Talk:Al Gore III

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 WikiProjects and templates 2 VFD 3 drunk driving and drugs -- who cares? 4 why is this article here again? 5 No more AfDs, OK? 6 Merge? 6.1 Discussion on WT:BLP 7 Related discussion 8 What is his occupation? 9 photo 10 clean-up 11 Mind reading 12 Arrests 13 Precedents 14 Consensus has been established on Arrests and dates 15 My two cents on WP:BLP and Al III 16 Proposed dispute resolution 17 Page protection 18 Notes regarding request for comment 19 Request for Comment: Publication of police record 20 This article reminds me of "The Sun" tabloid newspaper in the UK

[edit] WikiProjects and templates

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments

This article was nominated for deletion on 30/9/2006. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on 22/9/2006. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on 14/9/2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on 25/7/2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

[edit] VFD

From VFD (5 votes to delete, 4 votes to keep, 2 votes to redirect):

• Al Gore III. Three paragraphs about this kid, one about a car accident and two about a marijuana arrest. If this is all we can come up with, then delete. It seems to me like it's more an attempt at smearing his father. RickK 04:28, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Don't you have privacy laws in the US? Gore 3 is a private citizen and his misdemeanors are not the public's business. Adam 06:07, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Not that I know of: in fact we have freedom of speech and freedom of information laws stating the exact opposite. Since he appeared in open court, the information is a matter of public record. That said, I make no vote on whether this article should appear, but if not, it should be based on Wikipedia deciding he is not worthy of an article, not based on privacy concerns, since what he did was fully public. --Delirium 06:19, Dec 21, 2003 (UTC)
  • Do we have articles on Bush's daughters who I believe have also been in court on minor charges? Adam 06:35, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • We do. Barbara and Jenna Bush. Maximus Rex 06:38, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Well I would delete that article as well. I am opposed to having articles on private citizens whose only source of interest is that they have the misfortune to be related to someone famous, and particularly the children of the famous. This is just voyeurism and serves no legitimate purpose. Adam 06:45, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • I'm not voting either to keep or delete, but to answer Adam. The only possible legitimate purpose I can see is as a test of the hypocrisy of the parents. These are people who advocate draconian punishments for using harmless drugs that ruin far more lives than the drugs themselves. If Gore or Bush were to advocate the same punishments for their children that they advocate for our children, I would vote to delete. Mcarling 10:40, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • The place to say that is under Bush article, as in "Bush advocated the death penalty for littering, but when his daughter was arrested for littering he made excuses for her," (or whatever). It doesn't mean that the daughter deserves an article to catalogue her misdemeanors. Adam 09:16, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • KEEP. We also have Chelsea Clinton. Many wikipedia biographies are on non-government officials. I don't see a reason to delete, but I'm not in full support of keeping. --Jiang 09:30, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Keep. He is historically significant because of the 1992 Dem. Convention, which I added. I changed the article to remove the arrest record, which is of dubious historic importance. Davodd 09:38, Dec 21, 2003 (UTC)
  • Chelsea Clinton is a public person in her own right and by her own choice. I am not aware that Gore III or the Bush daughters have done anything in their own right. Besides which Chelsea doesn't have any misdemeanors that I am aware of, so an article on her isn't just a vehicle for attacking her father, as Mcarling admits he sees the Bush daughters article as being. And what did Gore III do at the 1992 Convention, when he would have been ten years old? Adam 09:42, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Redirect. It's interesting that his accident affected the Democratic primaries, but that's more about Al Jr. than Al III. I've merged it into Al Gore and I vote to make this a redirect to Al Gore (note that deletion policy deprecates "merge and delete"). Tualha 16:35, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Move relevant into into Al Gore but keep as redir. Could become an article if he ever does something meaningful besides smoking pot.—Eloquence
    • The classic Wikipedia double standard the private life of a child of a former Dem US Vice President one time perhaps future presidential candidate not worthy but of course it worthy for the current US Gop president. This group sure make sense.
      • Where do you gather that from (the double standard)? Evil saltine 19:24, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • I'm not the individual who posted about the double standard, however if you look at page history someone removed all negative content from the Gore child article while similar content is still the focus of the Bush child article. Maximus Rex 21:09, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • If you don't think this group makes sense, perhaps you should leave it to those of us who think it does. I note you are using the 64.12.97.6 IP address. Might you perhaps be the same person who vandalized Paul Levesque and Script kiddie? Might you now be trying to generate strife? As for your so-called double standard, the children of a sitting president are more notable than the child of a former vice-president, and there is more material in the Bush article than there ever was in the Gore one. Tualha 00:26, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Delete both the Gore III and Bush twins articles. I don't see why it's a big deal, or even newsworthy, that Gore's son was arrested for marijuana, and I don't think we should focus on the misdemeanors of Bush's daughters if we want to attack him, we should focus on his incompetence as President. Mike Church 21:27, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • You're thinking too much. The article is not intended as an attack, only a statement of what we know. What you think is newsworthy is your mere opinion. What the media thinks is fact. Due the the media, this individual and the Bush daughters are not obsucre people like the 9/11 victims, and therefore deserve enclyclopedia articles. --Jiang 21:57, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Delete, agree with Adam. Muriel Victoria 16:55, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Keep. Mcarling 18:01, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Delete. I also agree with Adam BCorr ¤ Брайен 18:17, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Keep. AG3 is, for better or worse, a well-known person. His activities (and the Bush daghters', and Chelsea's) are noteworthy. This is an encyclopedia of facts and events. Let's record them. Ensiform

[edit] drunk driving and drugs -- who cares?

Gore III was only a public figure as a child. The specifics of his adult behavors are inconsequential.

It seems ridiculous to remove the only thing he is known for lately, which has been his illegal behaviour. Maximus Rex 08:15, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Maybe before you simply revert - you should read what you're reverting back to. You made the article worse. In the time it took you to revert and post a talk comment here, you at least could have edited out the POV. Davodd 08:51, Jan 2, 2004 (UTC)

You're right I should have been more careful and checked the contributions of User:Mcarling. You could have made the NPOV changes instead of removing all of the information. Maximus Rex 08:55, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

If someone who is notable enough to be on Wikipedia, i.e. a public figure, has been arrested, it is not POV to post it. If someone has been arrested it is simply part of their past.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:--63.167.255.231 20:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)|--63.167.255.231 20:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)]] ([[User talk:--63.167.255.231 20:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/--63.167.255.231 20:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)|contribs]]).

Let's face it. If the Bush daughter had been caught doing the kind of crap Gore, Jr. has been doing then there would be three or four Wikipedia articles on it, a separate article for each incident and quotes from every newspaper, magazine, TV/radio show that could be found, plus any references to the incident on The Simpsons, Family Guy, or John Stewart's Daily Show. But of course there are not links to those shows because the liberal that write for those shows don't want to jump ugly on one of their boys.--Getaway 18:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] why is this article here again?

Looking over the old VFD debate above, I find the keep votes unconvincing. The other children of political figures mentioned (Chelsea Clinton, Bush's daughters) are public figures -- they've given interviews, made public statements, etc. Has Gore III ever even answered a reporter's question? While it makes sense to me that a politician's son or daughter would be a lot more likely to warrant an encyclopedia article, I don't think it's automatic. His father has talked about him in public, but it seems to me that that information is more appropriate on his father's article (where it already is, of course). --Allen 23:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Look people, this is an encyclopedia, not a book. It is a resource to anyone who wants to know about anything. I have used it for serious research, gossip, and everything in between. Why anyone would want to remove an article on the children of a major U.S. political figure is beyond me. They (these offspring), granted, made no specific choice to enter the public eye. But enter it they did, whether or not through their own will. The alternative involves WK in censorship of one kind or another. I know which way I would vote. Get over it. 66.108.4.183 22:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC) Nash's Companion

Just like the Bush daughter's, enquiring minds want to know about the drunk son of the blowhard Gore.--Getaway 00:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The above comment suggests that this article is being kept to push a viewpoint, which is not what Wikipedia is about. Robert A.West (Talk) 16:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No more AfDs, OK?

Alright, enough. Any nominations for AfD should be considered in bad faith. There have been three already, as well as an extremely bad faith 4th nomination created a couple days after a Keep vote. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 17:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• OK, now we have had FIVE, the last two by new user/possible single use accounts. Cut it out. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 00:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge?

I don't have any particular opinion on U.S. political issues, but it seems to me that if so many people are debating for and against deletion of an article, it may be a reasonable compromise to merge it, either to Al Gore or an article on the Gore family. Please tell me what you think of this. >Radiant< 22:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The children of famous people are not automatically worth an article on their own, and this is a prime case in point. The only reason for including this is that it (somewhat) reflects on the father, so why not put it where it is relevant. Those who think that is important information that might be deleted by partisans can watch one article as easily as two. In a few years, if AG3 does something worthy of WP:BIO, the redirect can be broken out into a separate article again. Robert A.West (Talk) 22:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree. At one point, before the sources for the arrests were added, I supported my argument for deletion by noting that all the verified information in Al Gore III (i.e. the car accident) was already included in Al Gore. Personally, I don't think Gore III's arrests are more than a blip in his father's political career, but if they deserve mention anywhere, that would be it: notable insofar as they impacted his father's career. --Allen 23:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Strong disagreement. As this article has been subjected to a near-continuous stream of AfDs lately, to the point where the last one was closed down almost immediately as an abuse of process, I can only see any merger as a continuation of that abuse of process. After all, once the material from this article is merged into Al Gore III, those hellbent on deletion will be able to slowly whittle it down to nothing, which is exactly what they wanted from their nonstop AfDs. If this article is turned into a redirect before a reasonable period of time has lapsed from the close of the current deletion review on this matter (say, 30 days at an absolute minimum), I'll revert the article to its present state on the grounds that the redirect is an action meant to subvert legitimate process. After the 30 days are up, any attempt to turn it into a redirect without a full merge discussion from a fresh start will result in me restoring the article and immediately bringing it up for another full AfD. Process is not merely a hurdle to be overcome. --Aaron 02:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Of the three people who have expressed support for a merge, I am the only one who has ever participated in any of the deletion discussions. Of the two AfDs which violated your entirely reasonable 30-day standard, I participated in only one, and when I did I explained why I felt that re-nomination might be excepted from the customary waiting period. Therefore, I do not agree that the merge suggestion represents a continuation of any abuse of process. --Allen 06:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

From a process perspective, "merge" is an ordinary editing decision that is distinct from AFD. Some AFD's result in merges, but as noted in Wikipedia:Deletion policy, that is really a subspecies of "keep". The vast majority of merges have nothing to do with AFD, and can be done boldly by any editor. In this case, since there is obvious controversy, Radiant's recommendation is absolutely in process and should be treated as a good faith recommendation. Robert A.West (Talk) 16:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I have not accused Radiant of anything. My comments above pertain to the overall handling of this article across the board. The last legitimate AfD, which took place only two weeks ago, was closed as a unquestionable keep, and I intend to see that it's honored until and unless that concensus changes. If I end up having to restore Al Gore III, anyone will be free to put it up for an AfD all over again. By the way, you may be interested to know that the continuous abuse of process in bad faith attempts to delete this article has directly led some admins, including Radiant himself, to begin discussing the possibility of implementing a policy where articles under attack like this one would be permanently kept unless it was put up for, and survived, a DRV. --Aaron 17:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You stated that Radiant's merger proposal was a "Continuation of that abuse of process." I hope that someday you will explain to me how abuse of process is not an accusation. You are explicit that merging the information and converting this page into a redirect will somehow allow unspecified minions to remove the information, despite the undoubted vigilence of dozens of Gore-haters who watch every page associated with him. That seems less likely than someone's filling this page with AG3's trivial accomplishments to provide "balance." After all, one cannot have it both ways: AFD has overridden WP:BIO in this instance, and making the debate team seems hardly less trivial than the information already here.

Meanwhile, you do seem to be threatening a lame-edit-war of the following form. This information gets merged into a more appropriate place -- perhaps making a main article out of Al Gore Jr. Family, perhaps expanding the section on Al Gore III's accident that already exists. The page is then converted into a redirect. (How long, O Developers, must your people wait for section redirects?) You revert. Someone reverts you. You keep reverting and dare someone who is perfectly happy with the redirect to take it to AFD? This makes no sense to me. Robert A.West (Talk) 00:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Strong disagreement "Not worth an article"? There's no incremental monetary cost to have an additional article, and other people are contributing to it so it doesn't cost you time. The reason for including this is that this is supposed to be a collection of the entire human knowledge. What's 'not' worth it is to do work to merge this article now, and in 5 years do additional work to un-merge it. 66.95.123.6 15:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

No one (in this discussion at least) proposes to excise the information from Wikipedia: that issue has been settled. The information is verifiable, certainly. The remaining question is where should this information reside to have the best encyclopedia? So, let's ask ourselves: Why do we have an article on Al Gore III and none on the thousands of others who have similar records? Answer: Because he is the son of someone famous. As far as I am concerned, all such information belongs in the article on the famous parent, and we can redirect. I see no difference between Al Gore III and Natalie Cantor Metzger in this respect. If he becomes notable on his own, the existing information will need to be completely reworked into the expanded article anyway. Odds are it will be trivia at that point. Robert A.West (Talk) 16:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Incidentaly, Wikipedia by its own policies can never be a collection of the entire human knowledge, since much human knowledge is not verifiable, a great deal would represent original research and still other cannot be expressed in a neutral manner. There is also a great deal of trivial and ephemeral knowledge that is excluded by WP:NOT. Robert A.West (Talk) 16:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The worry was expressed at DRV that, if this is merged to Al Gore, Jr., it will be whittled away. I trust this is mere incoherence; if not, it betrays mistrust of the wiki process. If these anecdotes will be attacked there, they can as easily be stubified here. The only way I can make sense of the worry is that this article is defended by a few determined editors, and the bulk of editors who would diminish it don't know about it. This would be an admission that this article is not supported by consensus. Septentrionalis 03:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong disagreement with merge. I've been watching the continuous stream of AfD nominations on this article, and I agree that the rapid merge proposal, though it *might* be a good faith nomination, does have the appearance of being nothing more than a continuation of the campaign to circumvent process and get this article deleted. To be honest, it appears that there's an agenda here, possibly even with political motivations (getting rid of an "inconvenient" negative article). In my view, Al Gore III passes notability requirements, and the article is appropriate. I would, however, like to see a more positive picture of him, because the current one is negative, and implies that the subject is a criminal. A more pleasant picture (if one can be found or provided) might make the article less objectionable. --Elonka 18:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• • There is no rational basis to suspect Radiant or me of continuing an agenda when neither of us participated in the AFD. You might have noticed that Radiant proposed a merge compromise on another DRV (P-P-P-Powerbook) that was listed on the same day as this one, and that I was concerned in the same DRV. I have also merged other articles about the children of famous people (e.g. Natalie Cantor Metzger) so it is hardly fair to suggest that I have specific motives here.

• • You are correct that the article poses an NPOV problem, and this is one of the reasons that I think it should be merged. Much of the support for this article comes from editors with political motives, which is just as deplorable as wanting to delete it for political reasons. In effect, there is no non-political decision that we can make here. I do note, however, that isolating the material here tends to make it less prominent, not more.

• • I am sure that there are several positive things to be said about Al Gore III, but few (if any) are likely to be verifiable, nor is a list of his varsity letters likely to make gripping reading. Unlike the Bush daughters, he didn't make speeches or help in the campaign. This is one of the problems with overriding WP:BIO for relatives of famous people. There isn't much to say about them except the (nearly always embarrassing) events that got them briefly in the press. As a result a young person with a kid's problem looks like a criminal, which is probably a distorted view of the individual.

• • Now that I think about it, I think I will mention the issue (in the abstract, not mentioning the article unless pressed) on Wikipedia:Biographies of living people. Maybe there is a good way to handle this that I am overlooking. Robert A.West (Talk) 22:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Disagree There does seem to be an agenda here with the all the Afd's and now the merge coming so close. Let this article be! Whats wrong with it? As far as I can tell it survived three legit Afd's and now it looks like another way to get rid of it is being discussed. Shame on us!--JimBeaming 06:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

For my part, and I think for others, the effect of the AfD was to draw the attention of otherwise neutral editors, who hadn't known of the existence of this article. (That is one of the ways that disputes are supposed to be handled. AfD is not the usual method, but I have seen it work before.) As for the suggestion of a conspiracy: honi soit qui mal y pense. Regards, Septentrionalis 15:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Evil to him because he thinks there is a conspiracy? Nice going, guess you can't say something without being insulted on Wiki anymore—The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:--63.167.255.231 17:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)|--63.167.255.231 17:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)]] ([[User talk:--63.167.255.231 17:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/--63.167.255.231 17:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)|contribs]]).

To each be what ill he thinks; seems perfectly fair to me, indeed an implementation of WP:AGF. Septentrionalis 21:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how saying something that effectively means, "Shame upon those who disagree with me" is an assumption of good faith. --Elonka 21:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it means "shame on those who assume bad faith, and cry shame." If there is a conspiracy here, I know I am not part of it, and I don't believe any one else in the merge discussion is. Septentrionalis 22:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually the exact meaning of the quote is subject to interpretation. Personally I don't think it should have been used here because someone was just voicing his/her opinion, as all of us are, however either way I don't think it added or subtracted in any way to help in the discussion of what this is all about; should the article be merged? I would say disagree because if you do merge you would have to take out the arrests because they would have no place in the Al Gore page, and if you do that you don't really have a story. Of course, that is another case for the next AFD...--David Foster 21:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

If I were merging, I would make it into a section Family problems. and include the arrests. If they're notable at all, they have a place there. How about a Gore family article, extending as far as Gore Vidal? Septentrionalis 17:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I see things exactly opposite to David Foster, above. If this were about Al Jones III, the article would have been deleted long ago. Even if the guy had been used as an example of a kid-from-a-good-family-gone-wrong on some TV program, that would not be viewed as providing enough notability. It is only the relation to his father, and the accompanying imputation of fault, that renders this guy even remotely notable. The arrests belong in an article on Al Gore, Jr., because that is the only context that makes them encyclopedic. Robert A.West (Talk) 14:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I would not say exactly opposite, for if you see in my message I agree that the arrests are the only context that makes him remotely notable.--David Foster 14:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Disagreement with merge It needs to be on its own Jeffklib 04:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion on WT:BLP

I presented this case as abstractly and as dispassionately as I could manage over on Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Relatives of famous people who fail WP:BIO on their own. Opinion is divided about whether such material should be deleted, and only specifics would solve that: no one knew if I was talking about holding a joint or holding up a store. On the other hand there seems a clear consensus that merging has often been used for articles like this one, and one forceful opinion that we should go out of our way to respect attempts to retain/regain private person status. I understand the background of irritation, but I only noticed this article because of the DRV, and truly think that our readers would be better served by placing this information in context either in the main article on his father, or in a separate article on the family. Robert A.West (Talk) 16:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Related discussion

On the subject of "offspring of notable individuals, and whether or not they deserve their own bio", I would be interested in additional opinions at Talk:Antonia Bennett. --Elonka 17:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is his occupation?

Why doesn't this article state what Al Gore III's occupation is? He is almost 24 years old and a college graduate, so presumably he has one. --Metropolitan90 14:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The article doesn't state Gore's occupation because, as far as anyone here knows, no verifiable source has given his occupation. See the debates on this page and the various AfDs (such as this one). The lack of verifiable sources for details that might be seen as basic (such as Gore's occupation) is one of the reasons I and some others don't think this article should exist right now. --Allen 07:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[unhelpful comment removed]

Well, I found an article about Good magazine that mentions he is an associate publisher. Robert A.West (Talk) 21:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Please cite the article. I found a two blogs that mentioned it, but nothing that satisfied WP:V. The link to the top page of magazine's website isn't enough. John Broughton | Talk 22:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I am mystified by the above request, since the link I put in (which is still there) is to the precise article. I suppose it would be nice to have the print-publication volume and date (if any), but I don't read either WP:V or WP:CITE as requiring a print citation for a FUTON source. I have no clue what is meant by, "The top page of the magazine's website," since that is not what is linked. The relevant passage occurs in the seventh paragraph on the page linked to: "It’s a convenient truth that Al Gore III is an associate publisher of Good." I'll admit it isn't much, but it satisfies verifiabiliy, and is cited as precisely as practical. Robert A.West (Talk) 23:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] photo

Great work finding the Good Magazine reference, Robert. It doesn't change my basic view of the article, but it's a step in the right direction. Now, how about the photograph? As Elonka alluded to earlier, the mug shot is POV. How about Image:AlGoreFamily.jpg, which is used to illustrate Karenna Gore Schiff? It's fair use, but so is the mug shot. --Allen 18:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Much better setting, though awfully small. If there's a larger version and we could crop out just his pic (or maybe him and his father), I think that would work better. --Elonka 22:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Can we crop a photo without permission from its owner?--63.167.255.231 23:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I've been meaning to respond to Elonka's suggestion myself... I think cropping a fair-use photo is indeed something we're not supposed to do, but I'm not sure why I have this idea. It may count as creating a derivative work or something. --Allen 23:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] clean-up

I have cleaned up this article as best I can. Please keep an eye on this article and make sure it is up to WP:BLP standards. Please note that standards for non-public-figures such as Gore III are much stricter that those for public figures (his dad, for example). Anything that smacks of muckraking or tabloid reporting should be removed immediately. The mugshot picture is absolutely not appropriate, nor is a list of every single time Gore III has been arrested. I am leaving the pot arrest reluctantly as it does seem notable, although only borderline. Feel free to discuss its inclusion further. Kaldari 18:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mind reading

The article says:

Because of this and the resulting lengthy healing process, his father chose to stay near him during the recovery....

We can not read Mr. Gore's mind to know why he chose. The only thing we can say is that he said that was the reason, if he did say that. You have my vote for deletion if you want to nominate the article for that. Steve Dufour 03:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC) p.s. I did not vote for his dad, but I sometimes wonder if I should have.  :-)

I went ahead and changed the sentence. Steve Dufour 00:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arrests

Unless you want this article to come under Office Protection, please respect Wikipedia's policies regarding living non-public figures. Specifically living non-public figures are entitled to a degree of privacy far more stringent than for public figures such as Al Gore Jr. Under a strict reading of the policy none of Gore III's arrests should be mentioned in this article as none are directly related to his notability, i.e. Gore III is not notable because of his arrests. I'm letting the pot arrest stay for now, as there was significant media coverage and it was an actual conviction (i.e. not just an arrest), but it may need to be removed at some point as well. Please respect this action as Jimbo is very adament on this policy and will lock an article indefinitely if problems of this nature are persistant. As Jimbo has said, "Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia." Just because something is true doesn't mean in belongs in an encyclopedia article, especially when non-public figures are involved. If in doubt, just pretend this is an article about yourself. What would you want advertised to the world about your life? Kaldari 18:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I probably wouldn't know that Al Gore had a son unless he hadn't been arrested so many times. I could very well argue that he is only truly notable because of his many arrests. Now, does this mean that the article is balanced? No, I don't think it is in its current form. Does that mean we have a BLP issue in terms of the sources and information? I don't think so there, either. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

"he is only truly notable because of his many arrests". Um, that's a bit rediculous. I've probably been arrested more times than Al Gore III, so how come I don't have a Wikipedia article? Kaldari 18:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The only reason we heard about these arrests was because of his father's fame. If he'd been your son or mine, it wouldn't have appeared on the news. On the other side, the same argument could be made about the Bush twins. I'd barely know that George W. Bush had daughters except for their frequent (and well documented) underage drinking sprees (and the partisan clamor that followed each such news mention). Yet on their WP pages, only the arrests with convictions (or nolo pleas) are listed. If every child of a politician got tabloid coverage, nobody with children would ever go into politics. Zero reason WP needs that bad karma. See David Walters for worst case scenario. Local newspaper made a huge partisan stink that the Gov's son got arrested for minor weed possession; poor college kid killed himself. I never want to see that happen because of ANYTHING I do here. BusterD 19:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd call Al Gore III "non-public," though. The argument can easily go either way, but one can't really "choose" whether they're public or not. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

"In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm". 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. (from NPF subsection)" BusterD 19:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

If we decide to have an article on this, the info on arrests belongs here. That said, I think we could be just as well served by a merge and redirect to the article on his father, since he really doesn't seem that notable to me. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 19:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see this as borderline, nor is this information "sensationalist" or "the primary vehicle for...titillating claims." --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

"The argument can easily go either way, but one can't really "choose" whether they're public or not." Sound like a classic description of borderline, in jeff's own text. This is slippery slope territory, and thank goodness WP has rules for this exact circumstance. To utilize a phrasing superior to mine, "If in doubt, just pretend this is an article about yourself. What would you want advertised to the world about your life?" BusterD 20:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The argument could, I'm simply not sure it'd be all that legitimate. If it were about myself, how could I complain? I'd be a newsworhty entity who couldn't stay out of trouble. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

If it were an article about myself, I'd say that the info about my arrests should be merged into some other article, since I'm not sufficiently notable to merit a standalone article. I do think it's relevant to Gore II that his son was arrested, since he's a high-profile politician and it may have had an effect on his positions on issues like drug sentencing guidelines. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

An interesting speculation, but WP should not engage in speculation. Robert A.West (Talk) 23:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, please the article is going to stay forever. He is a well-known figure because I apply the very simple Bush Daughters Rule. If Wikipedia is going to have a Bush Daughters article then there will be an little Al Gore article, especially if little Al Gore can't seem to keep his lips off the bottle before he gets behind the wheel of a car. The son a fomer Vice-President with a propensity to run his car fast, with alcohol in his system, is a notable story by itself, but now that Gore Senior has decided to make a book, movie and magazine and his son is going to play a role in all of these things the question of whether little Al Gore is notable is foregone conclusion. Game over. The article stays.--Getaway 22:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Non-sequiterNon sequitur. This is not a game, nor is it proper to use Wikipedia to push a particular POV, particularly to attack a living person. The question of whether the Bush daughters are public figures is logically unrelated to the question of whether Al Gore III is a public figure. In fact, the question of whether one Bush daughter is a public figure is logically unrelated to whether the other is. Each article must stand or fall on its own merits. Robert A.West (Talk) 23:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Whoa!!! You did not respond to barely anything that I stated. You only responded to the part that allowed you to use the word, non-sequiter. How impressive! Gore Junior's article will stay. I will repeat for your edification the real reason, not the one that you unsuccessfully attempted turn this into. I will go over it slow. (1) Gore Junior is the son of a former Vice President of the United States. That alone almost gets him to notability. (2) Gore Junior is NOT a quiet titmouse son of a former Vice President, but he has a personality where he has a tendency to fill his circulatory system with large amounts of alcohol and then drive a car at a high rate of speed, above legal limits. This characteristic probably gets him to notability level. But we will continue the analysis. (3) Gore Senior is engaged in a campaign where he is attempting to clean up his public image--either for a Presidential run in 2008 or just to clean up his image for history purposes. Now, in this PR campaign by Gore Senior there are various references to Gore Junior, bringing Gore Junior into the public limelight for reasons other than just being a reckless driving son of a former Vice President. If Gore Junior wants to stay out of Wikipedia and other public limelight situations then he needs to stop driving his car recklessly and he needs to stop working for high visibility political magazines or being referred to in movies that are starring his more famous father. So there you have it. The recent jump in Gore Junior's appearances in the public arena have put a nail in the coffin in the attempt to kill the Gore Junion Wikipedia article. Sorry that I ripped your non-sequiter argument to shreads, but you made it just too easy for me. Have a good day!--Getaway 00:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

"Notable" and "public figure" are not the same thing, especially when it comes to Wikipedia policies. All of Gore's children are probably "notable", but I would say only Karenna would qualify as a "public figure", and even then, just barely. Anyone who is notable can have a Wikipedia article, but non-public figures are entitled to a certain degree of privacy regarding their personal lives. How much privacy is arguably a function of how close they come to being a "public figure". Clearly some of Gore III's life involves the public arena, but compared to Karenna (or the Bush sisters) it is only a very small fraction. Indeed Gore III seems to have no interest whatsoever in being in the public limelight. Considering the power we weild to affect people's lives and reputations, it is important for us to respect that. Kaldari 00:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the article stays. Gore Junior is making decision today that nullifies your arguments that MIGHT have been true a few years ago, but Gore Junior's actions have put him the public arena and he is notable. You are attempting to split hairs, but it will not work. Also, how do you know that Gore Junior "seems to have no interest whatsoever in being in the public limelight"? Can you read his mind? You don't know. Admit it you don't know. All we have to go on is his actions and he now making choices that put him in the limelight: driving a car at a great deal of speed with alcohol in his system? That makes you think that Gore Junior "seems to have no interest" in the public limelight??? Yeah, right! Did somebody make Gore Junior do that? No. He made a decision, a decision that public him the public spotlight. You are arguing that you KNOW what Junior thinks! How ludicrious! You want me to respect his desire to stay out of the limelight, correct? That's what you stated. So, how do you know that is his desire? He is call you? Do you know him personally. If so, you did not point that out. What you stated was that you personally believe, based upon what I dod not know, that it "seems" to you that "Gore III" has "no interest" in the "public limelight". Prove it. Show me how you know this. Where, how, when did did you definitely learn this and what is your source that we can cite as Wikipedians?????--Getaway 00:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

This is beginning to border on troll-like behavior. Most recent comments seem to have evoked strong POV and don't seem to be showing the subject of this article appropriate respect. BusterD 01:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

How about a little good faith? I don't think anyone's trolling here - it's a genuine disagreement. We're all reasonable people, right? --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

When users are referring to the subject of the article as Gore Jr, and belaboring a conversation largely conceded, these are what I refer to as "bordering on troll-like behavior". I can certainly assume good faith while describing potential POV and other violations, but demonstrated patterns of behavior here in this discussion edge close to troll-like behavior. That's hardly a controversial assessment. BusterD 03:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

No. Let me help you out. You do not like the comments that I made. Period. You do not agree with what I said. Fine. That is your right. But just because I stated an opinion that you did not like does not make it "troll-like" behavior. As a matter of fact, your comments are a personal attack and that is against Wikipedia policy. Knock it off. Just defend the argument and focus on the article not on me. Your focus on me is not asked for, not desired or welcomed. Focus on the article that is what I have been talking about and you should be also.--Getaway 03:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

(outdenting) I've never said that Gore III should not have an article, nor have I ever said he was not notable. I don't have to read Gore III's mind to know he is not a public figure. He is not involved in politics or entertainment, not is he especially famous. He has never tried to enter politics or entertainment, nor has he tried to gain fame or even have a presence in the public (obviously it would be rather easy for him to do so if he wanted to). The fact is Gore III is not a public figure and therefore we must follow the appropriate procedures and respect his privacy to a reasonable degree. You can take my word for it, or your can ask Danny, Brad Patrick, or Jimbo as they are very sensitive to this issue. Kaldari 02:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

No. You are incorrect. Gore Junior is a public figure. Every where that I turn I read an article about Gore Junior. Gore Senior refers to him in movies. And now Gore Junior is getting involved in a very public part of the public arena, a magazine. He has stepped out on the stage. Also, you state, "The fact is Gore III is not a public figure" as if you are the arbitor of what is a fact and what is not a fact. That is comment is not a fact, but your opinion. Gore Junior has made decisions, not healthy ones, to get a snoot full and drive a car at fast speed which brings him into the public eye. What a cry for attention. He is making clear choices to step in the limelight for example the magazine and the references in the his father's movies, but he is also making bad choices that bring him into the public also.--Getaway 03:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes I'm sure Gore III begged his father to be mentioned in the movie, decided that he still wasn't famous enough so he needed to get arrested for drinking and driving, and is now hoping against hope that he will go down in history as the most drug-addled, irresponsible son of a vice president in history. Kaldari 03:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow! That's really a good argument to delete the whole article. No. Wait. Not true. It is just pointless sarcasm.--Getaway 04:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Getaway, you earlier criticized Kaldari for allegedly trying to read Gore III's mind. Please stick to your own advice. You don't know whether Gore's actions constitute a cry for attention. Also, please edit your earlier comments to refer to the subject of the article by his name, Al Gore III (or Gore III, or Gore, for short). He is not Gore Junior, and he certainly isn't [derogatory nickname removed]. This is an encyclopedia, not a political blog. --Allen 03:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow. It is an encyclopedia. I thought from the way that so many are attempting to complete delete an article about the son of former Vice President of the United States, who now runs a political magazine, much like JFK, Jr. I thought is was a political blog. Now that is sarcasm with a point.--Getaway 04:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• A few points in response:

1. No reputable encyclopedia would refer to Gore III as Gore Junior.
2. JFK, Jr. was the son of a president, not a vice-president.
3. JFK, Jr. was the founder of his magazine, while the magazine with whigh Gore III is involved was founded by Ben Goldhirsh.[1] Gore III does not have a particularly prominent role in the enterprise.
4. JFK, Jr.'s magazine (George) had at one point the highest circulation of any political magazine in America. Good magazine is nowhere near that notable. It just published its first issue, and even by their own account has slightly under 8,000 subscribers.

As such, your comparison is deeply flawed. Your tone isn't particularly helpful, either. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You are right, your tone isn't particularly helpful. Next, you made some very small, insignificant observations. The article on little Gore will stay: (1) he is the son of former Vice President, who looks like he is running again, (2) he had a propensity to drink too much alcohol and then get behind the wheel of car and then drive the car at great deal of speed, endangering his life and the lives of others, and (3) he is the associate publisher of a political magazine that is going to making comments on public figures and his father will be one of the guiding hands behind the editorial policy of the magazine. See the New York Observer article. Little Gore is a public figure (for good or bad) and he is notable. Wikipedia case closed. Have a good day and work on that tone of yours. It isn't helpful.--Getaway 18:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I ask you once again to adopt a more reasonable tone; if you continue to avoid doing so, people are likely to discount your opinions out of hand. Replying to your points in order: 1) Gore II has given no official indication that he plans to run again; in fact, all of his on-the-record comments have indicated the opposite, and unsourced speculation doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Furthermore, Gore II's hypothetical actions are completely irrelevant here. If Gore III were planning to run for president, that would be worth noting. 2) There's nothing in the article about drunk driving, and even if there were, why would that affect notability? There are thousands of people arrested every year for driving drunk. 3) At present, the magazine is non-notable, and lots of non-notable publications "make comments on public figures". As was the case with your first point, if Gore II is involved with the magazine (something that's not mentioned at all in the Observer article you cite), that's something that belongs in the article on Gore II, not here. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 19:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Precedents

A look at the treatment within articles of other vice-presidential children may be instructive in this matter.

• Al Gore has four children.
  • Karenna Gore Schiff has an article. She is notable for her work as a writer.
  • Kristin Gore has an article. She is notable for her work as a writer, and for her related Emmy award nomination.
  • Sarah Gore does not have an article.
  • Al Gore III is currently under discussion.
• Dick Cheney has two children.
  • Elizabeth Cheney has an article. She is notable for holding several political positions in the State Department, at least one of which was created specifically for her.
  • Mary Cheney has an article. She is notable for her involvement in the 2004 presidential campaign, when her sexuality became a central issue after it was mentioned in a presidential debate. She has also written a notable book, her autobiography.
• Dan Quayle has three children.
  • Tucker Quayle does not have an article.
  • Benjamin Quayle does not have an article.
  • Corrinne Quayle does not have an article.
• Walter Mondale has three children.
  • Theodore A. "Ted" Mondale has an article. He is notable for serving as a state senator, running for governor, and filling other state political roles.
  • Eleanor Mondale has an article. She is notable for her work as a television host on E!.
  • William H. Mondale does not have an article.
• Nelson Rockefeller has seven children.
  • Rodman Rockefeller has an article. He is notable for serving as president and CEO of several major corporations, for his involvement with his family's charities, and for his work with the Mexico-United States Business Committee.
  • Anne Rockefeller Roberts does not have an article.
  • Steven C. Rockefeller has an article. He is notable for serving as dean of Middlebury College, for his involvement with the Earth Charter, and for his philanthropic works.
  • Michael Rockefeller has an article. He is notable for disappearing during an anthropological expedition in 1961, with the search for him being a major news item of the time.
  • Mary Clark Rockefeller does not have an article.
  • Nelson Rockefeller, Jr. does not have an article.
  • Mark Rockefeller has an article. He is notable for being the chairman of a notable non-profit organization.
• Spiro Agnew has four children.
  • Pamela Agnew does not have an article.
  • James Rand Agnew does not have an article.
  • Susan Agnew does not have an article.
  • Kimberly Agnew does not have an article.
• Hubert Humphrey had one child.
  • Skip Humphrey has an article. He is notable for serving as a state senator and attorney general, and for running for the US senate.

After a casual examination, it seems that ALL of the other vice-presidential children with standalone articles are significantly more notable than Gore III. The closest analogues are probably Mary Cheney and Michael Rockefeller, but both have received significantly more media coverage than Gore III has. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

What a faulty analysis. This analysis is enlightening for how it points out the inconsistencies through Wikipedia, but it there is not one person there who has the driving record of little Gore and you left George H.W. Bush out of your list entirely. It is a grand list of information that makes a statment about Wikipedia, but it does not speak to little Gore at all. What it does show is that more recent politicians get more thorough coverage by Wikipedia than politician that served at a greater distance in the past. But of course that observation has really very little to do with the current discussion.--Getaway 18:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, Getaway, please edit your comments to refer to Gore in a way that isn't blatantly and needlessly derisive. Calling him "Little Gore" is insulting to Gore, and it is insulting to the people here who are trying to have a grown-up discussion with you. --Allen 23:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Meanwhile, this list shows me that we have a lot of missing articles. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I left George H.W. Bush out of the list because I was using only vice-presidents who did not subsequently become president (that's the same reason I skipped Gerald Ford, LBJ, and Nixon) and if you were paying attention I noted this as a source of potential selection bias in the post immediately preceding this one. Your point about more recent politicians is also inapplicable, since I deliberately restricted it to the most recent Vice Presidents for exactly that reason. As for the driving thing, it's impractical to suggest that we create a standalone article for every non-notable person who's involved in a car accident. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 19:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The "missing" articles would almost certainly be put up for AFD, no matter what their contents, and they shouldn't survive. Articles on the children of famous entertainers – personalities probably more well known than half of the Vice Presidents listed above – are routinely deleted on this basis. There just isn't enough for an interesting and well-rounded article. The child may have been trotted out on stage once or twice, or been the subject of a custody battle, but unless the case was precedent-setting or the child does something notable on his or her own, there is little point. Whether free publicity for a would-be entertainer or a plague to a would-be private citizen, such articles should have no place in Wikipedia. Robert A.West (Talk) 22:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow! Jumping to conclusion, Batman! The articles have not even been researched or written yet but yet, Robert A. West, you have decided that any articles that might come from that list you have already voted down in a hypothetical AFD. Amazing. Jaw-dropping. Thanks for the insight though. It shows where this discussion is going.--Getaway 00:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with (or unusual about) saying that something doesn't deserve an article for reason of non-notability. My left foot isn't notable, and I don't think it deserves an article here, but that doesn't make me some kind of deletionist bigot. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 05:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You make an interesting but strange analogy, but unfortunately it is just a strawman argument that is not convincing. You know and I know that I was not referring to "your left foot". We know exactly what I WAS referring to which of course is the list of children of Vice Presidents. So your commentary was as dismissive as a Robert West's comment. You don't know and West does not know if there are notable articles there or not. But once again, I am glad that you and West are making these comments because it shows how determined you both are to get this particular article about Gore III removed from Wikipedia--even though your arguments have not been convincing. We will go over it again: (1) son of a former VP, a VP who is still active in politics,

(2) a son of a VP that has a long history of reckless driving,

(3) a son of a VP that has an alcohol problem,

(4) a son of a VP with a substance abuse problem,

(5) a son of a VP that is mentioned over and over again by the former VP, Al Gore (the parent), in books, movies, speeches (DNC convention, for example) etc.,

(6) a son of a VP that has recently started work as an associate publisher of a political magazine and the son's name is actively being used to promote and sell the magazine (e.g., the New York Observer just happen to drop his name in the article), and

(7) a son of a VP who is publishing a political magazine that will be a mouthpiece for the opinions of his famous father, who is still very, very active in politics, and

(8) a son of VP that has been the focus of a debate about whether his driving, alcohol, and substance abuse problems are getting very little coverage in the mainstream media in relation to say the Bush daughters.

Yeah, he's notable, he's a public figure, and his article will stay in Wikipedia. The only real question is: Is his story being told in a NPOV way? If no, then it needs work (and I believe those issues have been addressed).--Getaway 15:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll concede that "regardless of their contents" sounds a tad peremptory. The intention was "regardless of whether the few verifiable tidbits are complimentary or otherwise." Remember that an arrest for some minor offense makes better copy than making Phi Beta Kappa, even though the latter is a rarer event. This means that an article about a non-notable relative of a famous person will tend to be skewed negative, unless the subject has a publicist. Robert A.West (Talk) 06:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Once again, you are assuming that your personal opinion (Al Gore III is non-notable) is the premise all discussions on this board. Once again, it is your opinion. There are several reasons Gore II is notable and a public figure.--Getaway 15:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I took a quick look for media sources dealing with those people before I listed them, and was unable to find anything significant. As such, I think it's entirely reasonable to conclude that they are by-and-large non-notable. I should also point out once again that I'm not trying to get anything "removed" from Wikipedia; it's my opinion that information about Gore III should be merged to his father's article. Your numbered points are no more persuasive this time around than they were earlier, for reasons that I have already articulated. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 00:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus has been established on Arrests and dates

One user continues to insert this material against policy and against consensus. I see no crowds accumulating to back up this user. As long as these issues remain violations of policy, they stay out. BusterD 17:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you point me to this consensus you speak of? The material isn't against policy (man, people like to toss BLP around willy-nilly), and I'm not sure there's any consensus for removal here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Unless I'm miscounting, in the above discussion I see five against (now six) such inclusion for one reason or other and two in favor (including User:Getaway, who has pretty much discredited his or her position by a disrespectful and deeply personal political tone throughout). That's just in the last few days of course, but 5 to 2 seems like rough consensus to me. And then we have the small matter of WP:BLP. BusterD 18:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow. I have not in anyway "discredited" myself. That is your opinion. Now, we can begin a long and detailed discussion about personal attacks such as the one that you just engaged in or we can focus on the article. I would suggest that you foucus on the article and not me. That is Wikipedia policy, but if isn't then I would like to point me to where you get the privilege to foucs on me personally. I will also point out that if you go down that road and then I will use that mythical policy to discuss you. What is good for one is good for all. Focus your attention on the article, not me, got it???--Getaway 18:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that you quote policy less, and read it more. This schoolyard "did not, did too" stuff plays very well on chatboards, but any account of User:Getaway's comments in the Wikipedia thread above which did not include a description of his or her disrespectful and deeply personal partisan tone would be incomplete. There's nothing controversial in that assessment. I certainly understand why a reasonable person might disagree on these matters, but one user's POV pushing has not been a productive part of this discussion. Same user reinserted birthday, which is a clear violation of policy, even AFTER the above discussion which points that policy out. So willful insertion of birthdate after notification counts as vandalism. Nothing controversial in pointing THAT out. Talking about vandalism made by a user on talk pages is not a personal attack. BusterD 18:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I count three expressing a definite view in favor, two expressing a definite view against, and a lot of discussion that doesn't seem to indicate an actual consensus in terms of ideas, considering much of it is dominated by "should he have an article at all," an issue that has been resolved. The arrest stuff, at least, is not a BLP issue - it's well-sourced, wouldn't overwhelm the article, and is relevant to his notability. I'm not sure there's a consensus for removal at all. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing in the WP:BLP section that justifies BusterD's comments or edits. I will re-write what he removed. It is verifiable information and it does not violate Wikipedia policy. There are literally hundreds of articles in Wikipedia that talk about arrests, such as Mel Gibson's recent arrest, Rush Limbaugh's arrest, Hugh Grant's prostitution arrest, MLK's protest arrests, Henry David Thoreau's protest arrest, AND, of course, the Bush Daughter's legal issues at the Chuy's Mexican Restaurant in Austin, Texas (need I go on???? No, the point is well made), etc. The arrests will go back in. Have a good day!--Getaway 18:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Gibson, Limbaug, King, and Thoreau are public figures; AG III is not. I am starting to think that the Bush daughters' arrests should be removed, unless someone can offer much better sources establishing notability. TheronJ 18:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we can agree that AGIII isn't "public." You don't really get to choose such things, after all, and even if one could choose, the sourcing in the section more than justifies its inclusion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

At any rate, the proposition that W::BLP prohibits the arrests being mentioned has been completely, well, "discredited." Ironic, isn't it?--Getaway 18:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The information on the arrests is notable, as is easily demonstrated by multiple mentions on CNN. It should stay, though I agree it shouldn't be a primary focus of the article. --Elonka 20:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem with Al Gore III is that he is notorious for being a son of the former vice-president, that has been arrested a few times. The arrests have made him notorious, thus newsworthy. However, any mention of the arrests have been censured under the rubric that the "arrests" aren't notable. This turns notability on it's head. Al III's arrests wern't strictly tabloid fodder, they were reported over the news-wires and on reputable news-sites. The arrests can be cited to reputable sources. In it's own wikiarticle, subsection of an Al Sr. article, whatever, the arrests are part of the story and need to be mentioned. Mytwocents 18:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My two cents on WP:BLP and Al III

For what it's worth, I strongly oppose inclusion of Al III's criminal record or specific birthday in this article.

Per the relevant section of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy:

Non-public figures

Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are nevertheless entitled to the respect for privacy afforded non-public figures. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only information relevant to their notability. Material from primary sources should generally not be used unless it has first been mentioned by a verifiable secondary source. (see above).

In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm". 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.

Here, (1) Al Gore III is clearly not a public figure; and (2) his criminal record, while verifiable, is not, IMHO, relevant to his notablity. There was no major media coverage of the events. I'll grant, Jenna Bush and Barbara Pierce Bush both have detailed descriptions of an arguable less serious criminal offense, but (1) maybe they shouldn't and (2) in any event, those offenses got much more coverage, (although you certainly can't tell that from their articles, which cite to the smoking gun as a source). TheronJ 18:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

There we go again! The Gore III-is-not-a-public-figure argument! He is a public figure. I outlined in great detail why these days he is a public figure.--Getaway 18:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing in the WP:BLP section that justifies BusterD's comments or edits. I will re-write what he removed. It is verifiable information and it does not violate Wikipedia policy. There are literally hundreds of articles in Wikipedia that talk about arrests, such as Mel Gibson's recent arrest, Rush Limbaugh's arrest, Hugh Grant's prostitution arrest, MLK's protest arrests, Henry David Thoreau's protest arrest, AND, of course, the Bush Daughter's legal issues at the Chuy's Mexican Restaurant in Austin, Texas (need I go on???? No, the point is well made), etc. The arrests will go back in. Have a good day!--Getaway 18:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I found this picture of a recent Gore family Christmas card on the Internet. [2] or the link to the album [3] It shows the whole family, and Al Gore III smiling casually. Most of the other photos on the web make Al III look stiff. My question is; does this photo qualify as fair use? and; should we use it on the Al Gore III page? I think, as a freely distributed Christmas card, it is open for use on Wikipedia, and it shows Al Gore III in the context of his family. It's as the son of Al and Tipper, that he has any hint of notability, in the first place. Mytwocents 19:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Link does not work.--Getaway 19:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The second one does, and leads here. Septentrionalis 19:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed dispute resolution

It looks to me like there are three interlocking questions:

1. Is Al Gore III a "public figure" for the purposes of WP:BLP?
2. Are Al Gore III's arrests notable? and
3. Given the answers to 1 and 2, should the arrests be included in the article?

I'd like to propose the following:

1. Let's do any form of dispute resolution that the proponents of the info want. I think a request for comment makes the most sense, but you can pick.
2. In the meantime, given that a majority (probably a supermajority) opposes entry, and given that WP:BLP advises caution, let's leave the info out while we try to reach consensus.

Thoughts? TheronJ 19:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• I would agree to such a process. BusterD 19:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

(for the record, after User:Getaway comment on my talk page, I've reported myself for personal attacks. Go there and make your case ladies and gentlemen!)

• I think it is inevitable that mention of Al Gore III's arrests will be included in this article. It was headline news for at least one news cycle at the time. I would like to see any public statement he made as an apology or explanation included, to help balance the story in his behalf. Mytwocents 19:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• I suggest bringing this up at the BLP noticeboard for faster action. MedCab takes way too long, and I'm not sure any true majority opposes inclusion, anyway. I'm in on whatever, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I would agree to dispute resolution, but the information on the arrests should be kept in the article, so that people know what they're discussing. We can't ask for comment about a vacuum. --Elonka 20:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

If a personal phone number or email address were placed into the article, we wouldn't leave it in the article while discussion occurs. Article history is intact and contains every change ever made to the article (fully viewable by non-admins). BusterD 20:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Elonka, would it be ok if we moved the criminal info to a subpage for now, with links here? (How about Talk:Al Gore III/disputed?) That way, proponents can continue to improve the language and sources, and we'll have a reference for the RFC, without all the edit warring and accordioning. Thanks, TheronJ 20:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Since the fact of the arrests is true beyond reasonable dispute, I see no harm to leaving them here while they are discussed elsewhere. Nor harm in doing as TheronJ suggests. TheronJ's list avoids the questions that occured to me when I first noticed this article:

• Is the notable person affected by the arrests actually the father (unquestionably a famous public figure whose abilities as a father are arguably relevant to his notable activities), rather than the son (arguably not a notable figure)?
• If so, does the information belong in an article related to the father, rather than here?
• If it belongs elsewhere, is there any encyclopedic content left for this article?
• If it belongs in this article, is it possible to write an NPOV article about a person who has committed a few relatively minor offenses, but whose other activities are not noteworthy enough to receive much coverage in reliable sources?

I am happy to participate in any dispute resolution and will cheerfully abide by any consensus. I think this article is one instance of a more general problem (notability-by-inheritance) that I would like to see discussed. For that reason, I think that an RFC is most appropriate, although a mention on the BLP noticeboard would invite wider participation and a truer consensus. Robert A.West (Talk) 20:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I would definitely support posting this to the BLP noticeboard, as this will certainly be of interest to them. Kaldari 21:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm willing to work through whatever process people here consider to be most applicable. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 23:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page protection

In response to a complaint at WP:PAIN I've protected this page. In doing so I've removed one disputed section while the material is under discussion. WP:BLP should be read conservatively while the dispute is ongoing. I have no opinion on how this dispute should conclude. Durova 03:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, there hasn't been serious editing of this article in over 7 hours, and even then, very little in the way of reversion or edit warring. As shown above, most parties have at least agreed to a stalemate while we await more information. This seems a bit much. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with User:Badlydrawnjeff that page protection is probably not necessary, but the gesture is welcome (and would have been a bit more welcome by everyone earlier today). Things seems to have cooled a bit, but I think virtually everyone associated with this conversation would like some dispute resolution on a few salient points. While I fear to think ill will, it is possible that one user does not wish resolution; if that's the case, I think some disciplinary action may need be investigated and applied under the rules to the betterment of the entire project. I think previous posters have covered most of my concerns as it regards actual content. I propose that in this case, BLP guides are violated to the possible risk of reputation to the pedia. Some expert wikiguidance would protect the pedia and help to assuage any hard feelings which may have any affected users involved. BusterD 04:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll leave this overnight and then lift. The WP:PAIN notice was new so it seemed people were still hot under the collar. (There might be a bit of nationalist bias here, but since this is a North American topic is it safe to assume that nighttime happens during roughly the same hours for this page's editors?) Durova 05:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Chalk up another reason why it's a great idea to keep eng.wiki as multinational as possible. I'd love to get some non-Americans interested in this discussion, but am grateful for a non-North American defuser as well. BusterD 05:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Well, I'm half American, but haven't lived in the states for about 15 years, so I suppose I qualify. For a reader outside of the States, Gore (IMO) qualifies as a non-notable person. He was mentioned *by* his father in a book and movie, but has done nothing to put himself in the public eye. I see that some consider his editor job at Good Magazine as a claim to notability, but I don't agree. Is there a Wiki article about every editor of every other magazine published? I hope this article stays protected in its present form, and I would prefer to see it deleted entirely. Until Mr. Gore III actually accomplishes something on his own, and is not simply seen as a child of a former vice-president, he certainly seems a private citizen to me.Jeffpw 12:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've unprotected the page. I'll add a few comments that might help to sort this out. First, this is someone who is somewhat in the public eye no matter what he does - just because of who his father is. I think the appropriate question for WP:BLP is what has he done to place himself in the public eye? If I recall correctly, JFK Jr. was basically a private individual until he dated Darryl Hannah. The Bush twins? If they've done nothing more than some underage drinking then maybe their biographies should be reviewed per WP:BLP too. Wikipedia ought to be nonpartisan. I don't follow children-of-celebrities news very closely, so there may be nuances I've overlooked. Having slept on the matter, I think perhaps the question to ask is, If this person's parents had been dentists, then how famous would this person be? Durova 17:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notes regarding request for comment

• I've started a request for comment, below, and formatted it as suggested in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Article RfC example. If anyone has any concerns with my summary, let me know and I will try to put it right.
• If you are an editor previously involved in the dispute, please try to keep your statement short - 2-3 lines if possible.

Thanks, TheronJ 14:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I would phrase as follows.

This is a dispute about whether some or all of Al Gore III's police record should be included in his biography article, and/or in the article for his father, Al Gore Jr. If the material is included, should it be limited to convictions, arrests or should speeding tickets be included?

This avoids three problems with "criminal history". First, that phrase suggests different and more serious offenses. Second, it either limits consideration to convictions and guilty pleas or else mandates that Wikipedia take a position on the truth of matters that never resulted in a verdict, in violation of NPOV. Third, it implicitly excludes the speeding offense, because speeding is neither a misdemeanor nor a felony, and one is not technically arrested for it. We don't need semantic problems that we can avoid. Robert A.West (Talk) 17:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I added a 'content' tag to the article page to show there is a dispute about this article. Mytwocents 21:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Robert -- your wish is my command. Thanks, TheronJ 22:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment: Publication of police record

This is a dispute about whether some or all of Al Gore III's police record should be included in his biography article, and/or in the article for his father, Al Gore Jr. If the material is included, should it be limited to convictions, arrests or should speeding tickets be included?

The phrasing above was changed slightly at an editor's request. IMHO, the two formulations are close enough that none of the comments below should be affected. TheronJ 21:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• IMHO, Al III's arrests aren't notable and he is not, public interest notwithstanding, a "public figure" for purposes of WP:BLP. I would exclude the information. TheronJ 14:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• III's arrests are worthy of inclusion as they relate directly to his notability. They are well sourced and relevant, and he is a "public figure" whether he'd prefer to be or not. IMO, of course. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• I agree with Badlydrawnjeff's comments. --Getaway 15:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Include- per Badlydrawnjeff- The arrests can be cited to reputable sources. In it's own wikiarticle, subsection of an Al Sr. article, whatever the case, the arrests are part of the story and need to be mentioned. Mytwocents 16:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Omit per WP:BLP. Not a public figure, we should respect their privacy and quit trying to be a tabloid. If arrests are included, only those receiving substantial media coverage should be mentioned. Kaldari 17:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Valid for inclusion in the father's article (or a Gore family article), but the stand-alone bio violates WP:NPOV#Undue weight, because there is practically no verifiable information outside of those incidents that affected or embarrassed his father. Robert A.West (Talk) 17:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Include. I believe that the notability of this type of information depends on the type of sources which are covering it. If his arrest is only covered in local press, then no, I wouldn't say it's necessarily worth including in a Wikipedia article, even though it's verifiable. But if it's covered in major national or international press (such as CNN), then it's a credible source, it's verifiable, and it's obviously notable. I would also be uncomfortable if we were to remove the information, because what then happens the next time someone does some research, finds this credible and notable information that isn't in the Wikipedia article, and, in all good faith, tries to re-add it? Do we revert them, even though they have valid credible sources, and say, "Sorry, it's negative, it can't go into the article?" That's going to cause great confusion, and since it's so subjective, will cause many arguments in the future about which information is okay to include. --Elonka 21:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Gore family or Al Gore#Family problems. I agree with GRBerry's analysis below; and I don't see his (2) as a likely outcome. (But perhaps I am swayed by the eminently neutral phrase removed here and so often repeated above.) Septentrionalis 23:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Omit I respect the assertion Badlydrawnjeff has made, but I disagree with it. If most assistant magazine editors with some arrests and tickets had articles on WP, his argument would be a strong one. I assert that these biographical facts are ONLY notable because of the subject's biological relationship with a public figure. If the subject was the son of any of the editors involved, he'd be non-public on the merits. IMHO, relationship with a public figure is not of itself reason for notability or public status. So IMHO, as long as Al Gore III stays out of his father's political campaigns (and six years since last involvement is significant in this case), he's by definition on non-public figure, and therefore the traffic tickets and lesser offenses stay out per WP:BLP, since consensus says the article should stay per 5 AfDs. BusterD 01:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I want to prevent the solidification of the idea that 5 AfDs all had consensus to keep, even though I'm not sure if that's exactly what you meant. The first two were no consensus, with a majority voting to delete. The third was consensus to keep, though I think (per my comment in the fourth AfD) that those results may have been skewed due to an incomplete nomination. The fourth was speedy-kept despite a majority voting delete, on the ground of "bad faith nom, WP:SNOW, and an AfD determining keep mere days ago". The fifth was speedy kept due to bad-faith nom. The keep in this fifth case was upheld in deletion review due to the recency of the fourth AfD, but the bad-faith accusation was overturned. I say all this now only to point out that "consensus says the article should stay per 5 AfDs" might be an oversimplification. --Allen 03:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear. This article has survived 5 attempts at deletion, for whatever reason and by whatever plurality. That number 5 is statistically significant, no matter what the cases. My personal preference is that the article be merged/deleted, because the focus of this article has been to tar the subject with a black brush and link as a ball and chain to a public figure. If the article must stay, then the traffic tickets and minor offenses should come out. BusterD 18:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I figured that was probably what you meant; I mainly just didn't want others to misinterpret it as referring to 5 consensus-to-keeps. --Allen 19:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Merge the arrest into Al Gore. Al Gore III is not himself sufficiently notable to deserve an article on Wikipedia, but the arrest does have some ramifications for his father, and as such would not be out of place in that article. Everything else is just kipple, and doesn't serve much point. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

CommentsStatements from previously uninvolved editors

• I have to question III's notability, considering that I didn't even know he existed until I saw this RfC. Assuming that he does meet WP:BIO, if the incidents received substantial media coverage, and are sourced by reliable secondary sources, then it probably can go in. (To be consistent with my position on the "outing" of Larry Craig, I am not seeing the coverage referenced here as substantial. But if his notability is based upon these incidents, and there was not substantial media coverage, then III probably shouldn't even have an article on WP. It's sort of a chicken and egg conundrum. As for those who are looking for fairness in the treatment between III and the Bush twins, I would suggest that this is not the venue for it. The MRC article and the discussion about the bias in coverage could make good mention in an article on media bias, but not in a bio of a debatably notable child of a politician. Crockspot 17:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• While I continue to believe, as I have in recent AFDs, that Al Gore III is not sufficiently notable to have a Wikipedia article, the AFD consensus is otherwise. But that AFD consensus of being notable enough to have an article is based, at least in part, on the facts and press coverage about the arrests. See, the discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Gore III (second nomination) or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Gore III (3rd nomination), where t least half those opining keep explicitly referenced the arrests or the opinion of another that referenced the arrests. I therefore conclude that the arrests are relevant to his notability. This means, per WP:BLP#Non-public figures, that information about the arrests should be included in the article. I see two viable alternatives: 1) no article at all for him, as he lacks adequate notability without the arrests and their consequences (merge and redirect is a possibility here); or 2) an article that covers the arrests in their consequences using the highest standards of sourcing and a neutral point of view. GRBerry 22:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the way the arrests were mentioned where in a neutral point of view. It simply stated his arrests and made no mention of personal or political views. I agree in saying the arrests should be put back on as they were. Remember, WP:N and WP:BLP are not a formal policies. There is sufficient verifiable, reliable material for the article to be written in a neutral POV192.94.22.2 02:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You're mistaken; WP:BLP is official policy. --Allen 03:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Fine, however the way the arrests were mentioned where in a neutral point of view. It simply stated his arrests and made no mention of personal or political views. I agree in saying the arrests should be put back on as they were.192.94.22.2 04:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I guess I can only comment here rather than vote above since I wasn't previously involved in this debate? My line of reasoning is this: Does he meet WP:BIO? In reading that guideline I don't see how he does? If he does meet it, then the arrest record should stay if sourced by reliable, mainstream sources. If he does not meet WP:BIO, then the article shouldn't exist at all. --plange 05:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • This is not a vote. I think the idea of the structure is to set forth a summary of all sides of the dispute, then begin a general discussion in a hope of reaching consensus. Robert A.West (Talk) 05:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • We are all editors; it is just useful to distinguish the positions of those as yet uninvolved in this Tar Baby as the outside comments requested, and perhaps more neutral. Septentrionalis 14:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    • That's cool, I understand now :-) I would encourage everyone to look at WP:BIO and see in what way an article is justified per that guideline? If it cannot be found, then the article should be deleted and the arrest stuff, if deemed necessary, should go in the father's bio. It appears to me that the arrest record is the only raison d'etre for the article in the first place. --plange 15:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion the fact that the whole raison de'etre for this article even being here seems to be to make political points against VP Al Gore would be a good reason to leave out the arrest information. Al Gore III sounds like a really boring person; at least the Bush twins are a little bit entertaining. Steve Dufour 06:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to Al Gore#Family problems. If the kid hadn't been the son of a sitting Vice President the arrests wouldn't have been noteworthy. There's too little of interest beyond the arrests to merit an article. -Will Beback 22:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Too little interest? Look at this dicussion...

Hmm, yes, which is about the arrest, the key phrase in Will Beback's statement being the part that I've bolded in its restatement: "There's too little of interest beyond the arrests to merit an article" --plange 21:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who wants to see the arrests and how others may think this page would be with the arrests should look here [4]65.103.136.198 03:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's basically what this article looked like a few weeks ago. Kaldari 16:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

(unindent) to me, it appears that the arrest record is the only reason this article exists. If that's the case, it should be merged to his father's page, if deemed appropriate, and this article either deleted or redirected to Al Gore's page. --plange 16:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Kaldari 16:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I endorse this merge-with-Al-Gore solution. - Crockspot 17:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• I believe the information should be included, but written as concisely as possible per the undue-weight guideline. It's a shame in a way that members of political families are subject to greater scrutiny, but we didn't invent that -- the fact is that this sort of thing makes the news. If this were the only thing to say about Al III, I'd vote "merge", but the 1989 accident story was explicitly fronted by his father in the 1992 speech, which pushes him into notability. I've defended the inclusion of similar material on the pages of some of the Bush kids. --Dhartung | Talk 07:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • There's nothing notable about Al Gore III that isn't directly related to his father. The fact that his father mentioned him in his 1992 speech makes me more inclined to merge, not less. Kaldari 19:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Why the desire to whitewash the drug and alchol problems of Al Gore III?--72.181.140.32 20:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Not Whitewashing. If it were whitewashing, the traffic citations of every public figure would be listed on their Wikipages, and omitted on this one. As a corollary, the private biographies of millions of non-public Americans like you and I would be allowed on Wikipedia, just because we had a few minor violations. The stakes are pretty high. As you can read from the (now gone stale) conversation above, there's a ruleset against such material's inclusion. Many different opinions have been expressed, we encourage you to elaborate further. Based on talk, it appears to me that we have a pretty strong consensus to merge this into his father's page, but I may be misreading. BusterD 13:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article reminds me of "The Sun" tabloid newspaper in the UK

I'd never heard of this guy, and I cannot imagine ever wanting to research him and his background. Correct me if I'm wrong, but he's close to being disturbingly sad in having made such a small impression (I'm sure many here have done better). There is a vast amount of more significant information needs to be entered into the encyclopedia before we get down to this level (if we ever need to stoop so low). This discussion looks exactly like a feeding frenzy. C'mon guys, get a life. (Apologies to any readers of the "The Sun" coming across what I've said about you, but a pound to a penny not one of you will see this). PalestineRemembered 21:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)