Talk:Al Gore/Archive 6

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 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 →

Contents

Suggest 50 possible wiki links and 13 possible backlinks for Al Gore.

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Al_Gore article:

  • Can link board of directors: ...an of [[Generation Investment Management]], and sits on the board of directors at [[Apple Computer]]. He is also considered by many polit...
  • Can link school year: ...t, Tipper, and the couple have four children.]] During the school year, the younger Gore lived in a hotel in Washington, where he ... (link to section)
  • Can link family farm: ...acations, he lived in Carthage, where he worked on the Gore family farm.... (link to section)
  • Can link Bachelor of Arts degree: ... Gore graduated from Harvard in [[June]] of [[1969]] with a Bachelor of Arts degree. ... (link to section)
  • Can link New Salem: ...]], and own a small farm near Carthage. The family attends New Salem Missionary [[Baptist Church]] in Carthage.... (link to section)
  • Can link St. Albans: ...lation. Prior to his attending Harvard, Gore graduated from St. Albans ranked 25th in a class of 51, and scored 1355 on his [[Scho... (link to section)
  • Can link Law School: ...ore would not prioritize his studies. Gore left Vanderbilt Law School because he decided to run for Congress instead. It was the... (link to section)
  • Can link law degree: ...se Gore of being an academic failure for not completing his law degree.... (link to section)
  • Can link war correspondent: ...ped to [[Vietnam]] in early [[1971]]. He served as an Army war correspondent until [[May 24]] of that year, slightly less than two years... (link to section)
  • Can link basic training: ...uiting office. * '''August to October 1969''': 8 weeks of basic training at [[Fort Dix, New Jersey]]... (link to section)
  • Can link Air Base: ... 20th Engineer Brigade, stationed primarily at [[Bien Hoa]] Air Base near [[Saigon]].... (link to section)
  • Can link Brigadier General: ...e was protected from dangerous situations at the request of Brigadier General [[Kenneth B. Cooper]], the 20th Engineer Brigades Commander... (link to section)
  • Can link automobile accident: ...year-old son [[Al Gore III|Albert]] was nearly killed in an automobile accident while leaving the [[Baltimore Orioles]] opening game. Becau... (link to section)
  • Can link presidential primary: ... during the recovery instead of laying the foundation for a presidential primary campaign against eventual nominee Bill Clinton. Gore starte... (link to section)
  • Can link Joint Committee: ...Surface Transportatio]]n; [[National Ocean Policy]] Study); Joint Committee on Printing; [[Joint Economic Committee]]; [[Rules and Admi... (link to section)
  • Can link running mate: ...hen-[[United States Senate|U.S. Senator]] Al Gore to be his running mate on [[July 9]], [[1992]]. After winning the [[U.S. president... (link to section)
  • Can link U.S. history: ...e one of the most active and influential Vice Presidents in U.S. history. One of Gore's major accomplishments as Vice President was... (link to section)
  • Can link public opinion polls: ...e is widely believed to have won the debate hands down, and public opinion polls taken after the debate showed that a majority of Americans ... (link to section)
  • Can link environmental protection: ...e's tenure as Vice President, he was a strong proponent for environmental protection. While a senator working on his book ''Earth in the Balance... (link to section)
  • Can link ozone layer: ...ined on issues such as global warming, the depletion of the ozone layer, and the destruction of rain forests is said to have played... (link to section)
  • Can link foreign policy: ... looked upon by President Clinton for advice in the area of foreign policy. He was on the first to call for action, that would remove... (link to section)
  • Can link economic growth: ...nited States into the longest period of peace and sustained economic growth in American history. At the end of their term in office, C... (link to section)
  • Can link national debt: ...est unemployment in 30 years * Paid off $360 billion of the national debt (although total national debt at the end of the administrat... (link to section)
  • Can link budget deficit: ...ears * Higher incomes at all levels * Converted the largest budget deficit in American history to the largest surplus... (link to section)
  • Can link government spending: ...deficit in American history to the largest surplus * Lowest government spending in three decades... (link to section)
  • Can link income tax: ...owest government spending in three decades * Lowest federal income tax burden in 35 years... (link to section)
  • Can link primary election: ...drew from the race in early March 2000 after Gore won every primary election. ... (link to section)
  • Can link election day: ...|Republican]] [[Governor of Texas]] [[George W. Bush]]. On election day, the results were so close that the outcome of the race too... (link to section)
  • Can link U.S. news: ...ing the election, a subsequent recount conducted by various U.S. news media organizations indicated that Bush would have won usin... (link to section)
  • Can link Palm Beach: ...thought to have favored Bush. These included the notorious Palm Beach "butterfly ballot", which produced an unexpectedly large nu... (link to section)
  • Can link electoral reform: ...certainties in the Florida vote led to widespread calls for electoral reform in the United States, and ultimately to the passage of the ... (link to section)
  • Can link computer systems: ...ew controversies, because of the security weaknesses of the computer systems, the lack of paper-based methods of secure verification, an... (link to section)
  • Can link 2000 election: ...residential campaign, 2000]] : For more information on the 2000 election, see: [[2000 Presidential Election]]... (link to section)
  • Can link electoral system: ...r vote, and failed to become President because the American electoral system does not grant any status to the overall popular vote. In p... (link to section)
  • Can link news organizations: ...nce the election, recounts have been conducted by dozens of news organizations from around the world with results that are confusing at be... (link to section)
  • Can link economic boom: ...on problem: The Clinton administration had presided over an economic boom and the balancing of the federal budget. Normally, a Vice ... (link to section)
  • Can link Green Party: ... may have supported Gore turned to the far more progressive Green Party candidate, [[Ralph Nader]].... (link to section)
  • Can link prime time: ... Gore himself would appear on a ''[[Saturday Night Live]]'' prime time special to make a few jokes about this behavior.... (link to section)
  • Can link law firm: ...002]], Al Gore accepted a consulting job with a Los Angeles law firm and became an adviser to [[Google Inc.|Google]]. Following ... (link to section)
  • Can link Electoral College: ...pular vote and (in the opinion of some) should have won the Electoral College vote. On [[December 16]], [[2002]] however, Gore announced ... (link to section)
  • Can link write-in: ...he election cycle. There was still some effort to encourage write-in votes for Gore in the primaries by a different group of Gor... (link to section)
  • Can link New Hampshire: ...ement. Although Gore did receive a small number of votes in New Hampshire and New Mexico, that effort was halted when [[John Kerry]] ... (link to section)
  • Can link New Mexico: ...re did receive a small number of votes in New Hampshire and New Mexico, that effort was halted when [[John Kerry]] pulled into the... (link to section)
  • Can link front-runner: ...c Party, but it also led the media to dub Dean as the clear front-runner, with the result that his opponents devoted more of their e... (link to section)
  • Can link 9/11 attacks: ...ed [[George W. Bush]] of betraying the country by using the 9/11 attacks as a justification for the invasion of Iraq. "He betrayed t... (link to section)
  • Can link Iraq crisis: ...y 26]], [[2004]], Gore gave a highly critical speech on the Iraq crisis and the [[Bush Administration]]. In the speech, Gore deman... (link to section)
  • Can link Iraq war: ...ed more than an hour, Gore called the Bush administration's Iraq war plan "incompetent" and called George W. Bush the most disho... (link to section)
  • Can link right-wing: ...partures from fact-based analysis have much more to do with right-wing political and economic [[ideology]] than with the [[Bible]]... (link to section)
  • Can link news channel: ...pany co-founded by Gore and [[Joel Hyatt]], purchased cable news channel [[NewsWorld International]] from [[Vivendi Universal]]. Th... (link to section)
  • Can link middle class: ...eproductive rights]], [[free trade]], and tax cuts for the middle class. He was also a vocal opponent of the [[2003 invasion of Ir... (link to section)

Additionally, there are some other articles which may be able to linked to this one (also known as "backlinks"):

  • In The science is settled, can backlink Al Gore: ...2003Jul7&notFound=true]; 'How many times have we heard from Al Gore and assorted European politicians that "the science is sett...
  • In Anwar Ibrahim, can backlink Al Gore: ...eign interference stating, for example, "We should fry him. Al Gore does not love Malaysia nor its people. Al Gore and his gove...
  • In Joe Trippi, can backlink Al Gore: ...itive with Bush in the months leading up to the convention. Al Gore had raised $45 million dolllars pre-convention in 2000, whi...
  • In De dicto and de re, can backlink Al Gore: ...ly wonder of George W. Bush, whether ''he'' could have been Al Gore. Indeed, assuming that ''being George Bush'' is an essentia...
  • In Truth function, can backlink Al Gore: ... of the USA on April 20 2004." and "Britney Spears believes Al Gore was President of the USA on April 20 2004.". Knowing that t...
  • In Fallacy of four terms, can backlink Al Gore: ... fins :Minor premise: President Bush is a fish :Conclusion: Al Gore has fins...
  • In Gravitas, can backlink Al Gore: ...can party candidate, George W. Bush, as not having any, and Al Gore, the Democratic party candidate who claimed to be responsib...
  • In Voteauction, can backlink Al Gore: ... the highest bidder during the Presidential Elections 2000, Al Gore vs. G.W. Bush. ...
  • In 2004 U.S. election in progress, can backlink Al Gore: ... in the past tended to favor Republicans, though it favored Al Gore in several key states in the 2000 election....
  • In Fahrenheit 9/11 controversy, can backlink Al Gore: ...ecounts|the Florida Ballot Project recounts]]. In the end, Al Gore won 543,895 more votes overall, but because of the outcome ...
  • In 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities, can backlink Al Gore: ...0/S00211.htm#66 source]" :"What the news networks, and the Al Gore, camp do not realise at this point in the evening is that o...
  • In 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, voting machines, can backlink Al Gore: ...0/S00211.htm#66 source]" :"What the news networks, and the Al Gore, camp do not realise at this point in the evening is that o...
  • In 2008 Democratic Presidential Nomination, can backlink Al Gore: ...o were not ruling themselves out were former Vice-President Al Gore, Senator Hilary Rodham Clinton, and outgoing U.S. Senator J...

Notes: The article text has not been changed in any way; Some of these suggestions may be wrong, some may be right.
Feedback: I like it, I hate it, Please don't link to — LinkBot 11:27, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Lock box

Why does this article make no mention of the "lock box"? Timan123 16:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Bearded Gore

How about a picture of the historically significant beard he grew after the election and why? A Secret Service suggestion? It really reminded me of the role in "Amerika" of Kris Kristofferson

"Amygdala Politics"?

There was a speech by Al Gore a year or two ago concerning the use of fear in politics post-9/11. In it, he coined the phrase "amygdala politics". I wanted to add a reference to this in the "recent speeches" list, but I can't seem to find an online source for the text of the speech. Does anyone know where one can be found?--12.15.238.50 23:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know the speech you refer to but this does refer to a speech in which Gore mentioned the amygdala. AllanHainey 12:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Adding a TV appearance?

I'd like to add that Al Gore was on the Charlie Rose Show last week, but the article doesn't seem editable. Am I mistaken? Thanks.

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia! :) The Al Gore article is currently "semi-protected" - that means that anyone with a user account older than four days can edit it so you'll be able to do it before long. By the way - it's a good idea to sign your posts on talk pages by adding ~~~~ after your post. Haukur 10:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to make a correction: Gore's latest appearance on Late Show with David Letterman was Fri June 23, not June 8.

Verified at imdb.com and made the change JimmB 02:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Canada Hating?

From 'Views and Controversies': "His views on environmental policy have been cast in the media as politically radical and Canada hating." Any documentation there? I googled "Al Gore Canada Controversy" and found a Wikipedia article stating that in a 2000 poll, Canadians said that they would vote for Gore over Bush by a 20% margin.


edits by JWoodman

Recent edits were by me, my first contribution to wikipedia, hope it's appreciated. Just noticed the account creation option after making edits.

Brief summary of changes:

1) Margin of 537 votes on which the election hung out of approx 105 million was astonishingly close.

2) Article presented only one side of the significant controversies surrounding the election and the recounts.

3) Statement was made that if a statewide recount had been made, Gore "would have" won the election. The cited source does NOT state OR support this conclusion; it states very clearly that Gore "MIGHT" have won. Huge difference there.

Frontrunner for 2008?

From intro: "He is also considered by many political pundits to be a front runner for the 2008 Democratic nomination if he decides to run." I haven't seen this opinion expressed anywhere, and I don't think history really supports it. Unless this has some backing, I think it should be removed. --Twinxor 03:40, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Opinions on Gore in 2008:

  • s8.invisionfree.com/Al_Gore_Support/index.php?showtopic=1301
  • www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36053
  • s8.invisionfree.com/Al_Gore_Support/index.php?showtopic=1487

Also, there have been other columnists and pundits who have said that if Gore was to run, he would be the frontrunner. I think it is common logic to realize that. If he and Hillary were both to run, they each would be frontrunners. Notice, the sentence did not say the frontrunner, but a frontrunner, which is gramatically correct. ChrisDJackson

Please see

Al Gore presidential campaigns and add any useful information you have. It's basically just a stub right now. Thank you.

January 15, 2004 speech

Mean temp was lower in 1968,'94 - check noaa.gov tables. Minimum temperature isn’t displayed at (that part of?) the site, did reach its minimum in 1957 indeed and was 2oF on January 15, 2004 (according to Weather Underground (an amusingly named site) — which is, yes, why climate change/catastr. cc is more the issue than is global warming. Emphasizing the latter inapplicable, at best misleading, terminology does seem to make one a cheap target without doubt. Schissel‐bowl listen 15:43, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

Lumidek commented that "Nope, there were no colder days than Jan 15. If you want to add a similar comment, please post your sources on the talk page. Otherwise it's clear that you made it up." in response to a change I made to the paragraph about the January 15, 2004 speech. I did not make this up, but based my changes on the above comment by Schissel. However, I realize that his sourcing in the above may not be sufficient, so I'm going to be more specific.
According to Weather Underground's page for January 17, 2004 in New York City, January 17, 1977 had a low of -2 °F.
According to Weather Underground's page for January 18, 2004 in New York City, January 18, 1982 had a low of 0 °F.
According to Weather Underground's page for January 19, 2004 in New York City, January 19, 1994 had a low of -2 °F.
I believe that this demonstrates that there were colder days than January 15, 2004 within the previous 47 years. — DLJessup 02:40, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)

Whoops, I misinterpreted (time for me to reread that, yes. Ah. 'The coldest day in New York City in decades'. No, that it was not. I suppose to be charitable, it may have felt that way, though I hadn't been in NY City for a few weeks at the time. Equally irrelevant either way.) what was being said, actually (egg on face..) I thought that all that was being claimed, was that this was the coldest January 15 (measured by lowest temperature) in 47 years. (For which I know of no evidence but would be interested. If measured by mean temperature, instead of lowest temperature, it's not true, for which see evidence at noaa.gov, going to their climate data for NY City.) Schissel‐bowl listen 02:52, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

Comment general but also for Mr. Jackson... As to the adding of a long section that still should best go under/link to Global warming controversy I can only say for myself that I should think adding a response to the Washington Times article, that they were simply factually mistaken, is enough for this article. That their charges were also irrelevant, (I happen to agree there. And egomaniac that I am, nevertheless that is also irrelevant, no?) can be pointed out — and debated too.. — in the other article, not in the one on Al Gore... Schissel‐bowl listen 15:35, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

Comment for Mr. Lumidek and Mr. Jackson: I have tried to construct the most npov paragraph I could, in the face of an incredibly annoying, partisan edit war.
Mr. Jackson: I realize that you are fervent believer in global warming and that you regard the attacks on this speech as cheap. I suspect that a disinterested reader who read this paragraph would come away with the impression that the attacks were, at the very least, factually challenged. Nonetheless, this event got about as much attention as anything Gore did between dropping out of the race and the Democratic National Convention, so it is deserving of coverage. Personally, I think that it makes some of Al Gore's foes look rather bad. (For somebody who elsewhere complains about the threat of having your content destroyed, you certainly seem awfully quick to remove other people's content.)
Mr. Lumidek: Could you please refrain from attacking global warming here? If you want to add evidence against the hypothesis, there is an article, Global warming controversy, for it, just as, if Mr. Jackson wants to discuss temperatures and ocean currents, he should take his text there.
— DLJessup 04:14, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)

Global warming, haha

No contribution, just a comment to an edit summary: "We are not putting about the coldest day crap. That is right wing propoganda. Anyone who knows about Glob. Warming knows that is part of the process."

Yeah, true, but then again, some of us feel that global warming itself is left wing propaganda, so good job with that one. --Golbez 19:13, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

And if you really think global warming is left-wing propaganda, you're a moron on the wrong side of science.

  • The little comment about the speech being given on one of New York's coldest days will not be added. Not only is it irrelevant, but it is right wing propoganda. That is exactly what the Republicans sent out in a press release refuting his speech back in January. I will not let this article be overcome with peacock sentences that have a political leaning. Here is the evidence that it is right wing:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36624 http://www.cnsnews.com/Politics/Archive/200401/POL20040115e.html

ChrisDJackson


It did happen to be one of the coldest days, its a fact, how can that be propoganda?

It is an irrelevant piece of information. Here is an example "John was born in Florida, it was 75 degrees outside"

It may not be relevent to the article -- but BOY is it funny! Hey, can we add in the fact that at the Cannes opening of his Loony Left propaganda movie, he and his entire MOTORCADE actually had the gall to DRIVE a frickin' HALF OF A MILE. Is that sort of obvious hypocrisy a little to non-NPOV? LOL. A half-mile. The whole motorcade. Saving the environment! Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha oh you leftist sheeple are funny.

Well, if you can repeat the groundless smear, I can repeat the reality:
You fail to mention, perhaps because you do not know or even care, that this originated with Matt Drudge. But there's no mention of Gore's driving to the screening if you follow Drudge's link here or here... that's because At 3:38 PM EST on May 22 Drudge quietly deleted it from existence, even in the archives. In fact, the Reuters news report from Cannes specifically mentions that Gore walked to the screening. I got to hand it to you, I could never stand being played for a dupe as many times as the rightwing cannon fodder do. I'll bet you still believe the Clinton staff trashed the whitehouse before they left. Gzuckier 15:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Ideologues think that anything that undermines or contradicts their agenda is propaganda put forth by their opponents. Doesn't matter if it's factual or not, or even where the ideologue is on the political spectrum...


And it doesn't matter if global warming has been proven to exist. If it sounds like a really bad thing, then we have to treat it as if it definitely exists, just because of the gravity of the situation, hypothetical or not. There are ideologues on both sides of the issue.

Page size

I know this has been discussed before, but that discussion in now in an archive, so I'd like to bring it up again. This page is now 42KB, well above the 32KB recommended for a page. I attempted to split off the Vice Presidency section, but that only shrank the page by 5KB. Additionally, the real space hog is the 2000 Presidential election. There currently exists an article, Al Gore presidential campaign, 2000 which covers this topic. Most of the information here is duplicated there. Why can't we simply move any non-redundant content there and convert the 2000 Presidential election section to See Al Gore presidential campaign, 2000. — DLJessup 22:12, 2004 Dec 25 (UTC)

No, this page is fine. It doesn't matter what size it is. You are the only person to even complain about this. We don't need to continue to add erroneous statements or shave the article of it's in depthness. I have worked very hard on this page and I will not let you destroy its' content. ChrisDJackson
That's not entirely your call to make; the 32kb advised limit exists for a reason. Furthermore, it's somewhat good form - it seems better, usually, to have multiple lengthy articles on a subject, rather than one überlengthy article. However, I rarely see a major reason to snip an article because it's gotten a little large. If it were, say, 70kb, then there'd be a definite case for splitting it out into sub-articles. Please don't be so defensive about it; this can be discussed. Personally, I don't see a major reason to split it at this moment. However, if the information is duplicated in another article, perhaps it should be excised. --Golbez 22:44, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
By the way, Chris, I realized I sounded a bit.. gruff in my previous comment there. I just meant you shouldn't be so defensive about any ideas of what to do with the article, and yes, you have done a good job with it. --Golbez 01:31, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

Mr. Jackson, I am not the only person to complain about this. As you will note from my previous comment, the size of the article was discussed in March 2004 — which you know, because you participated in that discussion. Moreover, the wiki itself complains about articles that get over 32KB in size, which is why I noticed the problem in the first place.

I am definitely not trying to destroy content. I am trying to relocate content and remove duplication of content. What is the point of having a really in-depth discussion of Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign here when there is already an article specifically discussing Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign? It's much better to keep all this information in one place, if only so that the reader doesn't have to shuttle back-and-forth between that article and this just to get all the facts.

Finally, putting on my spelling and grammar nazi hat: neither of the "its" in your comment should have an apostrophe. "In depthness", insofar as it is a word or phrase, should be hyphenated.

— DLJessup 23:27, 2004 Dec 25 (UTC)

I agree. When an article gets over 32k, it should be split unless there is a very good reason not. I don't see any such reason here. Cutting off some of the election campaign stuff in Summary Style, as long as it is all duplicated in the election article, sounds like a reasonable way to do it, but count me neutral as far as exactly how the article should be cut down. Tuf-Kat 01:44, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
Many of our articles about leading public officials go over 32kb. George W. Bush is at 57kb, and Gore's predecessor as the Democratic nominee, John Kerry, is at 67kb. I don't see a problem with the Gore page. If it were to be cut down, the way to do it is to craft a summary of a particular topic that's covered elsewhere, rather than excising it entirely, and deciding exactly what goes into the summary can be a time-consuming and disputatious process. JamesMLane 03:53, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Bush and Kerry should be trimmed just the same. The reason is probably because it is indeed time-consuming and disputatious -- and, of course, Gore, Kerry and Bush are disputatious topics in and of themselves. But still it needs to be done, and we shouldn't be discouraging someone from trying. I agree entirely with you on how to do it. Tuf-Kat 04:59, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
You are right James. Alot of public official pages are over the 32kb. No one rarely complains, however, every now and then we have a someone have the bright idea of having spin off articles and such. All this does is cause trouble and dilute the page's great content. You know, there is a reason why this Al Gore article has soared all the way to the top of every search engine on the web--people like the way it is layed out and like the content. People don't like going to a million different pages to find what they are looking for, they want a central page with all the info on it. Please leave it the way it is. ChrisDJackson 05:00, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please try not to save your editing until you are truly done, nice job but 8-10 edits in a row with only a comma or period deletion difference is ridiculous.

Counting every vote

JamesMLane, be sure that counting every vote was not important in 2004. If it were important in 2000, this time was different. Kerry would have to count every vote plus 4 million more votes ;-) to make a difference. --Lumidek 04:45, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wrong, Ohio is a perfect example of where it was important to count every vote. Couting votes does not just include those that were cast and count, but those in dispute that were thrown out for various reasons. Also, perfect example was in Washington's governor race. Mrs. Gregoire would have lost if it would have not been for the counting of the 700 votes in King County. Now, she is ready to assume the governship next month because the were counted. When Al spoke about counting every vote, he wasn't just talking about in the Presidential election, but in every general election. ChrisDJackson

January 15, 2004 speech (again)

Over several revisions, I had come up with the following paragraph, which I believe to be as balanced and npov as possible:

On January 15, 2004, Al Gore gave a major policy address on climate change and Bush administration policy. The speech was gien in New York City, which hit a low of 2 °F on that day. Critics, such as the Washington Times, gleefully claimed that Gore was giving a speech on "global warming" on Manhattan's coldest day in 47 years. Indeed, this was the coldest January 15th since 1957, but colder temperatures had been observed on days other than January 15th in the intervening years. (For instance, January 17, 1977 hit a low of -2 °F.) Moreover, proponents of global warming claim that extreme temperatures, both cold and hot, are to be expected from the global warming phenomenon. (Please see Global warming controversy for a detailed discussion of this claim.)

This paragraph has repeatedly been excised by ChrisDJackson. First, I'd like to get some feedback from the community about the paragraph itself. Should this paragraph appear in this article? If not, why not? While I fully expect that I will hear from Mr. Jackson, I would also like to hear from others in the community. I have other questions, but they can wait until I get some feedback on this question.

After writing my previous three paragraphs, I learned that my paragraph still survives, but is located in Al Gore controversies. This is a good change, and therefore I struck out the above three paragraphs.

— DLJessup 05:39, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)

I said over and over I was moving it to the controversies page were it belongs. Maybe if people would actually listen to me for a change instead of just dismissing it. Anyway, good job on the writing. ChrisDJackson 01:18, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Recent edits by 67.82.3.41

I would like whoever is removing the reference in election 2000 to the challenge of the Florida electors to stop doing so. It is a crucial part of election 2000 and I believe it needs to be included. Didn't you see Fahrenheit 911? It is truth the the Congressional Black Caucus stood up in the congressional chambers to challenge the Florida electors. It is truth that not one Senator's signature could be garnered to sign the challlenge. It is truth that the lawsutis were initiated by George W. Bush. It is truth that the Florida electors counted were not the original set of electors sent to Washington. It is truth that there was outrage about disenfranchisement of blacks. It was not just an "abnormality," it was fraud, as was shown when the NAACP had to settle out of court with Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris which is also a fact not included here. Why do you insist on sugarcoating the facts of this heionous act? Is not an encyclopedia supposed to tell the truth? And yes, I am an anon user and I prefer to stay that way. Thank you. (unsigned contribution from User:67.82.3.41)

Your edits are being reverted because they appear to violate the Neutral Point of View policies of Wikipedia. The way things work here is that many people with many different views are contributing, and the only way to proceed is to have a strict policy that the article does not take any point of view itself, but outlines all points of view on an issue. You've done the right thing in coming to the Talk page to discuss them.
Perhaps others can better take the dispute further. I'll give one example: With regard to the standards of vote counting in Florida, when you write "Al Gore would have won if most of the methods were adopted" as opposed to "some", this sounds like an attempt to say that Gore should have won. The actual number of methods is in reality irrelevant: the fact is that some of the standards would have led to a Gore victory, and some to a Bush victory. Also, while you're welcome to contribute as an anon, it's always best to sign your contributions so that people can identify you. Do this with four tildes (~) and the software will automatically translate. Dbiv 18:29, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
If the amount of methods is irrelevant, why do mention it at all then? The press said he would have won if most of the methods were adopted, as did the NORC consortium count.That is not taking it from any view but TRUTH. Where are your sources to back the original comment then? I don't see them noted anywhere here. Telling the facts as they happened is representing no point of view but the truth. I will keep putting thay truth here as long as it keeps being removed. You want links to support it, I'll provide them, but don't assume I am taking this from any angle but as it happened. I would also appreciate you not posting my IP address publicly, as you do not have my permision to do so.
[1] According to the NORC count(which I will post), Gore would have won using MOST of the methods employed. It is FACT, not a political opinion. The fact you won't acknowledge that tells me something. [2]
(unsigned contribution from User:67.82.3.41)
With regard to your IP, you do have a choice. If you want to hide your IP, you can get an account. If you don't want an account, you will be identified by your IP. In any case your IP is readily available to anyone who wants it, simply by looking at the page histories of anything you edit.
You are not the first and will not be the last to strongly believe that your interpretation of the facts is absolutely truth. I think we all do that sometimes. However that doesn't mean that it will be acceptable on Wikipedia. Please read the NPOV page to which I provided a link above. Having links to support statements is neither here nor there: where the facts are in dispute, the article can't take sides.
I haven't stated my own politics here. If you look at my user page you'll see I'm based in the UK and I don't comment on US politics in terms of endorsing any party. Dbiv 22:02, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Your statements are not fact unless you can back them up here.
(unsigned contribution from User:67.82.3.41)
You cannot hide your IP on Wikipedia unless you get an account: see Wikipedia:Why create an account?#Identity implications. Please also read your talk page. Dbiv 22:20, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why should I have to discuss this, when you say people (plural) have reverted my edits, without showing any reason WHY or discussing it themselves? I am being treated biasedly here. This encyclopedia is for anyone to edit articles. How then can a rule be broken if users are allowed to edit? You have also given me NO substantiated reason as to why I cannot include historical fact regarding the challenge to the electoral votes in this section. You have already taken it upon yourself that my edits will be given NO consideration by your unfriendly responses. Check your facts regarding the challenge to the Florida electors that took place in 2001. Check your facts regarding how the electors were chosen. Check your facts regarding the outcome of the recount. I won't even waste my time anymore trying to tell truth here. It is obvious you and all who run this page are only out to make a sugarcoated version of this event. I will then look elsewhere to find people who post this historical event truthfully. I will also tell anyone who wants an acccurate depiction of this election to not look here.

Biased? There's a whole page about 2004 election irregularities here, wrong year, but you get the idea. When I'm at a computer I own (I'm at work at the moment, just using a few moments before my session begins) I can even give you the link if you can't find it by then. The solution is reasonably simple. Get an account, since people are understandably suspicious of anonymous posts; document and give the documentation; learn and follow the site rules; then we're on the way to having a discussion. Also, use ~~~~ (or three tildes) to sign your posts, please? Schissel : bowl listen 14:55, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Please, please tell me you did not just try to back up a factual assertion by asking "Didn't you see Fahrenheit 911?" Tell me you didn't. oh - sheesh. Too freakin' funny. I assume if a conservative tried to back up an argument by saying "Didn't you listen to Rush Limbaugh last night?" you'd think that was kosher? .... "Didn't you see Fahrenheit 911?" ... I'll be laughing at that one all day!! :) 172.167.74.234 14:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Coming from somebody who posts here not once, but twice, a false rumor that comes from..... Matt Drudge. And doesn't bother to mention that fact. If he/she even knows or cares where it came from. Let alone that Drudge very quickly yanked the item from his website because it happens to be proved false by the news feeds. Gzuckier 15:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Running in 2008?

Will he run for president in 2008?

--Relaxation 18:54, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)


There is zero chance Gore is going to run, and even less of a chance that he would be nominated. He may put out some feelers just for fun, but Gore is not even a blip on the politcal radar.

I question why there's even a section documenting an event that may or may not occur in the future. If there was actually some evidence that Gore was planning a bid for the Whithouse in '08 then the fact that he is making plans could be included. But as it is the section says very little other than "Gore could run in '08."

Even if the section is kept, it should be written in a way that would still make sense if it was being read in 2009 whether or not Gore had run. The last sentence with it's "Gore has not yet..." is the problem IMO.

There is A LOT of talk about and support for a Gore run in 2008 in the "netroots" of the Democratic party. For example, DraftGore.com is already active and I've seen quite a few very active petitions. Just about every straw poll I've seen that includes him as a choice, comes out with him being the number one or two choice. Granted, this is mostly in the progressive blogosphere and not out in the physical "grassroots," but it's still a lot of support. This being early 2006, before even the midterms, it wouldn't make sense for Gore to give any indication of what he intends to do. Most candidates don't make their final decisions until around the middle of the year before a presidential election. Also, Wikipedia articles are updated frequently and speak in terms of "now" and not in such permanent language used in hard-copy encyclopedias. As time progresses and things change, so do the wiki articles. Uruz7 06:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Also, there was a recent front-page article in The American Prospect about Gore and the prospect of an '08 campaign: The New New Gore Uruz7 06:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, we can update an article, but the reader should know whether or when the updating was done. Something like as of 2006 is better than "now" or "currently". JamesMLane t c 03:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be noted that your including polls from websites like Daily Kos is erroneous in how you present them because you need to explain that no one winning any poll on that or any other Internet site is indicative of anything other than the usual members pumping up the numbers. It was not a poll whereby ALL members of the blog voted, therefore, the results are not pure. I do not then understand how polls like this can even be entertained on Wikipedia.JMMoore 16:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Futurama

On Futurama, Al Gore had his Vice Presidential Action Rangers. The episode also ended with him playing D&D with Gary Gygax as a "10th level Vice President". This might not be the most appropriate thing to add to the page though. 129.110.240.1 07:50, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Political Action Committees

How does tying an article to a PAC committee website seeking political donations add to the concept, value, or nature of an encyclopedia? How does removal of such links constitute vandalism? Johnwhunt 18:29, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

From Wikipedia: "Vandalism is indisputable bad-faith addition, deletion, or change to content, made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. The largest quantity of vandalism consists of replacement of prominent articles with obscenities, namecalling, or other wholly irrelevant content. Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad faith edits that do not make their bad faith nature explicit and inarguable, are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia."

Jpgordon, I ask again - how is deleting PAC committee websites vandalism? Johnwhunt 15:26, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that this edit was vandalism, since as far as I can tell there's a good-faith dispute. I think that the Al Gore Support Center and the others go far beyond merely being "website[s] seeking political donations". Each of them has more detailed information about Gore, which is one of the circumstances under which an external link is appropriate. Calling them "campaign" sites, however, is potentially misleading, given that Gore has not announced any campaign for 2008. I've left the links in but removed that subheading. While I was at it, I converted all the "External links" subheadings into normal Wikipedia format, so that they show up in the table of contents. JamesMLane 18:06, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Thanks, James, for the comment. It was not vandalism, and I, in case you couldn't tell, bristled at the suggestion. However, I still believe it is inappropriate for an article to link onto a PAC or other donation site.

From Wikipedia: What Wikipedia is not: Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a chatroom, discussion forum, or vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not: 1. Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.

Of course, it seems this dictum is more often honored in the breech. :-)) Johnwhunt 21:13, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Internet

I think the link to Snopes should be removed. It claims to debunk the "rumor" that Gore claimed credit for the internet, but what it actually does is quote Gore:

During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.

And then procedes to try to spin Gore's quote into not saying what it obviously says.

I don't think that the link to Snopes should be removed. While the article itself should be NPoV, we should try to get as diverse a collection of sources as possible. That being said, I think that the description that appears in the link is PoV, since it claims that Snopes successfully debunks that Gore claimed to have invented the Internet, which clearly is disputable. — DLJessup 22:46, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The problem here is that in all of the archives of Gore's public statements, and all of the media sources that cite Gore claiming he invented the internet point to the Wired articles which never takes the quote from the Blitzer interview in which he's supposed to have actually made that claim. There's NPOV, and then there's spin. Certainly this fact is debated, but if you go back to the original source he's grandstanding a bit, perhaps, but he was definitely the only politician of the time to recognize that funding should go to this nascent Internet to make it the Internet that's publicly accessible today. I think this[3] is an excellent read on this topic, since it only uses primary sources... Buoren

User:165.247.205.243 :Good work, I tried to find the original from the Gore/Lieberman site but it was dead. It should, however be labeled A New Approach for a New Century Major Foreign Policy Speech 30 April 2004, to distinguish it as such. One would not know where to go on the page to find Mr. Gore's foreign policy positions as such at the time. Thx Nobs 03:21, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Added a note emphasizing that Gore is not only misinterpreted on this matter, but openly misquoted--and frequently.24.33.28.52 17:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

    • That's nice, but what does "openly misquoted" mean, as opposed to "misquoted"? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It means that people do it deliberately when they know better. Would you prefer "cynically"? Would that be "nicer"? When people deliberately misquote it is not misinterpretation, it's misrepresentation.24.33.28.52 23:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

And you know it's deliberately rather than ignorantly...how? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

By the fact that people repeat the stuff after being corrected? I guess I should just assume that the memory spans in question are really short? You're right, no one EVER miquotes Gore deliberately and repeatedly often and in public. I'll remove the offending word.24.33.28.52 23:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Current

The section on the TV network "Current" should be updated.

BBC Link with more info: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/4411905.stm

Abortion on demand

"Abortion on demand" is a GOP buzzword. It doesn't belong in the article. "Supports legalized abortion" is more NPOV. Gore is no more aggressively pro-choice than any other mainstream Democrat. --Saucy Intruder 19:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Some" have suggested?

"Some have suggested that Gore already foresaw that military service might be advantageous in his future career in politics."

Wikipedia should strive for a level of accuracy significantly higher than that of television "news".

If "some" have suggested this that Gore went to Vietnam to help his future political career, a few of those "some" should be named.

This is claimed by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair in Al Gore: A User Manual. Theshibboleth 00:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Just because something is claimed in a book doesn't make it credible. I don't believe in the existence of green eggs and ham, for instance. Fishhead64 05:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
There is a big difference between the source and a children's book. Speak sense. And the entry doesn't state ' Gore went to Vietnam to help his future political career, a few of those "some" should be named' like it is fact...

Hypnotize chickens?

I removed this sentence: "Among other things, Gore can hypnotize chickens, a talent he demonstrated once in a television interview."

Although that is...awesome... something like that should specify a source before I believe it. :p TheCoffee 15:16, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, he *can* hypnotize chickens, just check the following website out. [4]

Introduction: American...businessman?

He was in politics for 25 years, 8 of them as Vice President of the USA. Anyone else think his biography should describe him as "an American politician," or "an American politician and businessman?" Is he actually known as a businessman at all, or is that just what he does now that he's not in an elected office? It's not like he's H. Ross Perot or someone- a businessman who turned to politics. He was just about always a politician, from a political family, etc. I think the intro should be changed. Kaisershatner 18:55, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

He is a former politician and current businessman. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 06:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

The Gore Vidal Connection

The mention of being cousins with Gore Vidal has been deleted as "believed to be false". Vidal has mentioned this several times in easily confirmable media. It is also easy to confirm that Vidal's grandfather was Thomas Gore, the senator from Oklahoma. It might be a total coincidence that there was a totally unrelated senator Al Gore Sr. from Tennessee a few decades later, but membership in congress often runs in the family and it seems uncoincidental when combined with Vidal's statements. I haven't seen any documentation showing that Vidal lied about this. The fact that Al Gore Jr. doesn't seem to have commented is understandable since he wants to keep his centrist appeal and avoid public emphasis on a family connection with an outspoken liberal. Where's the proof that this is wrong?

Reaverdrop 09:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

You misunderstand. The burden of proof, in this case, is on those claiming Gore Vidal as a relation (including Gore Vidal himself). If someone can provide geneaological records to prove that Thomas Gore and Al Gore Sr. are related, then this can go back into the article.--chris.lawson 19:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Lawson's point is correct. The proponent of any assertion bears the burden of proving it, while the opponent has no affirmative burden to debunk the proffered statement. 64.124.183.195 18:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Bust of Al Gore

Has Gore's Vice Presidential Bust for the US Senate been completed yet? 0:06, 2 November 2005

Lawson's point is correct. The proponent of any assertion bears the burden of proving it, while the opponent has no affirmative burden to debunk the proffered statement. 64.124.183.195 18:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, what? --I have no idea what I'm talking about... 03:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Sep 23, 2002 speech (cited in 'Controversies') did not support invasion.

There was text in the "Views and Controversies" section that referred to Gore's 9-23-02 speech to the Commonwealth Club [5] as supporting the invasion. I kept the citation but removed the text, because the speech actually opposed the invasion:

"... I am deeply concerned that the course of action that we are presently embarking upon with respect to Iraq has the potential to seriously damage our ability to win the war against terrorism and to weaken our ability to lead the world in this new century."

-Allen 05:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Congressman & Senator

The years (in the succession box) are incorrect, regarding his service as Congressman (Represenative) & Senator. For Congressman it should be 1977-1985 ,for Senator 1985-92 (he resigned in '92, I think). I was going to make minor edits to this, but I'd like some views on this first (from other Wikipedians). GoodDay 01:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


Most divisive topic?

"The election remains one of the most divisive and controversial topics in recent American politics."

Is this really true? Maybe a few years ago.... I think right now there are much more divisive and controversial topics. I think we should delete this line.

explanation for my revert

The thing about Gore not telling Lieberman that he was about to endore Dean... if anyone wants to reinsert that in a way that doesn't disrupt the flow of the writing, I won't object, but it would be better with a reference. In contrast, I will insist on a verifiable reference for any claim that Gore ever supported President Bush's invasion of Iraq. I have followed the issue and have seen no evidence that he ever took a position other than to oppose the invasion. --Allen 06:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

explanation for reverting Connecticut addition

I know Bush was born in Connecticut, but his home state is generally seen as Texas. To say he lost his home state in 2000, one would have to make an argument that his home state isn't what a lot of people think it is, and such an argument wouldn't really belong on Al Gore. --Allen 05:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

comments on latest edits

Some of the material that Kirby Morgan edited did indeed contain POV language in favor of Gore. But in several cases, Morgan has replaced it with language that I feel is POV against Gore. For example, to say that Gore "claimed" something makes sense if the claim is genuinely disputed, but if the claim is not disputed it is more neutral to say that Gore "said" something.

In other cases, Morgan has added what appear to me to be unsourced allegations against Gore. Did Gore really call Rush Limbaugh a "distinguished American"? Morgan hasn't given us a reference for this, so I don't know. One could argue that much of what is already in the article is unreferenced, which would be true. But it is especially important to provide references for negative (or laudatory) statements about Gore, because they are especially likely to be controversial.

Kirby, thanks for your edits. If we build on them I think they will ultimately lead to a better article.

--Allen 00:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Gore's Vietnam service

I find that the section of Al Gore's vietnam service fails the neutral POV test. It describes his service *exclusively* in terms of how it has been contradicted by various (imo irreputable) sources, completely fails to mention Mr. Gore's service as a swift boat captain, completely fails to mention how Mr. Gore earned his three purple hearts that eventually lead to his honorable discharge.

The fact that the end of Mr. Gore's end of service is describe as a "discharge" as opposed to an "honorable discharge" is an insult to servicemen everywhere.

I'm not exactly sure how to fix this section, but it's clear to me that extensive revision is necessary. Neutral POV does not mean simply omitting all the information that any knucklehead objects to.

--Jonathan 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly, Jonathan. I strongly encourage you to be bold; it sounds like you know a lot about Gore's service and about the appropriate way to talk about it, or at least more than anyone else editing this page. I didn't know "discharge" by itself was disrespectful (I should have, though). --Allen 05:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Now I get it. You have Gore confused with John Kerry. Gore didn't earn any purple hearts or pilot a swift boat. But you're right about the honorable discharge, the internet claims, and your overall assessment of the section. --Allen 10:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Pat Buchanan votes

I am removing the text in parentheses from this sentence:

Irregularities favoring Bush included the notorious Palm Beach "butterfly ballots", which were alleged to have produced an unexpectedly large number of votes for Reform Rarty candidate Pat Buchanan (however, the Reform Party candidate had received about as many votes in the 1996 election), and a purge of some 50,000 alleged felons from the Florida voting rolls that included many voters who were eligible to vote under Florida law.

It is unreferenced and I don't know whether it's true. But more importantly, it's not the comparison that most people found relevant in 2000. In 1996, Ross Perot was the Reform Party candidate and did far better nationwide than did Pat Buchanan in 2000. Pat Buchanan got far more votes in Palm Beach County, per capita, than in other Florida counties in 2000, and that's the comparison that most people made. [6] --Allen 20:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

explanation for changing/removing text on Bush v. Gore

I'm removing the second block of text in bold here, and substituting the first part in bold for what was there before:

Al Gore publicly conceded the election after the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore voted 7 to 2 to declare the ongoing recount procedure unconstitutional because it feared that different standards would be used in different parts of the state, and 5 to 4 to ban recounts using other procedures which could have extended the deadline for the vote count. A practical matter, that there was no longer time to recount the votes yet again without a deadline extension, sealed the election victory for President George W. Bush.

The second sentence I'm removing because I feel it is stating an opinion as fact: Florida was ordered to stop the recount, and the Supreme Court judged there was not time to recount within the deadline. Florida was in the process of trying, and we'll never know if they would have succeeded. The last part of the first sentence I don't understand. I thought the "other procedures" referred to procedures that would correct the problems the Court had with the recount as it was. Where did extending the deadline come in? Finally, I'm making the change in the first sentence because that's my understanding of the decision. The ongoing recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court was already statewide. If I'm wrong please explain. --Allen 22:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

New Democrat

Why is it there's no mention of his New Democrat affiliation? The article should discuss this aspect as well. --speedoflight | talk to me 11:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Fox News calling for Bush

On election night, news networks first called Florida for Gore, then Fox News decided to call it for Bush and all of the other news stations followed their decision. This quote is seriously biased and misleading. Here's a chronology of that night: 19:49 EST: NBC calls Florida for Gore 19:50 EST: CBS calls Florida for Gore 19:52 EST: Fox calls Florida for Gore 20:02 EST: ABC calls Florida for Gore 22:00 EST: CBS retracts Florida for Gore 2:16 EST: Fox calls Florida for Bush 2:17:30 EST: NBC calls Florida for Bush 2:17:52 EST: CBS calls Florida for Bush 2:20 EST: ABC calls Florida for Bush 3:57 EST: CBS retracts Florida for Bush 4:00 EST: ABC retracts Florida for Bush 4:02 EST: NBC retracts Florida for Bush 4:05 EST: Fox retracts Florida for Bush

The reason that the decisions seem clumped together is because all the networks shared the same feed from the Voter News Survey. The quote makes it seem that everyone called Florida for Gore than switched to Bush on Fox's singso. In fact in the space of a few minutes everyone called it for Gore, there was a long pause where the networks retract that [not listed up there, but the other non-CBS networks will retract Florida], in the space of a few minutes everyone calls it for Bush, there is another interugnum and (to repeat the refrain) in the space of a few minutes everyone retracts it from Bush. (Page 12 http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/c2k/pdf/REPFINAL.pdf) How should we clean this line up to make more accurate?

FISA smears

I moved the following piece out of the article as it doesn't actually relate to an "Al Gore" controversy, it's just a bit of political mudslinging. If it happens to become something more interesting the text is preserved here. Joffan 01:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


removed from the article:

Accusations of hypocrisy by McClellan and Gonzales

On 16 January 2006, Gore accused U.S. President Bush of "breaking the law repeatedly and insistently," and called for a special investigation of NSA spying on Americans because the spying was without a warrant from a special federal court that authorizes such requests to eavesdrop on Americans.

Bush press secretary Scott McClellan and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales both responded to reporters that the Clinton-Gore administration had done illegal warrantless physical searches themselves of Aldrich Ames without permission from a judge.

"I think his hypocrisy knows no bounds," McClellan said of Gore. But the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act at the time did not cover physical searches. The law had changed in 1995. Gore claimed that because Gonzales made a "political defense" for Bush, he was no longer eligible to review charges against Bush and therefore must name a special counsel.

"His charges are factually wrong," said Gore, "Both before and after the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was amended in 1995; the Clinton-Gore administration complied fully and completely with the terms of the law." [7]

end of removed piece

Al Gore in Relationships

Hello,

Al Gore in Relationships is meant to give the visitor a wide angle view of how Al Gore handles his relationships in essence and in practice. It also allows the visitors to examine the characteristics of their own relationships with Al Gore.

Both content and test are based on sound astrological knowledge and research and they gained popularity among web surfers.

I believe that even though Astrology is not considered a mainstream science, these knowledge and compatibility tool should be made available to whoever wishes to study Al Gore as broadly as possible.

I have no desire to be considered a spammer and I don't want to force Top Synergy on the authors of Al Gore's article.

I ask you, authors of Al Gore that if you have an objection to placing a link to Al Gore in Relationships in the External Links section, please write it here. Else, I’ll place the link hoping that it would be a valid resource for Al Gore's fans and researchers.

With appreciation, Midas touch 05:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Midas touch, thank you for posting this proposal on the talk page. I don't think that the Top Synergy link would be appropriate for this article, though, primarily because I don't see evidence that Top Synergy is known as a reputable resource. --Allen 05:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Dear Allen, thank you for your response. I obviously won't post the link due to your objection. I wish I knew how one gains a "reputable resource" status when dealing with astrology. Do you have an idea in mind :) Thanks again, Midas touch 05:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Al Gore removed from Wikipedia:Good articles

Al Gore (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because of no references

GA delisting

Tarret, to be accurate, the article does have references; but they aren't listed correctly. --Allen 16:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Before renomination as a good article, this article also needs its images to be appropriately tagged and article-specific fair use rationale provided if the image is claimed as fair use. TheGrappler 17:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

"more individual votes"?

This phrase in the opening paragraph seems awkward and confusing to me:

He was defeated in the Electoral College vote by the Republican candidate George W. Bush on a vote of 271-266 with a Gore-committed Elector from Washington, DC abstaining. However, Gore did receive more individual votes than Bush.

It's the phrase "individual votes" that strikes me as weird. I'm very tempted to change it to "However, Gore did win a plurality of the popular vote." I hesitate because awkward phrasing like this on controversial topics in Wikipedia is often the result of torturous edit war controversies, so I thought I'd give y'all on opportunity to chime in on why what seems to me to be an obvious statement of fact is TOTALLY POV AND BIASED before I change anything. :) --Jfruh 00:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Since nobody has spoken up, I'm going to make this change. --Jfruh 19:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Trivia section

I think this entry should have a trivia section. Here is one piece of interesting trivia:

  • Al Gore was born exactly 280 days (which is generally agreed upon as the human gestation period for childbirth) after the alleged alien spaceship crashed in Roswell, New Mexico, on June 24, 1947.

--No Dodo 04:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • And in what way is that even conceivably interesting? There were roughly 3.8 million births in the US in 1947, so one can say there were some ten thousand people born, just in the US, on that same day. One can conclude...nothing. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
It's interesting because it's unique. How many people were born on that day? How many famous people were born on that day? It's an interesting piece of trivia. No conclusions are necessary. --No Dodo 05:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
It's original research, since it's unsourced and it implies that Gore is "not of this world". Evil saltine 06:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
There is nothing original about counting days. Anyone can count. We don't need MSNBC or CNN to do it for us. You can make any conclusion you like, but it's an interesting fact and piece of trivia. --No Dodo 16:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
The analysis is original: it implies that he's an alien. You're taking established facts and using them to arrive at a whole new conclusion. See WP:NOR#What is excluded?. Evil saltine 19:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
It's not interesting at all -- to be interesting, it would require belief that there really was an alien spaceship crash. Not to mention some connection between Gore's parents (residents of Tennessee and D.C.) with New Mexico. NawlinWiki 17:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
If you don't find it interesting, then don't read it. It's an interesting fact to some. Not everything on Wikipedia will be interesting to you or to me. This doesn't mean it should be deleted, though. --No Dodo 00:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Yep, very interesting. 65.95.60.17 02:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Me, I think Rhea Perlman's more likely the alien. But the stupidest damn thing about this is that March 31, 1948 isn't 280 days, it's 281 days after the Roswell incident; 1948 was a leap year. So, going by No Dodo's presentation (of the generally agreed upon gestation period), we should be looking for aliens among people born on March 30. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

South Park reference

I don't think that South Park featuring Gore as a character in an episode (not actually voiced by Gore) is a notable part of his life. If a barely-notable person were featured as a character on South Park, that might be a notable part of his or her life (probably not, but maybe). But for someone as hugely famous as Gore, I don't think it really registers. I doubt it would even appear in a book-length biography. --Allen 02:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

  • He has to be at least a little embarrased for being blatantly made fun of an national television. -mike

Including Popular Vote Figures

This article includes the Electoral College vote numbers. For balance, I believe the article should include the figures on the popular vote. I suggest that this sentence:

Gore did win a plurality of the popular vote.

Should be edited to read thusly:

Gore did win a plurality of the popular vote and received 543,816 more popular votes than Bush.

Pro-life politician

Al Gore used to have a pro-life political stance and therefore belongs in the Pro-life politican category. Even though he no longer has this stance, he still belongs in the category, just as former Jews are still in Jewish categories. 75.3.4.54 01:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Former Jews are still in Jewish categories because "Jewish" is used as an ethnic, as well as a religious, label. Are former Christians still in Christian categories? I'm honestly not sure, but whether they are or not, there's also the issue of whether Gore was ever pro-life. He was once against federal funding for abortion, and he was once (and may still be, for all I know) personally against abortion. For some people, that's enough to call a person pro-life. But other people use the term "pro-life" to refer to people who are against legalized abortion, which Gore has never been. That's why (setting aside the issue of former-vs-current views), categorizing Gore as "pro-life" is inherently POV: it is only true from a non-consensus point of view. --Allen 02:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Al is one of the worst running presidents ever to run for president.

What is that even supposed to mean? I suggest this line be deleted.

It's a true statement nevertheless.65.95.62.201 18:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I think he's saying that Gore was an awkward jogger, and that Gore was already president, and was running for re-election. BD2412 T 18:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Quotes need to be cited.

Anytime something is quoted from a speech, it should be referenced with a link!!! There are TONS of these unsourced quotes in this article and they need to be fixed! Additionally, use "<ref>" tags in citations. PaulC/T+ 03:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


Here's one: His PowerPoint presentation on global warming has received standing ovations, and he has presented it at least 1000 times." Source: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.05/gore.html


"The book of the same name will be released in May". It seems it will be in June Source: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1594865671/103-6730785-0218255?v=glance&n=283155 (TaffyDownUnder 06:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC))


"Gore contended the US government had committed ‘terrible abuses’ against Arabs living in America after the 9/11 attacks, and that most Americans did not support such treatment." Source: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0213-03.htm (TaffyDownUnder 06:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC))


"The worst thing we can possibly do is to cut off the channels of friendship and mutual understanding between Saudi Arabia and the United States" http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/63452.htm (TaffyDownUnder 06:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC))


“indiscriminately rounded up, often on minor charges of overstaying a visa or not having a green card in proper order, and held in conditions that were just unforgivable.” http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184804,00.html

http://www.house.gov/doolittle/itk-2-17-06.html (TaffyDownUnder 06:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC))


"Unfortunately there have been terrible abuses and it’s wrong. I do want you to know that it does not represent the desires or wishes or feelings of the majority of the citizens of my country" http://www.house.gov/doolittle/itk-2-17-06.html (TaffyDownUnder 06:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC))


"who want to learn about the world in a voice they recognize and a view they recognize as their own." http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,14032,00.html?newsrellink (TaffyDownUnder 06:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC))


"re-elect Al Gore" http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/01/08/03_gore.html (TaffyDownUnder 06:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC))


Gore's endorsement of Dean and the fallout http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2003%20Opinion%20Editorials/December/17%20o/The%20Gore%20Endorsement%20By%20James%20J.%20Zogby.htm (TaffyDownUnder 06:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC))


Bush broke law, possible cites

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/Bush-Broke-Law-Gore16jan06.htm

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/17/politics/main1213941.shtml

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/16/gore.constitution/

(TaffyDownUnder 05:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC))

And why is this in the Gore article??

Possible "1,000 times" cite

These may be possible cites for Gore giving his powerpoint presentation a 1,000 times:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,1702168,00.html

http://www.sierraclub.org/carlpope/2006/04/inconvenient-truth-is-getting-out_24.asp

(TaffyDownUnder 05:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC))

"An Inconvenient Truth"

Surprised to see nothing here of Gore's new film. Fishhead64 15:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Or the fact that while attending the Cannes premier, Gore and his WHOLE MOTORCADE decided to DRIVE rather than walk a single half-mile to the theater. It would be interesting to compare the amount of global-warming pollution Gore created in that single half-mile with his WHOLE MOTORCADE to the average created by individual Americans (and we won't even discuss the pollution he created just attending the premier ...). Don't you liberals ever have trouble keeping a straight face sometimes when you're preaching this silliness?

No, but I do always get a giggle when Charlie Brown falls for Lucy promising not to pull the football away, yet another time! Just like I always get a giggle when the rabid rightwinger falls for yet another made-up story.
You fail to mention, perhaps because you do not know or even care, that this originated with Matt Drudge. But there's no mention of Gore's driving to the screening if you follow Drudge's link here or here... that's because At 3:38 PM EST on May 22 Drudge quietly deleted it from existence, even in the archives. In fact, the Reuters news report from Cannes specifically mentions that Gore walked to the screening. I got to hand it to you, I could never stand being played for a dupe as many times as the rightwing cannon fodder do. I'll bet you still believe the Clinton staff trashed the whitehouse before they left. Gzuckier 15:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Rather amazing he walked too, considering all the terruh out there. Secret Service probably shat themselves. But then, he had balls enough to volunteer for Vietnam, unlike some. Derex 18:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Wiki-0wned. --kizzle 20:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
former vice presidents don't have secret service agents do they? or mottercades for that matter?--205.188.116.13 21:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Former vice president has lots of money, that's all.128.100.31.165 00:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, turns out they don't. Nor do ex-presidents 10 years out of office.[8] Sort of surprising; seems like they're sitting ducks for nutjobs or teh terruh. Derex 05:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Al Gore Flew to Cannes on his private jet, which caused massive pollution! Anarchopedia 03:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

That's interesting. Could you provide a citation for that please? Derex 05:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
That's very interesting, he should probably have just walked to france instead, like most people do--205.188.116.13 16:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Looks like Anarchopedia was making it up anyway. Derex 16:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It does not matter if he uses a jet. The fact is that it is so important to raise awareness that any social cost of the jet fuel burned is offset by the social value of his making those speeches. 68.0.214.211 06:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

  • if gore is concerned about global warning then how come he drives around in a tricked out HUMMER? gas guzzle much?--Textalk 16:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I think you're confusing Gore with Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Republican governor of California. Nice try, though. Crust 13:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I have added some citation links to the Environment section that should (but probably won't) end this sort of pointless and false character assassination. Frankie

  • Given what Gore is doing in raising global awareness of this hugely important issue (and with more success than anyone has ever had previously), I think he's entitled to take the odd short and unneccessary car journey or two. But anyway, if any of you bothered to listen to the man you would actually learn that he offsets all his polluting activities by planting trees, sequestration etc. Consequently he is one of the very few people on this earth who can genuinely claim to live a carbon neutral life. Can any of you attacking and complaining here say that of yourselves? Not that most of you like dealing with facts, as evidenced above with your unsourced claims. 62.25.106.209 12:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like to ask why there is no reference in this article to his Climate Project, or his organization, Alliance for Climate Protection. I would be more than happy to write up a paragraph including those links if I can. Also, as I have read here previously, this is a site that deals in facts. Therefore I find it curious that political speculation is being allowed to be posted here. I think it is obvious that people wanting him to run are posting biased views on that rather than concentrating on the important work he is doing now regarding the climate crisis. He is also starting a grassroots effort in 2007 calling for a carbon freeze, and hoping to deliver 1 million signatures to Congress regarding global warming legislation. I really fail to see how this article cannot be deemed biased when it is obviously geared more to political speculation than current reality. JMMoore 23:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC) On second look, I do see that there was a mention of the training, but again, nothing specific with no websites noted.

External Links

Should we have links to political campaign/advocacy sites in an encyclopedia? Seems to have advocacy or criticism sites linked to the article would be to tip the POV toward or away from the subject.Dubc0724 14:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Such links are considered proper. See Wikipedia:External links#What should be linked to, paragraph 4. Especially in articles about political figures, we frequently link to opinionated websites. JamesMLane t c 01:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
POV screed from a POV warrior. Typical of you, James. --kizzle 02:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh no you di'int. JamesMLane is gonna lay the smackdown on you. Derex 02:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

MMT

The "Environment" section claims that Gore "helped" MMT receive funding from DOE. The reference, which isn't a suitable source anyway, says nothing of the kind. I'll note that it was full of highly POV phrasing, which I redacted. If anyone can verifiably source that Gore extended regulatory assistance to this company, that would be great. Otherwise, I'm not sure what the notability of a campaign contribution is. Derex 22:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind. "The House investigation has found no effort by Gore to intervene on behalf of Molten Metal in the Energy Department contracting process." usatoday Derex 23:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Extraneous Information.

Related to the following portion of the article:

According to Newsweek journalist Bill Turque's biography Inventing Al Gore (which does not shy away from criticism and scandals, such as charging Gore with smoking marijuana far more frequently than he admits):

The parenthetical statement is distracting and irrelevant to the quotation it prefaces. Could we remove it or place it in a footnote?

Thanks

Just delete it. Derex 20:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Gore as Arch Druid

Should mention be made that people are calling Gore an Arch Druid? Mathiastck 18:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

No. If it sticks for a long time, and is widespread, then maybe. Derex 20:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

delete section Al Gore: Oil Man?

This strikes me as a peripheral controversy at best. I think it's unclear whether it belongs at Al Gore controversies, but it definitely doesn't belong here. By all means we could replace with some other controversy that got more play, e.g. Love Story, Love Canal, summers at the farm, earth tones, etc., etc. Crust 17:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Move it to talk on the the controversies subarticle, and see if anyone wants it. It's far too trivial to go here, I'm not even sure what the "controversy" is. "Views and Controversies" is a nonsensical section. What do the two have in common? We ought to have a separate Controversies section with a link to the main article, using Template:Main. That section should contain a brief summary of the main issues, at most two sentences for each topic in the subarticle. Derex 03:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
There's not a whole lot of action over at Talk:Al Gore controversies, let me tell you... mostly it's just me explaining why I'm deleting yet another part of that article. Personally, I think the only justification for considering Al Gore controversies as anything but a POV fork would be that it's for things that we'd like to put here, but that won't fit because the article is so long. If it doesn't belong here for any reason other than space (like, say, it's unimportant), then in my opinion it doesn't belong there either. --Allen 03:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Oops... sorry, Derex, I forgot that it was you who responded to my suggestion of deleting Al Gore controversies last week, so of course you're already familiar with the state of affairs there. --Allen 03:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
(Edit conflicted, but I'll just drop my reply in anyway). That's exactly the reason for subarticles, to keep excessive detail out of the main article. That's particularly important for "controversies" articles, since every partisan on the planet wants to drop every detail of every piffle into wikipedia. That said, I don't care if the oil thing goes away entirely. I've seen no evidence at all that it was a notable or significant controversy. Derex 03:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm sympathetic to the desire to have a valve for the partisan stuff; however, I'm not sure that using a subarticle as a sink for these things is the best solution. As that filmthreat citation showed, the subarticle can be just as visible to the outside world as the main article. People can still quote it and say, "Here's what Wikipedia sees fit to say on this topic..." The heated debate can be draining, but I fear that sometimes the only solution is to face the issue directly and say, "No, that's just not an encyclopedic element of Al Gore's life." --Allen 04:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
First, if it's a one-off addition, we can safely dump it. But, if it keeps getting added, it's because it is notable, even if only to a fringe crowd. In that case there is value to getting all the facts out there; otherwise the only coverage on the net is the partisan take. Second, it might be possible to hold the line on Gore, since he's not really that prominent at the moment. But, I'm a grizzled veteran of battles with POV-pushers from the Swift Vet days onwards. And it's just a losing fight on even a moderately active article; it can't be done without eternal vigilance.
My preference is to go ahead and get a good neutral version in place, on the subarticle. That can be defended from partisans with simple reverts, without cries of censorship. If we try to keep minor controversies out as unencyclopedic, then newcomers will just assume it hasn't been covered yet. Then they'll write a new horrible version, and insist that it be included, and it will generate endless battles and endless editing before it is eventually purged again. And then the cycle repeats. Having a good base version to defend breaks the POV-pushing cycle; you can just punch revert unless it's a genuine improvement.
But, as I said, maybe on Gore it's possible, because it's low activity. I won't stand in your way if you want to make a change. P.S. Regarding the cleanup now underway on "controversies", I did exactly the same thing a year ago (under an old name). Everything triviality I cut got re-instated within months. Derex 04:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and deleted this subsection. Related topics discussed above: 1. I agree combining controversies and views in a single section is strange. 2. On the general question of the "controversies" article. I think it's a good idea to have such an article, though the current one is weak. A good article could be very useful, explaining what was actually said and the actual facts are, who first started various storylines, etc. In the case of Gore, a remarkable number of controversies were invented out of whole cloth by the media and repeated endlessly; others are highly exaggerated. I find Bob Somerby's blog Daily Howler[9] an excellent source for getting the details straight; he goes into the weeds, sorts everything out and gives links to the original sources. Crust 13:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for deleting the subsection, Crust, and for the link. And Derex, thanks for your response; I think I understand your point better now. Though I think it's important that everything negative have a reliable source (including claims that a given criticism constitutes a "controversy"), I can see value in keeping some minor issues in the encyclopedia. And thanks for letting me know about your cleanup efforts from last year. At least it's better for the article to be cleaned up some of the time than none of the time. --Allen 02:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

delete "Party Elder" Photo?

This photo appears deliberately selected to show Gore with an angry expression in ironic contrast to the caption "party elder". Should we delete/replace it? On the other hand, perhaps that is my subjective appraisal and others disagree? Crust 13:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

If we can find something else I agree. Unless a picture is specifically intended to convey a particular emotion, then we should use a non-negative one if possible. In my opinion, usual practice for all article should be to post one of the more flattering pics available. That makes for a more attractive encyclopedia, and eliminates any problem with pic-switching games.
Other observations. A few of the pics on this page are of technically poor quality, at least at the presented size. For example, I'd suggest enlarging the convention acceptance pic, possibly cropping it a bit on the sides to facilitate that. Crop the Clinton & Gore walking pic too; it's badly framed. The top pic looks very old, is there something more current available? Do we really need Futurama, Saturday Night Live, and Southpark? I say ditch the cartoons, or at the least move them all to a section entitled something like Gore in pop culture. Derex 15:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Gore is often satirized for his wooden, boring pose. Therefore one of the cartoons should be included. Calwatch 07:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Every major politician is often satirized. That's what satirists do. Yet, I see no cartoons on the pages of other vice presidents or presidential candidates. Is there something unusually notable about the grief Gore took from comedians? Derex 08:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, because of the frequency. Much more so than any vice president in history. We have Clinton on The Daily Show, why not Gore on South Park? Calwatch 02:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
We have Gore on Saturday Night Live, and that's actually a picture of the man, as is Clinton's TDS shot. Derex 03:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Source 31

Doesn't seem to be working and it's making the page scroll. --TJive 07:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

controversies

This needs a brief summary of the controversies article. Strangely, "views and controversies" was a section. I separated out the views, and was left with only a greatly over-detailed internet quote section for controversies. I cut that as unsuitable. So, now we need a paragraph or two describing each section on the controversy article in a sentence or two. For the moment, I've added a "see also link" to the controveries article at the bottom, replacing a narrower controversies link. The coverage of "views" is embarassingly slim. Derex 21:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that only views should remain and controversies should be hidden away. Every politician has controversies and a non-partisan page should reflect both sides of the story. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.167.255.231 (talk • contribs).
There is no intent to "hide away". That's the whole point of providing a summary section here. Remember though, this is an encyclopedia article, not a book. We are supposed to provide an overview of the notable aspects of the subject. There's nothing wrong with a more in-depth analysis of specialist topics about a subject; that's the point of a controversy article. We can actually provide greater coverage there than would ever be appropriate in the main article. Our job is neither to hide away nor to highlight, but to provide a dispassionate overview of greatest utility to the ordinary reader. In the scope of history, a misinterpreted remark about the internet hardly deserves twice as much space as the entire presentation of his views on all major issues put together. Is the Internet tempest really what schoolkids should know most about Al Gore? I think not. That's poor writing, and a poor article. Derex 23:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

June 12, 2006, Al Gore's global warming theory is a hoax according to the Canada Free Press and about 60 accredited scientists.[10]

Says Canadafreepress. Canadafreepress also says
"The anti-tobacco lobby is being controlled in large part and funded by pharmaceutical companies that are doing a land office business in selling smoking cessation medications. That's the real hidden agenda of which I doubt even the staunchest anti-tobacco crusaders are aware." [11]
I think we can give both assertions a similar amount of consideration. Gzuckier 19:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Good point, Gzuckier. Also, the reliability of CFP aside, the "60 scientists" they refer to are people who asked the Canadian Prime Minister for a public study of climate change science, not people who called "Al Gore's" global warming theory a hoax. --Allen 19:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, I'll see your 60 scientists, and raise you 6,000. But, I don't think we should be getting into the truth or falsity of global warming. It's not "Al Gore's theory"; it's a scientific theory which Gore believes has important public policy consequences. Instead of getting into the credibility of sources on this, let's simply note that the science has broad accpetance among scientists, with a minority of detractors, and link to the Global warming article which handles the debate. Derex 20:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Early life

Al Gore was born in Washington, D.C., to Albert A. Gore, Sr., a former U.S. Senator of Tennessee, and Pauline LaFon Gore, one of the first women to graduate from Vanderbilt Law School. Since his father was a veteran Democratic senator from Tennessee, Al Gore, Jr. divided his childhood between Washington, D.C., and Carthage, Tennessee. During the school year, the younger Gore lived in a hotel in Washington, during summer vacations, he lived in Carthage, where he worked on the Gore family farm.[citation needed]

Education

Gore attended the elite St. Albans School[1] where he ranked 25th (of 51) in his senior class.[2] In preparation for his college applications, Al Gore scored a 1355 on his SAT (625 in verbal and 730 in math). [3]

In 1965, Gore enrolled at Harvard College, the only university that he applied to.[4] His roommates (in Dunster House) were actor Tommy Lee Jones and former Columbia University women's basketball star Katie Day's father, Bart Day. After finding himself bored with his classes in his declared English major, Gore switched majors and graduated from Harvard in June 1969 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in government.[5]

After serving as an United States Army journalist during the Vietnam War, Gore decided to return to school. In 1971, Gore enrolled in graduate course in religious studies at Vanderbilt University.[6] Gore later transfered in to Vanderbilt's Law School, which he prematurely left (without getting a law degree) to run for congress in 1976.

Al Gore's IQ from tests administered in at St. Alban's School 1961 and 1964 (his freshman and senior years) respectively, have been recorded to be 133 and 134. [7] Both IQ scores are in the 98 – 99.3 percentile. [8]

  1. ^ Gore, Albert Arnold, Jr.. Biographical Directory of the United States Congress. U.S. Congress. Retrieved on 2006-05-05.
  2. ^ Washington Post: Gore's Grades Belie Image of Studiousness
  3. ^ Washington Post: Gore's Grades Belie Image of Studiousness
  4. ^ Washington Post: Gore's Grades Belie Image of Studiousness
  5. ^ For more information on Gore's academic records, see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A37397-2000Mar18
  6. ^ Washington Post: Gore's Grades Belie Image of Studiousness
  7. ^ Washington Post: Gore's Grades Belie Image of Studiousness
  8. ^ Wikipedia: IQ Score Distribution

Comment

  • You can improve the references to that "belie" article. Take a look at WP:FOOT -- you could use multiple footnotes. But it might be better to say, for example, "Gore was not a particularly good student", reference the Post article, then provide a few tidbits. The footnotes every sentece are real distracting and in this case don't add anything (after the first one). --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit protected?

There was an {{editprotected}} here, but the article is only semi-protected (now?) - so any registered user can add the info (if their account is older than 4 days).--Commander Keane 10:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The article was again semiprotected, then unprotected on October 2, 2006. I have once again requested semiprotection due to resuming vandalism. --Gray PorpoisePhocoenidae, not Delphinidae 19:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I really wish Wikipedia would be faster to semi-pro, and much slower to turn it off. Vandalism will continue to rise until then. -- Frankie
My request has succeeded. --Gray PorpoisePhocoenidae, not Delphinidae 01:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

David Foster Edits

David Foster Edits were reverted for the following reasons. Other politicians articles do not list grades. These facts are well documented and not in dispute. Al Gore was not the first Presidential candidate to lose his home state. GHW Bush lost all of New England in 1992 just to name one. --8bitJake 18:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

You're in error, Jake. GHWBush claimed Texas as his home state, despite the fact that his 'property' in Texas was an undeveloped smallish lot in a prestigious area of Houston, and his 'home' in Texas was a hotel suite permanently rented in his name, and he spent much more time in his Kennebunkport Maine vacation home. Even though the Bushs are definitely from Connecticut, they call themselves Texans.

Then the information should also be changed on the 2000 presidential election page for it has the very facts which you reverted (—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.122.192.129 (talk • contribs).)

War Views

How can it be argued that supporting the 1991 Gulf War and then opposing the 2003 Iraq War is evidence of a change in political stance. The 1991 War was the response to an Iraqi invasion of a sovereign state and was supported by the United Nations and a massive coalition contributing troops and logistical support to Desert Shield/Desert Storm/Operation Granby. The 2003 War (which I support incidentally) was, regardless of stance, sold to the American and British public through deception and outright lies based on heavily flawed intelligence. The fact that Gore's stance has not changed is shown in this article by the fact that he supported the 1998 actions against Slobodan Milosovic and also Operation Desert Fox.

Andyj461--194.203.94.95 17:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Category "climate change"

I don't think that Al Gore should be in "climate change" category. Perhaps admin could add [[category:climatologists]] and remove [[category:climate change]] 137.110.7.57 06:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it is worth mention him in the catigory.--8bitJake 17:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Gore is not a climatologist, and has never claimed to be. He is a notable figure in the area of climate change. rewinn 22:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

More recent lead photo

I recently restored his official VP portrait since it doesn't have source/copyright issues like the others that have been added. This image, however, is 12 years old. It is a good image, and should be kept in the article in the VP section, but a more recent free use image definitely needs to be added, since Gore has changed considerably since 1994. I say free use since I wonder whether or not an unfree photo would qualify as fair use since a free alternative is available (his official VP photo is free). --tomf688 (talk - email) 05:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Restore VP picture

That picture does not portray Gore in a good light, and I don't think it falls into NPOV. I have restored his official VP picture, the "more recent" picture can go lower on the page if you think it must be here. It is not a good introduction picture.

not verified tag

I don’t see anyone explaining why this tag is here or what is un-verified in the article. If someone wants to say why this article should be tagged then fine, but I am removing it until then. Redd Dragon talk contributions 04:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Generic, unreferenced crazines?

This struck me as odd and out of place while reading on Al Gore:

"His Keynote presentation on global warming has received standing ovations, and he has presented it at least 1000 times."

I think a statement like this should be referenced somehow to show its factual basis, and thus prove its objectivity as a statement. It looks like someone who just wanted me to know Al Gore's speech is cool and he speaks it alot.

Comments from 192.91.172.36

Here's a paragraph on Gore's effect (or lack thereof) on the environment in general during 1993-2001 that his fans censor from the main article. It's contrary to the perceptions that they wish to promote. Bottom line is that Gore has never owned up or even mentioned these items in his "new" championing of the environment.

  • Nevertheless, Environmental advocacy groups faulted the Clinton-Gore administration in many areas, such as allowing the reversal of automobile fuel efficiencies and allowing more pesticide use in the United States.[1] A legacy of significant increases in nationwide fuel consumption and auto emissions included nationwide increases of highway speed limits and wide-scale popularity of SUVs.

[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.91.172.36 (talk • contribs) .

Hey, how about a little good faith here?!? Ok, the first thing you need to know is that you're in danger of violating the three revert rule. Second, and more importantly, absolutely none of the sources you've cited to support your claim mention Gore. Zero. Your use of the sources to support your claim about his legacy therefore constitutes original research in violation of Wikipedia's no original research policy. Finally, the wording you use is not neutral and provides undue weight to an anti-Gore viewpoint. Consider, for example, that one could counter your point by stating that the Republicans were in control of congress for nearly all of the Clinton-Gore administration, or one could argue that Gore was in no posisiton to exert influence on policy when when he was not even President and his party did not control the legislature. I haven't inserted these arguments into the article because they are my opinion, much like the information you have inserted is yours. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 21:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
P.S. - I just realized that you're blaming Gore for the increase in popularity of SUVs. Or at least I think you are. Regardless, that has no place in this article at all. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 21:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Supreme Court Decision

Some clarification probably needs to be made in the second paragraph as far as "7-2" vs. "5-4" on the decision. The Bush v. Gore article referenced in the same paragraph states "In three separate opinions, seven justices found that a ballot recount then being conducted in certain counties in the State of Florida was to be stopped due to the lack of a consistent standard; two justices disagreed. A 5-4 majority further declared in a per curiam opinion that there was insufficient time to establish standards for a new recount that would meet Florida's deadline for certifying electors." Given this, I can see why someone would change this article to read 7-2, since that seems to apply to the stopping of the recount while the 5-4 said that there was not time to establish a new standard. I don't know which is correct, but I perceive an inconsistency which should be corrected in one or both articles. --Brian G (Talk) 17:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Al Gore

Okay, I know this is completely OT and if you want to remove it go ahead. But I always thought Al Gore was a bit of an idiot and probably would be a typical US president. Having read the article tho I now realise I was probably wrong, I have to say OMFG I can't believe you voted (or nearly voted) for Bush instead of Gore...!!! Nil Einne 16:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Gun Control?

I don't see anything about his views on Gun Control. Odd since many in the Democratic Party and most pundits say it cost him his home state and the election. There is even something about Al Gore and Gun Control on the Joe Lieberman page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Lieberman

South Park picture (again)

Over a long period, the Southpark pic has been inserted and removed numerous times. I don't really see the relevance of even the reference, and certainly not of a picture of it. It's an encylopedia article about Gore. And a reference in a comedy central cartoon just doesn't seem that relevant to the scope of the man's importance. Not that it should be censored, there's already an entire article on it. should leave the ManBearPig pic to that SouthPark episode article. (It's very dubious whether the use of that pic even qualifies as fair use for this article, but that's a separate issue.)

But at any rate, to those of you who support the inclusion here. Would you also support putting the Southpark "Jesus shitting on Bush and US flag" picture in both the Jesus and Bush articles? I don't think it has much relevance to them, no more so than SouthPark to this. But what's the difference, if there is one? It all seems silly to me. Derex 05:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The picture is not necessary. I'm ambivalent about mentioning the SP episode as Gore did comment on it at one point but it's rather trivial. I don't think either Jesus or Bush commented on their episodes. Either way, it's probably only a "see also" reference. --Tbeatty 05:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I fell on my knees and prayed. And Jesus answered my prayers and spaketh unto me verily, and he thought it was fucking hilarious. But, still ... Derex 05:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
WP:OR :) --Tbeatty 06:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree. It has no relevance to the article whatsoever. TripleH1976 05:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
You're gonna see a constant attempt to hype the South Park episode. The same thing happened on the IMDB forum for an Inconvenient truth (I'm a bit biased on this topic). Those hoping to attack Gore think promoting the south park episode does so. My 2 cents :) Mathiastck 08:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
South Park Republicans Gzuckier 17:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Gore says tax pollution, not payrolls

Here are the first four paragraphs of http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/environment_gore_dc :

NEW YORK (Reuters) Mon Sep 18, 5:27 PM ET - Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore on Monday suggested taxing carbon dioxide emissions instead of employees' pay in a bid to stem global warming.
"Penalizing pollution instead of penalizing employment will work to reduce that pollution," Gore said in a speech at New York University School of Law.
The pollution tax would replace all payroll taxes, including those for Social Security and unemployment compensation, Gore said. He said the overall level of taxation, would remain the same.
"Instead of discouraging businesses from hiring more employees it would discourage business from producing more pollution," Gore said.

I'm not sure how to work this apparently rather novel proposal into the article, and I don't have an account and the article is protected anyway, so I'll leave it to others. I think this should be included though, because this sort of thing hints he may be running for the 2008 nomination. 66.159.220.115 02:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge article with Al Gore III article

In order to make a super-Al Gore, an unstoppable force for inanity and paranoia in environmental politics. We must pay homage to the omnipotent Alva Gore, inventor of the Internet, patron saint of Wikipedia, and reknowned film-maker. Have mercy on us oh supreme Al, for we knew not that our carbon dioxide emissions would bring death and devastation upon your concubine, Gaia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.144.172 (talk • contribs)

As Finlay McWalter has pointed out elsewhere, the real merge discussion is at Talk:Al Gore III for those interested. --Allen 00:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Enlistment

"Although opposed to the Vietnam War, Gore voluntarily enlisted in the army in order to participate in the war."

Uh, I think this needs some kind of explanation. Kaldari 06:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Al Gore's blog 70.49.110.145 03:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

2000 presidential election

The article currently reads:

The popular political blog The Daily Howler contends that Gore lost the election due to a relentless media "war," (...) Singled out by The Daily Howler for particularly misleading accounts of Gore and his candidacy are Ceci Connolly of the Washington Post, Katherine "Kit" Seelye of the New York Times and television talk-show host Chris Matthews.

This is an important topic, although loaded with partisan sentiments. However, there is more than just the dailyhowler blog (which is, by political blog standards, only semipopular) making this claim:

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5920188/the_press_vs_al_gore and also statements in Harris/Halperin: The Way to Win: Taking the White House in 2008 Centrist democrat blogger Mickey Kaus and even conservative pundit Joe Scarborough ("I think, in the 2000 election, I think [the media] were fairly brutal to Al Gore. I think they hit him hard on a lot of things like inventing the Internet and some of those other things, and I think there was a generalization they bought into that, if they had done that to a Republican candidate, I’d be going on your show saying, you know, that they were being biased.") made public statements going in the same direction.

I suggest to change as follows: There are several commentators (Eric Boehlert/link, Bob Somerby blog daily howler) contending that Gore etc ... Singled out for particularly misleading accounts of Gore and his candidacy etc

One might even go for a stronger formulation: "There are several accounts, some of which are well-documented, that ..." etc. It's clearly much more than just one blogger's opinion. Rbrilla 19:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Triva Section

I don't think that this page should have a trivia section. Would anyone be opposed to the merging of the most important pieces into other sections in the article? Jasper23 04:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I entirely agree. This is an encyclopedia, not a collection of trivia. Further, in practice, "trivia" sections in political articles become dumping grounds for pov inclusions that would never make it into main article text. Derex 04:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Don't agree. I think that most of these pop culture references are of interest and should stay (I am not sure about e.g. the songs at the convention and some other points). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but must not copy limitations, style and presentation of e.g. the encyclopedia brittanica since it can do more. Since the trivia section is titled as such, it's easy to skip if you don't want to read it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbrilla (talk • contribs)
Please sign your comments. Jasper23 21:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
He's brand new. Rbrilla type 4 tilde's like so ~~~~ to add a sig and date stamp automatically. Derex 21:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

2000 Presidential election Photograph caption reads:

After a close campaign, Gore greets President-select Bush at the White House in late December of 2000.

This should read "President-elect" to maintain with the proper title of Bush. NemoX 23:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. That's an official policy, not a guideline. Isn't that pretty much the very definition of trivia. I still think this ought go. Derex 12:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

After reading WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information it is pretty clear that this trivia section needs to be reformatted into the rest of the article. I made some edits to get rid of the things that Al Gore didn't actually do. I think the best way to approach this is to take the trivia section out and post it on the talk page to be reformatted into the article. Anyone disagree? Jasper23 23:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

See also the WP:TRIV guideline, which I've just discovered. The trivia section needs to go. Derex 00:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Am I the only one who finds the trivia section worthwhile? If a politician has dubbed for futurama like Gore did, it is very hard to bring this into any of the other chapters, or him being the first politician on c-span ... still, both are apparently facts, and I do think they deserve being mentioned (about climbing Mt. Mckinley, I don't know...), and the best place for this page is the trivia section (if the page was about an actor, it's a completely different story, it must go into the description of his work). WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information states: "This guideline does not suggest deletion of trivia sections. Instead, consider it a list of "facts pending integration" or "facts lacking sufficient context for integration". Seek to minimize it." These facts are interesting, yet they can't be integrated reasonably, hence the trivia section. Thank you, Derex, for signing instruction. Rbrilla 19:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Link in bulgarian

Pls someone to add the link in bulgarian bg:Ал Гор! Thanks --Chickem4o 20:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

YouTube links

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally. Thanks. ---J.S (t|c) 07:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Presidential election 2000 is FAR too long

I didn't remove it because the format would be far drastic. While I recognize that the 2000 election is highly relevent to Al Gore, it takes up far to much space considering that there already is "Presidential election 2000" article! This should at least be shortened or directed to the 2000 election. Please cite your agreement or dissent before I make the edit. StayinAnon 00:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Citation for Congressional Black Caucus statement

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0101/06/se.05.html

I don't know if this page is locked or what but i can't edit, so here is a link for the claim about florida representatives lacking a senator to back up their complaints 60.240.41.159 09:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

This is salvage

from the Al Gore controversy page.

Trivia

  • In the game Civilization IV by Firaxis, the icon for the Internet technology research is a picture of Al Gore.
  • In the Futurama episode "Crimes of the Hot" (to which Gore himself provided his own voice), Al Gore is introduced, among other things, as "the inventor of the environment", in reference to both his environmental concerns and the mis-quote about him "inventing the internet".

Enjoy. Jasper23 02:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I will be integrating two of these into the main article. -Classicfilms 02:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

SAT scores

Why are Gore's SAT scores listed? I haven't seen any other biographies with SAT scores listed, and Gore's aren't even that Spectacular.

Pictures

For what it's worth, I think it's a good idea to update the picture in the infobox with a newer picture of Gore (the current picture is 12 years old). Thus, I *would* support a picture like the one shown in this revision *if* an image with known copyright status is used. Obviously, we shouldn't be using a picture that has unknown copyright status. But I hope the copyright status is the reason the image is being reverted, not merely a desire to have the old picture in the infobox. · j e r s y k o talk · 00:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I reverted to an image which is in the public domain keeping Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Deletion of all fair use images of living people in mind - not because a more recent photo was used (which is always better). If the more recent image complies with Wikipedia policies, I don't have a problem with it.-Classicfilms 01:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)