Talk:Al Gore/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Patriots for Al Gore

An anon keeps adding stuff about this organization. I've been deleting this: "However, Patriots for Gore then launched an effort to have superdelegates place their votes for Gore at the Democratic National Convention, and are continuing their efforts to support an Al Gore Presidency."

Frankly, I thought I was being generous just leaving their website in the "External links" section. That some people urged delegates to vote for Gore, without any indication that any of them actually did so (my guess is that none did), doesn't seem like a notable event in Al Gore's life, however notable it may have been in the lives of those making the effort. If anyone sees a reason to leave it in, please speak up. JamesMLane 17:23, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

    • James it is sad but it yet another competing site/organization that is doing this. They see that I put in all the work on this article and I have my site's link at the bottom so they figure "why not put our groups' name in the article and put our link above theirs?" It is pitiful. Why all these groups would continue to act like children is beyond me. I have tried to make this article very articulate and factual, yet folks keep adding non factual things for personal gain. The person's name is Jan Moore, the "chair" of this group. She is a double banned user from our site who is at odds with the staff at our site and other sites.

Just letting you know who is doing this vandalism this time. ChrisDJackson 05:00, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't consider this vandalism. An edit dispute isn't vandalism. The repeated edits do, however, reflect a wildly inflated view of the importance of the draft-Gore activities that occurred in the latter phase of the race. I let the link stay because the "Patriots" site does have some legitimate content on it. I'm glad to see you're still watching the article so that there's more than one person to deal with persistent re-insertions of the inappropriate passages in the text, though. JamesMLane 05:16, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
To James: First of all, I had absolutely no idea who wrote this article. I assumed it was put here by people who work for this site as I came upon it in a search. Secondly, I am not at odds with anyone on Chris's site but him because he is jealous of our PAC. I have absolutely no problem with anyone else. Thirdly, PFG is a legitimate Federally regulated PAC, and I do believe our efforts while not earth shattering, did have an impact. You have no idea of how many letters we sent out to Congressional members, superdelegates, etc. We did much work in a very short space of time with limited resources, and it was all done from our hearts. I also find it very unprofessional of others to badmouth others for personal reasons on a public website like this, simply because I decided to leave their forum. You do not know me, James, but let me just say, that there are two sides to every story. I would very much like to leave what I interjected into the paragraph, as I did it to note what had happened after Draft Gore ended. But now that I know who wrote this, it is no wonder that the link to Draft Gore was not even put into this. It is a shame that this person deigns himself to be the ONLY Gore supporter, and uses such nasty tactics to discredit others.We are also still going as a PAC, as is Al Gore Democrats, and we are all still supporting Al Gore, and will hopefully be involved in any future endeavors of his. I see nothing wrong with the way this was worded, and I assure you, it was put here to simply give credit to our organization because we have and will continue to support Al Gore, as he also knows about us. And while that may not be important to others, it is to us. The constant berating of this PAC by the same person who claims to support Al Gore is simply unfair. Who are any of you really to say what is and is not important to Al Gore's life here? ALL who support him are important. And Chris, I really thought you had more couth than this. To badmouth me on a site like this is really unbelievably low. However, if this is how legitimate PACS are treated here, I will simply open my own account here and insert it on my own page. And don't think that those who believe you to be so nice Chris, won't know about this.

Jan

Jan, thanks for joining the discussion here. Just to fill you in on how Wikipedia works, the content isn't written by people who work for the site (in the sense of getting paid). We're all volunteers. Chris has been a very active contributor to this article but many other editors have also been involved.
As for what goes into the article, our basic standard is that this is an encyclopedia. Typically, an encyclopedia article doesn't try to convey every bit of available information about the subject. Particularly on a major figure like Al Gore, it wouldn't be hard to write 500 pages about his life and career. We have to be selective. You write, "Who are any of you really to say what is and is not important to Al Gore's life here? ALL who support him are important." All who support him have some importance, but some events are more important than others. Wikipedia does not have a policy of just letting in any true statement about the subject of the article. That would be a disservice to our readers. We do have to make judgments. When there are disagreements, we discuss them on this page.
I can well believe that you put a lot of work into your campaign. I've put in my own share of time mailing out multiple letters, phone-banking, leafletting, etc. I'm not trying to deprecate your work. You're certainly correct to say: "And while that may not be important to others, it is to us." The problem is that, for purposes of this article, we have to figure out what is important to others. My judgment is that the draft-Gore movement was certainly worth mentioning for the period before he endorsed Dean; was borderline from then through the early primaries; and was not a significant factor once it was obvious that Kerry had nomination wrapped up, and Gore joined other top Democrats in uniting behind him. I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but no matter how much effort you put into sending letters to superdelegates, that campaign didn't have a notable effect on Al Gore's life. This article has to restrict itself to events that meet that standard.
As for the different PACs, they're not mentioned in the text of the article. We've left in the link you added to your website in the "External links" section, which is how all the PACs are treated. Some readers will want more information about Al Gore than an article of reasonable length can convey, which is why we include such external links in many of our articles. It's the accepted method for making available details that don't belong in the main article. If you continue to update your website with information about Patriots for Gore, then it will be accessible to Wikipedia readers who want that kind of additional information. JamesMLane 19:07, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Jan, when will you stop your lying. You my friend are the one who is power hungry and jealous. You try to copy everything our site does. You first got the same type forum we had a while back, now since we get a new one, you get the same type. It is getting old. You are a lonley old sole who has nothing better to do than lie and try to promote yourself and your site. Wikipedia is not a site for that. I have spent more time than anyone on this Al Gore page and I won't let you ruin it with your spamming. James is right on all points. Also, if you try to create a Patriots For Gore page on Wikipedia it will be put of the Vote For Deletion page immediatley. You need to learn when to be serious and when not to be. This is getting old. I know, you are a self sufficent woman with your own views, and that is why you left. Big deal. But your continual lying, copying of our group, and spamming is unnerving to anyone with a brain. GROW UP! And for you to say that I think I am the only Gore supporter out there is false. And to say that our site does not support Gore because we acutally took his advice in endorsing John Kerry, is wrong. Your constant use of the word berating is just childish. I have done nothing but give my opinion on things you put out. I will not sit back and allow you to call DNC members republicans. I will not sit back and allow you to try to tell people that Al Gore really didn't want to endorse John Kerry. The list goes on and on. I admire your dedication and work, however, I hate your attitude that it is everyone against us. Ask anyone that used to work with you and they will tell you the same. If you have beef on one small thing, you take your ball home and become cold and bitter. It just isn't good. ChrisDJackson 20:40, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Chris, this isn't about you, so please, get a grip. I will no longer respond to your vitriol against me. You damn sure think you are the only Gore supporter worthy of notice and think everything everyone does is copying you. With all due respect, I truly think you need help. You don't get along with the people at Al Gore Democrats either. You don't get along with anyone you see as honing in on YOUR TURF. I am FINISHED with you about this. You have proven through your actions that you are an immature jealous person, and I will no longer entertain your attacks on me. I don't take my ball and go home, BTW. YOU BANNED ME for speaking my mind and sticking to my political convictions. Now gee, how aftaid of me are you? As I stated, I will open my own account here and put work into providing a section over time on what our PAC represents and does, which includes more than supporting Al Gore. I surely then hope as someone who doesn't hold a grudge, that you will then stay out of it. To James: Thank you for your adult and civil response in explaining how this works. I thank you for keeping our link here, and understand your explanation. And as I have stated, I will start my own account when I can find more time. Thank you again. Jan

    • Lie after lie after lie. You are the one who doesn't get along with AGDEMS. You have left and been banned from there before. Again you are lying about me banning you. You left after we had a forum dedicated to Senator Kerry. You then came back as a guest questioning our loyalty to Al Gore and our cause, and that is when I banned you. Yet you still keep coming back and saying you will report our site for not letting your post, yet you don't understand no one cares and nothing can be done. I am the administrator and you have broken the rules. I don't know when you will stop. I just want you to stop messing with my work on here, our site, our forum, and our members. Just stop and I will not say another word to you. ChrisDJackson 20:05, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Let's try and keep all talk page discussion directly relevant to the article, folks. If you must flame each other/defend yourselves, please do it through e-mail or something. Does anyone have any qualms with the way Patriots for Gore info is currently incorporated in this article? Tuf-Kat 21:00, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

Excuse me, I'm not messing with YOUR work and this site isn't YOURS, Chris, and I will come here any damn time I wish to come here. It is a public site where anyone can have an account, and this isn't the first time I have been here, nor is this the only topic I have read. Not everything revolves around YOU. I mean it really, you need to get help for your obsessions. I also have no defending to do. It is YOU who proceeded to attack me here first and lie to complete strangers here about me to discredit me from the outset, and I truly doubt many care here about you airing your dirty laundry. Not very mature, but as I said, it is par for the course with you. Anyway, to answer the question of TUF-KAT, as Chairperson of PFG, I have no problem with the information included here and made sure it conformed to what James told me in regards to how it should be worded. Thank you.
Jan

Let Gore have his umlauts!

I am shocked, shocked, shocked that the Wiki-cabal has decided to rob Gore of his rightfully earned umlauts. Surely no one can deny that Gore is among the most heavy metal-spirited politicians of our age. We don't need no stinkin' recounts! Let's all coöperate and give Göre back his ümlauts! -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:35, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Who do you think you are, questioning my right to remove ümlauts! If we let this sort of thing continue, we'll soon have díåçrìtîcs ëvèrÿwherê. Mateo SA 00:27, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

Photos

I disagree with replacing this photo Image:AlGore.jpg with Image:AlGorerecent.jpg.

It is customary to use images in the bio box with the subject facing forward. The new image not only has Mr. Gore facing to the left, the illumination makes it look like propaganda. We want simple direct head shots for the profile in the box, not elaborately lighted and posed ones. --Jiang 03:34, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • It shouldn't be about whether the person's face is slightly tilted or what have you, it should be about what is more attractive. The Gore photo on the left was from the early White House years, while the one of the right was issued in 2000. This photo is a head shot, and does not present a propoganda effect. That is just ludacris.

Again, this is a head shot which is more recent and looks better.

ChrisDJackson 05:50, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't think we need to have a recent photo for this purpose. The box is for the VP of the United States so we should use a photo that represents him halfway through his terms. Besides, the guy hasn't aged as much for it to matter. And even then, this photo is from 4 years ago. If you've seen him recently, you'd notice that he's gotten a bit fatter. Age aside, I think the one on the left looks better but we won't be able to agree on that. --Jiang 06:45, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think the one on the right looks a little better but the one on the left looks a little more "official" as a portrait of Gore as VP. That's probably because, even though they're both apparently from the White House, the one on the left has the flag in the background. I'll admit my bias here: I don't like the way the Republicans act as if the U.S. flag has become a symbol of their party. Bush's picture has a flag in the background and he's wearing a flag lapel pin, so let's let Gore have at least one flag visible. JamesMLane 07:08, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"He is also considered by many political pundits to be a front runner for the 2008 Democratic nomination if he decides to run." - Name five. Varitek 10:26, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just a note of caution -- Chris seems (and I may be wrong here) to be ignoring requests to provide copyright information for his uploaded photos. Certainly he's uploaded images of Gore without tags recently. I just wanted to leave a ntoe here since Chris has blanked his talk page once recently in response to a request for image tags -- I figured we should have a note somewhere other than buried in Chris's talk page history to note that those images need tags soon, or else we need to get rid of them. Jwrosenzweig 22:24, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Maybe I missed something, but I did tag these images. ChrisDJackson 19:41, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Photos 2

Mr. Jackson, I don't see why you keep editing out and removing photos you don't happen to like. The photo is relevant; his speech is mentioned in this very article! How can a photo of the speech possibly be irrelevant? On the same note, how could you then justify a photo of Al Gore's signature relevant? May I add that you usually do a very good job on wikipages but there is something you just have against this photo?--David Foster 06:03, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/l/_/Talk%7EAl_Gore_Archive_5_2c64.html"