Talk:Al Gore/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 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.
← Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 →

Contents

Controversies merger

Where exactly is this being discussed, and who suggested it? Maybe I'm missing this. Tvoz |talk 03:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure who suggested it (I'm a newcomer to this page; just added it to my watchlist). My gut reaction was No to a merger, but since I don't normally follow biographies of living political figures, that's all this is -- a gut reaction. I did quickly glance at Bill Clinton's wiki entry and all the controversies linked to him are included in the wiki page under his name, not on an off-shoot page, so I'm thus retracting my own gut reaction (hehe) and saying Al's controversies should belong on this same article, as well. How was that for confusing? Just my take, since no one else seems to be talking about the request for comment on the merger.
My Vote: MERGE - Ageekgal 16:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
where is it being discussed? right here on this page, two sections up. Anastrophe 18:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Two sections up a full month ago. Anyway, the controversies article is too long and of much poorer quality than this one. It would have to be seriously reduced for any merge not to negatively affect the lenght and quality of this article. That's my opinion. Turtlescrubber 18:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
is there some particular reason you chose to leave a nastygram on my user discussion page, ignoring the caveat therein? naturally, i've deleted it, but i'm curious why an answer to your question is somehow deserving of a snarky personal comment.Anastrophe 19:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't like being reverted and reprimanded by someone who hasn't taken the time to actually look into an issue. I wouldn't call it a "nastygram", just a way to get your attention. I leave messages on user talk pages so as not to disrupt article talk pages. It's a pretty common thing to do, however it didn't seem to work this time. Turtlescrubber 19:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
you were reverted appropriately - what you 'like' or 'don't like' is immaterial. month-old discussion is still discussion, and still valid, certainly absent a consensus being hammered out; none such obtained. this article ignores all controversy about mr. gore, and that inappropriate and POV; stuffing all of it under a wikilink under "see also" is a whitewash. i came to this article looking for details on the fundraising gore performed from the whitehouse - and was surprised to not find a single mention. i agree that the data from the controversy article would need cleanup before merging; that's rather implicit in a proper merge. Anastrophe 19:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
See, this is why I used your talk page. What does "like" and "dont like" have to do with anything. There hasn't been discussion on the talk page for a full month and that is the only reason I removed the tag. Don't lie and misrepresent my position.Turtlescrubber 19:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
"what does 'like' and 'don't like' have to do with anything" - reread your own comment, for christsake. you were the one who said it. sheesh. as for removing the tag, you removed it inappropriately. the tag does not carry with it any requirement as to the currency of the discussion. a month is not all that long, except perhaps to crack addicts. no consensus was formed; this article needs work to at least acknowledge that gore isn't the second coming of cheezewhiz. Anastrophe 20:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Jeebus. A little work on coherency would be nice. Why don't you use this talk page for the discussion of the article because this "conversation" is going nowhere. Turtlescrubber 20:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
a little work on reading comprehension on your part would have avoided virtually all of this. but you're right - carrying on a "conversation" with you is an exercise in misdirection. have a good life. Merge? yes. Anastrophe 20:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I am right. Thanks. Turtlescrubber 21:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

When did they repeal the rules about civility? — Omegatron 17:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw the discussion two sections up, but I thought from the newly-added tag on the page that there must be an ongoing discussion that I was missing. In any case: I generally oppose separate controversy sections and articles, because in my experience they invariably become dumping grounds for anything that even has a scent of negative that anyone feels like raising about a person, they are often poorly sourced at best, and they have little or no context. I am generally in favor of integrating real, notable controversies into the main text and/or footnotes of biographies, or sometimes having entire separate articles devoted to a specific major controversy with a pointer tag on the main subject's article (e.g., Whitewater). I'm not clear what is being suggested here: if it is to just move the controversies into this article by dumping them into a "controversies" section, I oppose it. But if someone wants to look at how the real ones could be integrated into the text/notes of the article on a one-by-one basis, I'd be interested in that. We've been trying to do that at Hillary Rodham Clinton, and in fact an editor did a huge job of assigning places for the various major, minor and utterly trivial controversies that had gravitated to the separate controversy article, and I think it was working until another editor recreated the problem by insisting on a "controversies" section that "summarized" them again - so back to square one. I'm not actually sure where we stand on that now as I took a break from reading it, but the concept, to me, of integrating controversies into appropriate text and notes is much preferable to separating them. So - what is being proposed here? Tvoz |talk 19:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

In any case: I generally oppose separate controversy sections and articles, because in my experience they invariably become dumping grounds for anything that even has a scent of negative that anyone feels like raising about a person, they are often poorly sourced at best, and they have little or no context.

Very much so. And "Controversy" articles are even worse. They're POV forks, and should not be used. If the article is too long, it should be split up into neutral sub-topics, like Al Gore's contributions to the Internet and technology, or Al Gore and environmental issues or something. Separating content out into an arbitrary "controversies" article is just bad. — Omegatron 17:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge: Since I don't like him, I want people to see why they shouldn't like him when they visit his page. Isaac Pankonin 06:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

At least you are honest. I respect that. Turtlescrubber 15:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Do not merge. If this article were half the length, the controversies article were three times better written, and I were a wingnut with a grudge, this might be a close call. It isn't. This article is way too long to be considering merges right now and the controversies article is (like all WP controversies articles) a poorly-written set of smears notable only for the way the cable TV public eats them up. It's useful only as a honeypot to keep Wikipedia's more orcish denizens off of the biography article. Chris Cunningham 15:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

How do we handle the criticsm then? There are many who don't think Al Gore is a prophet on environmentalism is there a place for pointing that out?Kirin4 19:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

A weblog? This is an encyclopedia, not some forum for airing your annoyances at random celebrities. Chris Cunningham 19:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

then it should not be all positive. Look at other figures: Bush, Bill O'Rielley etc criticsm is allowed on those pages why not this one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirin4 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Anything encyclopedic and reliably sourced can be merged into this article, subject to WP:NPOV. There is no need for a separate article. --John 23:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that basically none of it is notable for any reason other then its own self-perpetuation, and there's tons of it. The general tendency amongst Wikipedia's pro-smear crowd is that anything which gets into the New York Times is fully worthy of inclusion into somebody's biography, whether a word of it is true or not, simply because it "appeared prominently in the mainstream media". There has sadly been no real drive to oppose this criterion for inclusion, so we're lumbered with random "controversy" articles. Chris Cunningham 08:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge begun per consistancy standards (See ALL other political figures) ...there is ZERO REASON that controversies should be diverted (hidden) elsewhere regardless of politics.) (20seven 19:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC))

The project aims to be consistently good, not consistently bad. Go fix the other articles. Chris Cunningham 10:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I realize that this is not supposed to be a political issue, but all people will have some unavoidable bias when deciding about this issue. I have noticed that, in general, pages about republicans tend to have controversies included whereas domocrat's are seperate. In any case, I beleive that a standard should be set for all pages to follow. 75.3.226.246 04:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a standard: WP:BLP. If Republican articles are bad then they should be improved, rather than bringing other articles down to match them. Chris Cunningham 07:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


Trivia section

Added trivia tag under the pop culture section. If no one objects I am going to go through this section and remove all unsourced material and pop culture references that Al Gore did not take part in. Turtlescrubber 19:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Gore, 36%; Hillary, 32%; Obama, 16%; and Edwards, 8%.

  • missing info:
  • Leonardo DiCaprio film The 11th Hour (film) (on the climate crisis)
  • Oct. 17 2007.: Gore is scheduled to speak to the prestigious Chicago Economic Club.
  • Nobel Peace Prize winner will be announced, in Oslo, Norway
  • unnoticed Presidential campaign of 2008

--Tamás Kádár 08:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Al Gore won Emmy-award (17.Sept.2007.)--Tamás Kádár 21:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

  1. Albert Arnold Gore, Sr. (1907-1998), his wife: Pauline Gore, father of
    1. Albert Arnold "Al" Gore, Jr., Vice President of the United States from 1993 to 2001, his wife Tipper Gore, and his children:
      1. Al Gore III (1982 - )
      2. Karenna Gore (1973 - ) married to Drew Schiff.
      3. Kristin Gore (1977 - ) married to Paul Cusack.
      4. Sarah Gore (1979 - ) married to Bill Lee.
        1. Wyatt (1999 - )
        2. Anna Schiff (2001 - )
    1. Nancy LaFon Gore (1938 - 1984)

--Tamás Kádár 08:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Article is not NPOV

The article mentions that he and his wife drive hybrid vehicles. (Actually, I think his son drove a hybrid in southern California recently.) But the article does not mention that his household using more electricity per month than the average American uses in a year. This has been in the news repeatedly. The article also does not mention how much Al Gore would personally gain if his carbon offset trading program was put in place. Let the article tell the whole story. [1] RonCram 12:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Y-awn. Take it to Al Gore controversies. Chris Cunningham 13:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Everyone who invests in alternative energy stands more to gain than those who don't. I guess you would be happy if Gore invested in oil stocks instead of alternative energy. Oh, then you would call him a hypocrite. Obviously, anyone you disagree with can't win. And why would you compare Al Gore to the "average american," when he is not an average American. You ought to compare all Al Gore with others who are as wealthy as he is. Unlessn you be wanten to hold up some homeless man sleeping under a bridge as the model US citizen when it comes to conserving energy. I am happy George Bush is president and not Al Gore, but I don't understand why so many conservatives feel compelled to take cheap pot shots at the man. I am thinking Americans are incapable of honest critical thinking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.61.232 (talk) 21:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Supreme Court decisions regarding 2000 Presidential Election Inaccurately Reported

The article states "Gore publicly conceded the election after the Supreme Court of the United States in Bush v. Gore ruled 5-4 that the Florida recount was unconstitutional and that no constitutionally valid recount could be completed by the December 12 deadline, effectively ending the recounts." In actuality, there were two Supreme Court decisions, both announced on the same day. The first was 7-2 that the Florida recount was unconstitutional, and the second was 5-4 that no constitutionally valid recount could be completed by the December 12 deadline. The article incorrectly reports it as one 5-4 decision.

At one point this was reported accurately in wikipedia.org. Why has it been allowed to revert to the current inaccurate statement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.20.67.91 (talk) 06:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

What?

Al Gore is the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007?! What? I am stunned! Anyway, a winner is a winner. Masterpiece2000 09:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah -.-. What the hell does climate change have to do with the peace prize.
Our article says it should go: "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses". Climate change what ? --Helixdq 10:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Take it off Wikipedia, kids. This isn't a discussion forum. Chris Cunningham 10:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Thumperward, what about WP:Civil? Kid, Gore should not have won the Nobel Prize. There should be criticism about it. Masterpiece2000 09:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
It actually makes sense if you think about it. The IPCC and Al Gore have worked towards a non violent resolution of the climate change problem, towards an increase in fraternity between the nations on the issue of climate change and ultimately by attempting to address the issue of climate change, towards a reduction into the potential for future conflict because of the effects of climate change. Nil Einne 13:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
what exactly would be a non-peaceful resolution to climate change? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.193.247.56 (talk) 14:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

What is the connection between global warming and global peace? You will find out when the N. Pole is the only place on Earth above water and cool enough for human existence! The CIA knows what exactly what effects global warming will have on world peace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.61.232 (talk) 21:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

What about possibly preventing future conflicts over oil or other energy resources (if his global warming worries lead to better energy sources/more-efficient use)? I also agree with the principal behind the above anon contributor--global warming could lead to environmental changes (like droughts, floods, heat, cold) that cause problems with food sources, etc Jason McHuff 05:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Al Gore should not have received the Nobel Peace Prize. I think there should be criticism about it. I am skeptical about the Global warming and its so-called 'threat'. There are many skeptics who have criticized the the choice of Gore. We should mention the criticism in the article. Masterpiece2000 09:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
There are many scientist who are skeptical about the 'threats' of Global warming[2]. According to a British judge, some of the assertions in Al Gore's Oscar-winning environmental documentary are not supported by scientific evidence[3]. Someone should add some criticism in the article. Masterpiece2000 12:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
You don't think he should receive the prize. Fine. It doesn't follow that we need to include criticism. If there is some notable critic of him getting the Prize, that can be mentioned sure. But we certainly need more than your dislike. As for "many scientists", that has all been discussed before ad infinitum. How that list is many compared to the totality of scientists, I have no idea. --Horoball 13:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I have added criticism by notable individuals. Masterpiece2000 09:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


Tone

i) The tone of this article is genarally pro-Gore biased and admiring. Any criticism is immediately mitigated with yet another admiring quote. Wiki is supposed to be objective, but this article certainly is not. ii) "An Inconvenient Truth" is not a documentary, it is a propaganda film. This is of course obvious to any casual observer, but it has now also been determined by a court in the UK. So a reference to this court decision, would make sense. iii) How do I get permission to edit this (and other restricted entries)? It seems to me, many political entries need re-balancing, and I could provide such balance. 16:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Al Gore dab page

I propose a disambiguation page: Al Gore (disambiguation). The current note at the top of this article puts a world spotlight on his ill-starred son, who presumably would suffer further. --Ancheta Wis 10:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The correct fix for this is to remove any BLP issues from his son's article, not to add layers of indirection. Chris Cunningham 10:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I disagree: a disambiguation page would be a good idea, though not for the reason given here. A dab page is needed because there are multiple 'Al Gore' articles to disambiguate between, not just this one and the two family members linked at the top: there's also Al Gore's contributions to the Internet and technology, the articles for his two Presidential campaigns, and Al Gore controversies. I think it makes sense to have all those articles listed together on one page, rather than linked at various points through this article as they are at the moment. Terraxos 14:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Nobel Prize/Academy Award

As far as I can tell; he's the second person ever to win a Nobel Prize and an Academy Award after George Bernard Shaw; is it worthy to be mentioned however? Your thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.9.170 (talk • contribs) 11:51, 12 October 2007

Definitely noteworthy. Chris Cunningham 10:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
And the only person to have won both of those and an Emmy. Allegrorondo 13:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Someone should add the Nobel Laureate category to the listing. 64.81.229.99 15:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
How come the nobel prize isn't showing up in his infobox? Is there a problem with our "Vice President" infobox tempalte? PyroGamer 17:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Al Gore should not be credited as an Academy Award winner. Academy records list Davis Guggenheim as the sole Oscar winner for Best Documentary Feature for An Inconvenient Truth. The media has definitely perpetuated the notion that Gore himself won an Oscar; however, this is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.146.27.235 (talk) 22:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph on climate change is disjointed. Why is Cameron Diaz mentioned at all? That sentence seems very minor compared to other details mentioned, and the opening paragraphs are supposed to summarize the main article.--Gloriamarie 18:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Al Gore is going to be the next President of the United States ;-)77.210.63.60 10:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Inconvenient Truth Links

Asturias Award

What about the Prince of Asturias Award? He won it before the Noble Prize.

what is the asturias award? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.42.211.71 (talk) 16:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Is an award given in Spain, mostly notable in Spanish speaking countries, however it also awards people from all over the world..[5] --Juglar 19:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Nobel Peace Prize

The Peace Prize shared by Gore and the IPCC must be the first time ever that this prize has been given for non-peace work. Isn't this worthy of a mention? Surely I'm not the only one asking how on Earth Gore and the IPCC won the PEACE PRIZE! --124.180.37.195 04:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The very large section currently in the article regarding the Peace Prize-- with two very long boxed quotes, and including what Presidential candidates congratulated him (??) is obviously a case of recentism at work. The Nobel needs to be included in the Awards and Honors section as a subsection, in not more than one, maybe two, paragraphs (and that includes his eventual Nobel lecture). Who congratulated him and minor details like that belong on WikiNews (of course that article can be linked from here). Extensive quotes like those currently given in this article belong not in a biography of him, but on Gore's WikiQuotes page. For a similar example, take a look at Jimmy Carter, where the Peace Prize is briefly mentioned in the intro, under Humanitarian Work, etc.--Gloriamarie 18:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The article on Albert Einstein has a section specifically devoted to the Nobel, so there is nothing wrong with granting an entire section to it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#The_Nobel_Prize
I removed one quote, however, the other is Gore's acceptance speech, not just a quote, and thus worthy of inclusion. The list of individuals who have gone on record to recognize him are notable as an indication of public reaction to the prize. I'm not certain how any of this qualifies as "recentism". -Classicfilms 18:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I also shortened and tweaked the paragraph. -Classicfilms 18:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
The list of US presidential candidates is really out of place. Worse than recentism, it's also US-centrism of the worst kind. I'd suggest cutting. I don't think we need to remind people that the Nobel prize is a big deal. Listing a bunch of people involved is an election campaign inside the U.S., isn't going to help with that, anyway. If you really think you need a list of congratulators, how about a list of international leaders? --137.82.36.216 00:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Excellent points, 137.82.36.216. Actually, I used the example of a recent recipient of the Peace Prize because Nobels for Peace and for scientific subjects such as Physics (in the case of Einstein) are completely different types of subjects. You made the excellent point that it is not only recentism but also US-centrism to include a list of 5 or so candidates for president (an election which will be over next year and therefore make these people's congratulations almost completelely irrelevant). It belongs in WikiNews. Here is the link to the Wikinews article: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Al_Gore_and_Climate_Panel_awarded_Nobel_Peace_prize_2007 Feel free to add all you want at that link, Classicfilms. This is a clear case of recentism, although your changes did improve it.--Gloriamarie 03:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Please do assume good faith. The Wikipedia does not have guidelines regarding different types of Nobel winners which is why I mentioned the Nobel section in the Einstein article. Also, it is not uncomon in historical texts to record public reaction, negative or positive, to an event which is why I questioned the term "recentism." In addition, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is not from the U.S. and George W. Bush and former President Bill Clinton are not candidates, but they are the kind of voices a history text might record in terms of public reaction. In order to find middle ground, I removed the names to prevent the list from becoming too long, rewrote the sentence and added a BBC reference which should further globalize the reactions. -Classicfilms 14:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Al Gore in popular culture

Al Gore also appears in the South Park episode 1006 "ManBearPig", by the way. Maybe worth mentioning, as the whole episode is dedicated to him... Big-B_36 22:02, 12 october 2007 (CET)

Al Gore doesn't appear in that episode. He is not actually involved in that episode in anyway. He didn't lend his voice or his approval, which makes it unsuitable for the section. Turtlescrubber 20:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
That is a pretty unfair argument as the section we are talking about is called "Al Gore in popular culture". This episode has to be at least mentioned there, because it shows the contrary (and in my opinion understandable) view at the personality of Al Gore. Dear colleagues, I appeal to you to be rational and not to deny unpleasant facts about references to Al Gore in pop-culture. joshis.cz 1:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I also think it's important to include this reference as Gore himself has commented on it (see my latest edit). Without it this article does paint a somewhat rosy picture of the man. Thoughts? --Owain loft 23:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. The section is about references to Al Gore in popular culture. This South Park episode clearly referenced Gore and was notable, since (according to the Chicago Sun Times[6]) he even commented on it. Melsaran (talk) 17:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Al Gore was in no way involved with this. This section is about what al gore has done. Saturday night live appearances, lending his voice among other things. Al Gore was in no way involved with this show so it does not belong on the page. Turtlescrubber 17:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
It's true that the section is mostly about things Gore has personally done and not about references to Gore. However, there are many articles that have a "references to X in popular culture" section; perhaps we could make it a separate section? Melsaran (talk) 17:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Let's please not start a trivia section. That is what your suggestion will devolve into. Turtlescrubber 17:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
2Turtlescrubberr: You seem to be a great fan of mister Gore. I respect it. However, if the section's name remains, I do not see any reason, why not to include reference to SouthPark. If you rename the section to (for example) "Al Gore's activities in popular culture", it is OK. Then I suggest to establish section "Al Gore - referenced in popular culture" where the SP episode would be mentioned. You are systemathicaly and unfairly trying to hide negative sides of media presentation of Al Gore, pushing a single sided view to Wikipedia - the most independent encyklopedy on the Internet. I do not want to tolerate it! Please, someone, do something. There is no excuse like "Al Gore was in no way involved with this." for not mentioning it. He was referenced there! joshis.cz 21:41, 15 October 2007
2Anon. That's a load of bull. I am trying to keep quality standards up on the page but am completely overwhelmed by pov pushing concern trolls who care more about pushing what they think is right than quality standards and improving articles. You just can't stand to see someone you hate win the Nobel Peace Prize and the you come to this page to "do somthing boud it". Whatever. Turtlescrubber 01:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
2Turtlescrubberr: Well, at first, sorry I haven't signed there... It is not true that I hate Al Gore (I made my home page to look similar to his, i.e.), I just think - and look at other people's reaction in this thread - that your activity is actually more against the quality of the page. However, the reference did appear there, so there is no reason to discuss it anymore. ;o) joshis.cz 13:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
OH, you are so right. Trying to remove a South Park reference that Al Gore had nothing to do with makes me the worst editor on this page. You are so right. You seem to know everything really well. You're just making South Park fanboys everywhere really happy. Good luck with that. "the reference did appear there" is a really compelling argument. Turtlescrubber 14:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
By "the reference did appear there" I meant "the reference is now on the Al Gore's wiki page as someone has already added it" (it was not any kind of compelling argument and that's why I said that further discussion was more or less meaningless). I never called you a "worst editor". You have a right to have your opinion, of course... But I am not the only person that thinks that it should be there, again - read the thread... The original name of the section was "Al Gore in popular culture". All right, my point of view little bit more detailed: I think, that wiki page about Al Gore shouldn't be only about what Al Gore did himself, it should be also about how is Al Gore viewed by the others, by media... about what is a world's opinion about him and his activity... about what kind of references points at him. However, as I said, I respect your point of view. joshis.cz 17:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Currently the section containing Al Gore as portrayed without his participation in popular culture is called Satirization by others, and it is a subsection of Al Gore appearances in popular culture. I should like to see this be made more general by changing the main section to References in popular culture and adding something akin to Participation in popular culture as a subsection. Indeed, I see no need - at least not until the list grows much longer - to categorize references by whether or not they are satirical in nature.--TheFinalFraek 18:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Question: What does the POV tag have to do with anything? As far as I know, the dispute here is not related to any POV and the neutrality of the section is not disputed. Melsaran (talk) 17:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

What about the fact that his daughter worked on Futurama? It seems likely (though I have no sources) that this may have influenced his decision to voice for the show. Do people think that is worth mentioning? If so, feel free to add it, since I probably can not edit this page with my newbie account. She val 21:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Al Gore drive a gas guzler and has his own plane that wastese thousands of gallons of gas. He is not against global warming but wants you to be against it (Your Mom 1996) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.249.50.145 (talk) 01:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought: It may be interesting to point out how Matt Groening's The Simpsons has been involved in promoting the notion of Al Gore having a "stiff and emotionless persona" that Gore might have been trying to shake off by taking part in Futurama. Anyhow, the references to Gore in episodes such as Bart on the Road seem worth acknowledging. --TheFinalFraek 18:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Gore and Oscar Win

I'm new to Wikipedia, so sorry if this is not the correct format. Al Gore did not win an Oscar. "An Inconvenient Truth", the documentary in which he starred, won an Oscar, but it was awarded to executive producer Davis Guggenheim. Al Gore was brought up on stage and has rightfully received much of the credit for the film, but he did not win an Oscar for it (the official Oscar website and IMDB.com both correctly state this fact). Brosenbe 21:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Ben

agreed. i've reverted the inappropriate addition of this in the 'awards' section. mr. gore did not earn an academy award. for example, the movie "The Departed" won an academy award as best picture. Jack Nicholson starred in the movie, but did not earn an academy award. he is not listed as having earned an academy award for starring in "The Departed". exactly the same applies here. Anastrophe 23:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
In this case, we should adjust the first paragraph to note this adjustment. Does anyone disagree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schalliol (talk • contribs) 00:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I just had to concur with everybody. I have seen countless news articles and tv comedy skits stating that he won the Oscar, when he actually did not. It really does my head in. They make it seem as if he is challenging Rita Moreno for major performing arts awards wins ( 1 of each) 69.28.232.214 22:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC) samusek2