Talk:Al Gore/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Democrat Nomination

I am wondering if the article needs an improvement in the section about the 2008 election. Mainly my issue is with the wording of the current section which uses the word "run" which does not actually address the real issue of "nomination", which I think would be a better word to use. Will Al Gore be nominated for the Democratic's canditate at the DNC this year without actually running for it? Thorton |talk 08:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

WP shouldn't speculate. Anastrophe 22:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Most articles can be improved, but I don't understand what you're suggesting. I agree with Anastrophe that we should not add our own speculation. Instead, we should summarize what verifiable information we can find about the subject. Such information includes what other notible person have said (and such items are presently included). Do you suppose the Democrats will nominate him though he does not run? Dunno, but who could know? Perhaps Anastrophe and I have missed your point.. can you explain a bit more what you have in mind? Hult041956 22:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I've read so much gossip about his nomination at the DNC this year and I was hoping that wiki might have real some info about it. Unfortunately, the section repeats many times that Gore "has no plans for running". I think for many readers these are somewhat weasel-words that obscure his strategic position in this race. (See the last paragraph regarding H.Clinton voters.) Perhaps all the section really needs is a brief sentence to clarify this single point; saying something to the effect that even though Gore has personally chosen not to campaign for the 2008 democrat nomination, he remains a prime candidate for it. Does that make sense?Thorton |talk 14:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.204.113.250 (talk)

We presently have "While Gore has frequently stated that 'I'm not planning to be a candidate again,' there are continuing efforts to convince him to run for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination" in the introduction, plus a section with six paragraphs on this in the main body. Seems like it's handled pretty thoroughly. In fact, he isn't a "prime candidate," so an attempt to "clarify" this for our readers would be inappropriate. What he is is a subject of quite a lot of public comments and poll taking... and these are fairly presented here, I think. Hult041956 19:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Google

Does anyone know approximately how much Google stock Gore owns? I spot checked Google's recent SEC filings but did not see anything in there regarding Gore's share ownership. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaedglass (talk • contribs) 15:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

electoral votes

In the article, two different numbers are given of how many electoral votes he received: 266 and 277. Which is the correct number? --Ben ^T/_C 16:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

266, since 277 would've won the election. One 17:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

featured

We should write the Al Gore page more times because of its need a star: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Al Gore (pictured) share the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.

VP of United States surely trumps American politician

I wish to explain my action in reverting User:Invincible Ninja's work. This editor changed first sentence to "Al Gore is an American politian & environmental activist." I feel "American politian" adds nothing new, since being VP of US, Senator, and Rep surely means being a politician as well. See Dan Quayle, Dick Chaney, and Hubert Humphrey for example who were VP without it needing to be said that they were politicians. Also, "environmental activist" is treated thoroughly just below. My edit comment said I had reverted User:Rillian's work as well. This was not so. Indeed the change from "&" to "and" in Ninja's sentence was lost, but not the improved phrasing of the later "environmental and speaker" paragraph. Sorry if I offended or confused. Hult041956 23:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Nobel Peace Prize

User id Masterpiece2000 recently added five paragraphs of criticism of Al Gore being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. A couple of points:

1. This seems rather lopsided, as there is no coverage of all the positive reactions.

2. All the material seems to be copied almost word-for-word from a single source, even quoting an incorrect book title. Copyright violation?

3. One of the sources of criticism, Bjørn Lomborg, is pretty much discredited here in his native Denmark.

Something for a more experienced editor to look into? --RenniePet 13:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the additions. Criticism of the award is fine, but this was (1) largely copied and pasted, and (2) made the section lopsided/POV. I would limit any criticism in a section that size to a paragraph at most; five is undue weight. --Tom (talk - email) 13:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the five quotes made the section out of balance. There is currently a NPOV sentence in the section which reads "Response to the event was broad and varied" with two references next to it - one of them, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7041573.stm

contains both positive and negative reactions to the Nobel. The URL http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22579885-663,00.html?from=mostpop

could be added to the other two. I'll leave that to consensus. -Classicfilms 13:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the problem was I could find only one source of criticism. I am a new user and I may have made some mistake. However, I think there should be some criticism. Masterpiece2000 14:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Criticism is fine, but your additions gave the section undue weight against him, and it is important to maintain a neutral point of view when writing articles. The article you cited seems to be an acceptable source, but all of the criticism in it could be summed up in a paragraph or less without giving it undue weight. --Tom (talk - email) 17:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I have included criticism in a paragraph. Masterpiece2000 09:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This really improved the responses section of the paragraph - thanks. I moved your edit up to the sentence mentioned above and made modifications according to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view guidelines. I also wikilinked the names that you gave - they should be correct but please do check the wikilinks just to make sure. -Classicfilms 14:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

What happen to this criticism, was it removed, and if so why —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.155.23.124 (talk) 14:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone has removed the criticism. The criticism should be included. Masterpiece2000 08:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

2000 Presidential election section

I think there should be a discussion about accussations of bias of the Supree Court, and that the majority of Justices were appointed by Republican presidents, including Bush's father. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.104.133.132 (talk) 13:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

This section on the 2000 election: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore#2000_Presidential_election offers a pretty good overview. The election is also discussed in detail in the article, United States presidential election, 2000. The wikilink listed as "main article," Al Gore presidential campaign, 2000, however almost entirely lacks references which does not comply with Wikipedia:Citing sources. It also needs to be re-written to comply with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I'm thus wondering if the article Al Gore presidential campaign, 2000 is still needed, or if it should be nominated for deletion. -Classicfilms 15:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm much rather this were resolved the other way around, with the bulk of our (sourced) content here moved to the sub-article. We're hurting for length here, and there are already several Gore sub-articles, so per WP:SUMMARY we should split discrete sections where possible. Chris Cunningham 11:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a great idea, I like it. There is an enormous amount of unsourced existing information on the Al Gore presidential campaign, 2000 article. Much of it could use editing and clean up as well. Any thoughts on how to go about making the kind of combination you suggest? It's a lot of work for one person - maybe a few people need to go through and clean up the article a bit and then add material? -Classicfilms 13:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Early and often, is how I usually do heavy lifting. Even a crude cut-and-paste will get this article back on track, and we've got the weight of the community to help with improving the other article once it contains the good content from this one. My other trick for cleaning up huge amounts of unsourced information on articles on popular and easily-researched subjects is to blast off and nuke the whole thing from orbit; pieces can be cribbed from the old revisions as they are sourced. There's no need for this to be done in one sitting by one editor, so long as someone is bold enough to get it rolling. Chris Cunningham 13:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Funny... Ok, sounds like a good plan. I wonder, since it sounds like you have experience with this type of task, if you would be willing "to get it rolling." Frankly, I looked through the page and was overwhelmed by it. If you start off, I can help out. -Classicfilms 13:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I did much the same thing on this article a while back :) I'll have a look into it, though I'm wary of promising anything, what with work contraints and a general lack of trust in myself :) Chris Cunningham 13:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I remember - and it was a good job, which is why I made the suggestion. One thought would be to just move the whole page to "talk" and fill the space with sourced information from this article until enough people become involved to clean it up. But certainly, only when you, or other editors experienced with this type of task, have the time. -Classicfilms 13:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

pov tag

Al Gore doesn't appear in the southpark episode. He is not actually involved in that episode in anyway. He didn't lend his voice or his approval, which makes it unsuitable for the section. It's just fodder for pov pushers who want to add trivia to the section. Turtlescrubber 20:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You disagree with the inclusion of that content because you deem it unencyclopaedic/irrelevant. You presumably don't disagree with it because it is biased/not neutral. The POV tag isn't really appropriate here. Melsaran (talk) 22:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It is appropriate as you are pushing a particular point of view. Don't try and limit discussion. Turtlescrubber 22:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

What particular point of view? What information in the article is not "neutral"? Melsaran (talk) 09:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

First sentence

I think that history, and even present opinion, will say that he was much more important as an environmental activist than as the Vice President. Could this be put in the first sentence? Redddogg 22:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Recentism is to be avoided. In a historical context, Gore was more important as a Vice President (which was an official function and one of the highest positions in the government of a superpower, whilst his role in the debate about environment was influential but not as important). Melsaran (talk) 22:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure being the VP of the US is all that important.Redddogg 23:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Redddogg...his environmentalism was central to his identity at almost every point in his life except the vice presidency...it deserves just as prominent a spot. Cjs2111 03:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I still think the opening sentence should be "...Vice President and environmental activist." But at least both are mentioned in the first paragraph, so I will not make it an issue any more. Redddogg 22:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Unaddressed Environmental Incidents and Information.

Al Gore has recieved the proverbial Key to the City from the global and national community. However, the praise he recieves--and this article, I might add--ignores one of the most forthright events of outright hypocrisy. Read on:

In 1997, Al Gore championed the privatization of California's National Oil Reserve. Specifically, the Elk Hills Naval Petroleum Reserve, which contained three endangered species, and generations of Native American Culture. The subsequent drilling by Occidental resulted in serious environmental damage, destruction to the sacred Native American burial ground, and a windfall for his family trust's Occidental stocks. For further information, refer to the following citizen's groups' sites:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/04/07/0238233

http://www.realchange.org/gore.htm#pollution

http://www.debatethis.org/gore/enviro/

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=468

In addition, several departments of the U.S. government cite sufficient evidence that these events did, indeed, occur:

http://www.energy.gov/about/timeline1991-2000.htm <<CTRL+F then type in 'Occidental' and search.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/chrn1997.html <<CTRL+F then type in 'October 6'.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/chrn1998.html <<CTRL+F then type in 'February 5', first entry.

http://judiciary.house.gov/judiciary/haut0628.htm <<CTRL+F then type in 'Occidental'

And, as a final reference, the Center for Public Integrity on the issue of the Elk Hills National Reserve:

http://www.publicintegrity.net/report.aspx?aid=457

http://www.publicintegrity.org/report.aspx?aid=460 <<Opinionated, but contains detailed accounts of The Center's attempts to address this issue

This has been a source of aggravation to me for some time, now, and has only been compounded by the Nobel Committee's awarding him the Nobel Peace Prize. Al Gore has shown more than his fair share to both Global Warming AND general environmental and cultural destruction in the name of big business.

The fact that this is neglected from even being mentioned in the article is absolutely unacceptable, as this is a positively outrageous contradiction of his long-standing claims to be pro-environment. Thus, I hereby strongly recommend the addition of, at the very least, a sub-section addressing this disconcerting state of affairs for Mr. Gore.

Also, on a more objective note, I notice that there is minimal reference to the points Mr. Gore outlined in Earth in the Balance. In terms of his environmental record, I would consider this to be central to his person, wouldn't you all?

Kaiza Roll 00:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yawn. --Eleemosynary 00:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there any reason why this information, specifically about Gore's connections to Occidental and related environmental controversies, should not be included? -- Toddmatic 02:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you have not yet presented a reliable source about these alleged controversies. Nil Einne 14:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Really? There are multiple sources that come directly from the Department of Energy and the EIA, in addition to the House Judiciary Committee. If the U.S. Government is an unreliable source for publically accessible information ABOUT the U.S., what is, pray tell?

Edit: Sorry about that, I couldn't log in last night, for some reason, and I decided to wait until I could, to sign this. Kaiza Roll 11:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

please sign your edits. you may do so by typing four tildes after your message( ~~~~). Anastrophe 05:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please Wiki, add information to Al Gore's hipocritical relations to Occidental Petroleum. Source from 2000: "Vice President Al Gore, whose family owns at least a quarter of a million dollars' worth of Occidental stock... " How can someone who has ties to an oil company that devastates the environment and indigenous people's lands in both his own country and abroad (here, Colombia) be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize??? http://www.thenation.com/doc/20000522/silverstein [[[User:190.53.12.7|190.53.12.7]] 10:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)]

The Nobel Peace Prize icon revert war

Enough already. If Henry Kissinger, George Marshall, Jimmy Carter, Mikhail Gorbachev, Frank Kellogg, Martin Luther King Jr., Lech Walesa, and Woodrow Wilson, et al. get the icon above their photo, so should Gore. (And Gore haters: try not to throw a tantrum and remove all those icons from those pages).

P.S. To the editor who argued that no NPP icon exists on Einstein's page, please note that Einstein never won the Nobel Peace Prize. --Eleemosynary 01:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Word.—Gaff ^ταλκ 01:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

IndubitablyTurtlescrubber 02:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

for that matter, there is no nobel peace prize icon. there is only the nobel prize icon. and einstein's article does have one, as he won for accomplishments in physics. silly arguments all around. Anastrophe 02:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI, Einstein's article didn't have an icon on top of the infobox until I put it there. szyslak 05:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I was removing them from the other pages as well, Henry Kissinger, Jimmy Carter, Mikhail Gorbachev George Marshall, Lech Walesa, Woodrow Wilson and several others. So it has nothing to do with being a Gore hater, please try and assume good faith. If you read, as I posted above, User:CambridgeBayWeather/Sandbox, you can see why the icon needs removing. Also if you read the comments above, nobody said that Albert Einstein had won the NPP. What I said was, that it should be further down in the box, see this edit, and not at the top, alongside the name. By the way WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Do not remove the icons, as you have not gained any consensus to do so. Your argument on your sandbox page is hyperbolic, unproven, supported by no consensus, and your behavior here is boorish. Please stop. --Eleemosynary 03:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Your comment about removing them can also be applied to inserting them. After looking over this the page I see no consensus for the icons to be there or not be there at this point. And I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a clear consensus to keep the icons where they are on the laureates' pages, evidenced by their longstanding presence on each page and the speed with which your removing them was reverted. Because you don't like them doesn't immediately put them in the category of "other crap." I suggest you read WP:POINT, for starters. --Eleemosynary 03:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Violating WP:POINT would be running around converting all the articles to the version in my sandbox or adding the clarify tag to the icons. Also if you look at the links in the post above, I stopped removing them several days ago. However, that does not stop me from attempting to discuss their removal. I'll say it again, the icon does not provide the necessary information, what Nobel prize did he win. In the Einstein article the icon is further down in the box with a link to the prize he won and that's how they all should be. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

i tend to agree with CambridgeBayWeather regarding the placement. the placement in the einstein article makes sense to me, visually and stylistically. having it linked as in the einstein article also makes more sense - it's informative there, rather than being merely a decoration, which when clicked on, just goes to a larger version of the image. Anastrophe 05:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Cambridge and Anastrophe. At the top of the infobox, the nobel prize is a small decoration at best. Further down, we can actually spend the space to give it context, which is important. Where it is now, it might as well be the featured article star, for all the reader knows. It should also be added to all nobel prize winners, regardless of prize. — PyTom (talk) 16:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately, not many of us are arguing against the medal icon on the grounds that Gore "doesn't deserve it". There are advantages and disadvantages to the icon, I'm sure. But the bottom line is, they should either be on all articles about Nobel winners, or none at all. BTW, there was a failed deletion request on Commons about the image. szyslak 05:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

i agree that the icon should be on all articles for those who've won them; ideally, in the latter format, incorporated into the infobox and linked, rather than just a decoration at the top. Anastrophe 05:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The image makes no sense. The top of the infobox shows the name and the name only, period. The article may mention that he won the Nobel Prize, but there's no need to have some silly "icon" next to his name. Images should be informative and not decorative. This image does not substantially increase the reader's understanding of the topic. That other articles have it means that we should remove the icon from those articles as well, and that has nothing to do with being against Gore. Melsaran (talk) 12:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The real problem is the infobox. Just get rid of that. End of argument and the page is improved. --128.120.178.62 11:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest taking this case to a higher court... namely a Talk page for infoboxes in general, or perhaps for biography infoboxes. (Is there one?) Al Gore's "currency" makes it hard to have the general-purpose discussion here (since some of us get caught up in what we think of him, etc). I've seen country and state flag icons in some of these, but not all. Likewise, there seems to be little standardizing about what info should be in an infobox. Hult041956 15:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Though I positively despise Gore for what I've stated in the above discussion topic, I must agree with the author of this discussion topic. Regardless of the merit(or lack, thereof) of Mr. Gore, we MUST recognize this much--Al Gore recieved the Nobel Peace Prize, and the protocol for his recieving it was consistant with the criterea of recieving such a recognition.

Though I would contest the legitimacy of his recieving such an award to my very death, it is inexcusable to behave in such a way; I, too, believe the Nobel Committee was rash in its judgement of Gore, but, should I decide to attack Gore on this issue, I will do so in the correct manner, by confronting the Nobel Committee and Gore on this. The cowardly and petty act of simply removing this distinction, without prior revocation by the endower is inexcusable.Kaiza Roll 11:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

"Reactions" to Gore's Nobel Prize

In short, there's no reason to include them. Most likely, a few Gore-haters are trying to crowbar some anti-Gore statements into the article via this tactic. Furthermore, MLK Jr.'s Nobel engendered a storm of criticism, but we don't mention it in his article. Nor does Arafat's page mention the outcry when he won. I'm removing them. --Eleemosynary 03:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Al won the prize fairly and it should be recognised. Al Gore is a great man and we should let him have this honour without allowing far-rightists to rip it apart --Danny 17 18:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

User: Danny 17 - Is there a difference in arrogance between left-wingers (like yourself) and far-rightists whom you accuse? It may be a mature thing to add some balance to your one-sided view Oxfordden 00:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

i believe it's worth pointing out that the absence of criticism in MLK or Arafat's articles is not a valid justification for removing criticism from this article. Was there a storm of criticism about MLK's Nobel? then the MLK article would be improved by accurately citing it. was there a storm of criticism about Arafat's Nobel? then the article Arafat article would be improved accurately citing it. WP is ostensibly an encyclopedia; adding notable, properly cited information improves it. i'm bothered by the overt speculations about intent and POV. i have my own POV, everyone else has a right to theirs. but by the same - faulty - tactic above, one could say that a few Gore-lovers are refusing to allow some non-gore-loving statements into the article. both are POV. the reaction to gore's nobel was largely positive in the popular press. some have expressed negative reactions. is this not accurate? Anastrophe 22:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Spare us the sophistry. Unless there was significant, widespread denuncation of Gore's NPP -- which there was not -- it has no place in the article. "Reactions" to Nobel Prize awards do not appear on the pages of any other laureate... and there are hundreds of such laureates. WP's encyclopedic value is not improved by filling each page with trivia. --Eleemosynary 02:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

how about you and others spare editors who don't fawn over gore such characterizations as "gore-haters" and "far-rightists"? characterizing reaction to the nobel as 'trivia' is unreasonable. trivia is the arguments over whether to include mention of a particular cartoon in the article. it's notable that MLK and Arafat engendered negative reaction, and i'm frankly surprised it's not mentioned in their articles. it should be. this criterion that 'it doesn't exist in other people's articles therefore it doesn't belong in this' - can you point out where this is codified as a guideline or policy on WP? for that matter - gosh, we can apply this same criterion to the peace prize icon discussion. i've just checked the articles of many past peace prize winners, and their articles don't have the icon. therefore, based on this new criterion - which you seem to have manufactured of whole cloth - the matter of including the icon on this article is settled: it goes. Anastrophe 03:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I will comment here, though I would like to request that we all observe Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Civility, and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. As someone who likes Gore and thought he deserved the prize, I thought that there were some very nice comments made by notable individuals in the following article: http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/10/12/ap4215589.html which I added a few days back and referenced by listing the names of those in the article. The notability of some of the individuals mentioned was questioned by other editors so I removed the names, added this article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7041573.stm and rewrote the sentence to comply with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. When criticism was later added to the paragraph, I also added praise to the section for balance and to maintain Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I do think it is a fair point to say that praise of Gore outweighed criticism and if the section is re-added, it should be written in such a way as to clarify this point. I also thought there were historically noteworthy comments from individuals such as UN Secretary - General Ban Ki Moon which I would have liked to see in the article. That being said, since there are no hard and fast rules on whether or not to include a paragraph on reactions, I will leave it to Wikipedia:Consensus to decide. -Classicfilms 14:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Just for clarity, in reference to the Forbes article, http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/10/12/ap4215589.html - I had originally placed an AP version of the same article in the paragraph. The current Forbes version was added by another editor. -Classicfilms 14:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

i agree that inclusion of reaction is appropriate, as long as it conforms to WP:WEIGHT, inclusive of NPOV. which is why it definitely needs to note that the reaction was primarily and largely positive, but a few notable individuals also had negative criticism. the section as written when the criticisms were included was clearly not NPOV - "reaction was broad and mixed" was a misrepresentation. i tried finding language that maintained appropriate weight, but the whole section was simply removed thereafter. Anastrophe 17:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the sentence as written was "Responses to the event were broad and varied" (not "mixed") which was a good faith attempt towards NPOV. I did think, however, that the re-write, which stated that most of the responses were positive, was a better edit which more clearly reflected the events. And I agree with your other points. -Classicfilms 17:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Majority Vs. Plurality

The first sentence of the second paragraph of the page ends with "which he won the popular vote by a small majority". This is not true. Al Gore won a plurality of the popular vote (with 48%) but not a majority (which would be over 50%). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoensvx (talk • contribs) 04:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Simple majority is another term for plurality. I've changed it to that --Danny 17 18:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

that's incorrect. in the US voting system, what gore had was a very clearly a plurality of votes - not a majority or simple majority. i'd recommend reading the Simple majority article for clarity. Anastrophe 22:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

In popular culture

Sections like these stick out like sore thumbs in GA and FA reviews. WP guidelines suggest taking the items in such lists and working them into the flow of the article (or losing the less important ones). So Al Gore has been VP of the United States, Noble Prize winner, and host of SNL?? How about we move that last one to "List of SNL hosts"? Hult041956 23:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Featured article - What we have to write into this article<

Featured article - What we have to write into this article< --Tamás Kádár 23:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

What about South Park?

Several times the fct that Gore was made the subject of an episode of South Park was added to the "Gore in Popular Culture" section, only to be deleted. Somehow, I think that Gore being made the subject of a South Park episode qualifies as an instance of "Al Gore in popular culture." Or do I sense a pro-Gore bias? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.181.109 (talk) 14:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that references to Al Gore in popular culture constitute reflections of the modern world's thoughts of him, and that they therefore make worthy additions to this article. One might consult this discussion for more thoughts on this matter. Also, here is the "Popular Culture"-section as it used to appear. --TheFinalFraek 12:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Silly mortals. Wikipedia can't talk bad about Gore or it will incur his wrath. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.102.132.45 (talk) 05:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The actions of people on South Park have no real sway on the type of person that Gore is. I don't nessisarily agree with what they do, but they do have the right to free speech, allowing them to say whatever they want. If people want to make a judgement call on Al Gore based on South Parks, good for them. Malomaboy06 21:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Gorelieberman.jpg

Image:Gorelieberman.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)