Talk:Al Gore/Archive 18

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19


Revamping of "Environmental criticism" section

I propose to revamp this section as follows. First, the initial paragraph should be deleted. It is not worthy of a concise Al Gore entry. The initial paragraph (intentionally or otherwise) distracts from the more pressing concerns. Second, subheadings need to be added. The subheadings will be: "Personal energy consumption"; "Conflicts-of-interest concerns"; and "Alleged scientific errors". The subheadings are meant to improve readability and the inclusion of new information as it becomes available. Greenwave37 (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Absolutely not (re subheadings) This is supposed to be a summary of the article Al Gore and the environment, I only put in a subtopic on Criticism to illustrate the whole section is way out of balance. It's 2 to one criticism now. That's absurd.

    That subtopic was specifically NOT intended as a catch-all for criticism, but a temporary measure to allow the balance to be achieved.
    --Proofreader77 (talk) 20:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Why "Absolutely not" subheadings? What is so threatening about subheadings? Do they not make the section clearer? I would agree with an opposition to putting a subheading above every paragraph; but here, the section has become too long and disorganized not to have subheadings. In any event, I am confused by the degree (i.e., "absolutely not") of opposition to including subheadings. Greenwave37 (talk) 20:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
"Absolutely" not ... because this is a summary of an existing article: Al Gore and the environment. Have you worked in an (NPOV) description there?

In any case be aware that the subtopic titles you have selected are POV (attack) subheadngs
* 6.1.1 Conflicts-of-interest concerns
* 6.1.2 Alleged skewing of data
* 6.1.3 Allegedly excessive personal-energy consumption...

Absolutely not. lol Proofreader77 (talk) 20:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to make "Conflicts-of-interest concerns" more neutral, or the subtitle: "Allegedly excessive personal-energy consumption." If you can think of a way to make these subtitles more neutral, please do so. I am sorry if you are frustrated that such concerns and allegations exist. If you don't think the concerns and allegations are legitimate, perhaps you can provide sources to support your viewpoint. Greenwave37 (talk) 21:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I agree with Proofreader77. As it stands this section is too long. It is meant to be a summary of the main article which is why we need the first paragraph. The section could use some work but in the area of turning it into summary of the main article. -Classicfilms (talk) 20:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
The first paragraph did not really summarize or introduce anything. It was just a rather useless paragraph about how ambitious Gore was. Greenwave37 (talk) 20:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I would have to disagree. It is a summary of various environmental involvements. -Classicfilms (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
A proper summary paragraph would say something like the following: "Four main environmental criticisms have been leveled at Gore: (1) his policies are too ambitious, (2) he has alleged conflicts of interest, (3) he has allegedly skewed data, and (4) he allegedly consumes excessive amounts of energy." The current opening paragraph is nothing more than an obvious smokescreen put up by non-neutral Gore supporters. Greenwave37 (talk) 20:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Please let's follow WP:CIVIL. The paragraph in question reads as follows:
"Gore has been involved in a number of environmental activities since 2004 when he co-launched Generation Investment Management, a company for which he serves as Chair. The company was "a new London fund management firm that plans to create environment-friendly portfolios. Generation Investment will manage assets of institutional investors, such as pension funds, foundations and endowments, as well as those of 'high net worth individuals,' from offices in London and Washington, D.C."[181] A few years later, Gore also founded The Alliance for Climate Protection, an organization which eventually founded the We Campaign. Gore also became a partner in the venture capital firm, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, heading that firm's climate change solutions group.[7][8]"
The suggestions above do not summarize this particular paragraph though certainly it can be shortened and summarized and is open to such. At the same time, there isn't sufficient reason to remove this verifiable information. As for criticism, the section contains quite a bit of it in order to maintain WP:NPOV. I am not against adding criticism so much as making sure that all the facts are available from multiple newssources.-Classicfilms (talk) 21:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. However, the initial paragraph to the "Environmental criticism" has actually read as the following:
"Some of Gore's talks have been the subject of criticism. In 2008, he gave a speech at the DAR Constitution Hall in Washington, D.C. in which he called for a move towards replacing a dependence upon "carbon-based fuels" with green energy by the United States within 10 years. Gore stated: "When President John F. Kennedy challenged our nation to land a man on the moon and bring him back safely in 10 years, many people doubted we could accomplish that goal. But 8 years and 2 months later, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on the surface of the moon."[188][189] Some criticized this plan. According to the BBC, "Robby Diamond, president of a bipartisan think tank called Securing America's Future Energy, said weaning the nation off fossil fuels could not be done in a decade. 'The country is not going to be able to go cold turkey [...] We have a hundred years of infrastructure with trillions of dollars of investment that is not simply going to be made obsolete.'"[190]" Greenwave37 (talk) 21:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok, it looks like we were talking about two different introductory paragraphs. Now that I am clear as to what you are referring to, I agree that the first paragraph of the section should summarize all of its elements, though it should be written in a way which both includes the criticism and the rebuttals to the criticism to maintain WP:NPOV. -Classicfilms (talk) 22:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Reworking environmental section

Great. Let's work together to improve this. There is one more recurring criticism (#5) that I believe is worth mentioning: the repeated allegation that Gore will not debate or respond to questions. There does seem to be some validity to this allegation. Although, Gore has opened himself up to questioning by Senators on a couple of occasions.
What is the clearest and most neutral way to organize this? Should there be a separate page for this? Should there be subheadings to guide the reader? Perhaps the most neutral way to phrase the intro paragraph would be to list the 5 major allegations in one sentence, and then follow up with a second sentence clarifying that all five allegations have been challenged or are disputed ... In any event, let's make sure to include the British High Court ruling, as I think that has become a key point of discussion. Thank you for working with me to provide complete, objective, non-trivial information that people searching for "Al Gore" want to read. Greenwave37 (talk) 06:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Ok, there are a number of ideas to work with here. I do want to point to the statements made above that the entire section on the environment in this article should just be a summary of the main article Al Gore and the environment - which is why comments were made above that the current environment section is long for a summary. In saying that I am not advocating one way or another for having or not having criticisms. Criticisms are always a part of Wikipedia articles. What I do think we need to consider is whether this amount of information belongs in the biography or the subarticle. It seems to me that one way to do this might be to focus on the main article, develop it and then make the environmental section simply a summary of all main points in the article. Does that make sense? I also think that a number of editors need to work on this information. Remember also that we are obligated to follow all the rules of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons - which is why we need to be rigorous in our fact finding and language. That being said I think that most editors here agree that the entire environmental section needs to be redone and should contain a balance of non-criticism along with criticism. So you might want to take a look at the main article, see how that can be developed and then return to this article for summary. That's just my feedback. Perhaps other editors can contribute as well. -Classicfilms (talk) 06:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

In the interest of full disclosure, I do want to admit that I am a former liberal who has spent an extraordinary amount of time studying global warming, and I've come to the conclusion that Gore is a complete fraud: 100%. However, I seek to make my edits as neutral as possible. I do want the wording to reflect the truth; whatever it might be. Greenwave37 (talk) 08:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Everyone is welcome to edit in the Wikipedia. The goal is to understand the rules which govern how we edit and communicate here. So, it may be helpful in contributing to articles and so forth to review Wikipedia:Five pillars which gives an overview of how contributions are made. No one should feel obligated to state personal beliefs - in fact, it might be useful to review what the Wikipedia is not or WP:NOT#FORUM. Another important area to review is Wikipedia:Conflict of interest to make certain that regardless of personal beliefs from any aspect of any article, an editor feels confident that s/he can contribute according to Wikipedia's rules. As I said above, the only thing to worry about with any biography is that we carefully follow not only the rules I mention above but Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Any editor who has reviewed all of these sets of rules, understands them and is willing to work within the expectations of the rules is welcome to edit here.
On a different topic, in terms of how to rewrite the entire environmental section, this page is worth reviewing: Wikipedia:Summary style. It goes over the way in which a summary for a main article section should be put together and its relationship with the main article. It's a lot to review at first but all of these rules help to create better articles. -Classicfilms (talk) 14:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Classicfilms, thanks for your help! I am going to read all of this and make constructive, neutral edits no later than Dec. 26th. Greenwave37 (talk) 16:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
OK, I think I've improved the section my making in clearer, more-neutral, and less redundant. Anyone, please don't hesitate to make neutral improvements as needed. The part about his utility bill is still quite lengthy (at 3 paragraphs), but I wasn't sure what to cut. I hope you like the changes. Greenwave37 (talk) 03:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

How do you explain that Gore served only four months in the army and got an honorable discharge? Musicwriter (talk) 03:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not familiar with this criticism. Is there an issue here? Is this a common concern? Greenwave37 (talk) 00:52, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for new section - Gaffs by Al Gore

I was wondering if it would be ok to add such a section, al is kinda well know for making absolutely outlandish claims such as the temp of the earth a few miles down is 10k degrees, or that the climategate e-mails were ten years old. I am sure there are others but before i go diging them out i`d like to know if such a section would be allowed? Ta thanks for any input :) --mark nutley (talk) 19:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

no ~ DC (Talk|Edits) 21:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Any reasons as no why "no", a reason would be nice :) --mark nutley (talk) 21:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
(Excuse DC, obviously woke up on the taciturn side of the bed this morning. :-) ... Perhaps one way to think of it is to look at George W. Bush and see if there is a section for Bush-isms. Bottom line is that usually an encyclopedia would not include a collection of the incidences of "mis-speaking" (might soon overwhelm all the rest of human knowledge. lol) Cheers, and Merry Christmas. Proofreader77 (talk) 22:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Ya i see what you mean, i had not thought of that. Perhaps a new article, Gaffs of the rich and famous :) --mark nutley (talk) 22:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Now you're talking. lol Have a wonderful 2010. ^;^ Proofreader77 (talk) 22:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Article probation

Please note that, by a decision of the Wikipedia community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Posting signatures?

Just one question - isn't it dangerous in the sense of a threat of an abuse to post someone's official signature on the wiki page? I suppose it would be more appropriate to put a segment of hand writing instead. Nick897 (talk) 11:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Was he ever Acting President?

Did he ever act as president after Clinton was impeached in 1998? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

No, he was never officially made acting president. Likely at some point people followed his lead in Clinton's absence, but that wouldn't be uncommon for vice presidents. If Clinton had been fully impeached than Gore would have served out the rest of his term according to the US constitution, but Clinton was only ever impeached by one house of congress so it had no effect. (talk) 03:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)Bernard

This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Thanks! Western Pines (talk) 06:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Inventor of the Internet?

Shouldn't Al Gore's invention of the Internet be mentioned here? After all, this website wouldn't exist if not for him. (talk) 19:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I second that motion!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Vietnam section is repetitive and weighty. Why no criticisms section?

The Vietnam section says the same thing over and over about Gore not wanting someone else to go to Vietnam in his place. Additionally, most of the section gives NPOV#Undue_weight to the decisions made by Gore to go; it reads like whoever wrote it wanted you to empathize with him -- not very encyclopedia like. Could someone please clean this up?

Also, why no criticisms section? - Gunnanmon (talk) 17:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It has the same number of criticism sections as George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, or even Dick Cheney. That seems fair enough. In general, explicit criticism sections are discouraged, as they attract fluff and make it hard to properly contextualize criticism. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Draft Lottery Number

If you follow the link regarding draft lottery number, you will discover that the first draft lottery was held on December 1, 1669 which is after Al Gore enlisted. At the time of his enlistment, individual draft boards selected men to be drafted based on their age, oldest first. So as a recent college graduate, Gore would have been slated for selection earlier than most of the other men yet to be drafted, typically those without student deferments upon their graduation from high school. The loss of his college student deferment would indeed have put him at the front of the line for selection, so graduation brought with it a need to make an immediate choice. The options available included enlistment, National Guard or Reserve duty, flight to Canada, medical deferment (4-F), enrollment in Divinity School etc. Gore chose enlistment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Recent edit

Sorry about that, I was doing a little sandbox test and accidentally saved. --Simfan34 (talk) 15:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Supreme Court

Why does the mention of the Supreme Court up top only cite the 5-4 decision? There was a 7-2 decision finding fault with the Florida Supremes and a 5-4 decision on the remedy; the article clearly omits the readily-available additional info, and suggests that the Supremes decided the election when all the recounts gave the (ultimately way too close for definitive resolution) Florida vote to the Smirker. Why would it do that? Oh yeah, I forgot, everybody gets NPOV, but some get it more equally than others. This site is an elaborate fraud, sadly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The introduction says "the only time in history the Court may have determined the outcome of a presidential election.[5]"

This is very inappropriate to be in the introduction because it is an opinion. Other opinions exists, like it was the Florida Secretary of State that determined the election. This opinion should be removed. If it is explained in the text of the article along with other major opinions, it is possibly ok. But to state one opinion in the intro is bad. Otherwise, one could get a reference for many opinions, just read the editorial page of any newspaper. RIP Gary Coleman (talk) 03:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, with RIP Gary Coleman. That sentence does not belong in the intro, especially that of a bio. The purpose of the intro, after all, is to summarize the subject. Also agree that multiple sources, rather than a single editorial, is needed if it is to be included in the article at all.--JayJasper (talk) 16:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The Gore Effect AfD

The Gore Effect, an article related to this one, has been proposed for deletion. Comments are invited at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gore Effect‎. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The result of the AfD was "keep". I don't think that the other article warrants a mention in the text of this one but since we seem to agree that they are related I have added a See also section with a wiki link to the other. --Rush's Algore (talk) 07:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Alleged affair

New information will probably be fast and furious, but the fact that it is now being discussed by news organizations and talk radio make it important to note, regardless of how things shake out.grifterlake (talk) 19:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but no, this would be in violation of a few WP policies. At the present stage, Star Magazine has made an allegation without evidence as noted by U.S.A. Today:
which amounts at this stage to rumor or speculation. The WP has strict policies prohibiting either - see WP:NOTGOSSIP. In addition, this is a BLP, or Biography of Living Person. According to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons:
Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.
Unless this changes, the information does not belong here.-Classicfilms (talk) 20:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Another reason to avoid speculation here:
-Classicfilms (talk) 20:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree. PhilKnight (talk) 01:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree. This is a biography, not a news article. Once the sensationalism of the accusation dies down and we learn whether or not there is actually anything to them, the issue could be revisited. --B (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Gore's alleged COI as green-tech investor and advocate of taxpayer funding of it

Wikipedia editor KeptSouth has tagged the following sentence as being in dispute: "He has been accused of a having a conflict-of-interest for simultaneously investing in green-energy technologies while advocating for their taxpayer subsidization." I think this tag should be removed. I don't think this is in reasonable dispute. There have been countless articles, videos, et cetera, discussing this potential conflict of interest. Gore was even questioned for his connection to Kliener Perkins during a U.S. congressional hearing in November 2009. While the citation provided doesn't specifically use the words "conflict of interest," there is no question that this is exactly what the article suggests. The citation does provide the following question from a Congresswoman to Gore: "The legislation that we are discussing here today, is that something that you are going to personally benefit from?" So, how is it disputed that this allegation has been made? The quote is right there in perfect English. Thanks for your input. (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I am going to remove KeptSouth's tag right now. (talk) 15:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


With all of the countless high-res photos of Gore available, including his official photo from when he was VP, how much sense does it make to use an off-center low-res photo where he is not looking at the camera? While he has obviously aged considerably since he was in office, I think we usually use official photos for former Presidents and VPs, even if we have more recent ones available. See Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Dan Quayle, George H. W. Bush, Walter Mondale, etc. All of them use their official photos from when they were in office, even though there are plenty of PD or otherwise free photos of them in their older ages. --B (talk) 15:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I like the new (or old) photo that is now posted. Leave it as is. (talk) 11:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I think a current photo should be used for living persons. There should be no automatic preference for official photos. After any subject's death, I think it is fine to go back and pick a nice photo from anywhere in his or her life. There's some 1975-era photo by Alan Greenspan that someone replaced a recent one with, and I disagree with that. I also definitely think this Al Gore article should have a more recent photo than the 16-year-old picture there now. DanielM (talk) 10:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I prefer the reversion back to the official VP photo, keeping in line with similar articles. Even though Jimmy Carter has had far more impact on the world in the decades since his 1-term presidency, the infobox photo still retains his official picture. More recent images of Gore can be used in sub-sections, or related article, as needed. Tarc (talk) 13:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Tarc's reasoning here - newer pictures are appropriate in the sections, but the infobox should use the official veep pic. Tvoz/talk 18:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I personally am of the opinion that a current picture would be better. If presidents have pictures from the time they were president that would also be the time they got most of their media coverage. Doesn't Gore get more media coverage since he won the noble peace price, made a movie, became very active as an environmentalist? As I think the time much later than him being a vice president got covered much more by the media and so got much more attention by regular citizens I think a picture from this time would also be appropriate as the top picture of this article. As he is pretty much still at the hight of his media attention it seems to me a recent picture makes sense. I don't want to persuade anybody into my opinion but thought this might be interesting as an argument also for others to consider. -Orangwiki (talk) 20:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
And I don't think comparison to other presidents and vice presidents helps very much here. If someone is dead you don't put a picture here of the last year before their death but one at the hight of their career or when they where in office. If someone currently holds office like Obama or Biden, then the current picture of course is the choice. If someone was president and is now 85 years old, of course it makes more sense to put a picture from the hight of their career (like Jimmy Carter). So who was US president or vice president and is now age somewhere below 75 years? May be five people ore less? George W. Bush - picture is still recent enough because his term just ended last year. So I think it is required here to argue individually for Al Gore. Has any other president or vice president ever gained more media attention after their term then during their term, besides Al Gore? I don't think Jimmy Carter has. So here we face the tough Wikipedia decision, shall we apply a rule former US president or vice president always gets the photo from the time in office and it will never get changed (of course talking about the top picture of the article)? Or do we decide such a rule does not make sense and we consider every case individually? --Orangwiki (talk) 21:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
If someone asks you "Who is Al Gore?", for example someone who visits the US from another country, what would you respond at first? Would you say Al Gore is an environmental activist? Or would you say Al Gore is the former vice president of the US? Or would you say Al Gore is a nobel peace price winner? I think whatever the majority of the people would respond describing Al Gore is the time that the picture should represent. If the majority would say "environmental activist" I think this article should have a recent picture as his activities about this were most intense in recent years. If the majority would respond with "former vice president" I think then the official picture as vice president would be best. --Orangwiki (talk) 22:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Fred Lucas report

A user has tried to delete a citation to a very well-balanced report on Gore by Fred Lucas, of the Capital Research Center. The report is available on a website titled "". The deleting author says that this website is not credible. HOWEVER, the Wikipedia citation is not to information authored by this website. The only reason "" is part of the citation is because this website is hosting the Fred Lucas report. If anyone knows of an alternative website link to the Lucas report, than by all means, add it. Otherwise, I think the citation should be left as is. I think that if you read the Lucas report you will see that it is very well balanced and Lucas's assertions are well sourced. He does highlight Gore's alleged conflict of interest with the green technology, but it is by no means an attack piece. Yankey504 (talk) 18:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

If this is to be believed, then find it hosted somewhere other than a Scribd notation on an extremely partisan attack site. Tarc (talk) 18:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough, I did a Google search and found several other sites hosting this. I will change the link from "" to "", which appears to have the most readable version. In any event, there isn't anything "unbelievable" about the report. It is from 2008, and mostly reports things that those who are familiar with Gore already know. Also, it's not an attack piece, as I already mentioned. Yankey504 (talk) 18:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
It looks like it is WP:SELFPUB and not suitable for use on WP. --FormerIP (talk) 00:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a Rah-Rah piece

This haplessly hopeless thread has been around for six months and has not come close to improving the article. Time to shut down the forum.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This article is a cheerleader piece for Al Gore that could benefit by some objective editing. The whole piece looks like it was written up by Gore's PR staff.

Statements such as "Some have cited" are given without detail, then the undetailed accusations are refuted by statements such as "Gore has denied" without any details as well, as though Gore's denial is proof enough that the accusations are baseless.


Gore's involvement in environmental issues has also been the subject of criticism. Some have cited "conflict of interest," labeling him a "carbon billionaire." [189] Gore has denied that he is a "carbon billionaire." [190] Others have questioned the validity of his data, such as the High Court of Justice which argued that there were "nine significant errors" in the film, An Inconvenient Truth.[191] Gore responded by suggesting that the ruling was in his favor.[192]

I'm not even sure what the last sentence in that example (taken from the Wiki page) is supposed to imply. Is it denial? Counterpoint? Is it even accurate?

The entire article is laden with praise and positive points from top to bottom, with no acknowledgment of the potential for legitimate criticisms.


"...some have criticized Gore for his personal use of electricity, stating that he has large electricity bills.[193][194] Gore's spokesperson responded by stating that the Gores use renewable energy which is more expensive than regular energy."

First of all, again, I was under the impression that it was discouraged in Wikipedia entries to use such identifiers such as "Some have" as opposed to actually naming who "Some" refers to specifically. But the main point of this quoted text is to say an objective text should not only say that "some" criticize his personal use of electricity and then defend it, but should also acknowledge that it is excessive to own three homes, one of which is over 10,000 square feet, while gathering accolades as a proponent for the individual sacrifices that must be made in the name of fighting global warming and the coming doom he has predicted. Renewable energy or not, environmentally retrofitted or not, a 10,000 square foot house and two additional homes consume much more energy than the needs of the average American citizen he is calling upon to take up the fight against global warming.

Bottom line: This article is a spin piece.

My suggestion is to remove the criticisms and praise altogether and just leave the actual facts minus the interpretations (opinions) of praise or critique. Don't include undetailed criticisms and it's not necessary to provide undetailed counterpoints. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done I have removed some of the "somes" and added a few specifics on the criticisms and Gore's denials, per this discussion and WP:wta KeptSouth (talk) 08:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. In an effort to bring relevant facts to this article, I have edited the Vice Presidential section to describe the $100's of millions in US federal budget cuts made by Clinton & Gore, reducing environmental enforcement and reducing environmental cleanups. For example, the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) site had some of the worst radioactivity and High Explosives contamination in the USA from WW2 and the Cold War. Clinton and Gore cut LANL's Environmental Restoration (ER) Program's budget from it's high of $100 under the first Bush Administration, cut down to a level ($27 million)that supported only govt employee salaries, leaving no money for clean-ups & sampling of contaminated sites across LANL. Clinton-Gore cut federal environmental clean-up spending across the US, as evidenced by the dramatic reduction in sampling at contaminated DOD & DOE sites, causing 2/3 of the US environmental lab community to go out of business between 1993-1998, due to the dramatic drop in federal environmental clean-ups. I was an official at a large environmental lab that did work at all but 2 of the major US DOE sites, and the local and regional DOE officials and scientists were muzzled by their Washington management at the time. While I was working on a multi-million $ drinking water clean-up project in Kiev, Ukraine, Oct 1993, Al Gore personally negotiated visited Kiev and negotiated a deal eliminating the funding local USAID environmental projects, to pay for an agreement for the US to pay $60 million in Ukraine's previous year's unpaid fuel bills in return for "privatization" efforts by Kuchma & the Ukrainian Govt. Our USAID office manager made it very clear that Mr. Gore had to immediately take all of our Ukrainian environmental funding and other Newly Independent State's environmental project's funding to pay for his agreement with Kuchma. For the person who keeps deleting this information, look up the LANL ER budget from 1990 - 2000 and you can read the results for yourself. I currently do not have access to Govt. records, but a simple review of DOE and DOD environmental spending budgets during the Clinton Gore administration will prove the veracity of the facts that Clinton-Gore slashed federal spending on environmental clean-ups at contaminated DOD & DOE sites in an effort to reduce the deficits and balance the budget.The Good Doctor Fry (talk) 23:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Removed as unsourced. Please provide reliable sources for additions you make. Vsmith (talk) 23:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

NY Times December 20, 1994 reported "...senior Clinton Administration officials explained the broad details of proposed budget cuts in energy, transportation and housing programs, ... Of the $10.6 billion the Energy Department has proposed to cut, $4.4 billion is in its environmental budget. "

Does a $4.4 billion dollar planned cut by Clinton Gore, a cut in DOE environmental spending merit mention? I currently am outside the United States and do not have access to Federal Govt. Budget and Los Alamos official records, but I was working there during that period, and the Environmental Restoration budget at LANL was definitely cut from $100 million under the first Bush president, and LANL's environmental clean-ups ground to a halt under Clinton-Gore. A lack of sources does not change the facts. Gore's secret deal with Kuchma that cut US environmental spending in Eastern Europe will be more difficult to document, but no less true. Our company had $1 million and $5 million dollars cut from promised contractual funding on projects that I personally managed. (talk) 02:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Another description of Gore-Clinton's ongoing plans slashing environmental clean-up funding: Jan 21, 1996 "Deep in the fine print of President Clinton's seven-year balanced-budget plan is a little zinger that might surprise supporters impressed by his vow to protect education and environmental programs. In the seventh year, Clinton proposes even deeper cuts in domestic programs than Republicans are proposing in their balanced-budget plan. By that time, he would be out of office, even if he were elected to a second term. The $110 billion in cuts in programs subject to annual spending bills, such as education, environment and defense, is the critical element that tips Clinton's plan into balance in 2002. "

It is clear the Clinton-Gore had motive, intent, ability, and authority to cut environmental clean-up spending. Still looking for the written proof with only crummy internet access. Anyone out there interested in something more factual than the current politically-correct but less-than-factual portrayal of Gore's record on environmental spending? I've pointed to the places where Gore actually cut clean-up budgets - who wants to dig (since I have no good shovel)? The Good Doctor Fry (talk) 13:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The sentence in the opening segment 'It was the only time in history that the Supreme Court may have determined the outcome of a presidential election.' is inaccurate and biased at best. It should read 'It was the only time in history the Supreme Court was called upon to make a ruling regarding a presidential election.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to comment on the same topic regarding the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court did not "vote" or "determine the outcome", but held that Florida had the right to certify its election results after 3 recounts all showed George W Bush won the election. Please correct this section as it seems terribly partisan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed! This article shows the worst of Wikipedia. It is way too long, and just one huge love-in. I now understand why it was Al Gore who invented the Internets. Never in history has one man done so much in one lifetime (and he could have another 30 years left in him. God help us! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Where is the information on the Oregon sexual abuse allegations??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

In the archieves as the case was closed.TMCk (talk) 21:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand there is no mention of the Oregon sexual abusal allegations. Why is this not included in the article? I notice that the articles about Lou Dobbs and Meg Whiteman both substantial sections on allegations of illegal immigrants working for them, but there is no mention of the sexual abuse allegations by Gore. Is this another case of biased reporting in Wikepedia or is there a logical and unbiased explanation of it? A section should be added to the Gore article about the Orgegon allegations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

This article is extremely biased. It needs to be reworked to abide by Wikepedia standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It's being guarded by fans who fiercely remove anything that's not to their liking. The latest proof would be the allegations of Al's affair with Laurie David, which were covered by reliable sources and, as clearly stated in WP:BLP, need to be included in the biography as such. They are being removed without proper explanations, other than "it's tabloidish" (although Wikipedia states that mere pointing at policies or calling something "trivial" or "undue" won't suffice) or "if it contains the word rumor it will be removed on sight". Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Why are those 'fans' then not being blocked and prevented from editing and changing the article?? Doesn't Wikepedia have some basic standards that they must follow? There are many other articles - as I mentioned Lou Dobbs and Meg Whitman - that have 'accusations' which have been leveled at them included in the article. And I would not say the Al Gore article should say 'he raped a woman while in Oregon', but it should include a comment that a police report was submitted to Oregon police. The George W Bush article includes comments about accusations he improperly got excused from the National Guard. We need to stay civil in our discussion, but gross biased changing of articles should not be allowed on Wikepedia - otherwise accusations of its liberal bias will become confirmed and its impact greated reduced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I just found something called 'Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents'. At that site you can report and deal with administrators who are acting improperly. They advised that before I report any improper actions to them, that I first discuss it with the administor directly. Therefore, I am writing this to discuss this article with you. This article is very biased. Look through some of the comments and you will see many people expressing grave concern regarding it. If you would like to discuss it we can - otherwise I will report it to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. (Please understand, that is not a 'threat', just wanting to inform you of that ahead of time because I want to be fair to you and deal with this in a proper way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention the blatant lie that Gore never claimed he invented the internet. Any posts proving he made that statement are promptly removed, and even carefully cleand from the Talk pages.

Actual Gore quote - In context: on CNN's "Late Edition" March 9, 1999. When asked to describe what distinguished him from 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 exact 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. The Wikipedia description of it is nothing but running around finding quotes from people who felt Gore supported commercial expansion of the internet, and completely ignoring that he DID make the above quote. I hop there's no students taking this WP misinformation and liberal re-writing of history at face value in their studies. -- (talk) 03:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

You, just like many others, have warped and taken out of context a very old and tired interview. Back away from the dead horse and find something better to do. Tarc (talk) 03:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I quoted the EXACT quote IN CONTEXT, in Gore's OWN WORDS. Still not sufficient to get the liberal moderators to stop trying to re-write history, apparently. -- (talk) 04:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Al Gore did not claim to literally be the inventor of the internet; it was a poorly-phrased response on his part to a question which has, again, been warped and taken completely out of context by partisan hacks for years now. Your similarly warped take on the matter will not be appearing in the article. Tarc (talk) 13:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
You have just exposed exactly the bias I am talking about. You are saying it is up to some WP liberal moderator to make an excuse for Gore's response as "poorly phrased", rather than the article standing on what he actually said. You are saying that a liberal moderator can simply dismiss "inconvenient statements" of their favorite politicians with a wave of a hand, and make an excuse on the part of their hero to keep it out of WP. Is WP's purpose to document the actual statement, or to publish a liberal moderators personal analysis of it? Unbelievable.-- (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually, no. Wikipedia's purpose in this article is not to document statements, that's what newspapers are for. Our purpose here in the main article is to write a biographical piece about a person's whole life and career, not to cherrypick one comment that puts an individual in a bad - or a good - light, for some other agenda. (And by describing the editors here as "liberal moderators", you reveal your own biases, which don't belong here.) There is an entire article on Gore's involvement with information technology, clearly linked in the relevant section here, which if you were actually interested in presenting a comprehensive picture of this indivudual, you would have read and seen how detailed its explanation of this faux controversy is. Tarc is right - not here. Tvoz/talk 22:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
So, a videotape of someone in their own words making a statement is not a reliable citation, but a liberal journalists analysis of it is. So goes the story of WP - poisoning our history.-- (talk) 23:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
As I said above, it was a verbal gaffe. No one outside of the truly lunatic believes that Al Gore made a literal claim to have invented the Internet. People have taken his words and used them as a sort of punchline, a source of ridicule. When Dan Quayle said "Republicans understand the importance of bondage between a mother and child", which do you believe; did he advocate for parent-child S&M activity, or did he mean to speak of the importance of parent-child bonds? Tarc (talk) 00:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Sanctions against South Africa

Add something about Gore's pressure on South Africa to stop using AIDS medication that was cheaper than American made medication. I don't care about wikipedia enough to do it but it should not be omitted

If you don't care, why should I? --FormerIP (talk) 00:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Unless you can locate a reliable source that can verify what you assert, there is no point in even mentioning it. What the person who started this section is saying amounts to "I am too lazy to gossip, can you do it for me?" Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Should we remove the nearly full page of discussions...

w/rgd Hagerty's allegations above, per blp?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 02:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Usually that part remains as the discussion reflects what the editors debated in good faith and should be preserved for the record. Eventually it will be archived; ergo, no reason for its deletion. ----moreno oso (talk) 02:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree w/moreno oso that the discussion should not be removed. It could be argued that some of the debate was not in good faith, but why bother?KeptSouth (talk) 07:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
We can archive the talk page whenever we want - this is at the editors' discretion - so yes, we can do it now to satisfy BLP concerns. Note that archiving does preserve it for the record - there is no reason to keep it plain view. And considering the length of this talk page, all the more reason to do a manual archive. (See WP:ARCHIVE). Tvoz/talk 07:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Agree w/Tvoz - it should all be archived manually, which would preserve it for the record, and satisfy BLP concerns.— KeptSouth (talk) 08:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Agree with all. Another option I'd recommend is {{collapse top}} {{collapse}} {{collapse bottom}} or even better {{hat}} {{hab}} on all the sections with/concerning the BLP issue. HAT/HAB would be preferred. ----moreno oso (talk) 10:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Done - see Talk:Al Gore/Archive 19 Tvoz/talk 16:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Laurie David

The affair rumor was covered (and promptly denied) by several reliable sources, which quote Laurie David herself, as well as some of the Gores' friends. Any good reason for excluding this? Just to remind everyone, pointing at policies won't suffice. Here's a quote from WP:BLP that supports the addition:

  • Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but The New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing The New York Times as the source. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 15:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
If you have to preface an edit to a WP:BLP with "It was rumored..." it will in all likelihood be removed. Swiftly. Tarc (talk) 15:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Changed the wording. Now you need to adhere to BLP and leave the addition alone. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Clearly, you haven't... apparently, when BLP is backing me up, the excuse changes to WP:UNDUE. Quote please? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
First, your quote of BLP doesn't apply. Your sources are a mass-market tabloid gossip column (the NYDN) and a web site (the HuffPo), both of them denying a story that appeared in a supermarket tabloid (the Star). Not good enough. Second, the matter is entirely trivial, and not WP:WEIGHTy enough for a necessarily brief biography. The stuff stays out. PhGustaf (talk) 16:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh. Your BLP quote posited that the allegations were published in The New York Times. The allegations were published by Star. Can you perceive the difference? PhGustaf (talk) 17:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Some people have a vague to no idea of what a tabloid is – here's your answer. The NY Daily News has won ten Pulitzer prizes and is widely known as a reliable source. As for the Huffington Post, same applies – well known as reliable. Did you know that some blogs are even used as a source for Google news and such? And as for "the matter is entirely trivial" – how do you back up this claim? Oh, and by the way, the New York times is only used as an example for any source. I can remove the Star magazine reference – it still leaves two reliable sources that published the allegation. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Your NYDN cite is from their gossip column, which didn't win no Pulitzers. The allegation, as opposed to its denials, appeared only in the Star (which you, to your credit, didn't cite), which likely once asserted Gore was an alien. PhGustaf (talk) 17:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually it was mentioned in the New York Times here. But, as Hear said, the NYT is simply used as an example. You're not suggesting that the NYT is the only reliable source that can be used in Wikipedia, are you? The Huffington Post has been deemed reliable on WP:RSN Drrll (talk) 17:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm by no means asserting that the NYT is the only good source, and I agree that HuffPo is good too. I'm just pointing out that the original assertion, as opposed to its denials, appeared only in the Star. Tarc's point below is sound as well. Sorry for being so unclear. PhGustaf (talk) 17:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
That's true about the denials being in the HuffPo & NYT, but not the accusations. My question is whether there is WP policy that prohibits using gossip columns of otherwise reliable sources like the NYDN. BTW, based upon the WP:BLP policy quoted by Hear and based on the fact that accusations were widely reported in reliable sources, the Oregon sexual assault charges should be included (of course with the denials and with the news that the DA dropped the case). Drrll (talk) 17:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether there's a formal policy about it, but good judgment would preclude using gossip columns as sources about, well, gossip, which is what this matter is. We discussed the Oregon matter before and decided to leave it out, but apparently someone took the discussion out as WP:BLP in itself. PhGustaf (talk) 18:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I guess I understand that, but I'm a little disappointed in a way as the Oregon incident (whatever it was) was clearly alluded to in the last episode of The Good Wife so I was interested in a refresher on the actual facts of it.--T. Anthony (talk) 00:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Sourcing alone isn't the issue; not everything that is printed by a reliable source is fit for inclusion in an article, as noted above by WP:UNDUE, which serves as a barrier for reprinting every gossip, innuendo, charge, and rumor about public figures in their respective Wikipedia articles. Tarc (talk) 17:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
It's an excuse. I specifically cited BLP for such cases, you're just repeating the words "undue" and "weight". Perhaps WP:Arguments to avoid would be a good refresher for all those who insist on excluding this piece of information. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
We simply don't give weight to fringe rumours in wikipedia articles, especially biographies. And since we're not having a deletion discussion here, a pointer to that page is, um, pointless. Tarc (talk) 18:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
So why is it a "fringe rumor" – other than a collection of personal opinions? WP:BLP allows affair allegations to be included in biographies, as long as they are covered by reliable sources, and here you can see at least three. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Apple Inc?

Hi, this article is protected, I cannot modify it. Could someone please remove the link to "Book:Apple Inc" at the end of the article? It has nothing to do with Al Gore. Thanks (talk) 08:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

As a member of Apple's Board of Directors, this article is included in the Apple, Inc. book; thus the link at the end of the article. Rishi.bedi (talk) 05:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


Al Gore provides the voice for himself in the TV show Futurama. Should this be mentioned, and if so, then where? --Kierkk (talk) 01:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest a list of Gore's media endeavors, i.e writing and appearances. There is a brief sampling in the fourth paragraph at the opening of the article, but no comprehensive list.
Beside his more serious contributions, his work on Futurama puts him in the same class as full-time media professionals. Kid Bugs (talk) 03:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

TED talks

This article doesn't mention Al Gore's association with TED. Could someone add it, please? Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 12:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Isn't It True That?

Isn't it true that Gore dropped out of law school with failing grades (i.e., that he had to drop out before flunking out)? Wikipedia generally favors the liberal viewpoint, so perhaps this was edited out of the article, but it would be better to simply print the facts rather than spin them to make Gore look more scholarly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Surely instead of whining, you could find a reliable source to cite this and add it? Dainamo (talk) 18:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Supreme Court Deciding the ELection

This article says "It was the only time in history that the Supreme Court may have determined the outcome of a presidential election." I'm not sure if this is 100% true, since some Supreme Court justices helped decide the results of the 1876 presidential election. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The sentence should be removed regardless. With the 'may' is obviously is admitting it is not factual. It could say something like: The election was the first time in history where the Supreme Court was called up to make a ruling regarding a presidential election. Though even that I am not sure is true. Rodchen (talk) 01:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

This sentence is clearly a political one. To expand on what the Supreme Court ruled on would be appropriate, but you chose to instead only include a shortened version, which makes it seem like the Supreme Court 'gave' the presidency to George W Bush. The Court ruled that the Florida Supreme Court's method for recounting ballots was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, that is the hand picking of what areas to recount. Only solidly democratic ones, and not republican ones? I think a proper sentence should be something like " The Supreme Court ruled that the recounting ballots in only solidly democratic districts was a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th ammendment. The hand recounts did go on however, under the direction of various media outlets, who found that even after 3 subsequent times, that George W Bush still won the election" By the way, I got all this information from searching individual Wikipedia pages... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Dr Mahathir Mohamed & Anwar Ibrahim

Dr Mahathir bin Mohamed was Prime Minister of Malaysia from 1981 to 2003, but he was never President as Malaysia is not a republic but a constitutional monarchy.

Anwar bin Ibrahim was Dr Mahathir's deputy from 1993 to 1998. The "bin" in these two names means "son of" and is not part of a surname. Malays have no surnames. Therefore, a Malay name should always be shortened to the first name rather than the last name, because the last name would be the father's name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


Remember right around when Gore was breaking up with his wife there was the accusation that he sexually assaulted a massage therapist? This seems like it was big news and should be included in his Wiki bio. JettaMann (talk) 21:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC),,20396495,00.html

Tabloid rubbish does not belong in and will not go into Wikipedia articles. This isn't TMZ. Tarc (talk) 21:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
The media only reported the allegations, no one reported that he was guilty of anything. It wasn't just TMZ and the tabloids making the reports either.--JOJ Hutton 21:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Roswell Incident

Al Gore was born exactly nine months after the Roswell Crash. If I can find some reliable sources, can I include this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Only if you can find a reliable source that says that this coincidence was somehow relevant to Gore's career. PhGustaf (talk) 01:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

some resources related to (talk) 03:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's another After 24 Hours of Climate Reality, What Comes Next? September 16, 2011 on Good (magazine) (talk) 03:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Is any of those a reliable source. Most are clearly not. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
The Portsmouth Herald is (talk) 17:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
NYTimes (talk) 03:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
New York Times blogs. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Climate Reality Project wp article created. (talk) 20:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


apparently before being shipped off to vietnam he worked for darpa...... i remember reading this in one of my comp sci books, showing a picture of an apparently young al gore sitting next to a sign that said darpa. yes on the internet. (talk) 11:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Semi Protected for six months


This BLP has been semi-protected for 6 months. Semi-protection prevents edits from unregistered users (IP addresses), as well as edits from any account that is not autoconfirmed (is at least four days old and has ten or more edits to Wikipedia) or confirmed. Such users can request edits to a semi-protected page by proposing them on its talk page, using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template if necessary to gain attention. You can also alternatively make your edit request at Wikipedia:Request for edit. New users may also request the confirmed user right by visiting Requests for permissions. Administrators may apply indefinite semi-protection to pages like this which are subject to heavy and persistent vandalism.

Screaming Picture

Why don't we have that picture of Al Gore screaming in front of That was a major speech of his. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LutzaButza (talkcontribs) 19:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

in the lead, in the 5th paragraph, the wikilink to "An inconvenient truth" should go to An Inconvenient Truth (book) because the grammy award was for the book reading or something i think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Done - with this edit. Thank you. Begoontalk 17:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Another request: (may have been addressed in 2000) I suggest the 2nd sentence of the article be changed to: He was the Democratic Party's nominee for President in 2000, and became the fourth candidate to lose the electoral vote and win the popular vote. ("despite" is incorrect because electoral vote determines winner, not popular vote) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Missing: Al Gore i member of the board of directors at Apple Inc.

[1] (talk) 23:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Of value here, from Simon–Ehrlich wager#Other wagers?

In recent years, there have been many bets and bet challenges related to global warming.[2][3] For instance, J. Scott Armstrong challenged Al Gore to a climate-related bet in 2007 that focused on year-to-year variation in temperatures but not on betting over longer term changes in global average temperatures.[4] (talk) 07:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Asperger's Syndrome

Does anyone know if it is true that he has it. If he does, it might be worth mentioning. Then again, it might not. If he does indeed have it, someone else can decide whether it should be mentioned in this article or not. (talk) 05:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

AFAIK there is no proof that he does, and I doubt it'd be of great interest. I don't think it's worth worrying about.  — TORTOISEWRATH 01:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Category to add

There is a category to add on the page: Category:Honorary degree recipients from the École polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne. Thanks! S. D. Évid (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC).

See also

Perhaps add Eduardo Braga in the see also section; he's called the "Brazilian Al Gore" KVDP (talk) 12:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I changed the wording on his Tennessee home's electricity use from "high amounts of electricity" to the more accurate "more than 20 times as much electricity as the national average."

The article had stated that Gore was criticized because his Tennessee home used "high amounts of electricity."

I changed this to the more accurate "more than 20 times as much electricity as the national average."

I made this change for two reasons.

First, all of the sources specifically cited the fact that his home used more than 20 times as much electricity as the national average.

Second, the wording "high amounts" is more of an opinion, whereas the wording "more than 20 times as much electricity as the national average" is a reliably sourced fact.

Chucky Cheerio (talk) 02:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Lawrencekhoo reverted my edit, and commented, "Overweight for a minor factoid."
I disagree with this revert, because #1 Wikipedia articles are supposed to reflect the source, and #2 "more than 20 times as much" is a fact, whereas "high amount" is an opinion.
I also have to question the meaning of User:Lawrencekhoo's comment. How is it "overweight" to have the article match what the source says?
I am in favor of reverting User:Lawrencekhoo's reversion of my edit, but I would like to hear what other editors think before I do this.
Chucky Cheerio (talk) 20:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't see how either edit gives more weight versus the other. The issue I think is whether mentioning that Gore's home uses a lot of energy (whether a "high amount" or a specific measure) is WP:UNDUE (it isn't); how it's said is not really an issue, and I prefer Chucky Cheerio's more accurate revision, simply because it's more accurate. The rest of the section balances this POV, regardless of how it's stated. However, I would like to hear from Lawrencekhoo and I have not made any changes. Ivanvector (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Criticism needs update re. Sale to oil emirate by former U.S. vice president and Current TV founder Al Gore. Gore reportedly making an estimated $70 million for his 20 percent stake selling his progressive cable network to Al Jazeera. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbgfour (talkcontribs) 01:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Criticism update

Criticism needs update re. Sale to oil emirate by former U.S. vice president and Current TV founder Al Gore. Gore reportedly making an estimated $70 million for his 20 percent stake selling his progressive cable network to Al Jazeera. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbgfour (talkcontribs) 01:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


the environmentalism section says he began speaking on the topic of global warming in 1976, and continued to "through the 1980s." he is still active in the topic of global warming, so shouldn't it say that he continued to speak about it through the 2000s? it's possible i'm misunderstanding something. if no one has any objections, i will make that change. let me know please. GoGatorMeds (talk) 18:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

gay rights

gore voiced his position against gay marriage in the 1980s, but in 2008 he showed his support of gay marriage. the article only contained the information of him speaking against it, so i added a sentence explaining his opinion change. i think its important to have this information, especially based on the fact this is a biography of a living person. let me know if you have any questions. GoGatorMeds (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit requests for protected redirects to this page

On these pages, could the following text:

[[Category:Protected redirects]]

...please be replaced with the following text:

{{R fully protected}} that the redirect is is put into the category via a tranclusion in an Rcat template rather than a category transclusion? Thanks! Steel1943 (talk) 07:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg DoneMr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The Abortion Issue

I seem to recall that before his 1988 presidential run Gore was very pro-life, but by 1992 he was openly pro-choice. In any case, this issue should be discussed.Carpo- Rusyn (talk) 09:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


We need a section on controversies. This page is almost uniformly positive. As an example, there used to be a mention on here of the controversy surrounding his public declaration that he created the internet. That's been wiped, and now I see a small section on criticism involving his environmental stances, in which every criticism ends with a decidedly pro-Gore counterpoint. One could say, for example, that Gore dodged the question on nine inaccuracies in his film when his reply was "the court ruled in my favor." That's not a counterpoint unless you're a defendent. It does not actually answer the question, but this article ends the critical discussion with Gore having "the last word." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Did he invent the internet?

Unclear even after I read the wikipedia article.

I deem it a bad article because this is an important question. Did he or didn't he? Is it a joke? Or he really did co-invent it? I am almost certain he didn't invent it single handedly but this WP article gives no clue.

Please address!

Eating Glass Is Bad (talk) 16:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

No, Gore did not invent the internet. That issue is addressed in detail in this section and here as well.--JayJasper (talk) 16:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. The second link is a completely different WP article. The first link doesn't answer the question too well....did he or didn't he? But it starts to answer it. Eating Glass Is Bad (talk) 21:25, 16 November 2014 (UTC) |

There should be a section on Al and Tipper's involvement with the pmrc

Surely Al Gore's involvement with what was basically sensorship and an attempt to violate the first amendment is relevant infomation for someone who came very close to being POTUS. It was not just his wife Tipper's project, Al took a very active stance in all three congressional hearings with artists Frank Zappa, John Denver and Dee Snyder (see youtube). Many liberals decided to vote for Ralph Nader instead of Gore as president because of this, thus seriously impacting U.S. and world history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:28, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Al Gore has been accused of rape multiple times!

I'm looking over this article and it doesn't seem to mention the multiple times he has been accused of rape. Should they be added? and there's even an audio recording of the interview she gave with police. Turtire (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

See this archived disussion on that topic.--JayJasper (talk) 22:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
The Bill Cosby page includes allegations even though there has never been a conviction. Why is this any different? (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

World Resources Institute Update

He is no longer a member of the Board of Directors of World Resources Institute. The article needs to state that he is a former member of the board because he served out his term there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually Gore is no longer on the WRI board because he was not asked to return. He would still be on the board had he been asked/invited ... and surely he would not turn down the opportunity.Danleywolfe (talk) 20:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Global Climate Changes and a Rebuke

Global Climate Change vs Global Warming

This is a hot topic. There’s no denying it. Yet most people are arguing about the wrong thing! Ever since former Vice President Al Gore established himself as the poster child for liberal environmentalists around the world with his book and movie, An Inconvenient Truth, the whole argument has been framed incorrectly.

In a previous article we examined some of Gore’s faulty claims and inaccurate predictions. Subsequently, the debate and discussions continue, picking up on our shift in terminology from “Global Warming” to “Global Climate Change,” but not losing the emphasis on shining the light into the dim areas of climate science. It’s easy to get sidetracked by Al Gore’s alarmist rhetoric so let me refer you to the previous article where that’s addressed and keep the focus here where it should be…examining the cause of climate change.

The Question of Causation

Many who participate in this debate jump so quickly into defending their positions that they fail to realize the underlying assumptions driving the very thing for which they’re fighting. For supporters of increased regulation, they assume that humans are the primary drivers of climate change and, therefore, by regulating human action, climate change can be stopped or reversed. Here’s the problem: Global Climate Change has happened in the past…before humans were driving cars, generating power from coal-fueled power plants, or paving roads.

Richard Lindzen points out in his piece Resisting Climate Hysteria, “Climate is always changing. We have had ice ages and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in a hundred thousand year cycle for the last 700 thousand years, and there have been previous periods that appear to have been warmer than the present despite CO2 levels being lower than they are now.” It’s the “susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth, and the exploitation of these weaknesses by politicians, environmental promoters, and, 20 years of media drum beating” that has led the scientifically illiterate masses to their incorrect assumptions.

Before we pass laws to reign in carbon emissions and regulate free trade completely to death, we ought to understand whether or not those actions will truly have the expected outcomes. The reality is that we find ourselves situated in the middle of a larger climate trend and it’s not the first time the Earth has experienced it (even though it is for each of us). Capping CO2 emissions, regulating the trade of carbon credits, and governing our economy to a standstill won’t do a thing to stop global climate conditions that have been occurring long before humans got involved. It’s a special kind of arrogance that we possess which assumes we are always the cause and, therefore, we are also the solution.

Shame on you Nobel Prize Committee

Now let’s circle back for a moment to that patron saint of man-made environmental doom, Al Gore. In 2007 Gore and the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) received the 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.” The Nobel Prize and especially the Peace Prize is a highly respected honor and places it’s recipients among some of the most philanthropic, selfless, and impactful people in the world. “It’s simply not right,” says Florida business owner John Arwood, “Al Gore received the Nobel Peace Prize for spreading the word about the effects of man-made global warming and climate change. And now, after so many inaccurate predictions and misleading assumptions have come to light, I think the Nobel Committee should take it back. He was predicting a total melt of the ice caps by last year but it simply has not happened. I’m sure there were many other more humanitarians in 2007 that are actually deserving of this award.”

Arwood makes a good point. According to the Science and Public Policy Institute’s report 35 Inconvenient Truths and many other well documented sources, the validity of Gore’s and the IPCC’s information is no longer to be trusted. It is turning out to be fiction and should be reconsidered by the Nobel Prize Committee. Hopefully, a better understanding of the facts of global climate change will lead to a better informed public going forward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

What did Al Gore study in college?

I see that he is from a tobacco-farming family and became a politician, thereby justly earning a reputation as a champion of objective truth and freedom from arbitrary or superstition-induced coercion. I'm certain he told his wife about being joined at the groin to massage girls and actually earned the Nobel prize because of his documented knowledge about a subject of scientific concern. Surely it is not asking a lot to know where he went to school, what he studied and when?

Back when nuclear energy was going to end all life on the planet, according to people unable to differentiate a constant, professional engineers and scientists published articles such as "The Disposal of Radioactive Wastes from Fission Reactors", only to be immediately dismissed as "in the pay of the nuclear industry" by the very people unable to define energy on a High School physics quiz.

So now we have on the one hand the 31,000+ signers of the Petition Project urging that no coercive actions be taken because of allegations of human-caused global warming and on the other a couple thousand bureaucrats and government nonscientists claiming the sky is falling--this time from the same sort of climate changes that happened for millions of years before Homo sapiens mastered fire. My Astronomy professor circulated the petition, along with hundred of other volunteers, and I could not sign it because I only have a B.A.

I am anxious to learn where Gore studied physics and calculus, chemistry and biology, and to read some of his peer-reviewed papers before taking the word of himself, politicians and bureaucrats over the overt written statement signed by 30,000 holders of science degrees. I have read Aaron Swartz account of how the Wikipedia is written, and the treatment here of the Petition Project with its 30,000 publicly listed signatories is not what I expect from honest people, but more like what I expect from they who take from others by force and enshrine that taking as a sort of revealed faith. translator (talk) 13:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Kyoto Protocol wording

In the Vice Presidency section, we have the following:

“During the late 1990s, Gore strongly pushed for the passage of the Kyoto Protocol,”

“Strongly pushed”? This is rewriting history, because the Clinton-Gore administration never even submitted it to the Senate for ratification. How exactly did Gore “strongly push” for passage of the treaty? As references, we are given only a speech that Gore made at Kyoto, and a rather self-serving vice presidential web page, neither of which support the text.

Let’s see what Vice President Gore himself said at the time:

"As we have said from the very beginning, we will not submit this for ratification until there's meaningful participation by key developing nations,"
- Al Gore, 12 Dec. 1997, upon returning from Kyoto (John M. Broder, “The climate accord,” New York Times, 12 Dec. 1997)

Rather than “strongly push” for ratification, Gore recognized that Senate ratification in the 1990s was a lost cause. He certainly advocated for the treaty, but as vice president he appears to have never strongly pushed for its passage. Unless we can get a better source, this wording should go. Plazak (talk) 17:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The Gore Effect

"The Gore Effect, an informal and satirical term alleging a causal relationship between unseasonable cold weather phenomena and global warming activism is named after Gore. CNN meteorologist Rob Marciano describes use of the effect as a mere running gag among weather forecasters.[225]"

Many folk who use this phrase use it only for occasions when he former Vice President is actually at a major CAGW conference - and there's four feet of snow - in August, in Death Valley [yeah - the last two phrases are /sarc]. Sorry. But some see the coincidence - or, perhaps, the Climate Gods' intent . . . . . 2113Z 09 April 2015 - (talk) 21:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Military Service

I find this an interesting statement in this section: Gore decided, "that he would have to go as an enlisted man because, he said, 'In Tennessee, that's what most people have to do.'"

In that 175 of the 1295 Tennesseans killed in Vietnam were officers, it seems Tennessee contributed its fair share of officers to the cause. If Gore had gone to OCS and become an officer, he would have served a full one year tour in Vietnam rather than the four (4) months he actually served. Also, because junior officers had a 60 percent greater chance of becoming a casualty than an enlisted man, he would have been in much greater danger. Hence, his reason for not becoming an officer rings a little hollow. The-Expose-inator (talk) 19:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Unless you are proposing an improvement to this or some other Wikipedia article (and if so, please explain), this discussion does not belong here. Please see WP:NOTFORUM. Dwpaul Talk 19:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2015

Under Categories, please add Portuguese Americans, see under Wikipedia's List of Portuguese Americans (talk) 20:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Not done Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for itself. This change requires an independent, published, reliable source. If you can specify such a source, please reopen the request and specify it. Dwpaul Talk 20:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Gore's Gun Problem

The article mentions one Gore position opposing gun control, but not the tie-breaking vote he cast in favor of more gun control, in the wake of Columbine, as Vice President and therefore President of the Senate. As a result, the NRA supported George W. Bush for President, and many gun-owning Democrats voted for Bush. (talk) 04:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Criticism of Bush

I'm all for us Democrats using Wikipedia as a bully pulpit but a whole section about his criticism on the next President sets a bad precedence for inclusion into all Wikipedia entries. Dick Cheney has a more moderate titled Views on President Obama. I'm re-thinking my beloved democrats abuses on Wikipedia. Do we really care what the vanquished thought in the annals of time? --Ombase (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Update Main Image

Forgive me if this is the standard practice for a politician, but the first picture of Gore in the article was taken during his vice-presidency and is more than 20 years old. Maybe a more recent photo would me better. 2601:646:C402:A9C0:91A5:CDE5:BB91:DEB9 (talk) 03:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Gore's relationship with the Oil Industry

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. Occidental's very own wiki mentions it [1] and PoliticalCompass does too in its "ichonochasm" section [2]

The above should be mentioned in an article of this length and breadth. (talk) 04:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

-- Nothing to be added yet? (talk) 00:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Al Gore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Second Chakra

Where is the talk of his incident in 2010 with releasing his second chakra? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

1992 Presidential election

The text says that Gore "successfully" debated Vice President Quayle and Admiral Stockdale. Isn't this a subjective interpretation? What does "successful" mean? There are many who believe that Quayle won the debate due to his aggressive and combative approach while Gore sounded robot-like and seemed to be reciting a memorized script. Just because Gore won the election does not make his debate performance "successful" - there are many who claim that Quayle lost the 1988 VP debate (another subjective interpretation) yet he won the election. I think it is enough to say that Gore debated Quayle and Stockdale and respectively suggest that the word "successfully" be removed in order to come into alignment with NPOV. (talk) 18:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree. "successfully" removed. Plazak (talk) 22:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2016

I was wondering if somebody could add a caption (|caption = Gore in 1994) to Gore's infobox photo so that it says "Gore in 1994" underneath Gore's official Vice Presidential portrait. Since a April 15, 2016 edit (sourced below) removed it.

Source(s): (talk) 02:13, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done -- Dane2007 talk 02:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Supreme Court

" A controversial election dispute over a vote recount in Florida was settled by the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled 5–4 in favor of Bush." This is a bit dishonest. Their were two rulings by the supreme court in this case. The first was 7-2 in Bush's favor. The second 5-4 also in Bush's favor. The first ruling involved the question of whether the recount violated equal protection. That is whether the same standard was used at each table to decide how to count a given vote. The second vote had to do with whether there was time for a constitutional remedy. Mentioning the second vote alone suggests that this was somehow partisan. Further, you also have to factor in the rulings of the lower courts. Each of Gore's challenges to the eletion were thrown out by separate loewer courts. Thus in total we have 5 court rulings against Gore, 3 of them by Democrat appointees.

Spiker 22 (talk) 01:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Divorce, wealth, and archives

Three things:

  • What is Gore's marital status? This only mentions "separation," as does a 2014 article. A blurb about, "As of [DATE], the Gores are still separated, but not divorced," would be nice if anyone can find a source.
  • Likewise, why isn't the end of Current TV and its sale to Al Jazeera America for $500 million (according to the NY Times) mentioned? We only get a side note that it's "now defunct." For that matter, why aren't other financial windfalls mentioned here (Apple, green energy investment)? The man is worth hundreds of millions of dollars, but reading the article, you'd think that he wasn't particular wealthy. See, for example, . Wealth is relevant and these are reliable sources.
  • Why is the last archive page six years before the second-to-last rather than after? Shouldn't these be better organized?

Calbaer (talk) 03:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Al Gore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:07, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Newer picture

Any chance to get a newer, more recent picture, for the top right of the page ?

Thank you ! (talk) 04:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Right. It is strange to have a photograph from 20 years ago as the lead picture of a living person who is still pretty much a public figure. Recently Ajw522 inserted a picture from 2009 and Spartan7W reverted to the 1994 official VP portrait. Is it really policy to keep the official portrait of elected persons even 20 years after the deed? Admittedly the selected 2009 picture was not particularly flattering, but surely we can find a decent and recent photograph? I think the official portrait is a better fit for the Vice-presidency section of the biography. Al Gore today is mostly known as a climate activist and his portrait should reflect his current activity and likeness. — JFG talk 22:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Why is Al Gore notable? His father was a U.S. Senator, he became a U.S. Senator, was elected Vice President and ran for president. Using his official Vice Presidential portrait is prudent because it depicts him as he appeared in the very high officer he held. Wikipedia isn't a TMZ profile, we aren't here to keep things up to date, especially as it relates to public figures. You can put new images in sections are articles related to his post-official activities, but his official portrait is higher quality than anything we'll find, and it depicts him as Vice President, the last office he held, and the source of his notability.   Spartan7W §   00:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)