Talk:Al Gore/Archive 17

Article is blank
The article is blank and is locked. Why is this?


 * Perhaps a temporary issue during software updates. It's back now. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 02:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Second presidential run (2000)" Section - Omission of Tennessee
Issue here is the sole focus on Gores loss in 2000 as it relates to ballots in one state. Reality is a candidate needs to get the electoral votes of many states to gain the office. How did campaign strategy affect the electoral outcomes would be another subject that should be addressed here as well. Some 9 years later I cannot recall which states Gore focused at the end, nor can I recall which states he pulled support out of with that strategy in the final weeks. But I do recall reports near the end of focusing his campaign to a few regions.

Case I think should be addressed specifically is that of Tennessee. An issue in my mind is bigger than the perceptions of Florida. A major party candidate failing to to win his home state. This has to be a story compelling enough to be included. A state where he was a multi term Rep and Senator. What changed?

Another issue, not as big in my mind is affect of "other party candidates". Refer to "United States presidential election, 2000" as linked here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000 for how this is handled.

Only thing I feel is omitted from "United States presidential election, 2000" are hard numbers. They provided the percentages for each state. But as each status has varied populations and voter turn out, is hard to put the percentage in perspective.

"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.[122] Florida's Republican Secretary of State, Katherine Harris, eventually certified Florida's vote count.[123] This led to the Florida election recount, a move to further examine the Florida results.[124]

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[125] vote victory in Florida and consequently Florida's 25 electoral votes and the presidency.[126] 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).[127] On December 13, 2000, Gore conceded the election.[128] 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."[129]

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.[130]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.122.47 (talk) 05:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Omission of many things ... You're right, many things are not discussed. (And a huge chunk of what is discussed is devoted to the "invented the internet" meme/brouhaha) ... of course the events in Florida were the most dramatic. Of course the place to correct this would be to add information to the article 2000 presidential election (so it could be summarized into this article). Note there are also articles for Bush v. Gore and Florida election recount&mdash;that would help explain distribution of information here in those contexts. Of course it is also true that what anyone says about why he lost in Tennessee is going to be speculation, while the basis of stopping the voting in Florida was clearly articulated (whether one agrees with the rationales or not etc). BOTTOM LINE Florida was where the drama was. Florida is where things could have been different ... by the decision of a few. etc etc. But, yes, there are other things that could be said ... and perhaps those should be added first in the 2000 presidential election article and then summarized here. Proofreader77 (talk) 01:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: I think that this is the article you are referring to - Al Gore presidential campaign, 2000 - and I agree it could use development as long as the content follows Verifiability. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "Of course" :) It appears I have caught the dreaded "of course" virus. I will take the appropriate remedies. Proofreader77 (talk) 17:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Abbreviation errors in the first two paragraphs...
"United States" is incorrectly abbreviated in each of the first two paragraphs of this article. "US" and "U. S." should be edited to read "U.S." 264356triv (talk) 22:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you copy and paste the exact sentences here? It will be easier to find and correct them. -Classicfilms (talk) 00:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅. -Classicfilms (talk) 00:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

ManBearPig
Can this article really be considered complete without reference to Al Gore's engagement in hunting and killing ManBearPig??--Achim (talk) 03:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

[Filmography etc?]
i couldn't find it, but there doesn't seem to be mentions of Al Gore in the film/tv industry. Like his appearances in film and tv: 30 rock, Futurama, etc. Why isn't this here?IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A good question. I suspect the answer is that it is "simply not done" with respect to political figures of a certain stature. (Perhaps for none. Not sure.) For example if you look at article for George W. Bush or Bill Clinton etc, you won't see an "In popular culture" section: the list could be potentially endless etc etc. I'll look around, but I think that's the answer. Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess its not so much as an in popular culture thing, but what this needs is an actual Filmography section, or a separate article for it. IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 23:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Good point. I was pondering ManBearPig. But still pondering how much goes here (not all appearances as himself, I don't think - that's sort of enhanced pop culture ... but pondering and will survey length of that list. (Of course, you can do that, too. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 23:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well in say 30 Rock and Futurama, he isn't technically himself. He is a fictional portrayal of himself, like actors did in Extras. He is still acting, he is just acting as a fictional version of himself, saying lines that have been written/improving in that character. Which is considerably different that say Himself on a talk show, which is actual himself. And because he is actually acting here, it deserves an actual section, or spinoff article.IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 18:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

"Millions of degrees" edit war
Seems there's a mini edit-war over whether a few websites criticizing Gore for incorrectly stating that the center of the Earth is millions of degrees is noteworthy or appropriate for mention in Wikipedia. I'd say no for various reasons, primarily it's generally just a bunch of whining rather than valid criticism. Newsbusters, Newsmax, WND, Drudge, and a host of other sites criticize just about everything any Democrat has ever said or done. We could, if we wanted to, make almost every political biographic article a grocery list of critiques of everything the subject said or did, down to Obama's choice of beer at the "Beer Summit", and we could source it all. However, that makes for one godawful article. This is not the first time, nor the last, a politician got their facts wrong (or maybe simply misspoke; there is a chance, I suppose, he meant to say "thousands") and we are not in the business of chronicling every single one. Al Gore said something that was incorrect. Whoop-de-doo. If it were something terribly significant, and real sources (not these mountains-out-of-molehill sites that solely exist to attack everything their political opponents do) picked up on it do any real degree, we'd have something that quite possibly would warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia article. But we don't, because it's trivial. Besides, his main point is that geothermal energy should be pursued, and even though the Earth's interior isn't millions of degrees, geothermal energy can still work in certain areas. -R. fiend (talk) 17:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope you realize this is the criticism section. The point of this section is to document criticism of Al Gore. This criticism happens to be a pretty common one, as evidenced by the fact that many sources have already attacked him for it. So, yes, this should be in here. Macai (talk) 17:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * People like Gore are criticized for anything and everything. A politician said something that wasn't true? *Gasp* Stop the Press! We have a new lead! Now really, what makes this one statement important enough to be mentioned in an encyclopedia? Just because we have criticism sections in certain articles doesn't mean it's a dumping ground for any incorrect or stupid thing ever uttered. Why is this statement special? -R. fiend (talk) 17:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This wasn't just a minor error - this was a major blunder. We not only have an entire article for Bushisms, but we have entire articles on specific Bushisms. Really, should they have encyclopedia articles? Do you want these articles deleted? Seriously, if those articles can exist as articles unto themselves, then this should not be explicitly excluded from the criticism section of the Al Gore article. Macai (talk) 18:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Really. It's chickenshit. If he'd said "really really really hot", it would have had the same practical effect. This is a classic example of attempting to turn a mole into a mountain. "Major blunder"? Eh. By the way, you're on the edge of 3RR. --jpgordon:==( o ) 18:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * But it is a major blunder. If you are claiming to have "worked on this issue" for 30 years, studied, lobbied, invested privately, legislated, etc... for 30 years, and you make a mistake like that?  The only thing correct to say about that comment is that he was millions of degrees off.  And for someone trying to pose as someone that knows something about this issue and is qualified to produce a "documentary" about it, one would hope he wouldn't be millions of degrees off when it comes to estimates of the earth's inner mantle's temperature.  129.42.184.35 (talk) 21:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point, Jpg. Additionally, the list of Bushisms, you will notice, are not in Bush's article, which is reserved for significant facts about the man and his presidency. For whatever reason, the term "Bushism" is widely used, and many of the examples are often cited. If you have a problem with that article bring it up there; I wouldn't necessarily oppose some substantial changes to it. This error by Gore has been picked up by a couple blogs, some of which barely mention it. If, in a few weeks time, it's being discussed, or if it becomes the next "Al Gore invented the internet", we can discuss it further. In the meantime, if you can find other articles in which the criticism sections contain minor errors made in passing please point them out, and we can remove them as well. There are significant, documented and well known criticisms of Gore mentioned in the article (and others not mentioned as well, I'd bet). This ain't one of them. -R. fiend (talk) 18:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

re Environmental criticism subtopic (to illustrate proportionality)
Reminder (or informing) I added that subtopic *to visually illustrate* that the amount of criticism was *out of proportion.* The situation is now worse than it was then. (Also note that Environmental activism topic is supposed to be a summary of the article Al Gore and the environment where information should be added first, then summarized here -- in proportion). Bottom line: the "criticism" subtopic was not added to be a collector of criticism, but to help allow visual inspection of proportionality. Proofreader77 (talk) 20:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Activism - 380 words
 * Criticism (and rebuttal) - 1066 words
 * Agreed. I think WP:BLPSTYLE bears review here. The goal of a BLP is to give an overview of notable areas which have had extensive coverage. It is not to list every single criticism issued against a particular individual. As the criticism section currently outweighs the rest of the summary, we have probably already exceeded WP:UNDUE. -Classicfilms (talk) 04:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Gore was listed by Time Magazine as one of the 100 most influential people, in the category "scientists and thinkers." The fact that he falsely stated that the interior of the Earth has a temperature of millions of degrees is quite relevant, because it exposes his ignorance of a subject that he pretends to be an expert on.  Vegasprof (talk) 03:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * But the fact that Gore invented the Internet cancels out such errors. :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 04:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Query
In the first sentence of the article as it stands, it says 'Albert Arnold "Al" Gore, Jr. (born March 31, 1948) is the former 45th Vice President of the United States'. Has there been more than one 45th VPOTUS? Either former or 45th makes sense, but not really both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.246.142 (talk) 08:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, there has been much twiddling with the first sentence recently&mdash;not for the better. Perhaps I can take out the "former" without the world collapsing. :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 09:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * While I do not have a problem with taking out "former," I do have a problem with "was." If other articles use the past tense, then they should be looked at as well. It simply does not make sense to use "was" for a living person, even if we are referring to his/her former position. Perhaps the second sentence needs to become the first sentence again. Either we take out 45th and restore former, find another way to use the present tense with the VP description, or make the second sentence the first one. The current sentence just doesn't work. -Classicfilms (talk) 16:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I restored the present tense but removed "45th" per the editor's suggestion above. Since we indicate that he was VP during the Clinton administration, 45th is implied. We can certainly rework the sentence some more or as I said above put the second sentence first. As a BLP, however, it is important that the form of "to be" is in the present rather than past tense. -Classicfilms (talk) 16:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The only thing I know is what I read in Wikipedia. :-) George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush have "was" in the first sentence. Ah, Dick Cheney uses "served as." Perhaps that solves the problem. Proofreader77 (talk) 17:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Since my objection was to placing the past tense of "to be" in a BLP first sentence, I am fine with the new version. We don't want to fall into WP:OTHERSTUFF since we are talking about the Gore article, not other articles - but I will say that the editors of the other articles might want to take a look at them and refine those sentences. If someone is a living person, "was" shouldn't appear in the first sentence of a biography. Since "served" has a different meaning than "was," I am fine with it. -Classicfilms (talk) 18:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Copenhagen
This article in the Times has created some buzz about Gore's speech at Copenhagen: The article cites a statement Gore made which was then questioned by a scientist. A number of media outlets have picked up this Times article.
 * http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/copenhagen/article6956783.ece

However, this link from the North County Times contradicts the report above:
 * http://www.nctimes.com/app/blogs/wp/?p=5925

Thus, I'm not sure if any of this belongs in the article but in the event that someone thinks it does, we need to get all of the facts right. -Classicfilms (talk) 18:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see my discussion below. I think this controversy does need to be included.  At the moment all we can say is that the facts regarding the controversy are unclear.  Hopefully more explanation will follow.  Greenwave37 (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We need to avoid WP:RECENTISM however as this is a biography not WikiNews. Essentially the argument is based upon one article by the Times which as the second article indicates, is prone to contradiction. Thus until more information comes out, there is not yet a conclusive argument to make. WP:SPECULATION discounts having us add material that say facts are unclear. -Classicfilms (talk) 20:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's not wise to always rush to put up the most recent news bites. However, there are two significant reasons to do so in this case: (1) Many people are likely to read this entry looking for details about this story -- and these same people are otherwise unlikely to know about the "North County Times" finding.  Putting the known details on Wikipedia helps to provide objective info as more info develops.  The sentences can always be erased later.  (2) There have been continued allegations (right or wrong) about Gore's skewing of data; so in some ways, this is not really a recent story, but an ongoing one. Greenwave37 (talk) 20:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not opposed to putting information in the Wikipedia. However, it is not the job of the WP to make a judgment which is essentially coming from one newsource, The Times, and picked up by many. The contradictions made to it by the second article simply indicate that we don't yet know all the details. I am simply stating that until more sources seek to clarify the contradictions, this is not yet beyond WP:RECENTISM. Waiting a bit to see what more happens before adding information is a sign of responsible editing. -Classicfilms (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality tag and empty "Controversy and criticism" section with neutrality tag
I have reverted both because of the assertion implied is that the article is not neutral because there is not a seperate "Controversy and criticism" section about Al Gore.

If the neutrality tag is reinserted, then a talk page topic should be begun by the person placing the tag expressing their reasons for placing the tag.

I will address the matter at greater length if there are questions. Proofreader77 (talk) 20:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

NPOV dispute (article/top POV tag reinserted)
There should be more then one point of view on all the topics discussed, as this can be considered a praise of the person the article is about rather then a source of information. A "Controversy and criticism" section should be added for each portion of the wiki that needs it. There have been some good points of view on this article on the talk page with reference that should be added by someone better at coding than me. I am referring mainly to the "Environmental activism and Nobel Peace Prize". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scoobertjoo (talk • contribs) 20 September 2009


 * Now we have something specific to discuss: "Environmental activism and Nobel Peace Prize". Before I say more, please peruse my comments above regarding the 1100 word section with 500+ about Gore's utility bill (i.e., hypocrisy), and another 176 words re criticism of a particular argument Gore has made (i.e., he's incorrect). QUESTION: Do you believe such criticism should be pulled out of that section and put in a separate section? Or duplicated in both? Etc?Proofreader77 (talk) 22:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment:I have no problem with the addition of any type of information to the article as long as it follows Five pillars. There is no mandate in the writing of biographies to have separate sections entitled "criticism," however. This doesn't mean that criticism can't be added - it certainly can. However, there is a longstanding debate from a stylistic point of view as to how it should be added to articles. Please review WP:CRITS for more details on this point. The convention when adding information is to follow the WP:NPOV policy which usually entails adding a number of documented perspectives on a document that follow Verifiability. Thus a way to begin would be to specify which parts of the article need more criticism and offer URLs or hard copy sources here for discussion as to the best way to add it. Editors usually copy and paste paragraphs they feel are not NPOV here and offer suggestions on what they would like to see added to the article. This helps editors work towards WP:CONSENSUS in order to improve the section(s). -Classicfilms (talk) 22:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Added "Environmental criticism" sub-section to "Environmental activism ..."
By moving the criticism to its own subsection, the relative proportionality should be clear. NOTE: The whole environmental section here should be a summary of the article Al Gore and the environment. That is not what we have now. Large chunks of criticism have been nearly copy-pasted into main article&mdash;making the criticism out of proportion (even if not all that people would like mentioned is mentioned).

What next? What we have is out of proportion and should be summarized. As for new elements of criticism, that should be developed in Al Gore and the environment, and THEN summarized here.

NOTE: If you are waiting for passages about Bjorn Lomberg before removing the POV tag from this article, that is an inappropriate demand. See if an NPOV addition to the main article Al Gore and the environment can be composed (then we can summarize here&mdash;there'll be more room once current utility bill overload is appropriately summarized). Find sources, including those that might illuminate why Gore will not debate him. etc. etc. Proofreader77 (talk) 10:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments? Questions?

 * Good call. I'm tempted to delete the majority of the criticism section as you've readily demonstrated that it's assigned undue weight right now. We should always err on the side of caution on BLPs, after all. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * why is there risistence to putting criticsm of Al Gore mistakes on the evironmental issue plus his own carbon footprint.Solarsheen (talk) 21:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Which part of the above discussion of proportionality of the "Environmental" summary (in this article) is not clear? (NOTE: See collapsible green box above. Click "show") Proofreader77 (talk) 22:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your analysis I'd say it is in proportion to talk about gore's mistakes and footprint. Thats all.Solarsheen (talk) 16:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The disproportionate coverage of the utility bill is self-evident by visual inspection of the side-by-side display (Expand green box above).


 * As for other criticism of particular aspects of Gore's (Nobel-prize-winning, and therefore, e.g., not fringe) environmental positions ... those disagreements should be developed in NPOV form in the article Al Gore and the environment&mdash;then a proportionate mention can be made here. (Keeping in mind that the biography article is not the place to contend the controversies regarding environmentalism in general.) Proofreader77 (talk) 20:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Truthfully, recent NPP awards have shown that its award, does not make mainstream. Unless we've decided that everything Obama has done for peace (e.g. nothing) is mainstream for the peace movement.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hispanic90210 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If the article is going to mention Gore's environmental activities, it should include both the good and the bad. Grundle2600 (talk) 10:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Open the green collapsed box above for the side-by-side comparison of proportionality. (See also previous note regarding the article Al Gore and the environment). Proofreader77 (talk) 10:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

New POV-check tag 16/Nov 09
Please see Template:POV-check for information which must be added here to support the tag:
 * " The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies."

If such information is not added by 11/23, tag will be removed. Proofreader77 (talk) 01:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: I informed the tag placer, and they responded graciously (on my talk) ... Will not rush them. It's the holidays. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 18:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's time to remove the tag unless someone wants to start a discussion to justify its presence on the article. -Classicfilms (talk) 18:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The editor who placed it has made one edit (10 days ago) to Wikipedia since they replied to my note (20 days ago). If we give them one more week that will be around 30 days. :-) Liberals should always give conservatives thirty days whenever possible, don't you think? lol (Holiday humor license invoked) Proofreader77 (talk) 18:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. -Classicfilms (talk) 19:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that I have given the placer a "Pending removal" notice regarding the POV-check tag (a follow-up to their earlier notice and our exchange awhile back) placed November 16. If no comments appear, let's assume the tag should be removed on December 17. Proofreader77 (talk) 19:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's try to move beyond a "liberal versus conservative" debate here, especially since some of the editors (myself included) don't really give a hoot about liberal or conservative agendas, but would rather get to the truth. Greenwave37 (talk) 06:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. I support the NPOV concerns tag.  Based on my review of the article today (and this discussion page) it appears to me that this article may be getting closely monitored by non-neutral editors (who are in support of protecting Gore's image).  I know that it's disfavored to make such an accusation.  However, where there is reasonable suspicion, I think it is beneficial for it to be noted. Greenwave37 (talk) 20:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Merry Christmas. :-) You have cast an aspersion on editors, but have provided no illustration of why the article is unbalanced. Suggest you strike the aspersion, and provide illumination of your "why." Proofreader77 (talk) 21:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I strike my POV concern, as I think the criticisms section currently has a reasonable balance. I suspect that there may be a couple close monitors in favor of Gore.  However, even if this the case, it's not necessarily a bad thing -- especially since there seems to be a willingness among the editors to address various points of view, as opposed to deleting (i.e., trying to hide) thorny issues.  It appears to me -- at this moment -- that the article does not need a POV tag. Greenwave37 (talk) 06:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * With that assent, and no further word from original placer, will remove tag. Proofreader77 (interact) 06:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)