Talk:Al Gore/Archive 16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17

Al Gore may be not a true enviromentalist

Requesting the addition of a "Controversy" section or seperate article: Al Gore is seen by many as a dedicated environmentalist and activist, desperately trying to protect our earth and it's climate balance from the Big Oil and the Big Coal, who, seeking profit, ingore the effect the burning of fossil fuels might (repeat: might) have on humanity in the long term. While it's obvious he is an activist, his personal life, however, indicates that he might not be that much of an environmentalist.

-According to the Associated Press, the Gore's 10,000 square foot Belle Meade residence consumes electricity at a rate of about 12 times the average for a typical house in Nashville (191,000 kwh versus 15,600 kwh). While there are mitigating factors (further discussed in our article about the Gore household's energy use), this is still a surprising number, given that the residence is approximately four times the size of the average new American home. http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp

-Have you seen the private jet this "environmentalist" arrives in? During the 2000 campaign when Al Gore was running to be president of the United States and along the way giving speeches about the environment, the former vice president traveled on private planes more than a few times. According to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, the Gore campaign filed disbursement reports with the Federal Elections Commission, as required law, that document his use of private jets belonging to various businesses and corporations. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VV309lbB8c

-Also Al Gore has claimed that he has purchased "carbon credits" that will be used to negate the effect his actions have on the climate. However, few people know that he owns the company, and noone can say were the money the company has collected go to.

All these have generated controversy upon Gore's name and his "green" views. Since there is already an seperate article presenting Al Gore's relationship with the environment in a mostly positive way (with minor reference to controversy) I think it is more than essential for a seperate "Controversy" section to exist in the Al Gore article, or as as separate article, in order for the neutrality of Wikipedia to be preserved.

PS: A totally subjective thought: If the year was 2000 he would have been a "Y2K bug" doomsayer. But, since it's 2009, it's now much more profitable for him to be an environmentalist and sell movies based on an inconsistent truth, and been funded by the European Nuclear Lobby and the Eco Lobby.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.130.121.48 (talkcontribs) 20:25, 10 February 2009

I'm not around much at the moment but I will add a few responses here. This subject has been discussed before and you can see past responses in the archives. Consensus among editors working on this article determined that controversial material should be integrated into the body of the main article on Al Gore rather than exist as a separate article. In addition, as Al Gore is a Good Article, the current structure has passed the neutrality test which further indicates that consensus is for one article on Gore which contains controversies within the main body rather than as a separate article. Furthermore, most of the issues that you discuss above are already included in the article under:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore#Environmental_activism_and_Nobel_Peace_Prize_.282004-Present.29
As well as in:
Al Gore and the environment which also includes criticism integrated into the body of the article.
For more on this topic, see
WP:CRITS which states:
"In general, making separate sections containing negative evaluations with the title "Criticism" is discouraged by some editors, although there is no consensus on the issue. The main argument for this is that they are often a troll magnet."
If there are further issues to add, which adhere to WP policies regarding Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research etc., my suggestion would be to add them to the related section within the article. -Classicfilms (talk) 07:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. I don't think there's anything actionable in this request. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Politician

In the lead, it should be noted that he is an "American politician and environmental activist", to help with the flow of the opening statement (ie not just throwing in the VP nod) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.219.231.46 (talk) 02:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Environmental activism and Nobel Peace Prize (2004-Present)

Triana Satellite

The recent attempt to tack on a disconnected "developed in a dream" "no value" factoid re the Triana satellite project (which is alluded to earlier in the article) has been reverted.

NOTE: The source provided (space.com) presents the views of Republican critics. [1], which the addition did not mention but rather asserted "no value" as an encyclopedic fact. (This is explicitly not NPOV.)
  1. See where the word "dream" comes into play in a New York Times piece, and see if "developed in a dream" is accurate. [2]
  2. Find the sentence in the topic relating to the idea of the satellite, and see if a neutrally worded addition can be made.
  3. Research the basis for why the project might not have been completed under the Bush administration.
  4. Research if the project will be resumed under the Obama administration.
  5. What did Gore say the value was?
  6. Who says it is of no value, and why?

When you can write an appropriate encyclopedic addition regarding this issue, do so. The negative POV noise shall be reverted for cause. Discuss here if you disagree. Proofreader77 (talk) 06:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Wording of Intro

Would anyone mind if I changed the intro from:

"Albert Arnold "Al" Gore, Jr. (born March 31, 1948) is an American environmental activist who served as the 45th Vice President of the United States from 1993 to 2001 under President Bill Clinton."

to

(a) Albert Arnold "Al" Gore, Jr. (born March 31, 1948) is an American environmental activist AND FORMER VICE PRESIDENT, who served as the 45th Vice President of the United States from 1993 to 2001 under President Bill Clinton.

or

(b) Albert Arnold "Al" Gore, Jr. (born March 31, 1948) is an American environmental activist AND POLITICIAN who served as the 45th Vice President of the United States from 1993 to 2001 under President Bill Clinton.

because the way it is written now seems to say that he is an environmentalist who happens to have been a Vice president and I don't think that is fair to say because he was a very influential politician, taking up much of his life, with many important things (I suggest the second change because much of his influential work (THE INTERNET) was as a congressman). BCapp 04:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BCapp (talkcontribs)

re: (a) - Since the sentence already says he served as "the 45th Vice President" ... adding "former vice president" would be redundant.
re: (b) - Someone who has served as vice president of the United States has obviously been a successful politician, so there's no reason to say the word. And since it appears that the first paragraph is focused primarily on his current life's work, the reference to his highest political office at the end of the first sentence is enough. NOTE: That the political career is summarized in the second paragraph.
Bottom line on this, I think, is that it's fair to say that it is standard practice in Wikipedia for biographies of living persons to let their current work lead the article. Not that there aren't exceptions to that, but since Al Gore has been successful enough as an environmentalist to have been awarded a Nobel prize, I think we can assume that it's fair to represent him in the light of his current work ... while immediately, of course, presenting (at the end of the first sentence) his success as an elected public servant. SO: It would not seem that the changes you would like to make would prevail in the eyes of other editors.
But, I think you can see, your views have not been ignored, even if they don't prevail this time. Cheers! :) Proofreader77 (talk) 11:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for being so polite. I'll try one more time to convince you and if not, I'll accept the editors don't agree. The sentence as it currently reads, says that he is an environmental activist who was Vice President. But this is not true. He served his government as a politician, not as an environmental activist. Do you see the difference? Am I crazy?
I am not trying to say that his political life isn't covered properly or in the right spots. It completely is, with the proper emphasis on his current activities. I am just saying that that sentence reads funny. Any who thanks again for being polite. Cheers BCapp 10:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BCapp (talkcontribs)
The sentence currently reads "...is an American environmental activist who served as the 45th Vice President of the United States from 1993 to 2001 under President Bill Clinton." The verb "to be" (is) establishes his current activity as an activist. It does not say that he served the government in this activity. The second part of the sentence talks about the past when he "served" as VP. I think that the sentence is fine. -Classicfilms (talk) 00:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay. I still think it sounds funny. But I said I would drop it after one more attempt and so I shall. Cheers BCapp 13:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BCapp (talkcontribs)

Nobel Prize

The first section says Al Gore is a Nobel Prize winner. This should be corrected to Nobel Peace Prize Winner as the current statement somehow leaves the impression that Al Gore was actually a scientist. Also, the Peace Price is in generally viewed in a completely different light, as there were frequently big controversies around the receivers (and more important their work), while for the scientific prizes, controversies generally arise only around the question, whether additional peersons should have been honored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.138.95 (talk) 02:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done. -Classicfilms (talk) 16:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


really

is he really on the apple board of directors? and is he really google's senior advisor?

Yes. [3] -Classicfilms (talk) 21:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Sengore.jpg may be deleted

I have tagged File:Sengore.jpg, which is in use in this article for deletion because it does not have a copyright tag. If a copyright tag is not added within seven days the image will be deleted. --Chris 07:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a "public domain" tag underneath the portrait. -Classicfilms (talk) 13:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Gore-Tex

Is Al Gore related to the owners of W. L. Gore and Associates? I heard this is were much of his wealth comes from, but I can't confirm it. Citizen Premier (talk) 20:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

You might want to review this link and read what Jimmy Wales has said about rumors and how edits should be made to WP articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence
-Classicfilms (talk) 23:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


Criticism of Al Gore

Why is there nothing in this article about the viable and very appropriate problems people have with the flaws in Al Gore's environmental policies. His science is very questionable and is not backed up by actual experts. I think this article is at least very misleading.

Whittakerchambers (talk) 15:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that you review Wikipedia:Five pillars. Statements such as: "His science is very questionable and is not backed up by actual experts" need to be backed up by Wikipedia:Verifiability rules. This means that you would need sources which fall under Wikipedia:Reliable sources that support every statement added to the article. Gore is certainly backed up by a number of scientists. [4] Criticism is always appreciated in articles, but it has to comply with Wikipedia guidelines. If you have reliable sources which discuss criticism of his policies, then add them to the article. -Classicfilms (talk) 16:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

However, what needs to be understood is that there are more than 32,000 scientists who disagree with Gore (who doesn't have a degree in science, and they are all scientists in fields dealing with "global warming"). The people reading this page cannot be misled like they have been. Gore is using the media to promote his views, while refusing to yield to actual experts. [1]

Whittakerchambers (talk) 23:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Add it to the main article as I stated above - it is always fair to add criticisms to maintain Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. What the petition indicates is that there are critics of Gore, it does not invalidate that he has supporters. -Classicfilms (talk) 23:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
The AAPS is a biased, conservative group. Just look at their news articles: trying to rescind mandatory vaccinations, conservative talking-point alarm at the stimulus bill, links to Americans for Prosperity "back-door government health care takeover" literature, etc. etc. etc. And where are these 32,000 purported signatures? What are their qualifications in the field of global climate change? What exactly makes them "scientists" and why does that alone qualify them to make this judgment over someone else? How does this number contrast to the number of "scientist" that support global warming? Most Ph.D.s are granted in the field of philosophy; how does that qualify anyone to comment on global warming more than anyone else? And having a Ph.D. after your name doesn't mean you can't be a nutcase.
Frankly, this is more of an attack on global warming than Al Gore. Gore is simply a well-know face of the movement and any questioning of global warming has nothing to do with the man's biography. DKqwerty (talk) 23:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Erm? Are we seriously going to consider the Oregon petition as a reliable source on a BLP? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
If I follow this reasoning re qualifications of scientists, and most Ph.Ds granted in philosophy, it would also follow that because most motor vehicles have 4 wheels and speed boats are motor vehicles, then most speed boats have 4 wheels. What good is it to provide a unlinked statistic like that, provide no references, and draw conclusions? Sheesh, if you don't do *some* leg-work, people won't take you seriously. You can see who has signed the petition here: http://www.oism.org/pproject/ I've done the work of finding you the names. I'll let you pick out the PhDs from the list and track down their fields of research. Just don't forget to compare it to the fields of research of those endorsing Al Gore's viewpoint. If your criticism fails to drive home points with **real** information, people like me who look for information supported by facts will see your argument for the house of cards it is.Yamagawa (talk) 22:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Guess what, the Kyoto treaty and the UN IPCC are also biased. They depend on the U.S. for funding, and so they spread alarmist, incendiary dialogue to further their cause. If you don't understand that, then you do not deserve to comment on this issue, DKquerty. Try to limit your comments to helpful ones, and stop bowing to the liberal establishment.

Whittakerchambers (talk) 01:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Al Gore and Pandeism

I am not sure where to request this so it is going multiple places.

Conservative blogger Mark Finkelstein recently labeled Gore (along with Barack Obama's true faith as Pan-deism. He critiqued a New York Times column by Gail Collins, which is why it is titled "Happy Pan-Deism Day From Gail Collins". Collins, so Finkelstein observes, noted the coincidence of Easter and Passover falling in the same week, and quotes the observation from Collins that "Americans with less religious inclinations can look forward to the upcoming Earth Day celebrations, when the president is planning to do something as yet unannounced, but undoubtedly special, and Arbor Day, when rumor has it that he will not just plant a tree, but personally reforest a large swath of the nation of Mali". Finkelstein relates that "environmentalism has essentially become a religion, and Earth Day effectively a religious holiday. Yesterday's pan-deists, who worshiped trees and brooks, have become members of various environmental groups doing much the same thing. People like Al Gore others, and perhaps the reforesting Obama, have become their latter day shamans."

So Finkelstein is saying is that Gore (along with Obama and other environmentalists) are pandeists. Based on his political pedigree, it's pretty clear he means that as an insult (his next comment is "These are the same people who tend to demand the strict separation of church and state. Yet they would have teachers indoctrinate children in their modern-day Church of Gaia in our public schools"). I personlly doubt that Obama or Gore is a pandeist, but is this speculation worthy of mention somewhere? 198.100.3.85 (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

For the Gore or Obama article? No, probably not, as it is pretty much a fringe position/argument , and one made by a blogger, which does not satisfy our reliable source articles. The notion that the devotion and preparations leading up to Earth Day is bordering on religiosity does seem like an intriguing topic, but unless the topic has received a bit more mainstream coverage and commentary, I don't think that is going to meet the notability and reliable source guidelines either. Are more sources than lone bloggers talking about it? Tarc (talk) 18:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I guess a blog just responding to this blog wouldn't count. I don't know how signifigant Mark Finkelstein is. I'm sure if Rush Limbaugh or Stephen Colbert said Gore and Obama were pandeists it would be more in line with what you're looking for, but I find nothing other than this one guy. 198.100.3.85 (talk) 18:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this gorepedia or WikiPedia?

How is there absolutely no criticism of this person. Why is his sons "accident" tied in with a book? Who wrote this wikipedia article, why is it permitted to be protected in the state it's in. It's one big complete PR blitz professionally written from start to end.

There is enough valid, verifiable criticism of gore to earn it's own Wikipedia page. This will be a new low if this type of activity is permitted.

Why not start the article, son of a coal miners wealth instead of environmental activist. Why not start it with his house blows through more resources then probably 10 families put together.

I know Wikipedia isn't the place to simply criticize but it's also not the place to have one big complete PR piece written for people.Woods01 (talk) 23:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

"In popular culuture" section

Why this article does not have one? For things like South Park cameo? This is just as important as official information is. Netrat (talk) 23:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Environmental activist article

Perhaps an environmental activist article can be made, this allows the biggest environmental activists to be added. See [5] Note that other documentary makers as Yann Arthus Bertrand can be listed too —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.172.175 (talk) 17:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

"Second presidential run (2000)" Section

Some UCLA professor says that Gore's claim that he "created the Internet" is an Urban legend, so Wikipedia completely buys this weak attempt at changing what Gore actually said? There is no opposing view? Since when does a UCLA professor from a far-left liberal school dictate what is an "urban legend" regarding a far-left liberal political figure?

Actual Gore quote - In context: CNN's "Late Edition" March 9, 1999. When asked to describe what distinguished him from his Bill Bradley of New Jersey for the Democratic Nomination, Gore replied:

"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

That's the quote. Gore said it - on national TV, 30 years after the Internet began. The only ones calling this an urban legend are the far-left blogs trying to cover it up.

I'm sorry, but the radical left-wing control of Wikipedia is getting far beyond blatant.

--216.114.194.20 (talk) 19:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

NOTE:
  • The article includes the exact quote ... in context.
  • The quote does not say "invented" (The "urban legend" was that "Gore claimed to have invented the internet.") The "noise" comes from his choice of phrasing "creating the Internet" in an impromptu answer on camera. (The "noise" also comes from people with their panties in twist screaming ARPANET=INTERNET ... etc etc)
  • The discussion following the exact quote is approximately 550 words long.
  • In the extended discussion of the phrasing: "Former Republican Speaker of the United States House of Representatives Newt Gingrich also stated: "In all fairness, it's something Gore had worked on a long time. Gore is not the Father of the Internet, but in all fairness, Gore is the person who, in the Congress, most systematically worked to make sure that we got to an Internet, and the truth is -- and I worked with him starting in 1978 when I got [to Congress], we were both part of a "futures group" -- the fact is, in the Clinton administration, the world we had talked about in the '80s began to actually happen."[101]
  • It is the habit of our culture to take every imperfect choice of phrasing of a public figure, and turn it into something of profound significance ... if that suits someone's purposes.
  • Gore did not put on his resume: "Invented the internet." He did not in a written speech say: "I invented the Internet." He did not in a commercial have someone say ... "I'm voting for Gore because he invented the internet."
  • Would it have been more felicitous to have chosen the phrasing "I took the political initiative in transforming the existing infrastructure developed for the military into a popular and useful feature of our civil society: the Internet" ... (or perhaps just: "I took the initiate in creating the Internet as we know it?") ... rather than briefly "I took the initiate in creating the Internet?" Perhaps but ...
Shouting "Gore is a big bragging liar ... claims he invented the Internet" is political rhetoric. It is not an encyclopedic examination of what he said. That is what the article contains—as it should. (Shouting things that aren't true may have gotten Bush into the White House, and America into Iraq, but not bullshit about Gore into Wikipedia. For B.S. you'll have to go to a conservative-worshiping article :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 21:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Al Gore Evironmental Record

Can the MSNBC reference be eliminated. countdown which is an opinion based show (and a misleading one) should not be considered a source. Also there is definite proof of Gore's Carbon footprint. Also his lack of knowledge has been documented by recognized authorities like Bjorn Lomberg in the Skeptical EnvironmentalistTannim1 (talk) 21:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

QUICK NOTES
  • The environmental section is supposed to be a summary of a main article ... The fact that a libertarian think tank's attacks on Gore's carbon footprint overwhelms this section in the main article is clearly WP:UNDUE ... but until this gets corrected, the factual investigation performed by Countdown provides necessary information to achieve NPOV. BOTTOM LINE: How many words are there about winning the Nobel Prize? (VS) How many words about BUT Gore is a hypocrite BECAUSE [libertarian think tank POV]?
  • IS THIS THE DESIRED SUMMARY? Gore may have won the Nobel Prize ... but Gore is a hypocrite because of his electricity bill (and don't confuse the issue with information that doesn't help make that point) ... and Gore is a know-nothing about the environment says environmental expert (who is knowledgeable enough to know Gore is a moron). MORE AMUSINGLY TO THE POINT As the wikipedia article says about Lomberg and his book:
[EDIT TO STRIKE THROUGH - Inappropriate subset of information leaving out rebuttal and controversial resolution. Proofreader77 (talk) 07:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)]
IN BRIEF: The section is a messy thing that needs lots of compression (since there is a main article) ... but in the meantime, it's a fairly fair balance for something that has no sense of proportion. OR: We can fix it—but you will probably like it less. :)
-- Proofreader77 (talk) 23:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

But using Countdown which is a notoriously one sided show should not be used as a reference.Tannim1 (talk) 08:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC) Lomberg is a member of the Green Insittute which is better credentials than Gore who has no scientific training and whose conclusions have been proven wrong.Tannim1 (talk) 09:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment: The Countdown quote states:
"Tonight, Countdown confirmed with the local utility officials that their program, called the Green Power Switch, actually costs more for the Gores—four dollars for every 150 kilowatt hours. Meaning, by our calculations, our math here, that the Gores actually chose to increase their electric bill by $5,893, more than 50 percent, in order to minimize carbon pollution."[191]
ABC News also states that Gore is a member of Green Power Switch
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=2906888
Nashville Electric Service does charge $4 dollars per 150 kilowatt hours according to its website:
http://www.nespower.com/green_power_switch.aspx
and the TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority)
http://www.tva.gov/greenpowerswitch/green_formres.htm
Since the facts of the Countdown quote are supported by other secondary sources, then I don't see the problem in keeping it.
-Classicfilms (talk) 16:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

That does not address Gore other energy useage, private plane etc., Also his lack of knowledge.Tannim1 (talk) 12:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

(Forgive me if this does not seem responsive. Not trying to be pointlessly wordy, or dismissive. Getting the balance right in political articles is very hard, and who likes hard work? Anyway ...) :Consider the Environmental section you are displeased with is approximately 1,100 words long—five hundred of which (nearly half) is about Gore's utility bill,i.e., hypocrisy—which you wish to see expanded to address other personal use of energy). Another 170 words go to a paragraph critical of an assertion Gore made in a talk—with the obvious implication that Gore is wrong (this implies stupidity or ignorance). Should there be mention of criticism that he received the Nobel Peace Prize in the context of environmentalism? Perhaps, but that would presupposed there was fuller discussion about why he got it. As I said, the section is absurdly out of proportion. Because of laziness (and other work), I'm letting it sit there in all its pathetic imperfection ... but if you insist, perhaps it can be rewritten — but bear in mind the alleged hypocrisy about his utility bill will be reduced to a sentence (the appropriate size of mention here given the existence of the subarticle).\
The issue of criticism of Gore's "lack of knowledge" must be addressed by (as the 170 word paragraph example shows) critiquing argument by argument rather than just, for example, quoting someone who might say Gore is a know-nothing. How much there should be of that in a encyclopedic biography is a complex matter, of course. Perhaps there is not enough in this one—but I can assure you the ideals of Wikipedia aim toward getting that balance right.
BOTTOM LINE: Perhaps the sub-article can be expanded to include criticism beyond the utility bill. This summary section in the main article can then include that, in proportion. What is here now ... is out of proportion. (Did I mention laziness? LOL) Since the main article Environmental section is so out of proportion (half about his utility bill?!?!), and you are wanting it more critical, the impression I have is that you will need to adjust your idea of what balance is to be happy around here. :) Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk) 07:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)