Oxygen (TV channel)

Union buster, bad boss, secretive, funded by Trial Lawyers Association?

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)

Flexitarian

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

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)

How much info on embarassing associates should be in a presidential candidate's biography?

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:

• Hillary Clinton and Norman Hsu
• Barack Obama and Bill Ayers (and Jeremiah Wright, and Tony Rezko)
• John McCain and John C. Hagee
• Rudy Giuliani and Bernard Kerik

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)

On some other pages where I've posted this, people have been responding only beneath the post, which is fine, but won't help get a consensus where it counts. So please excuse me for raising my voice, just to make sure I get the point across: Please respond at Talk:Barack Obama#Attempt to build consensus on the details where your comments will actually affect the consensus!!! Sorry for the shoutin', won't do it again (here, anyway). Noroton (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Comparison of United States presidential candidates, 2008

Other editors here may be interested in helping with Comparison of United States presidential candidates, 2008. Uwmad (talk) 19:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Lead overly weighted with his presidential runs

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)

I still don't like the intro much, still too much about his presidential runs! Am I alone in this? I'm not sure how to improve it... maybe mentioning that he first came to national attention with Unsafe at Any Speed, if that is true? Шизомби (talk) 02:22, 31 July 2008 (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)

Arab-American

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)

This is somewhat redundant and again gives excessive weight in the introduction to his presidential runs. I'll combine the two into one statement. Шизомби (talk) 02:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The article that is given as the source for Mr. Nader as the first Arab-American presidential candidate [1] bears a certain resemblance to the Wikipedia article around that time.[2] 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)

I think people are probably guessing that he's the first, rather than knowing so. Шизомби (talk) 13:40, 3 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://media.www.thedailycougar.com/media/storage/paper1206/news/2008/07/24/News/Nader.Gonzalez.To.Hold.Rally.At.University.Hilton-3394222.shtml

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

I think it is a guess. Saying he is in an article doesn't mean they researched the question, and if they did, they may be using WP as a source without citing it. Шизомби (talk) 14:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, is there any evidence that Nader has spoken to Arab American audiences before, or that he carried any significant percentage of an arab american vote? That would be worth adding somewhere, if verifiable. Шизомби (talk) 14:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

There are many sources [3][4] [5] [6] which confirm that Nader is an Arab-American. However, the articles listed above by Mynameisstanley were all written after "the first Arab-American presidential candidate" information was added to the page. It is possible that the authors simply used Wikipedia as a source. The original citation for the comment was this article [7] which is from 2000. Is there some reason why this is not a reliable source? copana2002 (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

One source suffices; adding all those others was overkill. The question is, is he really the first, or are people guessing. My guess is, they're guessing. But I also suppose it's fine to say he is, until it's known who preceded him (and I'm quite certain someone did). Most presidential candidates, particularly third-party candidates, don't have their ethnicity mentioned in their articles or campaigns. Another question I have is, how notable is it that he is the supposed first? Is it merely a point of trivia or pride for those who share his ethnicity, or is it perceived to have some importance beyond that? I think that would be a good thing to look at with the Obama article as well, the significance there being African Americans historically being denied the vote, people who wouldn't vote for a black candidate, etc. Whereas being the first Lebanese American is about as significant (AFAICT) as being the first Polish American or whatnot. And the Obama campaign makes use of the historicity of his campaign, as the Hillary Clinton campaign did of hers, whereas AFAIK Nader's never made any point of his being Arab/Lebanese American. Шизомби (talk) 18:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrong hyperlink for John Richard

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)

Hillary Clinton

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)

Article help

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)

Buzzocks!

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)

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)

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)