Talk:Al Gore/Archive 15

Newer Picture?
Al Gore is relatively alot younger, can we get a more recent image? --Coheed56 (talk) 12:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, we need a newer picture.--Casey S (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Remove the Nobel peace prize picture from the top of his portrait
This isn`t a comic book character or Magic the gathering card. Misc statistics such as that don`t need to be portrayed in such a kitsch manner. It can be mentioned in the content of the article. 219.111.192.132 (talk) 06:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. The kitsch Nobel icon also does not strike a neutral tone for the article as a whole. As it is the first thing the reader sees when clicking on the page, one will get the impression the article is a political action committee promoting Gore, or some sort of fan club. Bancroft EIR (talk) 20:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The criteria should be whether or not such an icon is standard for Wikipedia articles on Nobel Prize winners, not whether we imagine it strikes a particular tone for this article. I find it difficult to believe that an icon denoting a famous award in the infobox (where icons of all sorts are standard) will wrench the article out of neutrality. Gamaliel (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Gamaliel. The Nobel icon is there due to consensus on the entire Wikipedia project. Go bring this discussion to the image's discussion page, or something similar. --haha169 (talk) 22:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Portrait photo
Why is the portrait photo of Gore so old???? Gore's ever-increasing girth, of late, is so striking the topic has obtained notoriety across the globe. Check out the topic of "Fat Al Gore" in a Japantoday discussion board. Check out the many Google hits for "Al Gordo," his ever-more popular nickname in Latin America (gordo means "the fat one" in Spanish). Check out the new hit YouTube video entitled "The Story of Al Gore: 16 Tons And The Company Store" (the joke being that Gore is well on his way to living up to the part about the "sixteen tons"). Bancroft EIR (talk) 20:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

In spite of winning the popular vote
popular vote? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.25.73.2 (talk) 20:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

why does the first paragraph read in part "ultimately losing ...in spite of winning the popular vote"? ... this makes it sound as though there is something abnormal about the electoral college procedures... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.25.73.2 (talk) 20:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That may be your interpretation of the implication but it does not say that. It states the fact. Double Blue  (Talk) 17:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

definitely not a candidate
This isn't really a big deal, but someone needs to take down the sentence in the intro that speculates Gore might run for president in 2008. I don't think he's going to jump into the fray at this point... Panda bearx (talk) 20:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I altered it but didnt outright remove. Realist 2 ( 'Come Speak To Me' ) 02:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

honors
It should be noted by someone with an autoconfirmed account that at the 2008 commencement of Carnegie Mellon University he received a honorary doctor of humane letters —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pfriedma (talk • contribs) 13:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's been added. -Classicfilms (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Private citizen section
I'm wondering if this section should be integrated into the rest of the article? The section feels a little incomplete as it stands. -Classicfilms (talk) 03:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The header "Private citizen" seemed too general to create a cohesive, focused section, so I deleted it, moved some of the material to the introduction, and turned one of the subheaders into a main header. -Classicfilms (talk) 20:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Internet and technology section
I broke up the internet and technology section and integrated it into other sections (Congress, Vice Presidency, and the 2000 election), since the information was repeated in both places. -Classicfilms (talk) 02:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Gore had no draft number.
The article states that Gore had a low draft number, but he actually enlisted four months before the first lottery draw, so he had no way of knowing what his lottery number would be.

Avedon (talk) 02:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The information comes from his official biography for the U.S. Senate website (a source which fulfills WP:VERIFY).
 * Albert A. Gore, Jr., 45th Vice President (1993-2001)
 * http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/VP_Albert_Gore.htm
 * The full sentence reads: " At graduation in 1969, a low draft number assured that he would be called up soon." -Classicfilms (talk) 05:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

First Jewish member on a major party ticket.
The following quote from Al Gore's entry is factually incorrect:

"In August 2000 Gore announced that he had selected Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut as his vice presidential running mate. He became the first person of Jewish origin to be named to a major party's national ticket. "

Barry Goldwater, the Republic presidential candidate in 1964, was of Jewish origin. To quote from his entry:

"Goldwater was born in 1909 in Phoenix, in what was then the Arizona Territory, the son of Baron Goldwater and his wife Hattie Josephine Williams. His father's family had founded Goldwater's, a department store in Phoenix. The family name had been changed from Goldwasser to Goldwater at least as early as the 1860 census in Los Angeles, California. Goldwater's paternal grandparents, Michel and Sarah (Nathan) Goldwasser, were Jewish and had been married in the Great Synagogue of London.[1] Goldwater was raised in his mother's Episcopalian faith, though he referred to himself as "half-Jewish".[2] These details led the Jewish essayist Harry Golden to famously remark of Goldwater, "I have always thought that if a Jew ever became President, he would turn out to be an Episcopalian."[3]"

Worthington edward (talk) 06:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok - the section has been tweaked and a new reference added. It now reads:
 * "Lieberman became 'the first person of the Jewish faith to run for the nation's second-highest office' (Barry Goldwater, who ran for president in 1964, was of 'Jewish origin')."
 * -Classicfilms (talk) 16:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Prior to GAN review and refs completed
I have reviewed, formatted, and checked all of the references in the article, removing bad links and replacing them with current links. As far as I can tell, all of the references comply with Verifiability. I think that the article is close to a Good Article Nomination. However, I would appreciate it if some other editors would review the article first (particularly copyediting) - this list is very helpful: Guide for nominating good articles. Thanks, -Classicfilms (talk) 22:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

NOBEL PRIZE
As per the templates provided by wikipedia, the icon next to Al Gore's name should not be there! If you try to argue that some other Nobel Peace Laureates have one, yes i know but all of the other nobel laureates do not have this icon next to the name instead the icon should be placed under the Awards section of the infobox as per wikipedia templates. Encyclopedias need consistency. The removal of the icon should not be considered VANDALISM. Someone111111 (talk) 12:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As said to you before - there is consistency on Nobel Peace prize recipients. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Seriously folks, the edit warring without going somewhere more sensible to discuss the issue is getting a bit tiring, no? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Like i said in my previous post KimDablesteinPetersen, only SOME other Nobel Peace laureates have the icon, hence it is not CONSISTENT! I'm not going to name the recipient as you will likely change it and add the icon to claim consistency. Consistency is maintained by adhering to guidelines, Wikipedia has provided them through the templates it provides which explicitly require no icons or small images be placed next to the person or organisations name. The award should be placed under the Awards section of the infobox.-Someone111111 (talk) 04:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I checked before reverting. Out of 9 since 2001 - only Carter didn't have the medal. And i also checked back in edit histories - Carter did have it there. So please stop the accusations and instead argue the merits.
 * The reason that the template asks that there should be no graphics, is not because of any technical reasons (i checked with the template code as well), but from what i can surmise, an old edit-war over flag icons. If its really really problematic with icons in the templates for any future implementation needs - then we can add a specific name to put such an icon on. ...|nobel-icon=1|.... --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, "since 2001", laureates from the years before 2001 also do not have the icon. Furthermore i have not accused of you anything, I said you would and might do something (precautions i have made due to conflicts i have been in and seen). Accusing involves claiming you having actually "done"(notice the past tense) something. Yes, I must admit I do see the prize as prestigious and did previously place icons to other laureates as I believed the other prizes are just as significant as the peace winners, but after learning from other contributors, I believe they are inappropriate for the articles due to the template designs and the need to remain consistent. If we are to allow lenience for the nobel prize icon, other prizes that other people deem important will be added in a similar way, and if this occurs articles will be incredibly clustered. For example, people will add Academy Award icons under Actors names, Grammy icons under artist's name or Olympic Medals under athletes, this list can go on. Hence please reconsider. Someone111111 (talk) 14:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I was surprised to find an icon next to this infobox's title. Based on general infobox precedent, is it to be assumed that either (a) this BLP's name is "Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. Gold Coin" or that (b) the icon's intent and meaning is universally recognized and understood as next to somebody's name? Is there a published SOP or MoS dictating this confusing iconage/coinage? —  pd_THOR  undefined | 03:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This is being discussed at Template talk:Nobel icon. Zaian (talk) 13:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

For silly rabbit:
1. South Park is notable. Especially on wikipedia.

2. Are you stalking me? Edited me on two different pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs) 23:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * South Park is notable. That is why there is an article about the television series.  However, that does not justify inclusion of a South Park section in the biographical article of every living person that has ever been lampooned by the show.  If that were the case, then almost every public figure would have a snarky and unencyclopedic "In South Park" section.  I for one find this an unacceptable proposition.   siℓℓy rabbit  (  talk  ) 02:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Also note - Trivia sections. Gore has either appeared in or been referenced in a number of television programs, none of which appear in this article due to trivia concerns. -Classicfilms (talk) 14:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh you little ones! I would love it if every lampooned person had a section on their South Park lampooning. South Park is very important in wiki-world. Funny how the Chris Reeves lovers didn't like my documenting his lampooning as a section. Funny strange.TCO (talk) 16:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but we Wikipedians are trying to produce a serious encyclopedia. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, and that can be achieved by including that item in the biography. I'm sure you'd probably support the use of the many cartoon parodies of George W. Bush in his biography. This is why there are 'references in media' sections on these pages, so that those things can be listed. It doesn't take the seriousness out of the entry, it adds a reference to that person's position in popular culture.  After all imitation is the sincerest form of flattery (yes I know cliche, but oh well).  Now I'm sure my reference in what people will assume is a defense of George W. Bush will cause much uproar, but please don't take it like that. It was just the easiest example to come up with as everyone knows who he is, and there are numerous parodies of him just as there are numerous parodies of Al Gore and numerous criticisms that weren't in the entry. But, that is a discussion I don't want to get into because it will be immediately turned into an arbitrary political and ideological debate, and it was never meant as that, again it was the most recognizable and easiest example I could think of.  Before you criticize someone's comment and degrade their beliefs in what would be good for an article please consider whether or not you would accept the same things in someone else's biography, if you would then why not consider it in this biography?  Everyone's opinion is equal, I may prefer cats, and you may prefer dogs, but that doesn't make us wrong.  --SpazBoyPlus...out —Preceding unsigned comment added by SpazBoyPlus (talk • contribs) 06:12, 20 August 2008

See also link
As Mr Gore is a bit of a environvironmental philosopher (he tells us more or less what to do on decreasing our carbon footprint), perhaps a link to List of environmental philosophers could be integrated.

Thanks, 81.245.169.184 (talk) 17:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Environmental Activism section FACTUAL ERROR
The section following mention of the July 2008 speech needs a bit of help. Most importantly, what Mr. Gore called for in his July 2008 speech is the conversion of all of U.S. electrical generation to green sources. The existing article makes it sound as if Gore is proposing that we stop using fossil fuels for all purposes in 10 years, which is indeed absurd. However, he is focusing on the electrical generation aspect of energy consumption, and leaving aside for the moment the transportation sector. So this is a MAJOR factual oversight in the article. The following discussion re the Gores' personal electricity consumption seems spurious, probably not worth 2 paragraphs, for example. See http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/washington/18gorecnd.html?scp=1&sq=gore%20speech%20electricity&st=cse

In order to be BALANCED, I feel the article should then also mention how focusing on electrical generation conversion has its supporters, and is somewhat thoughtful, in terms of easing the transition, working with businesses/utilities, etc etc, as well as quoting what the critics say.

I would be happy to work on these revisions myself... but I understand I may have to be registered for a min. # of days?

Warner345 (talk) 23:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Gulf War
It's odd that the article doesn't mention Gore's decision to break from the Democratic Party to vote in favor of the Gulf War in 1991 - has this subject been previously discussed? Kelly hi! 00:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It is discussed at the bottom of the article.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore#Political_activism
 * -Classicfilms (talk) 01:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Really? That section doesn't seem to mention the first Gulf War at all. Kelly  hi! 02:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's discussed in the second paragraph of that section. -Classicfilms (talk) 03:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's also discussed in this section.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore#House_and_Senate
 * The two sections can certainly be developed but the article clearly references the Gulf War. -Classicfilms (talk) 03:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Vanderbilt School of Law or not?
Clicking on the footnote, #22-f, leads to a senate.gov bio (likely submitted by the subject) which has the word Vanderbilt in it, but only thusly: "Rather than go to law school, as his lawyer parents had hoped, he attended divinity school at Vanderbilt." The senate.gov source mentions his attending "law school" but without appellation: "That realization led to a leave of absence from the paper to try law school. Before he could finish, he learned that his local congressman planned to retire in 1976."

There are rumors that Gore applied to but was not accepted by the Vanderbilt School of Law. The vague wording does little to settle the issue. Some source must have the facts on this matter.

AccuracyFirst (talk) 06:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Gore attended law school at Vanderbilt from 1974 to 1976 but didn't graduate. This has been well documented. It looks like the wrong biography ref was used and I made the correction - here is the ref now currently used:
 * http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/06/16/president.2000/gore.biography/
 * Here is another article which also references his time in law school:
 * http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/national/2007/10/15/10-things-you-didnt-know-about-al-gore.html
 * -Classicfilms (talk) 11:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Al Gore Net worth
September 25, 2008 Hey, I think one way to improve the Al Gore page here on Wikipedia would be to add a net worth figure. As I can't find this myself, I'm sure some of you guys could. Anyone wanna edit this page?

Sincerely, Jack F —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.137.54.46 (talk) 21:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Question
I'm wondering why United states presidential election and recount, 2000 is not in the article. I would have just added it in, but I'm assuming that a discussion to exclude it was made? --haha169 (talk) 03:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It was an oversight I think. It should be in the article. Go ahead and add it. -Classicfilms (talk) 04:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

2000 Florida Vote Count from the FEC.gov should read 537 not 534
editsemiprotected Election recount On election night, news networks first called Florida for Gore, later retracted the projection, and then called Florida for Bush, before finally retracting that projection as well.[116] Florida's Republican Secretary of State, Katherine Harris, eventually certified Florida's vote count.[117] This led to the Florida election recount, a move to further examine the Florida results.[118]

The Florida recount was stopped a few weeks later by the Supreme Court of the United States. In the ruling, Bush v. Gore, the Florida recount was called unconstitutional and that no constitutionally valid recount could be completed by the December 12 deadline, effectively ending the recounts. This 7-2 vote ruled that the standards the Florida Supreme Court provided for a recount were unconstitutional due to violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and further ruled 5-4 that no constitutionally valid recount could be completed by the December 12 deadline. This case ordered an end to recounting underway in selected Florida counties, effectively giving George W. Bush a 537 vote victory in Florida and consequently Florida's 25 electoral votes and the presidency.[119] The results of the decision led to Gore winning the popular vote by approximately 500,000 votes nationwide, but receiving 266 electoral votes to Bush's 271 (1 District of Columbia Elector abstained).[120] On December 13, 2000, Gore conceded the election.[121] Gore strongly disagreed with the Court's decision, but in his concession speech stated that, "for the sake of our unity as a people and the strength of our democracy, I offer my concession."[122]

The 2000 election is the subject of a 2008 made-for-TV movie directed by Jay Roach, produced by, and starring Kevin Spacey called Recount. It premiered on the HBO cable network on May 25, 2008.[123] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mad24960 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Apparent grammatical error
The sentences "Within hours after Tennessean publisher John Seigenthaler, Sr. called him to tell him the announcement was forthcoming.[34] Gore decided to quit law school and run for the House of Representatives:" appear to be grammatically messed up (the first sentence is not a complete sentence). Also, a comma should appear after "Sr." These sentences are located near footnote 34.

They likely should be combined to state, "Within hours after Tennessean publisher John Seigenthaler, Sr., called him to tell him the announcement was forthcoming,[34] Gore decided to quit law school and run for the House of Representatives:"


 * Done! --Skunkboy74 (talk) 16:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting Bit of Information
According to this website (cited) "http://www.maddowfans.com/bio/" TV and Radio show host Rachel Maddow was one of the Aids protestors who interupted his speech when he announced that he'd be running for president. I would have added it but the article is locked. Biglou07 (talk) 17:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This would be considered non-notable trivia. Please see WP:INDISCRIMINATE. -Classicfilms (talk) 22:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Repower America
There is no reference in the main text to "Repower America", only to the speech, but not to the Project. --Linegen (talk) 06:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's discussed in a subarticle but the section needs a bit of editing. You can see it here:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore_and_the_environment#Repower_America
 * If you could clean it up a bit, I could copy and paste some of the material to the main article. -Classicfilms (talk) 19:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Nightmare to edit
This article is an absolute nightmare to edit. For every one of the 200 references in the article there are ten columns of the reference template.

I see A little text about Gore and then another vertical citation.

With this style it is very difficult to findsomething when editing the article. Yes, they don't include all of these parameters, but very rarely is "work" or "coauthors" or "authorlink" ever filled in. Just letting you know for future reference, never ever use cite templates in vertical style, and please remove parameters that you don't fill in. Thanks, Reywas92 Talk  17:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This article, after a long period of time, achieved Good articles status. The goal is to maintain GA status through complete documentation, although I agree that some parameters are not needed. At the same time, the Wikipedia (Citation templates) offers numerous citation styles to choose from without offering one style over the other. The style currently used is one of the many offered on this page, but it is certainly not the only option. Feel free to alter or change reference templates to other versions offered by Citation templates. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality in Al Gore article
The line suggesting that Gore lost the presidential election due to a supreme court decision should not be acceptable. The state of Florida's vote count was in favor of Bush. The Supreme Court ruled on the voting processes of Florida, not the presidential election. The current writing suggests that the court ruled on who should be president. They did not.

209.180.63.137 (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Ryan


 * "...legal controversy over the Florida election recount was eventually settled in the U.S. Supreme Court by a 5-4 margin in favor of Bush." Exactly, the line you mentioned says that the supreme court voted on the processes of the Florida election recount - and decided that the state went for Bush. Isn't that what you wanted? And isn't that what the article states? --haha169 (talk) 18:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess what I'm looking for out of this line is what exactly the 5-4 decision decided. Later in the article, this is discussed in greater detail, which is good. But the line in the introduction leads the reader to believe that the court decided that, based on their take on the recount, Bush won. Their decision really had nothing to do with their preference of one to another. Even a mild change, like "a decision by the Supreme Court on the recount left Bush as the winner" would be more neutral.70.219.113.98 (talk) 17:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Ryan

"In favor of Bush" and "Left Bush as the winner" are essentially the same thing, and the former is better prose. --haha169 (talk) 04:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Ref Tag problem
Saw there's a red "open tag" warning at the very bottom of the page, but since I'm only lurking, thought someone else might want to attend to it. :) --leahtwosaints (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

A triveal edit alot've us would like to be made
In the section "Environmental activism and Nobel Peace Prize (2004-Present)" where you feature a picture of Bush with Gore and other nobel peace prize winners, I think it should say "Then pesident Bush..." just to remind us that the horror that was his stolen presidency is finally over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.252.229.12 (talk) 04:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)