Talk:Al Gore/Archive 3

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 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 →

Contents

Question about article size and pictures

Does anyone agree/disagree with the following observation on my part--this article seems way too bloated and either needs cutting or to have portions spun off into separate articles, and _eight_ pictures is about five too many, even for a notable politician like Gore? Just curious if I'm alone here. Jwrosenzweig 00:44, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Some of the stuff in this article would be much better of under its own sections. As long as the images are relevant to the content however, I don't see a problem with it... --Vikingstad 00:50, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Seems OK to me, long but well organized, so the reader can easily find a particular portion. I'd leave it. JamesMLane 00:53, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I think this is going to be a recurring problem on Wikipedia--our article on George W. Bush is many times longer than our article on Thomas Jefferson. Modern political figures always will get excessive attention relative to their historical importance; I think the best thing to do is roll with it. As for the pictures, you have a point. Meelar 00:59, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I think we should take the non-public domain or GFDL images out, because we already have plenty without them. I'm also in favor of spinoffs, if it can be done in a manner that is neutral. Anthony DiPierro 01:58, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Let's try to remove rambling and irrelevant material before splitting. --Jiang 03:26, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I said a while back that the controversies should not go into the main article, but again some showed bias against Gore by having a double standard. Now I am sure you are wanting to remove valuable info. User:ChrisDJackson
What do you people have against info on Al Gore? I don't see this being talked about on the Kerry or Bush page. It seems people have a bias against Gore and it shows. User:ChrisDJackson
There is no conspiracy here against Al Gore. We just want to get things right. Keep working hard at these articles. Your energy is a benefit to the wikipedia project! Kingturtle 04:05, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC) P.S. please start adding a time-stamp to your signatures with a fourth ~ .
I have been trying to better cooperate with others and follow the rules. However, Anthony and Rick continue to lie and exaggerate about me. If they dedicated the energy that they use harassing me editing pages, the encyclopedia would be full. But just look at my profile page. I have edited quite a bit of pages in a short time. I just don't know what some people's problem is. They started this from the very begining against me and now I am trying to ignore it and continue to try to do better and they make it hard. So please stop trying to discredit me on everything I do.User:ChrisDJackson
Chris, yes, you have been doing a great job at cooperating and doing this by the book. I commend you. Continue to work hard. Actions speak louder than words (although in wikipedia, actions ARE words....heh). Keep a level-head, and review Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot if you haven't done so lately. I'll drop Anthony and Rick friendly messages about this on their talk pages. Kingturtle 04:23, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC) P.S. please start adding a time-stamp to your signatures with a fourth ~ . Kingturtle

Thanks again KingTurtle. What do you mean with a fourth~? I am courious. Also, I am emailing someone to confirm about the copyrights of the Gore2000 site. ChrisDJackson

Regardless of the copyright issue, can you find a compromise version of the information? You have been very reasonable. - Texture 04:37, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Yes, all I ask is to quite being harassed everytime I edit the page. I want the Gore Views section to stay along with the pics of Gore as a congressman, VP, running for Pres, and bearded. I would also like to see more about him as VP like what you rewrote. Eight years is a long time for just a few sentences.ChrisDJackson 04:40, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Let's begin with these two disputed paragraphs. If you add them and anyone reverts you they will lose support for their actions and will have trouble explaining it in regards to a dispute with you. We can focus on each change here at the talk page before the edit war starts. You can start by adding a new section here in the talk page on the next section you would like to add. - Texture 04:45, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Protected

I have protected the page following the many reverts. I haven't reviewed the copyright but can we resolve this through a rewrite? Are these the disputed paragraphs? - Texture 03:31, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Al and Tipper Gore have been a pair of the strongest voices for America's families. Each year the two host the Family Re-Union policy conference in Nashville which has promotes new initiatives strengthening fatherhood, increasing flexibility for mothers and fathers in the workplace, and giving parents more control over information that comes into their homes. In 2002, the Gore's co-wrote two books about the modern American family. (Joined at the Heart and Spirit of the Family)
For eight years as Vice President, Al Gore was a key member of President Clinton's economic team. Gore casted the tie-breaking Senate vote for the plan in 1993, which led to the first balanced budget in 30 years. Also to the credit of the Clinton-Gore administration is: the longest peacetime economic expansion in American history, with over 22 million new jobs, wages rising twice the rate of inflation, the lowest African-American and Hispanic poverty on record, the highest level of private home ownership ever, more investment in our cities, and the lowest unemployment in 29 years.

Can they be rewritten to avoid a direct copy of the Gore campaign web site? How about this:

Al and Tipper Gore host a Family Re-Union policy conference in Nashville. This is where Al and Tipper are a strong voice for America's families through promotion of fatherhood, workplace flextime for parents, and control over what information can be accessed in their own home. Al and Tipper are co-authors of Joined at the Heart and Spirit of the Family about the modern American family.
The Clinton-Gore administration is credited by the Gore campaign with "the longest peacetime economic expansion in American history, with over 22 million new jobs, wages rising twice the rate of inflation, the lowest African-American and Hispanic poverty on record, the highest level of private home ownership ever, more investment in our cities, and the lowest unemployment in 29 years." During his two terms as Vice President, Al Gore contributed as part of President Clinton's economic team and casted the deciding vote in the Senate in 1993 that led to the nations first balanced budget in 30 years.

Any comments? - Texture 03:31, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • I rewrote each section on my own but I don't guess that was good enough. But the above is fine. I still don't see what the big deal about using the info as is if the organization no longer exists.

User:ChrisDJackson

It's questionable whether adding this paraphrased version is legit. But if you're going to add it, you certainly need to add the source to the bottom as a reference. Anthony DiPierro 04:59, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Any set of facts can be presented in a different manner. Do you have any suggestions? I have cited the Gore campaign for the quote included. - Texture 05:05, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I suggest Chris be banned and all his contributions reverted. Those which are clearly from NPOV public domain sources can stay, I guess. Anthony DiPierro 05:11, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Anthony, this behavior of yours is not going to fly. Texture and I are trying to work this situation through a solution. I would appreciate your cooperation. Please put your best foot forward. :) Kingturtle 05:18, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • What behavior is not going to fly? You (more specifically, Texture) asked for my suggestion. Chris has made a complete mess of the Al Gore page and dozens of other pages. Sorting through these pages to find out what is legit and what isn't is going to take a very long time, and the longer he is allowed to do this, the worse it's going to be. Reverting all of his edits now is the best solution. Anthony DiPierro 05:21, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • How about something constructive? :) Kingturtle 05:26, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Gore 2000 Website Issues

I just got an email from arhcive.com which now houses the Al Gore campaign site of 2000 about use of it's content and here is what she says:

Hello, Copyrights are a very tricky area of the law, and I am not a lawyer. Therefore I cannot answer you with a definite yes or no answer to your question. The general terms of use for the site state that the items on the site can be used for non-commercial use. However you are still dealing with potentially copyrighted information. It might be wise to try to get in contact with the people that used to run the site. They might still have an email address still working from the old site. Since it is for Gore, there is probably still some staffers or volunteers still working for him that were involved with the site.

Hope this helps, Astrid Bragg Office Manager Internet Archive astrid@archive.org

Really, I don't think any of the Gore people would care and as the lady said, as most campaign sites are, you can use it non commmercially.

ChrisDJackson 04:07, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Chris, the content you submit must be written by you. If it's not written by you, then you should identify your source both in your submit comments as well as within the text as a reference. And then you can only submit works which are either explicitly released into the public domain, or explicitly released under the GFDL. Alternatively, you can sometimes submit content which was created before 1923, but that gets tricky. Anthony DiPierro 13:43, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Also, a non-commercial license is not appropriate for Wikipedia, because the GFDL does not allow for restrictions on commercial use. Agains, all part of the burden of being a free-as-in-speech encyclopedia. Martin 02:05, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Talk:Al Gore/discussion archive - I think Chris wanted to clear the page for ongoing discussion. I am archiving to this location - feel free to return any unresolved issues back to this page but preferably one at a time. - Texture 03:52, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • The copyviolation discussion is obviously unresolved. Anthony DiPierro 03:20, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Gore's grandfather

Perhaps we could open this entry briefly to correct a clerical error? Al Gore was not the grandson of Senator Thomas Gore; his grandparents were Allen Gore and Margie Denny. Allen Gore was a farmer in Tennessee, and, as far as can be told, had no relation to the Senator from Oklahoma. TMiscia March 25, 2004

I've made this fix on the temporary page. Perhaps Gore was confused with Gore Vidal. -24.13.224.74 23:27, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. I didn't want people to get confused on that point. Al Gore being Gore Vidal's first cousin would've made quite a story if it were true, though. -TMiscia 1:36, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Gee, Vidal's one of those who thinks he's cousin (degree never specified) to AG ... but this trace of the ancestry finds no New World relation in the Gores. (But it did find AG and Nixon are cousins (~8th degree), which would doubtless delight Vidal =) 142.177.121.225 15:34, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Plagiarism fight between ChrisDJackson and AnthonyDiPierro

Where do you see material that is in the article plagarized from that page. I believe you need to get glasses and a life. ChrisDJackson 01:22, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Are you admitting that you didn't write the material on that page? Anthony DiPierro 01:23, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

From what i can gather, from the page you noted Anthony, Chris used a quote by Al Gore. Its verbatim, because its a quote. In the article is signaled with "" and atributed to Gore. I see no problem with it. Anthony, can you point precisely the copyvio you are sugesting, except this quote? Chris, can you stop insulting people in edit summaries? It doesnt look good neither helps the discussion. Muriel 01:29, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's more than just a quote, and I'll point to the plagiarism as soon as Chris admits that he did not write the content at that page. Anthony DiPierro 01:30, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Anthony, please bring a more mature attitude toward these discussions. Stop playing games. There is no need to force a confession out of a user. Point out the plagerism now. Kingturtle 01:32, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't know if it's plagiarism or not until he answers whether or not he wrote it. Anthony DiPierro 01:35, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Then why are you claiming it is plagiarism, if you are not sure? Muriel 01:38, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • Because I assume Chris didn't write the content on that page. Anthony DiPierro 01:39, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I wrote the material that is in this article with references from sources, but there is nothing on that page that is plagarized into this article. And I will no longer respond to your stupid, lying, aggravating, nagging, bitchy, behavior. Instead, I will let the mods. ChrisDJackson 01:33, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • No I can't stop insulting him as long as he keeps following me and engaging in edit wars. This has become a daily thing with him with numerous members. This process would go much smoother without him. He makes false and exaggerated claims and is just annoying with his copyvio BS. If you or any other mod can't stop it, I have to defend myself.

ChrisDJackson 01:33, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Chris, when you copy something from another page, even if you change a few words around, you still have to acknowledge your source, and you should not claim that you wrote it, doing so is plagiarism. Anthony DiPierro 01:37, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • No its not, thats called doing research. But to know that, you would actually have to write articles... Muriel 01:38, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Claiming someone else's words are your own is plagiarism. And unlike Chris, I actually do write articles, not copy them from other places. Anthony DiPierro 01:41, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Such as... Muriel 01:41, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • Such as this example right here. He copied it from this source (or another which this source derived itself from), changed around a few words, and claimed that he wrote it himself. Anthony DiPierro 01:42, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
          • No, Anthony, articles you wrote here. And i am still waiting for the exact copyvio, except of the quote Muriel
            • I've wrote a number of articles here. If you're going to personally attack me (as you have done on numerous occasions), at least try being correct. Anthony DiPierro 01:54, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
              • That is what i want to know: which articles (note the plural) and not stubs or redirects, have you written here? Muriel 02:03, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
                • Why do I need to list them to you? Anthony DiPierro 02:05, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There is one quote! What the hell is your problem? You have a disorder. You are on here 15 hours a day and do this most of the time. He has nothing else better to do than to troll and agravate other people via reverting their edits and such. The mods should step in and do something because he does this daily to numerous folks, just check out the page that lists his edit wars. ChrisDJackson 01:44, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

In the debate, Gore pointed out that Perot had profited from a ?free trade zone? run by the Dallas-Fort Worth Airport, and asked, ?If it?s good for him why isn?t it good for the rest of the country??
Gore pointed out that Perot himself had recently profited from a "free trade zone" that was run by the Dallas-Fort Worth Airport, and quipped, "If it's good for him why isn't it good for the rest of the country".

OK, you added the word recently and changed asked to quipped.

Public opinion polls showed that Gore had won, and that a majority of Americans now supported NAFTA.
Shortly thereafter, opinion polls showed that Gore had won the debate and that a majority of Americans now supported the passage of NAFTA.

Added "shortly thereafter", "the debate", and "the passage"

  • Your point is? That is not plagirism! You need to re take you so called law classes. Those sentences are nothing alike and are far from plagirism. The sentence with the quote is the closest, and that is because the whole sentence is nearly a quote, along with my inserted words. So again, you have no basis.ChrisDJackson 01:57, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • You're right. It's not plagirism [sic]. Anthony DiPierro 02:05, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Chris, please do not copy and paste content from other sites without permission, even if you modify it slightly. Use your own words instead. Please allow Anthony to remove or rewrite these sentences, or propose an alternate wording.—Eloquence 02:07, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

No, because there is only 1 sentence that is even close and that is because most of the sentence is a quote. I will not have my work re-wrote everytime this ass throws a fit. I refuse. ChrisDJackson 02:10, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Look, it's not about this particular contribution. This is the tip of the iceberg. Nearly every single time Chris writes something, it's from somewhere else. The times I don't find evidence of his plagiarism, it's probably just that I haven't searched enough. And then, even after he is challenged, he lies and says that he wrote it himself. Even when presented with direct evidence, he claims that it's some sort of coincidence that his sentence just happens to be exactly the same with a few words added to make it more difficult to detect. I shouldn't have to chase down every single instance and point out exactly where it came from. Anthony DiPierro 02:11, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Yes you should. Kingturtle 02:12, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Why should I? Anthony DiPierro 02:14, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Anthony, it would be desirable if you would compile a page such as Wikipedia:Matter of Chris Jackson evidence where you would collect such instances, with diffs and the sources where they are from. I am sure that as soon as there is some evidence, other people will start to help you.

Chris, if Anthony is indeed correct, it would be best to just admit it now and pledge not to copy and paste in the future. We won't hold it against you. If you do so we can go through your contributions together and remove/rewrite any instances of copy and pasting from the past. If he is incorrect you can of course lay back and wait for him to come up with evidence which you say does not exist; however, if it turns out that you deliberately deceived us, it is quite likely that sanctions will follow.—Eloquence 02:15, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

I've begun one at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ChrisDJackson/, but that's just a small sampling of his many edits. Eventually sanctions will follow, but in the mean time it is becoming harder and harder to clean up the mess he is making. Anthony DiPierro 02:19, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
By the way, it doesn't seem that he is literally copy pasting. His edits commonly have mispellings that weren't in the original. Anthony DiPierro 02:20, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Anthony you are the liar. I did write the stuff I added. Of course I had sources, but those are my words besides the quotes. You not only reverted the part in question but other areas of what I wrote, therefore you are lying becuase you said you only reverted because I plagarized. But I again, if you can read, that is my work. Unlike you, I actually make useful contributions.

ChrisDJackson 02:17, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Go ahead, look at all my contributions today on the page. From the Perto debate to the Clinton scandal. I care not. I think I will be vindicated from this bullshit when it is over. ChrisDJackson 02:18, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

OK, here's one

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/algore1.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Al_Gore&diff=2811190&oldid=2811153

Gore has mostly been a behind-the-scenes player. Early in Clinton's first term, the president enlisted Gore to study the entire federal government to pinpoint wasteful areas. Gore's National Performance Review guided Clinton when he downsized the government. The vice president was also instrumental in the passage of 1993's North American Free Trade Agreement.

During his time as Vice President, Al Gore was mostly a behind the scenes player. However, he is widely considered to be the most active and best Vice President in modern US history. On the request of President Clinton, Gore wrote National Performance Review, which pointed out bad areas of the federal government and later helped guide President Clinton when he down sized the government. Gore was also very instrumental in the passing of 1993's North American Free Trade Agreement.

Just the first one I happened to look at. Anthony DiPierro 02:33, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)


And that relates to the current article how? I told you this is my words, if you can't accept that and move on, fine. You have no life anyway. You are on here 15/7. You must have no job, family, hobbies, etc. Your life revolvs around having wars with people who can't actually kick your ass over the internet. If you can't find anything better than a stupid quote and say that you can re-phrase a sentence so taht it isn't copyvio, then you have nothing, just as I suspected. ChrisDJackson 02:38, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Chris, will you please refrain from insults and personal attacks? If you have such admiration for Al Gore, take a lesson from him. As upset as Gore got in his political career, he did not stoop to the level of name calling and insulting. He kept his cool. Think always, Chris: What would Al do? Kingturtle 02:45, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • No one harrassed Al Gore as this person does me along with others here. If they had, I am sure they would have been put away. Namecalling is common in politics all the time and this is no different. He lies and exaggerates to make his points and just loves edit wars. The only person in politics he can be compared to is probably Ken Starr or Newt Gingrich. It makes me want to pull my hair out and no one will help! ChrisDJackson 02:49, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Al Gore was harassed often. Ever hear of Rush Limbaugh? As for Ken Starr and Newt, when did Al ever blow his top in regards to them? In fact, when did Al ever blow his top?!?!? Take a lesson from Al. What would Al do? Kingturtle 02:57, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I can see your point. I often tell my members on my site that. However, it is harder to do than it is to say. Again thanks, Chris.
      • Honest....take a lesson from Al. The man has poise and rises above the frey. Take note. And practice it :) Kingturtle 03:02, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Yea the right wing ate him up in 2000, but he kept his cool. However, I feel that might of contributed to his loss by not refuting their lies and exaggerating. I beleive that my temperment is more of that of Howard Dean. I have a very short fuse and don't take much, espeacially if it is redundancy.

But thanks for your words of wisdom. I agree, Gore is a man of poise and or respect. That is why I told him he is my mentor. :) ChrisDJackson 03:07, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sam Nunn - what about this page, Chris? Did you copy it from http://www.nti.org/b_aboutnti/b1b.html , as ElBenevolente is alleging? Anthony DiPierro 03:11, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Uh yes, it is not copyrighted and is in the public domain. You know usually if I put: Adapted from......... that means I got it from there. Get a clue. ChrisDJackson 03:19, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hey, I didn't accuse you of anything. I only asked a question, based on an accusation by ElBenevolente. Do you have any evidence that it is public domain? Because the site I looked at didn't have any statement of such. Anthony DiPierro 03:26, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This is a common mistake. Content does not need a copyright notice to be copyrighted -- see copyright. You can't just assume a text to be in the public domain just because it doesn't say otherwise.—Eloquence 03:28, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

number of images

Does this article really need eight images of Gore? Kingturtle 23:48, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Some of the captions should be change like the one about "speaking forceible" might be a bit pov plus i see the same pix of Gore and Bush at the debate is here too, It makes more sense to be here since Gore is in the foreground but probably should be replaced at the Bush page

Canada?

"Gore considered all these options".....Gore considered running away to Canada? Has he ever said that? Kingturtle 05:27, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Phrasing

"Although Gore won the nationwide popular vote by more than 500,000 votes, he eventually lost the election by 5 electoral votes, with the outcome ultimately decided by the few hundred votes in Florida. In the end, Gore recieved the most votes of any Democrat in U.S. history."

I removed the bolding. It's unnecessary. I took out "eventually". Also unnecessary (and somewhat misleading, he lost, not eventually, at the time of the electoral college vote, same as any other election). I also removed "the outcome ultimately decided by the few hundred votes in Florida." This is awkwardly phrased. The outcome was decided by many factors. The election hinged on Florida no more than any other state with at least 5 electoral votes. The election hinged on the Supreme Court. The election hinged on Nader. The election hinged on Katherine Harris certifying the vote. The election hinged on the butterfly ballot. I had tried phrasing it as "A swing of only a few hundred popular votes in Florda would have caused the election to go the other way" but this was not accepted by ChrisDJackson. Finally, in the last sentence, I removed "In the end". Again, unnecessary, somewhat POV, and misleading. Oh yeah, and I fixed the spelling of "received". anthony (see warning) 22:04, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It also hinged on Harris' diddling of the voters lists[1] and those electronic "voting" machines, one of which tried to take ±16000 votes from Gore in a poll -- Volusia 216 -- with only ±600 electors.[2] The chad flap was just diversion to encourage elimination of all the paper trail next time around. 142.177.121.225 15:58, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Read history books, the election hinged on Florida. After 36 days, that is eventually. In the end refers to the finality after the recounts. Nothing hard to understand there, you are just trying to start another edit war. ChrisDJackson 22:09, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If two baseball teams are tied going into the last day of the season, and one wins its game while the other loses, it's common to say that the last game decided the pennant. Logically, one might argue that the pennant was decided on the day back in July when the eventual winner swept a doubleheader from the eventual loser, thus swinging two games in the standings, not just one. Nevertheless, it's fairly common to point to the last-in-time event as the decisive one. By analogy, I think Chris's emphasis on Florida is correct.
To accommodate Anthony's objection, though, the reference should make clear that the disposition of the Florida electoral votes was decided after all the other factors, such as Nader, had worked their influence. I've tried to craft a sentence that's suitably NPOV for both disputants. JamesMLane 23:00, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Had Gore carried his home state he would have won the White house oh wait he did carry DC never mind. No seriously he would be Prez today had he won TN

"One of the most powerful..."

To the anonymous user who keeps adding the "most powerful" language: Several of us keep deleting it. Can you provide objective support for the contention that your view is "widely" shared? Otherwise, we can probably outlast you.  :) JamesMLane 03:37, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)