Talk:Al Gore/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions about Al Gore. 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 5

←

Archive 9

→

actual dates for Gore work on global warming etc

I've been looking for *primary* sources on Gore's work on global warming. I cannot find anything that predates 1988; that's when there were congressional hearings on the topic, and Gore in 1989 wrote an op-ed piece in the NYT. But the Monitor source of congressional hearings in the "1970s" appears plain wrong, and has confused global warming with toxic waste. And "1980s" is misleading if it's 1988/9. Searching congressional transcripts, I find only 1988 and 1989. If anybody can point to corroborating sources, please do so; failing that, I will edit away claims predating 1988. ("1970s" would be pretty bizarre since the First World Climate Conference was held on 12-23 February 1979.) Specifically, I would suggest writing "During his tenure in Congress, Gore co-sponsored hearings on toxic waste in 1978–79, and in the Senate held hearings on global warming in 1988-1989". --Psm 22:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You should look harder. "Almost as soon as Gore was elected to Congress in 1976, he began conducting hearings on global warming" [1]. Unless 11,000 sources are wrong you need to undo those edits. 4.246.203.119 03:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

11,000 unreliable sources are meaningless. first, you have to cull the results that are regrettably sourced from this very article. wikipedia is fast poisoning its own genetic pool. but i digress. Anastrophe 03:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you consider Gore himself a primary source? "When I was elected to Congress [which was in 1976] ... I helped organize the first hearings on this issue." [2]. Of course it may be that he was not being as ultra precise as to the exact timing as we might want. And of course his detractors will always look for the tiniest inaccuracies. 4.246.207.168 04:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

This sounds a bit more accurate "I was elected [to Congress] in 1976. The following year, I started trying to stir up interest in Congress in global warming. Not too long after that, I organized the first hearings, and had my professor come. All those years, I continued to have hearings and look into it" [3]. 4.246.207.168 05:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

What was with the Al Gore as Jesus picture on up until a few minutes ago.

Some people here are just WEIRD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.189.45.173 (talk) 03:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Intro section getting sloppy; proposed rewrite

This is sure exciting. But look what's happened to the intro of this article. Introduction sections should give an overview of the subject. Our introduction is now six paragraphs long. We've got parenthetical comments and details like Davis Guggenheim has won an Oscar, Current TV has won an Emmy, and Cameron Diaz may be in a TV show. Paragraph four repeats some facts (both the Oscar and the Nobel) found in paragraph one. Yuck. In particular the opening paragraph should define the subject. I'm guessing there's consensus that VP, Senator, Representative, star of Truth and Nobel winner would all belong in a definition of Al Gore. But why the Davis Guggenheim thing?

Rather than tossing out a hundred edits done today, I here propose a rewrite.

Albert Arnold Gore, Jr., or Al Gore (born March 31, 1948) was the forty-fifth Vice President of the United States, serving from 1993 to 2001 under President Bill Clinton. Prior to the Vice Presidency, Gore served in the U. S. House of Representatives (1977–85) and in the U. S. Senate (1985–93), representing Tennessee. Gore was the Democratic nominee for President in the 2000 election, one of the most controversial elections in American history.^[1] A recount of election results in Florida was ordered stopped by the United States Supreme Court, in its final ruling on Bush v. Gore, giving George W. Bush the electoral college victory, and consequently the presidency.^[2] With the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Gore was awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change".^[3]

Gore lectures widely on the topic of global warming, which he calls "the climate crisis",^[4] and in 2006 starred in the Academy Award-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth, discussing global warming and the environment. Under his leadership, the organization Save Our Selves organized the benefit concert Live Earth held all over the world on July 07, 2007.

Today, Gore is president of the American television channel Current TV, chairman of Generation Investment Management, a director on the board of Apple Inc., an unofficial advisor to Google's senior management, and chairman of the Alliance for Climate Protection.

While Gore has frequently stated that "I'm not planning to be a candidate again,"^[5] there is continuing speculation that he may run for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination.

With this, it would be four paragraphs rather than six. I've tried not to change others' intended meaning. I think I've achieved a NPOV. (Controversy such as Florida is handled elsewhere.) And I think it's all roughly in the right order. Current TV's Emmy award, Mr Guggenheim's handing of the Oscar to Gore, Cameron Diaz, and Gore's recent book would all be moved down into the body. Comments? Hult041956 00:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

the sentence " A recount of election results in Florida was ordered stopped by the United States Supreme Court, in its final ruling on Bush v. Gore, giving George W. Bush the electoral college victory, and consequently the presidency.[2] " is appropriately covered by the sentence immediately preceding it (and the wikipedia article on it), so could/should be dropped, in the interest of brevity. Anastrophe 00:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for engaging with me in this effort, Anastrophe. The referenced Britannica article supports the "most controversial election" claim. I wonder whether that citation really is sufficient to remove further clarification that Gore isn't POTUS because Bush is. Like you, I'm hoping to shorten this section and especially the opening paragraph. I tried to make this sentence as terse as possible. Can you (or someone else) suggest something halfway between my effort and your proposed deletion? Hult041956 00:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

something as simple as "[...] one of the most controversial elections in American history (ref), in which George W. Bush ultimately prevailed." should be reasonable. Anastrophe 00:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work, Hult041956. I agree with your changes, and it really improves the article.--Gloriamarie 03:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. This is exactly the sort of productive work we need to get the article to FA status. Chris Cunningham 06:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the support and/or suggestions. I gave my proposal about day to see what other edits would occur, and then I went for it. I hope I have "been bold" without being unilateral. You can see what I've done in the history (and in my edit comments), but here is a summary:

Took movie and TV out of the first paragraph; moved the few good bits into the relevant later one.
Moved the entire para about his book down into the body of the article. (Hopefully to a sensible place.)
Aware of my own slant, accepted User Anastrophe's proposal. ("Gore ran; it was tough; Bush prevailed.") More about how that all happened is probably best not added here. As a compromise, I added Florida related articles to the "See More" section.
Moved an existing citation reference (intact) from Academy Award to draft-Gore efforts where it seemed to belong (and also edited that sentence).

I believe the Intro now reads more fluidly, is NPOV, and better summarizes the essense of this subject. Hult041956 22:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Great job Hult041956! I do have one comment to add.

This was the original sentence:

"After a series of voting discrepancies and court challenges in the state of Florida the United States Supreme Court, with its final ruling on Bush v. Gore, stopped ongoing ballot recounts, giving George W. Bush the electoral college victory, and consequently the presidency."

It was changed to:

"George W. Bush ultimately prevailed."

While I agree that the first version was far too long and wordy, the second version does not quite reflect the first because it eliminates all mention of the Supreme Court case. I think a few more words, mentioning the Supreme Court ruling would not overly complicate the sentence - and would fairly represent the series of events as they happened. -Classicfilms 23:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Classic. I had originally proposed the following: "A recount of election results in Florida was ordered stopped by the United States Supreme Court, in its final ruling on Bush v. Gore, giving George W. Bush the electoral college victory, and consequently the presidency." User Anastrophe provided the current version (that is, "Bush prevailed"). I deferred, but added information about the Florida issues to the See More section. Someone may be able to find a better middle ground. Hult041956 23:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, happy to help out. Brevity is always a good goal for the Wikipedia. At the same time, it is the job of an encyclopedia to include all of the relevant points, which means that the Supreme Court case should be referred to in one way or another. Here is one possible combination of both ideas: "George W. Bush ultimately prevailed after a recount of election results in Florida was ordered stopped by the United States Supreme Court in its final ruling on Bush v. Gore." This way, the wikilinks are also listed in context, which cannot happen in a "See also" section. -Classicfilms 23:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I just made a change to the election description. I think it should be fine no matter what the reader's opinion on it is. I wrote " A legal controversy over the vote counting which was ultimately settled in favor of George W. Bush by the Supreme Court made the election one of the most controversial in American history. " Nobody could disagree with the factual accuracy of this, and it doesn't insinuate anything one way or another, I believe. It also highlights why we are mentioning this. --Horoball 00:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Note the intro is a lot cleaner than it was when this talk was started. So I think we should move on to the rest of the article. --Horoball 00:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks great! Thanks for adding it - I would also like to restore some of the wikilinks mentioned above, since they specify points without extending the sentence. How about adjusting it the following way: "A legal controversy over the recount of election results in Florida was ultimately settled in favor of George W. Bush by the United States Supreme Court, making the election one of the most controversial in American history." -Classicfilms 00:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that version improves on mine. --Horoball 01:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

isn't that info available in detail further into the article? the lead is supposed to be a 10,000ft elevation overview of the subject. we should be endeavoring to trim the lead to the bone, not keep adding back to it. Anastrophe 00:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:LEDE, e.g. "the lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article". This standalone feature of the lede is particularly important as it is what will be included in Wikipedia 1.0. This means in particular that somebody that has no idea why that election was so controversial should have at least an idea of what the controversy was about. My sentence explained that it had to do with the legal intervention by the Supreme Court without going into needless details. Your version that you reverted to explains nothing in the least, so I don't think is so good. --Horoball 01:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

another editor kindly WL'd 'controversial' to the article on the election controversy. problem solved. Anastrophe 06:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Uh, problem solved? A wiki link is a poor substitute for good writing. I am going to revert your change as you do not seem interested in improving the writing per WP:LEDE. Obviously I am not the only one that thinks your edit was a bad one, so I hope you will give some explanation as to why you feel otherwise if you insist on reverting again. --Horoball 07:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

how pleasant of you to delve into the realm of ad hominem. a wikilink is in fact the sine qua non of good wikipedia writing, particularly for the lead of the article. i'm trying to WP:AGF, but this insistence by you and other editors to go into details about the election that pointedly avoid acknowledging that "george w. bush won the election" strikes me as POV. i hope i'm wrong; perhaps you can assuage my concerns. Anastrophe 18:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

(<----unindent) Ad hominem? I simply pointed out that you are not improving the article based on WP:LEDE and neither do you seem to be making arguments from it. Your opinion on "good wikipedia writing", which seems to consist of using wikilinks with undescriptive wording, is simply not held by a number of people on Wikipedia and others on this talk page. On the other hand, now you are accusing me and a couple other editors as having some kind of POV. By doing so, you have shown your own. I was wondering why a lone editor would insist so much on stripping away a brief description of an important Gore-related controversy when that is pretty much the standard way of writing these things on Wikipedia. Now it's clear that you want to emphasize that Bush won the election without mentioning the historically important fact that the Supreme Court intervened. I myself have no dog in this fight. I don't wish to "avoid acknowledging" that Bush won, ~~as you unbelievably think despite it being mentioned in my edit.~~ I do wish to mention what is the controversy, albeit briefly, so readers can understand the context. --Horoball 23:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

i said that it struck me as POV, and asked you to clear the air. regrettably, you took that as an accusation of POV, which was not what i said or intended. now, you are boldy stating that i have a POV. inappropriate. as well, you are promoting as policy a brief commentary within WP:LEDE. if you can show me policy that supports this supposed requirement that the lead must conform to the suggested, proposed, not yet real or even in production 'wp 1.0', by all means. otherwise, using wikilinks to other wikipedia articles is, i will repeat, the sine qua non of building wikipedia gracefully, elegantly, thoughfully, and - most importantly for the lead of an article, concisely. Anastrophe 06:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I knew very well that you were going to say you only suggested it may be POV, no accusation involved. But such a defense doesn't fool experienced Wikipedians. If you need clarification on the reasoning of other editors, you can always ask it directly. No need to say "oh dear, I hope I'm wrong when I think you are being POV here", which is basically a way of accusing people of POV while giving yourself an out. You've been on Wikipedia long enough to know that never works, so don't bother with that. Using wikilinks is all and good, obviously I use them too. That doesn't mean we throw away standards of good writing because the wikilink supposedly does the job for us. --Horoball 10:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

your overt speculations regarding my state of mind, intent, POV, are all demonstrably bad faith, and bordering on incivility. please refrain. the suggestion that the sentence -back in the state it was in when i pointed out that another editor had wikilinked 'controversy' to the article - was less than 'good writing', is absurd. it was a concise, accurate sentence, that served the purpose just as well as the existing sentence. stylistically it was appropriate for the lead. we disagree on that matter of style. well and good. at least hopefully we can drop the pretense of there being a policy dispute here, yes? Anastrophe 23:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Who speculated first and thus demonstrated bad fath and bordered on incivility, etc.? As I already remarked, there were no need for that kind of remark from you. Starting this kind of accusation and using a rather lame defense of "how dare you" is transparent to any experienced Wikipedian. Continue on this way if you wish. Policy? I never said it was policy, but there are definitely style guidelines. --Horoball 07:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

you are correct, of course. i extend my apologies for speculating regarding your POV; it was lame, there's no doubt about it, even I see it now that the scales have fallen from my eyes. that said, i still believe that brevity is trump in the lede. it is the anchor of that entire style guideline. the previous iteration, wikilinked, summarizes accurately while neither obscuring nor highlighting the details. again, it was:

"Gore was the Democratic nominee for President in the 2000 election, one of the most controversial elections in American history. George W. Bush ultimately prevailed."

I maintain that this is a better structure, as it does not indulge the controversy in any direction (i.e. he neither stole the election nor won the election unremarkably, as has been hinted at with some revisions). but i suspect at this point i'm flogging a dead horse. Anastrophe 07:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I apologize also for letting things get out of hand. As for the dead horse, yes I think so. Not much agreement for your view. On the other hand, it seems like there are lots of live ones on this page. It's kind of incredible, even stupid, I would say, except I contributed to such a discussion so what can I say? --Horoball 06:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, now I see that it may not be clear to some that Bush won the entire election just because he won the recount decision. If you really wish, we can reword the entire thing, but obviously others feel the Supreme Court should be mentioned. So as my last effort here, I suggest something like "A legal controversy of the Florida election recount made the election one of the most controversial in American history. The Supreme Court's decision in favor of George W. Bush won him the election." --Horoball 23:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The version of the sentence that's there right now (Gore was the Democratic nominee for President in the 2000 election. A legal controversy over the Florida election recount, ultimately settled in favor of George W. Bush by the Supreme Court, made the election one of the most controversial in American history) seems excellent. Has the key ingredients of the controversy without ignoring it, short enough, no POV. Looks settled. Hult041956 23:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

al gore and tommy lee jones

uncited. trivia. can someone explain the relevance? seriously. did they even know each other? how is physical proximity of residence of encyclopedic interest? Anastrophe 03:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The friendship between Tommy Lee Jones and Gore was frequently discussed in numerous news articles during the 2000 election (and often appears on biography pages about Jones) since, with Karenna Gore Schiff, Jones was one of the individuals who nominated Gore in 2000. This CNN article discusses this point.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/08/16/convention.wrap.02/index.html

Gore and Jones first met and were friends while undergrads at Harvard. Jones discusses this in another CNN article in which he is interviewed (scroll about halfway down the interchange: Greenfield: His college roommate and star of "The Fugitive." Tommy Lee Jones: Al Gore has been one of my closest friends since the day we met on the first day of college 35 years ago.)

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0008/16/se.03.html

Perhaps the best solution is to move the information to the 2000 Presidential election section, and perhaps also mention the role of Kareena during it since that was also frequently covered in the press:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/time/2000/08/14/daughter.html

-Classicfilms 17:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

now we're getting somewhere, thanks. the friendship is notable, far more so than the seemingly random bit of information that they lived in the same residence at harvard. i agree it that it should be moved and expanded (a little - it is still a minor bit of information). Anastrophe 18:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

2000 Election and "Winning Your Home State"

BreadbakerWA 10:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)I deleted a line about Al Gore being among the few to lose his home state, the most recent before that being George H.W. Bush. Pulling out my handy World Almanac, this is totally inaccurate. First of all, George H.W. Bush's home state, for presidential elections purposes, was Texas. He carried Texas in both 1988 and 1992 quite handily. Yes, he was born in Massachusetts, which he didn't carry in either election, but his son was born in Connecticut, and didn't carry Connecticut in either election, either. Plus, Gore was born in Washington, D.C., not Tennessee, and carried Washington, D.C. quite handily in 2000. So the whole thing was like the statue of John Harvard in Harvard Yard, the statue of "three lies."

If you were to look at what major party presidential candidate did not carry his "home state" before Gore, it would be George McGovern in 1972 (South Dakota). If you were looking for presidential candidates who didn't carry the state of their birth, it would be both Bush and Kerry in 2004 (Connecticut and Colorado, respectively).

Nobel prize icon at top of box

Until a few days ago I'd never seen the icon placed in a infobox like that. First of all it's distracting as it, along with his picture, is the first thing you see when the page opens. Next it's useless. Not everybody will know what the icon signifies, and even if they do, it doesn't link to Nobel Peace Prize, so it's not informing anyone of anything. It also overemphasises the award. It says to me that Al Gore (and the others I saw it on) is notable because he won a Nobel prize but in truth he won the prize because he did something notable. Why not add icons for his other awards as well, what about his Emmy Award.? Finally adding things like that will get out of hand. Look at Jimmy Carter, he has a Nobel Prize as well but why not add the seal of Georgia and the Presidential seal aren't they important? If it's in the box then it should be further down with a list so that the award can be linked to CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually a lot of articles of Nobel Prize winners seem to have the icon on the infobox. Some on the top right next to the name or some on the bottom, but it does seem to use the icon. mirageinred 13:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been removing them from the top, as I see them, but if they were further down then I left them in. Such as Albert Einstein, who, as I suggested above, has his other awards listed. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree that it looks neater within the info list (see Marie Curie, Linus Pauling, Albert Einstein) than atop the box (see George Bernard Shaw). I think the person's name alone, serving as identification, is best. The practice of putting an image alongside the name doesn't seem to be in use for other sorts of prize winners (see Olympic gold medalist Michael Johnson (athlete), for example). Hult041956 18:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Hunting around further, I've found that many, but not all, Peace Prize winners have the medal in their infoboxes. Fewer science prize winners do. Cambridge, I see you're going from article to article, but advocates are working as quickly as you. ;-) Hult041956 23:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

See User:CambridgeBayWeather/Sandbox for an idea of how the boxes will look if it continues. I did 2 one with just the images and another with the article links. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Cute. Wanna add his high school varsity pins up there? ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hult041956 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Al Gore's Own Inconvenient Truth

Al Gore's monthly energy usage is more than a year's energy usage of an average American household [4] - This should be mentioned under his Global Warming section to balance out the article. TwakTwik 14:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not a new claim. It first came up back in February of this year. Note that the source you give fails to mention the word "carbon." How can this subject be realistically discussed without mentioning carbon footprints or carbon offsets? Here's an article that presents both sides of the matter.[5] Sunray 15:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. Your referenced source presents a balanced view, and I think it should be added to Al Gore's page to present a balanced view of the issue. This is a criticism against Al Gore and whether it is justified or not, the Wikipedia page should capture the criticism and offer the link to balanced view. I am happy to use your source. If there are no other objections, I would like to add this to Al Gore page. TwakTwik 16:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me important to recognize that the criticism is not really justified, but rather a partisan and ad hominem attack. We all struggle with the problem of carbon footprints, after all. However, if we stick to sources in the mainstream media, we should be able to produce a NPOV statement that illuminates the subject of carbon offsets and thus adds something interesting to the article. Sunray 17:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a criticism on Al Gore - whether it is justified or not is for readers to decide. The page should at least mention the criticism. TwakTwik 18:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Uh, yes. I was agreeing with you about adding to the article. Go ahead. Sunray 19:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Oh well, the page is semi-protected, which means only senior members can add additional text. If there is a senior enough member reading this, please add the criticism of Al Gore, but provide both sides of the argument. This is important for an impartial portrayal of Al Gore. TwakTwik 21:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Have a look here; you may find you can improve that article. Hult041956 23:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Futurama

No mention of his numerous guest appearances on Futurama? Maybe "Al Gore in Popular Culture" or something? Solar Eclipse (talk) 02:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC) Yeah and there is no mention of Manbearpig at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.238.146.75 (talk) 16:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Futurama is mentioned in the subarticle

Al Gore and the environment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore_and_the_environment#Futurama

-Classicfilms (talk) 05:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Criticisim Section Absent

Need one. Tonight, on Hannity's America Sean Hannity and other radio and TV conservatives exposed him as a hypocrite and cited that the environmentalists AND HIM are the reason why food and gas prices have spiked. Show aired on 5-11-08 on the FOX News channel.

The lack of a criticism section on here give Al Gore's enemies ammo, especially those on Conservapedia, who has accused Wikipedia of ridiculing conservatives while applauding liberals, worse. For more on that go to Conservapedia, look up Wikipedia there. 205.240.146.247 (talk) 03:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Take the partisan retoric elsewhere. This is an encyclopedia for the people not an encyclopedia for the bigotted. Cheers. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 06:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

This has been the topic of previous discussions, now in the archives. In following, Wikipedia:Criticism, criticism does exist in the article, but is spread throughout rather than grouped into a section. Please note: "In general, making separate sections with the title "Criticism" is discouraged. The main argument for this is that they are often a troll magnet." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criticism#Criticism_in_a_.22Criticism.22_section

-Classicfilms (talk) 19:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

<sarcasm>Of course.. The weak American dollar (commodities like grain are traded in dollars), high oil prices that have driven up the transportation costs of the grain(yet again, weak American dollar), ongoing drought in Australia that has slashed the amount of grains the country produces by 42%, etc. has absolutely nothing to do with the high food price...</sarcasm> --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

my reply to first comment, LOL, as a general rule, we do not rely on source like FOX news who repeteadly talked about assasinating Obama, claiming obama went to a madrassa, and "hoping" that the iranians were behind the filipino monkey's radio threat. its a mazing how many people could use FOX news as a reliable source.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by RestoreTheEmpireSociety (talk • contribs) 01:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Albert III's drug arrest

I have a question regarding the July 2007 drug arrest of Gore's son Albert III (whose article was deleted in February 2008). I'd like to add the arrest, in response to charges of liberal bias by Conservapedia:

Wikpedia's entry on liberal former Vice President Al Gore contains no mention of the drug charges against his son. But Wikipedia's entry on conservative Vice President Dick Cheney prominently mentions his adult daughter's sexuality.

Conservapedia, item 53

However, I don't know where it can go in the article given the structure. Is Al III's arrest too minor to be given any place in this article? If so, why is Mary Cheney's sexuality mentioned in the Dick Cheney article then? Shouldn't both sides get the same treatment? --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 20:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

There used to be an article on this topic that went through about nine deletion reviews before it was finally deleted. I couldn't find the archive for the final deletion, but this link contains some of the others.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Gore III (8th nomination)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Al_Gore_III_%288th_nomination%29

You might want to read through all of this first before you proceed. The central issue rested upon notability. In my opinion, this is not relevant to the article (I also think that none of the other points listed above are relevant either). It would be good to hear from other editors on the topic as well, however, since the final decision rests upon community consensus. -Classicfilms (talk) 21:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, after reviewing all of the discussions, it appears that the 8th review was the final one. -Classicfilms (talk) 23:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

First, Mary Cheney is a prominent businesswoman, political operative, and author, while Al Gore III is not prominent for anything outside of certain right-wing internet circles. Second, it's hard to think of two personal attributes less comparable than being gay and being busted for pot. Third, responding to charges of bias by a group called Conservapedia doesn't sound like a healthy encyclopedia-building exercise. --Allen (talk) 02:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey everyone, I'm back here after a week's absence due to real life. Anyways, I suppose that just because something was on the news doesn't mean it's worth being on wikipedia. Well apparantly, Al III has been in trouble for being a stoner not just in the summer of 2007, but also in 2003! --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 23:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Gay Marriage

Of all the issues that Gore has been involved in, why is this one explicitly highlighted and elaborated (compared to healthcare, etc)? 129.120.177.60 (talk) 23:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably just an example of WP:RECENTISM. Gore has been focused on climate change in recent years, and his switch on gay marriage is one of his few recent dramatic policy announcements outside of climate change. Do you think it should be trimmed? I think that would be reasonable, though personally I think the way to go would be to elaborate on his other political views rather than to trim this one. --Allen (talk) 01:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we just shorten the block quote to an inline quotation? The reference should not be removed but I think it is fair to trim the quote. -Classicfilms (talk) 04:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The length of the block quote seemed to violate WP:UNDUE so I trimmed it and re-wrote and re-organized the section a bit. -Classicfilms (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; that's more balanced. And the NetDay photo is great. --Allen (talk) 16:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

A note - this section was divided into two by topic. The second half is below. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Good article

You're welcome! I've been trying to push the article towards another WP:GAC nomination and any further suggestions or edits from you and other editors would be appreciated. One major task is reformating the footnotes. -Classicfilms (talk) 16:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Feedback and suggestions to move this article towards GA would be appreciated. -Classicfilms (talk) 01:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that this should have been nominated at the GAN before being nominated THREE times at the FAC. --haha169 (talk) 18:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The article still needs work, a few of the sections need to be developed, and references need to be checked and formatted, but with a little work I think it could go through GAN in the future. -Classicfilms (talk) 20:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Update picture

This picture is almost a decade old, shouldn't there be a picture that lets people recognize him? Contralya (talk) 07:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a fair question. All images used here must comply with WP's copyright guidelines for images which you can read here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights#Image_guidelines

The image used in the infobox here is a free image which is also the official portrait. This has been a standard for former VPs in the Wikipedia - regardless of when the picture was taken - as you can see here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:USVicePresidents

This has been the subject of discussion at least twice before - here are some previous discussions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Al_Gore/Archive_9#Image

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Al_Gore/Archive_14#Picture

-Classicfilms (talk) 13:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

There is this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3AAlGoreGlobalWarmingTalk.jpg

but it is not an easy call because it is not from a photography session and so seems more amateurish. The present headline photo makes Wikipedia look like a more professional production, but its obsolete. The obsolesence IS an issue because our responsibility as an encyclopedia is to inform the reader. Suggesting the subject appears as he does in a 14 year old photo is misleading, and Al Gore furthermore is of contemporary interest, not just historical. One could argue for having no photo instead, or at a minimum a clear note that the current photo is not contemporary.Bdell555 (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I added the photo you suggested above to the article itself which is fair. The images used for infoboxes of other former VPs such as Dan Quayle, George H. W. Bush, and Walter Mondale are also older images since they are the official portraits. To change one infobox and not all VP infoboxes would also reduce the quality of the Wikipedia. -Classicfilms (talk) 14:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't follow the logic that says no improvements should be made if they can't be made to everything improvable at the same time. Also, the subject of this article is of contemporary interest in a way many other past VPs are not.Bdell555 (talk) 00:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

See my response below. -Classicfilms (talk) 00:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

In addition, to use an image for a former VP in an infobox which is not the official VP image would be a subjective choice and thus a violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. By standardizing VP images - to use the same type of image for all former VPs is the way to make the article comply with NPOV. Current free images can always be added to other parts of the article. -Classicfilms (talk) 14:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. This is not an article about his term as vice-president; it is about him. The infobox photo should be the best most recent photo available; which one is debatable. The section about his term as vp should be where the official photo is de rigueur. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

As are none of the other biographies of former VPs:

Template:USVicePresidents

All of those articles are biographies about the life of the person, which covers all aspects, not just their time as VP. Perhaps the debate should be - what should be in the infoboxes of all biographies of former VPs? Or should there be no image? And also, what is current? An image used today would also be outdated ten years from now. What are the parameters to maintain Wikipedia:Neutral point of view?

-Classicfilms (talk) 16:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It's our job to maintain the currency of the encyclopedia. When relevant new information about a subject comes out, it should be added. That includes photos. Maintaining currency does not violate NPOV. The opposite, in fact: freezing it in time violates NPOV by maintaining an obsolete and therefore inaccurate perspective.Bdell555 (talk) 00:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

By this logic, every single biography of a former president or vp is obsolete - which I don't believe to be the case. My point about NPOV refers to the use of official portraits, whenever they were taken - recent or older images. To arbitrarily pick an image simply because it matches the current date lends itself to subjectivity. -Classicfilms (talk) 01:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

An additional note: The biography of Jimmy Carter, which covers his entire life, not just the presidency, also uses his official portrait in the infobox - as does the biography of Bill Clinton and all biographies of former presidents: Template:US Presidents, regardless of how old the picture is. And these are two figures who are equally of contemporary interest. The issue really becomes how to justify changing the image in one article and not all of the related other ones and still maintain NPOV - because to do so does enter the realm of subjectivity. I think it is fair to remove all of these images from the infoboxes and have no image in the infobox - otherwise, using an official portrait is the best way to achieve NPOV for any biography of a former president or vp. -Classicfilms (talk) 18:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Carter and Clinton are primarily known for being ex-Presidents. A lot of people don't even know that Gore is a former VP. Rather, they say he is known for being a former candidate for the TOP of the ticket, or even more commonly for his climate change advocacy. In any case, if we had the same photo of Gore, with the same background and with him looking directly at the camera smiling or with a neutral expression, but from 2008 I don't think you can reasonably say that would be a NPOV violation. It's a more an issue of whether the available public domain images from more recent times can approximate that sufficiently or whether they can't such that we should stick with good, but old, photo.Bdell555 (talk) 00:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not certain I agree about Carter or Clinton being known only as ex-presidents - Carter in particular is a Nobel peace prize winner and is known for his work in diplomacy post presidency. But this is a subjective decision on either part and therefore out of the realms of the WP. My point is that our goal is to create WP articles of the highest quality which means that if there are images in the infoboxes, they should be consistent - since every single biography of a past president or vp uses a professional portrait, there isn't a good reason not to use one for this article - whether the photo is from 1994 or 2008 is irrelevant to me - If you can find a professional, high quality portrait in the public domain that is more recent, I won't object to it. My point is that it should be a professional portrait to match the quality of the other articles. -Classicfilms (talk) 00:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I looked around to see what other professional portraits are out there. I did come across the Nobel Peace Prize portrait which is a recent image- if it qualifies for fair use I think that it is a professional portrait of good quality:

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/

-Classicfilms (talk) 01:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I looked into it and because the nobel official portrait falls under WP:NONFREE, it does not comply under fair use - since a " free equivalent" (the current portrait) is available. Again, my major concern is with standards - this is a "delisted" good article and it has failed FAC three times. I would like to push the article towards WP:GAC again at some point in the future - so I think the image in the infobox should be of the highest quality. The current free image - an official portrait - sets a standard - I will not object to a replacing it with a recent image if the photo is an official portrait of the same quality and is free - that is, complies with Wikipedia:Image use policy. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

See old discussion here. The current image is fine. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

But Al Gore is still active in public, shouldn't the picture show what he looks like now rather than a decade ago? Contralya (talk) 21:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The body of the article contains a number of current photos. The infobox image is a high quality, professonal, free image in compliance with Wikipedia:Images and Wikipedia:Copyrights. It also matches in style the professional portrait of every past president and vice president. Jimmy Carter, for example, is also a very active contemporary figure whose article uses his professional presidential portrait. -Classicfilms (talk) 21:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Nobel Prize Symbol

I think Al Gore should have the little symbol denoting that he has won a nobel peace prize, but I don't know how to add that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.227.222.67 (talk) 04:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added it. Thank you for pointing out that it was missing. Gamaliel (talk) 05:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It had always been there before. Who removed it? --haha169 (talk) 15:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it should go there. It looks like a Wikipedia endorsement. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 15:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Removing, as there's been no replies since I posted the above comment. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 01:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The responses are in the section right below this one. I btw. fail to see what it "endorces" - its a factual item. Gore did win the Nobel Peace Prize, and as such we treat him as other prize winners (with the medal). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Replied on the thread below. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 22:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyright and nobel prize symbol

I have another question regarding the nobel prize symbol which concerns copyright. If copyright is not a problem, I can go either way regarding inclusion in the article. However, the question of copyright has come up repeatedly for this and similar images. Since this article will at some later date go through another WP:GAN, the use of non-free images will come up (more so if it makes it back to WP:FAC at some point).

Please take a look at the page for the image currently in use:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Nobel_medal_dsc06171.jpg

This image has a "Do not copy this file to Wikimedia Commons" tag on it with a long discussion on the talk page concerning its public domain status. There is another image in Wikimedia Commons:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Nobel_prize_medal.svg

which was nominated for deletion but failed (due to similar concerns). There is also this image:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Nobel_prize_winner.svg

Thoughts? -Classicfilms (talk) 17:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Since the symbol appears on many WP articles, this isn't something that should be decided on this talk page. Perhaps an RfC or a thread on WP:AN. Gamaliel (talk) 17:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that seems fair. Thanks, -Classicfilms (talk) 18:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

"It's on many other articles" is not good rationale for keeping the image (similar to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 22:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a deletion debate. "It's on many other articles" is an excellent reason for keeping the image. Consistency is a good thing. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Just because it's used on all those other articles doesn't make it right. The average reader won't know why the little prize image is by his picture, and will think Wikipedia gave him an award. The infobox doesn't even have a place for it. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 23:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the average reader is a little smarter than you give them credit for. Having said that, I'm not sure if it's "right" to have the icon or not. I like it personally, but although a lot of articles do have the icon, there are also a lot that don't. I'm guessing this topic has already been discussed somewhere before, but I'm not sure where. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS also clearly states that "precedent in usage" offers an exception to this rule, and in this case, if you look at the number of articles linked to this image, "precedent in usage" is present here - how could we justify removing it from one article and not any of the others:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Nobel_medal_dsc06171.jpg

On the other hand, there are a few statements above (including my own) which indicate that larger questions about this image remain unclear. User talk:Gamaliel made a good point above about raising "an RfC or a thread on WP:AN" which would discuss whether or not the icon should be used at all for any articles. Perhaps that is the better direction to move this discussion in. -Classicfilms (talk) 13:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It's high time there was a general RfC on the use of Nobel Prizes in infoboxen anyway. Placement is inconsistent, hackish and very frequently disputed. For what it's worth I'd rather that we erred on the side of caution here, given that misusing fair use images will torpedo FAC while not doing so won't. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Chris and think that when making edits to the article, WP:FAC needs to be kept in mind. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to add that my comment is in response to having an RfC on the topic to try and settle it. For the moment, I think it is still difficult to remove the image from this article when it is on so many other articles. The real issue is its general use. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

^ "Al Gore". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 2007-07-07.
^ George W. Bush, et al., Petitioners v. Albert Gore, Jr., et al., 531 U.S. 98 (2000).
^ "Peace 2007". Norwegian Nobel Committee. Retrieved 2007-10-12.
^ "The Resurrection of Al Gore". Wired Magazine. Retrieved 2007-02-24.
^ Gore hits Chicago to chants of 'Run, Al, Run'

[1] "Al Gore". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 2007-07-07.

[2] George W. Bush, et al., Petitioners v. Albert Gore, Jr., et al., 531 U.S. 98 (2000).

[3] "Peace 2007". Norwegian Nobel Committee. Retrieved 2007-10-12.

[4] "The Resurrection of Al Gore". Wired Magazine. Retrieved 2007-02-24.

[5] Gore hits Chicago to chants of 'Run, Al, Run'

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]