Jump to content

Talk:Al Gore/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Explanation of my revert [Abortion]

Isn't it unnecessarily vague to use the phrase "pro-life"? Is this phrase understood in English speaking areas other than the United States? Arstchnca 14:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Internet creation issue

Statements like "Gore was misrepresented" are not facts and shouldn't be on the page. Wikipedia readers may deduce it by reading Gore's CNN comments and comparing it to others' comments, but they should reach that conclusion by themselves.

In the late 1980s, Gore introduced the Gore Bill, which was later passed as the High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991. The bill was one of the most important pieces of legislation directly affecting the expansion of the internet. That second sentence doesn't have a source. Most important is very subjective. Cite or pull. --BenWoodruff 19:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems well cited on the Gore Bill page. JPotter 19:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting Academic Facts

Al Gore, known for his "intellectual" personality had a SAT score of 1355 (625 in verbal and 730 in math) [1]. Al Gore's IQ from tests administered in 1961 and 1964 respectively, have been recorded to be 133 and 134 [2]. Both IQ scores are in the 98 – 99.3 percentile. Despite his high IQ scores and a strong showing on the SAT, Gore's performance during his undergraduate education at Harvard was not very good [3]. Al Gore's undergraduate GPA has been rumored to be around 2.2, a fact that has yet to be confirmed or denied.

  • Start again. Any time you're (a) using sneer quotes, or anything that can reasonably be mistaken for sneer quotes, and (b) putting in rumors that have "yet to be confirmed or denied", then you're in POV territory. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 13:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Instead of its own section, I think it would make more sense for this to be incorporated into the education part of the "Early life" section. Also, I think we should be more objective about his grades. If we have a source for his cumulative GPA, we can simply state it, without any opinion on how it might contrast with his test scores. (Also, I don't think the "genius" classification is taken very seriously anymore.) --Allen 21:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Kabrewskee's "Interesting Academic Facts" edits

I edited the "Early Life" section by adding an "Education" sub-heading. I added the facts from the "Interesting Academic Facts" section that I wrote earlier and modified some of the writing to make it flow better. In the "Education" section I added Al Gore's class ranking at St. Alban's School, Al Gore's SAT scores, the fact that Harvard was the only university that he applied to, that he was an english major, changed the stated "government major" into Al Gore receiving a B.A. in government, and Al Gore's IQ scores. I also added information on his post-Vietnam attempts at graduate school in religious studies and law school at Vanderbilt university.

Drunk driving

Anyone mention his drunk driving arrest ?? Headphonos 15:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protect

I placed the article under semi-protection (yet again). There haven't been any legitimate edits to the article in awhile, while the IP vandalism seems pretty constant. If anyone has a problem with the protection, please let me know. · j e r s y k o talk · 19:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps more completely protect against moving? It was just moved to "Total idiot" (again) a little while ago. I can't imagine a valid reason for anyone to move it at the moment. --John Owens | (talk) 13:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Love Story Trivia

Does anyone have a problem with removing the text "Gore was alleged to have said that he was a much more important influence on the novel than he was" from the triva section? It is uncited and ambiguous. What does "much more important influence" mean? The controversies page covers this topic and has a citation where the author says that Al Gore and Tommy Lee Jones were the basis for the main character in the novel. Without defining "much more important influence" it is difficult to see how Al Gore's claim to any level of importance can be questioned.--12.149.111.5 00:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleted --Good day 01:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

After further review, based on the previous comment and citation, the "character who briefly appears" is inaccurate. --Good day 03:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

One of the funniest damn things I ever saw was an episode of "Who wants to be a millionaire" years ago. The million dollar question was (paraphrasing here) "according to the author of 'Love Story', who was his inspiration." (some quote from the author was given) One of the choices was Al Gore. Poor sop lost a million dollars for laughing when that choice (the winner) was read out. Derex 09:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Worth Millions?

Tucker on MSNBC said he is worth millions from a questionable deal with Google, what is this about, why isn't it here? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.206.165.61 (talk) 00:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

rewrite environment section

I feel like the section on the environment does not provide a good summary of Gore's record. The artical states that Gore's record does not live up to Nader's standards. Without further info this statement is pretty much useless. Gore's mixed record on environmental issues has been overshadowed by the praise he has received for making An Inconvenient Truth. The league of conservation voters gave him a mediocre lifetime rating of 64 percent going into the primary with Bradley--hardly anything to be proud of, and pretty contradictory to what he now says he cares about. I think a re-write or at least a thorough editing is waranted. Any thoughts? Jamec378 19:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)jamec378 Absolutely. Although the lack of environmental issues described in his political achievements is telling in itself, I think Al Gore's two faced behavior should be better explained. Also there has been a lot of discussion about Gore's energy consumption in his personal life and some information should be added about that. 75.72.209.176 17:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC) I also miss any reference to Gore's past ownership of a large stake in the oil major Occidental Petroleum, relevant if one decides to become a spokesman against big oil. aussiesta

Why doesn't Al Gore get credit for inventing global warming?

Nobel Peace Prize

Could someone please ad that Al Gore was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize 2007 (31st of January 2007). The Nomination was made by Børge Brende former Minister of the Environment of Norway (2001-2004) and Heidi Pedersen. The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded annually in Norway (summer/autumn). [[1]]

It doesn't make sense to mention this. Nominations have no official standing. For example, Hitler and Stalin were nominees. Rush Limbaugh is also apparently a nominee this year along with Al Gore, yet I hardly think Limbaugh's article should give him credit for that. Winning the prize is all that matters. See the article on Nobel Peace Prize for further explanation. --JrStonehenge 14:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Articles in the Wikipedia frequently mention nominations and thus I am going to restore the nomination line. Removal should be based upon group consensus only. -Classicfilms 14:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Even though its not the same thing, Oscar and Emmy nominees are often mentioned as such. WookMuff 19:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Apples and elephants. For the Oscars, each category is voted upon by people who work in the same field (except for Best Picture). And the nominations are the five entries that received the most votes in the initial ballot. With only five nominees per category, it is an honour just to be nominated. I would guess that the Emmy's work in much the same way.
I actually think that it belittles Al Gore to say that being nominated for a Peace Prize is one of his greatest achievements, being mentioned in the article even before his 2000 candidacy. I just realised that the lead section doesn't even mention his Oscar nomination. Evil Monkey - Hello 23:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Technically he hasn't been nominated for an Oscar, but the movie he's in has been (the Oscar would go to the director or producers, I think).... is there a source which talks about how there's a serious chance he could win the Nobel? //// Pacific PanDeist * 05:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
True about the Oscar bit -- according to oscar.com, Davis Guggenheim is the person who will receive the award if An Inconvenient Truth wins Best Documentary Feature. As for his chances of winning, I have no idea, though according to Nobel Foundation rules, they strongly discourage people from publicising their nominations, which may go against him. Evil Monkey - Hello 06:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it needs to be mentioned in the lead section. From Nobel Peace Prize:
"Nominations for the Prize may be made by a broad array of qualified individuals, including former recipients, members of national assemblies and congresses, university professors, international judges, and special advisors to the Prize Committee."
And this large group of people can nominate anyone they like. And the people who are nominated is kept secret, unless people start saying they nominated so and so. That being said, I don't think it hurts for it to be mentioned later in the article. Evil Monkey - Hello 22:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can tell there is nothing in Wikipedia guidelines which states that a nomination of any kind should not be listed in an article. The Nobel nomination is now listed within the article (in the Environment section) rather than the introduction and otherwise follows Wikipedia policy (it is notable since it is mentioned in virtually all current news articles about Gore and it is verifiable). Unless someone can find something within Wikipedia policy which states that it should be removed, I believe that it is a fair point to make. -Classicfilms 12:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
That is fine. My real problem was that it was being mentioned in the lead paragraph of the article. Evil Monkey - Hello 21:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Notice of centralized discussion on inclusion of Nobel Prize nominations in bios

I started a discussion at WP:VPP#Including alledged Nobel Prize nominations in bios on this issue. It may well eventually be moved off the Village Pump policy page at some point in the future, but it seemed a good place to get the discussion started. —Doug Bell talk 12:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Dab notice

YOU SAY: This article is about the former Vice President of the United States. For his father, Congressman from Tennessee, see Albert Gore, Sr.

IT SHOULD SAY: This article is about the former Vice President of the United States. For his father, U.S. Senator from Tennessee, see Albert Gore, Sr.

210.200.105.214 02:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The president's name was not "Bill asshole"

There is a libelous text: "Bill asshole" is not the name of the president, under whom Al Gore was vice president. It was Bill Clinton. (84.153.44.117 11:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC))

That's... nice... I'm sorry, where in the article does it say Bill asshole, cos I am just not seeing it WookMuff 11:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Complete Idiot?!

I did a search on this to see what would happen and got a redirect to Al Gore. This seems is POV. Can we change it please.--Blackmage337 21:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Without prejudice regarding its accuracy, I deleted the redirect. —Doug Bell talk 21:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you--Blackmage337 01:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI—I scanned the list of pages that link to the article (almost 2000 of them) and there are no other inappropriate redirects. —Doug Bell talk 05:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms

Why is there no "Criticisms" section in the AL Gore article? Articles on prominent political figures (i.e. Ronald Reagan, etc.) on Wikipedia have one. There is a link to a "Controversies" article, but if you look at the history of that article you see (rightly) that anything the editors deem a criticism, not a controversy, is systematically removed from there, to the point that many of the criticisms in the original article are gone. It seems to be a pattern; the criticisms are moved to the controversy page, they are eventually labeled not technically controversies, and then they are removed. Don't get me wrong..I don't know Al Gore from a hole in the head and don't have any factual information to contribute, but it seems like a strange break in standard procedure. The Controversies section seems toothless for such a prominent person and a poor substitute for an honest section on criticisms. For that matter, why was the Controversies section moved to a separate page in the first place...it seems to only leave, at best, an incomplete picture of the man in his biography. .--Anonymous 21 Sunday, 2007-02-11 T 23:11 UTC)

Good point since Gore is a Gulfstream evironmentalist (someone who preaches about the environment than takes private jets everywhere)Giza D 22:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The whole credibility of Wikipidea is at stake when such obvious and blatant bias is demonstrated. If there is criticism of Al Gore that is well documented, it should certainly be included.

Criticism of Al Gore is not allowed. The priests of the New Age Environmental Religion will be very angry with you if you suggest such a thing, don't you know that? Seriously, you all are correct. This is a hugely biased love-fest for Gore. Check ou the Dick Cheney article and see if he gets the same lovey-dovey treatment. (hint: He doesn't, nor does any Republican fare very well on WP.) - Nhprman 15:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

global warming contradiction

al gore uses flies aroung the world on private jets and then lectures the rest of us about glaobal warming? i had to add this fact. Keltik31 14:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

and as usual, the fact has been removed. why cant we tell the truth here? the instructions say "be bold" and when we are, it gets erased by the hypersensitive PC police here at wiki. Keltik31 16:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Please pay attention; this was discussed at least twice last year (apparently archived now). Gore's air travel is explicitly mentioned in the article already, so go read paragraph 4 of the Environment section and stop crying "censorship" when the fact is that you are trolling (either intentionally or out of ignorance). Frankie 17:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

thanks frankie, its an honor to be repimanded by someone of such inteligence. Keltik31 17:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

trivia removed

To be integrated into the article once sourced.

Have to admit that last one is pretty funny. Tvoz | talk 23:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Promoting Enviornmental Awareness

Yeah, so, at the beginning of the "Promoting Enviornmental Awareness" it says, and I quote:

"IT HAS JUST BEEN REPORTED THAT AL GORE CONSUMES AS MUCH ELECTRICITY EACH MONTH AS THE AVERAGE AMERICAN FAMILY CONSUMES IN ONE YEAR!!!!"

Would this be classified as vanadlizism or what? Wassamatta 00:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Wassa Matta

DRUDGE linked to the story. Here is the website http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367

that's pretty much the problem. drudge isn't exactly known for factual and/or bipartisan reporting.. furthermore, the verbiage and the other topics suggest that the TCPR isn't as non-partisan as it claims to be. 87.171.102.252 14:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

POV fork

Al Gore criticisms and misconceptions, created yesterday, is clearly a WP:POV fork of Al Gore controversies. It should be AFD'd. Derex 02:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Academy Award

Gore didn't technically win the Academy Award for An Inconvenient Truth - the award goes to the film's producers, even though he was invited on stage to join them at the Oscar ceremony. I think, accordingly, that we should remove the descriptive piece and merely insert it as part of his bio with due explanation...

Thoughts?

Also the sentence that states he won the award is grammatically incorrect.

Editor Emeritus 03:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we should keep what we have but the sentence should be changed. Al Gore's movie won an oscar but Al Gore certainly did not. Jiffypopmetaltop 19:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I do believe the quote from "The Associated Foreign Press" actually should be attributed to "Agence France Presse" as there is no such entity as "The Associated Foreign Press." Anonymous.

Famous Line

Should someone put in the "I used to be the next President of the United States of America." quite as something of a controversial remark?Wikifriendawesome 12:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I tagged this article for it's non-neutrality due to all criticism of the subject being segregated into a different sub-article with a link to it being buried at the bottom of this article while at the same time this very article contains a substantial section on Criticism of the Bush administration. This article was HYPOCRITICAL --Jayzel 20:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I know we have a history and that you are obviously still angry. However, I removed the section. I hope that makes you happier. Please try to be civil. Jiffypopmetaltop 22:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't know who you are, nor do I care, but I would appreciate it if you did not censor out my personal comments. Calling a section of an article hypocritical has nothing to do with a "personal attack"; it wasn't even directed at anyone in particular; it was an attack on the article's content. Cheers! --Jayzel 22:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry. Please be civil. Jiffypopmetaltop 22:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Please be civil and stop censorship. This article WAS hypocritical --Jayzel 22:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Please don't accuse me of vandalism and censorship. Please be civil in all future exchanges. Thanks. Jiffypopmetaltop 23:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


Please stop it. Jiffypopmetaltop 23:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Seriously, there is no need to make disparaging remarks. Jiffypopmetaltop 23:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
You are now vandalizing this page. Please stop. Jiffypopmetaltop 23:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Please be civil and stop attacking me. --Jayzel 23:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Nothing new. Jayzel has been begging for an RFC for a long time. Derex 23:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Section heading

It's rare that one has a section with only a main article link in it. I think it would reduce the appearance of POV to include in the controversies section a paragraph summarizing Al Gore controversies. I'll try to write something. — PyTom 08:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your effort. I think it looks like a pretty good summary and goes a long way to making this page npov. We can however take out the linking sources as they are in the main controversy article.Jiffypopmetaltop 18:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


Criticism of environmental stance

Why isn't there some place to add criticisms of his positions on the environment? For example, this site claims that his Tennessee estate uses more than 20 times the national average home electricity in kilowatt-hours, and it's been increasing over the last few years:

http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367

--MrWhipple 04:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It's already on the controversy page. Look to the bottom of the article. Jiffypopmetaltop 04:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
The energy he uses at his home is actually Green. (Runwiththewind 15:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC))
Where did he get "green" the gas lanterns that line his walkway.. Heck is poolhouse alone burns more natural gas per week than your average nieghborhood. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.244.153.46 (talk) 18:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

IMHO, the last link on the controversy section should be changed to green energy. 130.119.248.11 17:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to go ahead and delete this business from the Tennessee Policy Group. A bit of research about the organization reveals that they're a right-wing public relations group with dubious claims of legitimacy (the Tennessee Tax Department doesn't recognize them as a legitimate organization according to :http://www.nashvillecitypaper.com/index.cfm?news_id=54656). This looks like a smear campaign agaisnt Al Gore to me, and doesn't rightfully belong in his Wikipedia entry. Benji 16:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that the Tennessee Policy Group is indeed a right-wing group. However, their info about Al Gore's house appears to be more or less true. This article should at least mention that Al Gore's mansion uses a lot of energy. It's noteworthy since Al Gore is an environmentalist. A neutral article should contain negative aspects of someone in addition to positive aspects. JackWilliams 04:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no way of determining if the energy used in the Gore home is "green" or not. The statement is 100% spin.

Visit the Tennessee Valley Authority's FAQ on Green power. 

http://www.tva.com/greenpowerswitch/green_mainfaq.htm

"Physical laws determine where electricity is ultimately used, so power from these sources will go into TVA’s electric system as part of the Valley’s total power mix, rather than to individual homes or businesses."

Even excessive uses of Green power would mean that more 'non-green' power is needed for the total power mix to replace that being used.

What the hell does that mean? If Gore buys a jillion kw then the TVA is contracted to buy that jillion kw from united windfarms or whoever, where does the non-green power come in? Also, the information that somebody's home which contains a business/office component which is probably bigger than half the businesses in Tennessee, happens to use a lot more electricity than most homes, is non-notable to the point of trivia; applied to Gore, it sort of smells POV. Gzuckier 16:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Please sign your comments. We aren't here to debate Al Gore's house, but the "Tennessee Center for Policy Research" is a highly questionable source, as the state evidently does not regard them as a legitimate think tank. At the least, this should be explicitly stated, since their funding is explicitly right wing and partisan. It's POV and doesn't belong.--FNV 04:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Point Being? Jesus Christ was also a questionable source - someone "claiming" to be the son of god should not have been take seriously right? Does that mean Jesus is also wrong? No. It doesnt matter where the source comes from. The funny thing is the source turned out to be right! Al gore does use 10x the amount of electricty that the average family does - his own spokesperson confirmed that- although their excuse was that Mr. Gore took steps to "reduce his carbon footprint" such as flying in a private jet around the worl, when there are perfectly fine commerical airliners that most "average" families are happy to travel in. I guess the creator of the internet (and self appointed creator of the universe) is too good for average.

Anyone who actually thinks before they speak would know that Al Gore never actually claimed to have invented the internet. I didn't do it. 20:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Read the article. His claims for creating the internet are well cited. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.244.153.46 (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Sigh. When will people learn about context. Read this. http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp He never claimed to have invented the internet. I didn't do it. 02:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

"Hi, my name is Al Gore, and I invented the internet" How does anyone take that man seriously?oh that's right, they don't LOL--RCT 21:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Gore's disciples really do believe Al Gore "took the initiative in creating the Internet". The rest of us understand that the internet was created in 1969, and the way we currently use it was made possible by increases in processing speed and band-with. Anyone who remembers using their Commodore 64 with it's 320 baud modem already knows what it looks like to see ASCII characters appear on the screen one at a time in rapid succession. I also remember these modems: 1200, 2400, 4800, 9600, 14.4k, 56k. The main thing missing from this article is the information anyone can get with this Google Search:

Occidental Petroleum "Al Gore Jr." "Al Gore Sr."

New grandchild

Gore announced a new grandchild, Oscar who was born to his eldest daughter in December 2006. Expressed the coincidence that his new grandson's name is Oscar when he won the Oscar. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jofer (talk • contribs) 20:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

Article's edits

Can you editors please add a summary of your recently main edits you've done?, its really hard to find out whats happening there (Algorerage.jpg, deleting sprawl?, etc)--– Emperor Walter Humala · ( talk? · help! ) 19:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I think you'll find that editors are tpo busy, editing articles, to keep a change log.
If you want to see what has changed in an article from any one version to another, you can simply do a diff. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Stereotyping & Persona

I'm surprised there's nothing here about the heaps of stereotypes and oft-derided persona quirks he has--being "stiff," being "too smart" or overeducated, etc. These are subjects of a lot of pop culture, and in real-world terms severely hurt his likability. Torie 16:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Grammar suggestion

"Lieberman, who is a more conservative Democrat than Gore, had publicly admonished President Clinton for speaking unambiguously to the U.S. people about the Lewinsky scandal."

Why does it say "the U.S. people"? In conventional English, it is almost always "the American people". It just sounds funny to me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.65.145.194 (talk) 19:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

2000 Election suggestion?

Just reading the part of the article gives me the impression that there wasn't very much notable able the election except for the voting controversy in Florida. Does anyone want to add some material?

The style sounds a little funny. Some parts sounds bitter, others matter of fact. Of course, it was probably written by many people and modified by many more.Dereks1x 01:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Supreme Court Ruling Incorrectly Cited

Why does it say "Gore publicly conceded the election after the Supreme Court of the United States in Bush v. Gore ruled 5-4 that the Florida recount was unconstitutional and that no constitutionally valid recount could be completed by the December 12 deadline, effectively ending the recounts.". This is plainly incorrect. There were two rulings. In the first, the the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that the ongoing recount procedure was unconstitutional owing to different standards that would be used in different parts of the state. It then halted further recounts by voting 5-4 to ban recounts using alternate procedures.

I understand that many folks have strong feelings for Al Gore, but isn't wikipedia supposed to be factual? This information used to be correct on this page.

One more problem: Point of View

This excerpt from the second paragraph really displays quite an attitude:

"Despite the fact that he won a plurality of the popular vote, with over half a million more votes than the Republican candidate George W. Bush, Gore ultimately lost the electoral college. A month of ballot recounts and court challenges in the state of Florida led the U. S. Supreme Court to end the highly disputed contest with its final ruling of Bush v. Gore, handing the electoral college victory, and consequently the presidency, to Bush.[1]"

Don't you think it would be much more neutral if it read:

"Gore lost the electoral college by XXX-YYY, despite the fact that he won a plurality of the popular vote, with ZZZZZ more votes than Bush ..."

We don't usually report that despite the fact that the Atlanta Braves soundly thrashed the NY Mets, with over 6 more hits and 2 more walks, they ultimately lost the run total. After 9 long innings, the umpires ended the hard fought contest with their final ruling in Braves vs. Mets, handing the final score, and consequently the game, to the Mets.

The rest of the paragraph contains obvious bias as well - "handing the victory..." In fact, the whole article is quite biased; compare with similar articles vs. say, Gingrich or Reagan.

Come on guys, think about it. What good is Wikipedia when articles about controversial public figures are biased and locked? This shouldn't be one more warzone for politics.

Editors, let's be neutral.

So what happened to this site?

The article is locked, so that it can't be modified. Presumably, that would allow the editors to put back the accuracy, and remove the obvious point of view. Why hasn't that happened? The facts used to be accurately portrayed here, and the bias was far less obvious.

What's the problem? Let's get this article back on track. Editors, do you want people to take Wikipedia seriously, or not?

Please add io:Al Gore

Please add the link to Ido Wikipedia's article - io:Al Gore
Thank you,io:User:Joao Xavier 02:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


Confrim?

read somewhere that Gore was considering running for president for the Green Party anyone else hear that? 12.164.129.203 21:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

jj

Not in a million years. Jiffypopmetaltop 02:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

article length

Actually the readable prose in this article is 44K which is not that much larger than guidelines, so I think the "too long" tag is not needed. For an explanation of "readable prose" see Wikipedia:Article size#What is and is not included as "readable prose". Tvoz |talk 08:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

User Hetfield1987 made same tag edit to Bill Clinton without commenting on discussion page. I suggest we should not allow the "too long" tag on this article either unless consensus is otherwise. Gruber76 21:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I removed it. Tvoz |talk 21:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Gores super-genius stature is diminished in this article

I see no where where it says how Gore invented the internet? Is this Bushs work to discount the Eienstien of our time? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.218.71.183 (talk) 20:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC). their is talk about the internet issue...and by the way, it is Einstein not Eienstien

Most one sided article ever

Seriously? All critisisms of the man have been moved to a separate page? How is this article not the opitome of a POV article? All critisims of statements, policy and viewpoints have been systematically removed from this page. This is one of the worst examples of political wiki hackery that I have ever seen. :) And then it gets locked as such... well done whoever you are. You win this round. Wiki looses.

Please note that the page is only locked against anonymous and new-user edits. This is generally done on pages that see a lot of vandalism, and is truly not intended to quash discussion or criticism of an article's content. You might want to consider setting up an account so that your contributions to Wikipedia can be properly attributed and you can partake fully in the community. Gruber76 18:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  1. ^ Washington Post: Gore's Grades Belie Image of Studiousness
  2. ^ Washington Post: Gore's Grades Belie Image of Studiousness
  3. ^ Washington Post: Gore's Grades Belie Image of Studiousness
  4. ^ http://quest.cjonline.com/stories/102700/gen_ease.shtml
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Al_Gore/Archive_7&oldid=1084062242"