping with Comparison of United States presidential candidates, 2008. Uwmad ( talk) 19:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
The lead-in to the article has, it seems to me, way too much about his presidential runs and too little about what he's spent the majority of his life doing. Is there any agreement on this? Also, the article which footnotes the statement "He was the first Maronite and Arab American presidential candidate in US history" makes no mention of his being Maronite, does it? Is it assumed he is because his parents were (actually, is that established?). I don't know that he's a practicing member of any faith. Frankly, little space should be devoted to religion too, it not AFAIK being an important part of his life, as opposed to the values of his family. Шизомби ( talk) 22:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Speaking personally as a Lebanese Maronite, very few of us identify as "Arabs", other than in very abstract linguistic terms (even the language spoken is only partially Arabic). We are in fact about as "Arab' just for living in the middle east as Jews in Israel are "Arab". Indeed, increasingly in the past century, Lebanon is filling up with Arabs and Muslims, but still, Nader is not truly "Arab" ethnically, nor affiliated with Islam or any other Arabic culture. Perhaps you will allow me to change "Arab-American" simply to Lebanese-American? I don't see what harm could come from it, especially since the article correctly specifies that Nader is Maronite Lebanese right away. I am new to Wikipedia, so I don't quite know how the editing process goes. If I am doing something wrong feel free to let me know here... Thanks, everyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.246.210.216 ( talk) 00:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
He is an Arab-American as well as Lebanese American.
They are both accurate and factual.
He is on many lists of Arab-Americans.
I have added both to the description.
"Nader is the first Arab American presidential candidate in the U.S." "Additionally, Nader is the first Lebanese-American presidential candidate in the U.S." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mynameisstanley ( talk • contribs) 01:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
The article that is given as the source for Mr. Nader as the first Arab-American presidential candidate [9] bears a certain resemblance to the Wikipedia article around that time. [10] Are there any other sources that confirm he is the first Arab-American presidential candidate? Could this be a case of Wikipedia editors sourcing an article whose author used Wikipedia as a source? Also, the article in question does not mention anything about Lebanese ancestry. copana2002 ( talk) 08:20, 01 August 2008 (UTC)
It is not a guess. No one else can come up with another Arab-American presidential candidate that has run before him. Here are a few articles. http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1209357142307&pagename=Zone-English-Muslim_Affairs%2FMAELayout
http://www.arabamericannews.com/news/index.php?mod=article&cat=USA&article=1219
http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080716/pl_bloomberg/aercm5vov0ja
http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S20/48/99E78/index.xml?section=newsreleases
Mynameisstanley ( talk) 13:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Mynameisstanley
In Nader's bibliography, one of the co-authors of "Who's Poisoning America" is correctly listed as John Richard. However, the name is hyperlinked to the biography of a different John Richard than the one in question. The hyperlink refers to a Canadian-born judge. The John Richard who co-authored the book is from Binghamton, New York 69.204.245.207 ( talk) 09:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Under the Ralph Nader 2008 presidential campaign section, it says "it is widely held that Obama would have no chance of winning the general election if he chose Clinton as running mate, due to her high negatives." I object to this statement, and propose that it be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexseattle ( talk • contribs) 02:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
This article needs help/NPOV, especially in Polling section:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader_presidential_campaign,_2008
Thanks, 76.171.171.194 ( talk) 17:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Bizarrely, Nader is (approvingly) namechecked in a Buzzcocks song called Fast Cars. I say bizarrely - very few people in England had heard of him in the late seventies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.89.91 ( talk) 13:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Does he have a spouse? Is it just not known or is he not married? If it's unknown, you should change it to unknown because by saying None it may be false.
I've removed the following:
and again in 1999 Time Magazine,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.apbspeakers.com/themes/DefaultView/SpeakerPages/Ralph%20Nader.aspx|work=The American Program Bureau|title=Ralph Nader}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1194028,00.html?iid=chix-sphere|title="A Triumph of the Newsmagazine's Craft"|first=James|last=Kelly|date=2006-05-15|work=Time.com|publisher=Time Inc.|quote=Nearly 100 Influentials were on hand that evening, including U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Ralph Nader, Will Smith, George Lucas, Nobel laureate James Watson, Bill Belichick and Dr. Andrew Weil.}}</ref>
, because Nader was never in the Time 100. The quote "100 Influentials were on hand that evening, including U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Ralph Nader, Will Smith" is erroneous, because no mention of Nader in the Time 100 appears in any of their lists. And definitely not the 20th century as a whole list. If anyone disagrees, please provide a source other than that erroneous quote. Thanks. -- Rajah ( talk) 16:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I noticed in a recent interview that one side of Ralph Nader's face seems almost paralyzed, which can be clearly observed when he speaks (his mouth is different as one side moves more than the other). Has he had a stroke? I ask because it seems like something is wrong there but the article didn't mention anything about this or his health in general...just curious. Thanks. Mrobviousjosh ( talk) 10:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
There's not a reliable source yet, but I imagine it won't be long. What a way to ruin your legacy. Link Regards. FangedFaerie ( Talk | Edits) 18:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I added a bit more of the quote to establish context. If it's in there at all, it should contain enough info. to show the meaning of Nader's comment, not just "Nader called Obama an Uncle Tom". If you remove the source, of course remove this as well- Matttoothman ( talk) 23:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I may not be able to cite this fact, since interested parties do not want it to be citable. George W. Bush lost the popular vote in the 2004 election across the nation AND in Florida.
There are scads of critics who claim Ralph Nader takes votes from the democrat in every presidential election. This is false. Nader appeals to people of all points on the political spectrum. He speaks for people concerned with the true problems facing America which receive no media coverage. For example, no one with realistic goals of achieving the Presidency can talk about the incredible degree of inflation in our economy. It is a problem that will be exceedingly difficult to overcome, and sad as it sounds, "liberals" and "conservatives" alike don't want to hear about it due to the drastic changes Americans would be forced to make in their daily lives if a solution were implemented now. Thus, Ralph Nader exercises the true spirit of America by bringing attention to the steroid-ridden, neon-green-glowing elephant in the room regardless of the consequences.
Any interview you see featuring Ralph Nader discussing something terrible that is happening in America, you will hear Nader begin a number of sentences like this: "I tried to warn people this would happen x years ago..."
He really did, because he is aware of the shaky foundations of our economy. Anyone with a brain can tell you it is a bad idea for a bank to give home loans to the unemployed, and it is a bad idea for the unemployed to accept a home loan, regardless of how nice it seems at the moment. Look where we are today?
Do you think gas prices are low for a good reason? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.165.69.14 ( talk) 01:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
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 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
{{
editprotected}}
In "Life and Early Career" please immediately remove the sentence, "He is currently married to Barbara Suarez, a prominent historian of the Boston intelligentsia." It cites no source and googling on the supposed spouse's name and his together and separately and with "spouse" or variants of "marriage" produces no reference to such a marriage nor any reference to a historian named Barbara Suarez. I think it is highly unlikely that Nader is married, and even if he is, there is no citation given and no source I can find supporting it. He is, after all, almost notoriously a commited bachelor and has stated on national television (Hardball with Chris Matthews during the 2004 campaign season) that he has chosen on principle to remain unmarried because the kind of non-stop public citizen life he leads would be unfair to any spouse or child he might have. That means if this sentence is true, Nader is a liar. Implying he is a liar, however indirectly, is something that ought to be very strongly sourced or removed immediately. The sentence is so obtuse, really, that it looks like outright vandalism. If there really is an historian named Barbara Suarez, leaving this in for another moment unsourced would be most unkind to her as well.
Jautumn (
talk)
08:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} In "Activism" the list of organizations Nader founded includes "Gay Rights Convention" and "1991: GLAAD Sponsorship Committee" but I can find no reference through Google (other than referring back to this bio page) or NY Times archives search relating the term "nader" to either one, in fact I get the same null result searching Google and NYTimes for either of these organization names by themselves. Nader's support for gay rights and gay marriage comes from his strict support for equal protection under the law and his strong support for individual privacy rights, and he's stated he doesn't partake in identity-based politics, so it's very unlikely he helped found any gay rights organizations. Please remove them as unverifiable claims. Looks like more vandalism to me. Jautumn ( talk) 12:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} Please replace the reference to [1] with this reference: Nader Reports Big Portfolio In Technology. This Salon article is really an anti-Nader editorial presenting facts in a misleading way to imply Nader is a liar. It relies on information from a Washington Post article that is the true secondary source for the information about Nader's finances. The article claims, without any substantive evidence, that Cisco is a monopoly, hence implies Nader lied in stating he had not invested in any monopolies. The original Washington Post article requires payment so it cannot be used as a reference: [2]. Googling shows that the article is reproduced under a false pro-Nader headline at commondreams.org and with correct headline on a discussion board, but obviously we can't use those as references here (especially with the false headline!) because the Post wants folks to buy it from them. So I'm offering as a reference a free NY Times Archive article from that time instead, which combines some info from the Post article and some from a Sun article. I can find no personal finance disclosure docs at the FEC website (maybe I just don't know how to find it), and opensecrets.org only seems to have disclosures of people currently in office.
Please also replace the entire sentence "Nader held an additional $2 million-plus in Fidelity and other mutual funds," which has no supporting source, with:
"He also held more than $2 million in two money market funds."
and move reference to NY Times article from end of previous sentence to end of this one.
I did try to find a reliable source for the sentence mentioning Fidelity. What I found only stresses the importance of removing the sentence or any mention of Fidelity from the bio. Here is what I found:
The Post article on Nader's finances mentions no mutual funds. The NY Times article on Nader's finances mentions "two money market funds" but doesn't name them. So I tried to find a secondary source, but all I got from Googling were two anti-Nader editorials, one published on worldnetdailynews.com, another on Salon.com, and a webpage derivative of the Salon article. The Salon article states that Nader owned $100,000 - $250,000 in the Fidelity Magellan fund and presents Fidelity's holdings (large in comparison to Nader's portfolio but actually a tiny percentage of Fidelity Magellan's $100 Billion portfolio) in Occidental Petroleum and monopolistic or munitions companies to mislead readers into believing Nader had significant holdings in those companies (thus implying Nader is a liar since he had stated that he specifically avoids monopolies and munitions companies, and a hypocrite because his supporters had lambasted Gore for family holdings in Occidental Petroleum). The Salon article states: "Nader said the stocks he chose were "the most neutral-type companies ... No. 1, they're not monopolists and No. 2, they don't produce land mines, napalm, weapons. But this is not true. The Fidelity Magellan fund owns 777,080 shares of Raytheon, a major missile manufacturer." Fidelity Magellan is a $100 billion fund, Raytheon traded at $23 in 2000, so calculating yields Nader owned (777,080 x $23)/$100 Billion x $250,000 = $50 worth of Raytheon, which at 20 cents/share of quarterly dividends [3] means Nader raked in 4q x 2 shares x $.20 = $1.60 in ill-gotten Raytheon gains that year. The sentence is also written to suggest that Fidelity is the major portion of the $2 million Nader held in mutual funds, but the Salon article's numbers of $100,000 - $250,000 mean it is only 5% to 12.5% of the $2 million. Clearly the reason the sentence mentions Fidelity specifically is not because it is a high percentage of the $2 million, so it must be mentioning Fidelity to indicate it is notable in some other sense. It looks as if the sentence is meant specifically to echo the emphasis of the Salon.com article. This sentence in the bio, like the Salon.com article it echoes, is misleading about the extent of Nader's holdings in companies he claims to avoid investing in, and its only effect in the bio here is to provide Google keywords (Googling "Fidelity Nader" brings up the salon article and another anti-nader derivative site as the first four hits, followed by Wikipedia bio which currently reinforces the first four hits) that lead directly to Salon's potentially libelous material. Alternatively, the wording of this sentence might also be taken verbatim from the right-wing attack editorial published on the worldnetdailynews site that states, "Nader held an additional $2 million-plus in Fidelity and other mutual funds." The writer says nothing more about Fidelity but complains that he has no idea why an uncle he once idolized, who played pro football then made millions as a Merrill Lynch exec, voted for Nader in 2000, but felt people needed to be warned that "Nader is a hypocrite." He also falsely accuses Nader of delivering "another of his eye-twitching fulminations against capitalism (and not just Enron's corrupt brand of crony capitalism)", elsewhere insinuates falsely Nader is a socialist in a derogatory manner, amid a litany of insults including the contemptuous reference to Nader's "eye-twitching" without mentioning that it likely is the result of his bout of Bell's Palsy years ago. The Salon article calls Nader "supremely hypocritical" and uses misleading numerical presentations to represent his investment decisions in a false light as support for this factually unsupportable claim, and is clearly potentially libelous. Emphasizing Nader's holdings in Fidelity in his Wikipedia bio when only one other holding, Cisco, is specifically mentioned, when Cisco is over 25% of Nader's portfolio but Fidelity is only 2% - 5% cannot serve any rational purpose other than to provide a stealth reference either to the nearly profane and malicious, and potentially libelous or invasive of privacy, worldnetdailynews editorial or to the potentially libelous material on Salon.com regarding his Fidelity holding. I can find nothing else notable about the Fidelity holding that would explain why an editor would have inserted mention of Fidelity specifically here in his bio. This is not just POV - it functions to convert the wikipedia bio into a search keyword and phrase conduit for web traffic toward these two contentious and possibly libelous or privacy-invasive editorials. Jautumn ( talk) 15:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} The final sentence of the "Personal Finances..." section is unsourced, but its content indicates that it relies in part on a sentence in the original Washington Post article on Nader's financial disclosure that explicitly mentions his donations to PIRGs. Neither the Salon.com articles on the topic nor the NY Times article mention PIRGs specifically, just "civic projects" or "public interest organizations", so it's odd the Post article isn't cited but the Salon article is when the Post article would serve also to source this sentence while the Salon article does not. Whatever the intent, this has the purpose of herding Wikipedia readers to inferior sources with contentious content. This last sentence is written in such a way as to imply that Nader has an ownership or control of the PIRGs and other organizations he donates money to, which borders on an accusation of tax fraud. It says that Nader gave money to "his" PIRGs and other non-profits "under his umbrella", when in fact while Nader helped found the first PIRGs decades ago and has collaborated with them on various lobbying efforts, he is not an employee or board member of them now and certainly does not bear an ownership or control relationship to any of them as is implied by the reference to them as "his". The phrase "under his umbrella" also implies that he exercises some sort of conglomerated control over these organizations, but there is no source cited to support this statement and it clearly bears only a contentious polemical, not a factual, relationship to the topic of his "personal finances". The only other sources I can find for these allegations of Nader being some kind of mafioso-like svengali are old right-wing attack articles against Nader from the time he was ramping up his campaign against Tort reform in the early nineties. So rather than searching harder for a source for this irrelevant implied claim, I request that the last sentence be changed to remove the implied claim with the nearest claim I can find a reliable source for. The strongest statement from a reliable source that I can find stating that Nader has contributed to organizations he founded is in an encyplopedia bio of him that is posted on his own website: "From his Washington, D.C. headquarters, the Center for Study of Responsive Law, Nader has provided the moral leadership, political and legal advice, and seed financial support for a sprawling network of more than four dozen groups that he has founded. While most of them are now formally independent of Nader, they frequently collaborate as the occasion arises." Ralph Nader
So to eliminate the contentious, potentially libelous implication, please change the sentence from:
to:
Jautumn ( talk) 15:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
There needs to be a reference added in the personal finance section. The information about cisco stock and such is hard to find, but
Jautumn found some good links, like this one
[4]. I think this is a good article with similar information
[5].
I searched through FEC reports for Nader and found the following pages,
this FEC page is a wide angle look at Nader's 2000 campaign finances, and
this has more specific reports. I can't find anything relating to stocks owned, all these reports have are campaign contributions and spending. The wide angle page should be added to external links.
Xpanzion (
talk)
06:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
There are many areas of Nader's activism only touched on in the list of organizations which, as we are constantly reminded by the Wikipedia genie, needs to be cleaned up and replaced with real paragraphs. I've added a paragraph on his role in the anti-nuclear movement for starters. I'll tackle his anti-NAFTA coalitions and anti-globalization movement in the nineties next, since that leads up to the Battle in Seattle and forms the backdrop of his 2000 and 2004 presidential campaigns. Other issues that come to mind are his coalition with Phyllis Schlafly against curriculum geared towards standardized testing and the commercialization of public schools, and his right-left coalition efforts involving Grover Norquist to oppose corporate welfare and the Patriot Act. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.170.138 ( talk) 13:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
His "early activism" is the corner stone of his legacy in the US, and there is very little to show for on this page other than a couple of lists. This section could use drastic improvements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.0.22.194 ( talk) 19:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to point this out. The introductory paragraph of Nader's page contained a statement that Nader himself claimed the Democrats were to blame for Al Gore's loss to Bush in 2000. The reference provided no source that actually quoted Nader as saying that, so I removed it. It is true that the mainstream media is reporting this (without providing references of their own), but this is not the same as Nader actually saying it. So I revised the sentence in order to reflect this alleged claim (if someone has a source that supports that claim by all means then re-include the statement). In the meantime I HAVE heard what Raph Nader is saying and it is quite different to the story that mainstream news is splashing on the headlines today (24.Feb.08) - some refs are in the wiki page already. In an interview a few weeks ago (31 January 2008, on DemocracyNow.org, with Amy Goodman) Ralph Nader stated that he believes the election was, quote: "stolen" from Al Gore in Florida, by the Secreteary of State, Jeb Bush and ultimately the Supreme Court. The claim is a very different one. This so far is the only reference i've come cross that actually reports what Nader is saying. I would ask that this claim not be altered unless a good reference warrants it.
Interview link:
http://media.switchpod.com/users/democracynow/ftp/dn2008-0131-1.mp3
NOTE: to find the relevant section, skip the headlines and first section of the interview regarding John Edwards' departure from the race. After this, Ralph Nader is interviewed. The relevant quote comes from the second part of this interview with Nader (first question after middle break).
related links:
Article: "Dispelling the Myths of Election 2000: Did Nader cost Gore the election?" :
http://www.cagreens.org/alameda/city/0803myth/myth.html -
Speech on Impeachment by Ralph Nader: "Things are a lot worse than we thought", panel discussion 11 October 2007, Washington DC:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIO-tCPSfHA&feature=related
- examples of mainstream media report on the above issue:
1) "Obama, Clinton fight for votes as battle rages ti take on McCain" - FOXNews.com, 24 Feb 2008:
http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/02/24/new-poll-puts-obama-ahead-of-mccain-as-clinton-claims-to-be-better-equipped-for-general-election-fight/ - 2) "Nader says he's running for the US Presidency again" - J. Brinsley in Bloomberg.com (25.Feb.2008):
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=ax2Gl.yw13nY&refer=home - 3)
http://www.suntimes.com/news/elections/810644,nader022408.article - "Ralph Nader to run for President" (24.Feb.2008) Chicago Sun-Times:
Jordzen (
talk)
06:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Should someone include information about Nader's history of receiving support from Republicans as a tactic to draw votes away from Democratic voters towards Nader - thus improving the Republicans relative poll numbers. See this article on The Nation and can be easily cross referenced on campaignmoney.com. 69.203.13.29 ( talk) 05:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
During a Q&A for the with Henriette Mantle and Steven Skrovan at the opening of "An Unreasonable Man", someone asked them about this issue. Apparently a study was done in 2004 to see how many what percentage of Nader's contributions came from registered Republicans. The number was extremely low, less than 3 or 4 percent of his total contributions, as compared to 15 percent that the major parties donate back and forth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.0.22.194 ( talk) 14:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
The guy announced this morning and I'm seeing a trickle of vandalism. Changed the party affiliation under his photo from "Covert Republican" to "Independent." Just might want to watch out for this page. 71.199.176.189 ( talk) 18:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
At 04:32, 25 Feb 2008, user GearedBull changed Nader campaign graphic to anti-Nader graphic. The graphic has been deleted. T g7 ( talk) 05:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Jautumn, it's becoming plain to me that what you are doing on this Discussion page amounts to a fillibuster, a form of obstructionism, a sort of fog machine of words that doesn't shed any light on this topic. You have expended literally tens of thousands of words trying to discredit whatever publications or persons disagree with your point of view about Nader without addressing any points that other editors have brought up. You don't like the Atlantic quote, so you go out of your way to try to discredit what is a major and very worhty American magazine. You don't like the Salon article about Nader, so you claim it is an anti-Nader editorial posing as an article. Publications that are critical of Nader are inflammatory or libelous.
I just noticed in today's newspaper an ad for a documentary about Nader to be shown this week on PBS ("An Reasonable Man"). The tagline on the ad reads, "Nader, spoiler or savior? You decide." Nader is in many people's minds the spoiler of the 2000 election. This needs to be addressed in this article. As of now, it is half of Nader's legacy, the other half being his consumer activist work. If Jautumn, doesn't like the message, he needn't kill the messenger. The Atlantic quote and other discussions of Nader's role in the 2000 election belong in this article. Maybe we should just start from there and decide which quotes to include without trying to drown others' opinions in steatorrheaic argument. Griot ( talk) 17:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Ralph Nader has hinted at his endorsement of 2008 presidential candidate
Ron Paul in his
blog. I think this should mentioned under the presidential campaign section for 2008. The key sentence is: "Unless my campaign starts showing some signs of life, I might just vote for [Ron Paul] next November." —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Timberlax (
talk •
contribs)
06:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Note: The above edit-request was made by Timberlax [7] - not sure why it didn't get autosigned - and should have been inserted below, not above my earlier requests below. Jautumn ( talk) 13:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I would sugjeetst that as a comparomomize we include the Atlantic Monthly quopte in the body of the article insstead of in the lead, in the section on the 2000 election. 199.125.109.45 ( talk) 19:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} I believe it should be noted in the Notes section that An Unreasonable Man was aired as part of PBS's Independent Lens series on December 18, 2007. — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
The Wiki page on the Maronite Rite Catholics lists Nader as a member of that rite and thus ultimatly a Catholic. Does anyone know if that is true and if not, how did it get onto the Maronite page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.13.27.206 ( talk) 03:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Nevermind, I found it. It just wasn't listed on politics pages. It appears that his family is that religion but does anyone know if he is a practicing Catholic? Some of his policy possitions suggest against it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.13.27.206 ( talk) 03:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
If he was born into the Maronite Church, that's not odd at all. The Maronites are an Eastern-rite Catholic group which is the largest church in Lebanon, where his family comes from. I really don't think he remains a practicing Maronite, though. Tom 129.93.17.174 ( talk) 23:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
This is an article about one of the most important and influential citizens of the 20th century and one of the most controversial political figures of the early 21st century. A lot of the information in the article is short and vauge. Little information about his public interest work in the 60s and 70s is covered, and virtually no mention is made of his decline in influenece in the early 80s. The information on his presidential runs are very filled with a lot of accusations and rebuttles. I feel that a good layout for his page would be as follows:
1. Early Life- Briefly tough on his childhood in Winstead and education history 2. Clash with Automobile Industry- Write about his dealings with GM, from the writing of Unsafe at Any Speed to the GM private investigators to the passing of the National Highway Safety Act 3. Activism- Talk about his work with the Freedom of Information Act, National Mine Health Saftey Act, EPA, ect and talk about his raise to national prominince. Appearing on Newsweek wearing a suit of Armor, hosting Saturday Night Live, ect 4. Naders Raiders- Discuss the history of Nader's raiders, how it came about, the books, and what they've accomplished. 5. Groups- A brief overview(not just a list) of the civic groups he has founded and some of their accomplishments 6. Later Years(with a better name)- Discuss his fall from popularity in the Reagan years, what he did accomplish in the area. 7. Presidential Aspirations- Discuss the details of his campaigns and platforms. Create a sub section for critisicms and rebuttle to critisicms.
Again, this is possibly the most important private citizen of the 20th century, and one of the most divisive political figures of his time, he went from overwhelming popularity from liberals to overwhelming contempt. This article needs to be much, much better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.0.22.194 ( talk) 19:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to cause any flamewars, but Ralph Nader has repeatedly and publicly declined (not to say refused) to become a member of the U.S. Green Party or any other political party. Is the fact that the Greens nominated him for the Presidency sufficient justification on its own for his inclusion in Category:Green Party (United States) politicians (especially as he has since run for the Presidency as an independent, against nominated Green candidates), or should that inclusion be reserved for avowed members of the U.S Green Party? Additionally, should he be listed in the infobox as a Green if he is not a member of that party?
(I don't actually have a dog in this fight, so whatever the consensus is will be good by me, but it's a question that I feel needs asking.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.21.88 ( talk) 14:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Can people please exapnd what he has achieved. The whole article seems so short and please expand on his clashes because he has clashed with more people that just GM motors. and doesn't the Naders Raiders call for a new section? 78.86.95.225 ( talk) 18:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)---
I am adding this in order to clarify one of the listings that I had found here, in the article.
[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 20:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure that I completely comprehend that; but, anyhow, I have offered no pretense nor advocacy of adding that to the actual page. Secondly, I did not check the links today; but, I had only learned about this agency due to the links in this article. I've likely heard of them previously; but, I went to their page due to their link in this article.
As a result, I've learned more,.....:
http://electionarchive.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=148&Itemid=84 >;
This week I have heard some people that I would like to learn more about; two examples of articles that I would like to see are: " I. S. Leevy Johnson" {not " Levi_Johnson"}; & Kevin Alexander Gray| Kevin Alexander Grey.
Thank You,
[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 02:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Why is an effort to learn something a crime?
[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 17:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
The only places w/ electionarchive are
2004_United_States_presidential_election_controversy_and_irregularities
& Newfoundland general election, various articles.
The only place with votersunite is William_Roger_"Bill"_Moss.
This is what I got next:
No article includes voteraction.
I would like an article that reflects the many doubts about our ballots.
[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 01:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Here's to the marginals who have trouble giving up. lol 204.52.215.107 ( talk) 19:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Using the claim "His campaigns have proven very controversial..." really needs a good source. It seems that absent the hysterical and hostile attacks by Democratic Party supporters, there really is no controversy, but rather an interesting debate on the effect his candidacy may have had on the 2000 election. To call his campaigns "controversial" is to make a value judgement of sorts akin to "he started trouble..." and hence to bias in favor of his opponents claims; however, if the Democrats would simply respect his right, and the right of his supporters to have a wider ballot choice, there is no trouble, just a campaign to analyze. Boodlesthecat ( talk) 06:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Must be sourced or will be removed. 76.87.47.110 ( talk) 18:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
(<-----leftword move) I'm not following you, JamesMLane. Everything you have been describing is the dictionary definition of partisan. And of course Nader's position is partisan. That, again, is the whole point. and that is why we should indicate the (easily well sourced) partisan character of the opposition to Nader. By simply parroting the "Nader is blamed for the 2000 bla bla bla" without indicating the partisan source of that "blame," we are lending support to the biased hint that Nader did something improper, when in fact, he, (like Bush, Gore, Buchanan, et al) all did the exact same thing. They ran for a political office that only one person can win. Hence, they are all opposed to each other. assignations of blame must have included the source of that assignation, or else it is reinforcing bias. Boodlesthecat ( talk) 16:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
First of all Independant Party is a contradiction. Secondly, the way I understood it, Nader was running as an independant (no party). GoodDay ( talk) 23:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi I am not a member of Wikipedia, but was reading this page and I think I found an error in that last section where they listed Ralph Nader as a Reform Party Candidate in 2004. He was part of several different political parties in 04', depending on state by state ballot access, for example in Maryland he was on the ballot under Populist Party. I am not sure what source had him listed as Reform but I don't think that is correct. I don't think it would fit the rules for me to make this change as my father was his campaign spoaks person for that election however. - Alex Zeese —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.75.52 ( talk) 20:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Good article reassessment. See Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Ralph Nader/1. User:calbear22 ( talk) 06:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
It has been removed a few times with the article on WP:MOSBIO being cited but from that very page I cite this:<br\>
Being the first Arab American presidential candidate in US history is very much relevant to Nader's notability. BillyTFried ( talk) 01:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Can we get these "social bookmarks" added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.74.136 ( talk) 17:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
http://www.votenader.org/issues/
Is this noteworthy enough to be included in this article? BillyTFried ( talk) 07:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you guys are talking about, but my question was: Is a presidential candidate calling for the impeachment of the current Prez and VP notable enough to be included in that person's article? Yes or no. BillyTFried ( talk) 21:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Nader is a resident of which state? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.153.231 ( talk) 03:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Why is there a section on personal finances for Nader but not for Obama? Is there some relevance to Nader making money that doesn't apply to Obama or other candidates? It seems like that info should be moved into his personal section like it is for Obama. 152.131.10.133 ( talk) 22:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Is there an applicable repitition article?
Thank You,
[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 02:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The article fails to mention his religion. Is he Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Protestant, Maronite, Druze...? Politis ( talk) 14:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Nader is often quoted (including in this article before I took it out) as saying Bush and Gore were "Tweedledee and Tweedledum--they look and act the same, so it doesn't matter which you get". He didn't actually say this except for the "Tweedledee and Tweedledum" part; the rest comes from a diatribe by a guy named Harry G. Levine.-- Teiladnam ( talk) 01:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I removed the following reference from the Personal finances section because it didn't talk about anything in the paragraph. I've copied it here in case it can be used for something else. It's a fairly extensive (if pro-Nader) biography of Nader and his accomplishments:
http://www.nader.org/ecm.html "Ralph Nader", Stephen Brobeck, Stephen; Mayer, Robert N; Herrmann, Robert O eds. (1997), Encyclopedia of the Consumer Movement, Santa Barbara, Calif., ABC-CLIO, 1997, Pp 383-388. (as posted on Ralph Nader's website Nader.org)
- kotra ( talk) 06:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The Ralph Nader article has no information whatsoever on the criticisms of Ralph Nader. Just about every article on Wikipedia on a person includes criticisms, controversies, et cetera, of a person, but this article appears to be whitewashed of any of them.
Such as how he had stock in the opposing company of Firestone and supposedly lobbied for the recall of Firestone to increase the stock value of the competitive company, many investigations and questions about Ralph Nader being involved in insider trading, et cetera.
I'm not saying they are true, or whatever, but they definitely should be posted here, and there's definitely enough evidence to warrant them as more than just heresy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leviathan2688 ( talk • contribs) 02:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
IS Nader actually a Maronite? Though his family may come from within the borders of modern Jerusalem, if they weren't Maronite Catholic, he technically is not. Most of the Christians I know from that part of the world call themselves Syrian if they're Eastern Orthodox, regardless of where they're ancestors actually came from. That said, I think he usually refers to himself as Lebanese. So Lebanese but not Maronite? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.226.114.227 ( talk) 02:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
According to his book, "The Seventeen Traditions" (p. 103-106 published in 2007), his family was Eastern Orthodox, but they were "embraced" by the Methodist Church in Connecticut. They even went to Methodist Sunday school. This was not unusual for Eastern Orthodox immigrants, particularly in towns that lacked an Orthodox church-- so it need not mean that he converted to Methodism. That said, his current affiliation is still unknown, I will leave it up to some of the more experienced editors as to how or whether to integrate this information into the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.226.114.227 ( talk) 18:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Nader has a great progressive platform, I agree with that. But he also is somewhat of a hypocrite on labor issues, and though he did help get us FOIA, his own secrecy is legendary. Can someone do a criticism section? There's sourced criticism (specifically on the union busting) here: http://timshorrock.blogspot.com/2006/06/boss-nader-or-how-i-was-fired-by-ralph.html and some other stuff here: http://www.realchange.org/nader.htm and here: http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Nader.html
Can someone with some time put up at least something about the union busting and Ralph's notion that non-profits have the right to exploit their workers even when they have huge revenues ( like the PIRGs)? And also some info about the money he got from the Trial Lawyers Association (see the (VDare re-published) Forbes article) for his opposition to No-fault_insurance, which other consumer advocates/groups support... perhaps it's true that, as Peter Brimelow reported in Forbes, Nader is tied to the special interests of the rich trial lawyers.
Again, I like a lot about Nader's platform, but I hate hypocracy.-- Joelrosenblum ( talk) 16:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
According to the NY Times, Nader is a 'flexitarian'. He does not eat meat, but fish is sometimes okay. In other words, he is a pescatarian. This might be of some interest to those who are interested in animal rights. Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/30/magazine/30ONLANGUAGE.html
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.221.29 ( talk) 12:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
The Barack Obama Featured Article, part of this project's scope, now has an important discussion on its talk page (at Talk:Barack Obama#Attempt to build consensus on the details) that could affect other articles, including this one, on other presidential candidates. There is already talk on that page that the articles on other presidential candidates may need to be changed, so editors involved in this article may want to get involved with the discussion there.
Some editors here think that when a U.S. presidential candidate is embarassed by someone associated with that candidate, no information about it should be mentioned in the WP biography article, even if the campaign (and therefore the person who is the subject of the article) was affected. Others think WP should only mention that this person was controversial and leave a link in the article to the WP article on that controversial associate. Still others (including me), think we should briefly explain just why that person was controversial in the candidate's life, which can be done in a phrase or at most a sentence or two. Examples:
Whatever we do, we should have equal treatment, so anyone interested in NPOV-, WP:BLP-compliant articles should look at and participate in the discussion. We've started the discussion by focusing on how much to say about former Weather Underground leader Bill Ayers in the Barack Obama article, but, again, this will likely affect many other articles.
If you click on the first link I give here, you'll find a comparison I did of negative information in the Clinton, McCain and Giuliani articles. I've also posted that information on the talk pages of those articles. In that discussion (and at the McCain, Clinton and Giuliani talk pages), I've also posted a comparison of what negative information is presented on each candidate, especially in relation to associates who give the candidates bad publicity. I think editors of this article would find the comparison useful. Noroton ( talk) 17:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Other editors here may be interested in helping with Comparison of United States presidential candidates, 2008. Uwmad ( talk) 19:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
The lead-in to the article has, it seems to me, way too much about his presidential runs and too little about what he's spent the majority of his life doing. Is there any agreement on this? Also, the article which footnotes the statement "He was the first Maronite and Arab American presidential candidate in US history" makes no mention of his being Maronite, does it? Is it assumed he is because his parents were (actually, is that established?). I don't know that he's a practicing member of any faith. Frankly, little space should be devoted to religion too, it not AFAIK being an important part of his life, as opposed to the values of his family. Шизомби ( talk) 22:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Speaking personally as a Lebanese Maronite, very few of us identify as "Arabs", other than in very abstract linguistic terms (even the language spoken is only partially Arabic). We are in fact about as "Arab' just for living in the middle east as Jews in Israel are "Arab". Indeed, increasingly in the past century, Lebanon is filling up with Arabs and Muslims, but still, Nader is not truly "Arab" ethnically, nor affiliated with Islam or any other Arabic culture. Perhaps you will allow me to change "Arab-American" simply to Lebanese-American? I don't see what harm could come from it, especially since the article correctly specifies that Nader is Maronite Lebanese right away. I am new to Wikipedia, so I don't quite know how the editing process goes. If I am doing something wrong feel free to let me know here... Thanks, everyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.246.210.216 ( talk) 00:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
He is an Arab-American as well as Lebanese American.
They are both accurate and factual.
He is on many lists of Arab-Americans.
I have added both to the description.
"Nader is the first Arab American presidential candidate in the U.S." "Additionally, Nader is the first Lebanese-American presidential candidate in the U.S." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mynameisstanley ( talk • contribs) 01:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
The article that is given as the source for Mr. Nader as the first Arab-American presidential candidate [9] bears a certain resemblance to the Wikipedia article around that time. [10] Are there any other sources that confirm he is the first Arab-American presidential candidate? Could this be a case of Wikipedia editors sourcing an article whose author used Wikipedia as a source? Also, the article in question does not mention anything about Lebanese ancestry. copana2002 ( talk) 08:20, 01 August 2008 (UTC)
It is not a guess. No one else can come up with another Arab-American presidential candidate that has run before him. Here are a few articles. http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1209357142307&pagename=Zone-English-Muslim_Affairs%2FMAELayout
http://www.arabamericannews.com/news/index.php?mod=article&cat=USA&article=1219
http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080716/pl_bloomberg/aercm5vov0ja
http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S20/48/99E78/index.xml?section=newsreleases
Mynameisstanley ( talk) 13:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Mynameisstanley
In Nader's bibliography, one of the co-authors of "Who's Poisoning America" is correctly listed as John Richard. However, the name is hyperlinked to the biography of a different John Richard than the one in question. The hyperlink refers to a Canadian-born judge. The John Richard who co-authored the book is from Binghamton, New York 69.204.245.207 ( talk) 09:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Under the Ralph Nader 2008 presidential campaign section, it says "it is widely held that Obama would have no chance of winning the general election if he chose Clinton as running mate, due to her high negatives." I object to this statement, and propose that it be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexseattle ( talk • contribs) 02:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
This article needs help/NPOV, especially in Polling section:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader_presidential_campaign,_2008
Thanks, 76.171.171.194 ( talk) 17:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Bizarrely, Nader is (approvingly) namechecked in a Buzzcocks song called Fast Cars. I say bizarrely - very few people in England had heard of him in the late seventies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.89.91 ( talk) 13:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Does he have a spouse? Is it just not known or is he not married? If it's unknown, you should change it to unknown because by saying None it may be false.
I've removed the following:
and again in 1999 Time Magazine,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.apbspeakers.com/themes/DefaultView/SpeakerPages/Ralph%20Nader.aspx|work=The American Program Bureau|title=Ralph Nader}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1194028,00.html?iid=chix-sphere|title="A Triumph of the Newsmagazine's Craft"|first=James|last=Kelly|date=2006-05-15|work=Time.com|publisher=Time Inc.|quote=Nearly 100 Influentials were on hand that evening, including U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Ralph Nader, Will Smith, George Lucas, Nobel laureate James Watson, Bill Belichick and Dr. Andrew Weil.}}</ref>
, because Nader was never in the Time 100. The quote "100 Influentials were on hand that evening, including U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Ralph Nader, Will Smith" is erroneous, because no mention of Nader in the Time 100 appears in any of their lists. And definitely not the 20th century as a whole list. If anyone disagrees, please provide a source other than that erroneous quote. Thanks. -- Rajah ( talk) 16:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I noticed in a recent interview that one side of Ralph Nader's face seems almost paralyzed, which can be clearly observed when he speaks (his mouth is different as one side moves more than the other). Has he had a stroke? I ask because it seems like something is wrong there but the article didn't mention anything about this or his health in general...just curious. Thanks. Mrobviousjosh ( talk) 10:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
There's not a reliable source yet, but I imagine it won't be long. What a way to ruin your legacy. Link Regards. FangedFaerie ( Talk | Edits) 18:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I added a bit more of the quote to establish context. If it's in there at all, it should contain enough info. to show the meaning of Nader's comment, not just "Nader called Obama an Uncle Tom". If you remove the source, of course remove this as well- Matttoothman ( talk) 23:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I may not be able to cite this fact, since interested parties do not want it to be citable. George W. Bush lost the popular vote in the 2004 election across the nation AND in Florida.
There are scads of critics who claim Ralph Nader takes votes from the democrat in every presidential election. This is false. Nader appeals to people of all points on the political spectrum. He speaks for people concerned with the true problems facing America which receive no media coverage. For example, no one with realistic goals of achieving the Presidency can talk about the incredible degree of inflation in our economy. It is a problem that will be exceedingly difficult to overcome, and sad as it sounds, "liberals" and "conservatives" alike don't want to hear about it due to the drastic changes Americans would be forced to make in their daily lives if a solution were implemented now. Thus, Ralph Nader exercises the true spirit of America by bringing attention to the steroid-ridden, neon-green-glowing elephant in the room regardless of the consequences.
Any interview you see featuring Ralph Nader discussing something terrible that is happening in America, you will hear Nader begin a number of sentences like this: "I tried to warn people this would happen x years ago..."
He really did, because he is aware of the shaky foundations of our economy. Anyone with a brain can tell you it is a bad idea for a bank to give home loans to the unemployed, and it is a bad idea for the unemployed to accept a home loan, regardless of how nice it seems at the moment. Look where we are today?
Do you think gas prices are low for a good reason? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.165.69.14 ( talk) 01:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)