Talk:Al Gore/Archive 9

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 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 →

Contents

We're looking at a good article here, folks

I think we're well past B-class now. In particular, everything in the (admittedly short) peer review is now obsolete. Time to go requesting another review? Chris Cunningham 10:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I think a peer review at this point would be very helpful. -Classicfilms 14:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I haven't read up on that process but I'll agree the article is far superior to what it was a month or two ago. Organ123 02:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
No, until it includes at least one controversy or details Gore's beliefs, it is lacking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.57.18 (talk • contribs) 13:20, 8 July 2007
"At least one controversy"?. Does it even matter which one, so long as there's something negative in here? Chris Cunningham 13:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I think there needs to be some balance. Otherwise it looks decisively political, which we do not want.

The statement: "The Gores reside in Nashville, Tennessee, and own a small farm near Carthage.."

is very misleading. How is "small" being defined? In comparison to what -- Australia?

Insert the words " 20-room, 250-acre " between the words "small" and "farm"....and the original statement will gain some credibility.--Jolou1 11:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Mainlinks

Oh my lord. Allow me to demonstrate. In Al Gore#1988 Presidential election:

Gore ran for President in the 1988 United States presidential election,

Have a look at where that link goes. I didn't think piped links were that difficult to understand.

Having two links to the same article within the space of eight words is stylistically poor. In general, we should use inline hyperlinks because we're a website and not a dead-tree encyclopedia. So that makes it a no-brainer which one to keep. If you want to reword it to make it more obvious then go ahead, but please assume good faith from other editors. It's not like I don't leave pretty comprehensive edit summaries. Chris Cunningham 15:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for being totally and completely condescending. Your response on this page is rude and arrogant. I made a mistake but your attitude stinks. This is the link I put on the page...
Main article: Al Gore presidential campaign, 1988
The link that was on the page made no mention of the al gore presidential campaign. So sue me.
Turtlescrubber 19:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
And all I did was revert, with an appropriately verbose edit summary to explain, twice. Actually, it's like four times, looking at the last month. Grow a thicker epidermis. This isn't playschool. There's no reason we can't continue to edit cooperatively without getting into edit wars. The article has gotten massively better recently. Chris Cunningham 19:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh my lord this isn't preschool. I didn't think my response on the talk page was that hard to understand. Let me explain it to you because it will be a no brainer. Your links are screwed up. There should be one to the election itself titled "1988 United States presidential election" and one to Gore's campaign titled "Al Gore presidential campaign". Is that so hard to understand thumperwad? I would be happy to work with you if you tone down your condescending attitude. Interact with people much? Turtlescrubber 19:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Check my edit history; I've been cooperatively editing here for 7303 edits as of last month. As I said, I'd be happy with a rewording, but in the form it was in (a non-wikipedic mainlink right next to a wikilink to the same page) it wasn't a difficult decision at the time and I didn't see it as contentious. Rather than exchanging blows on the talk page or edit warring we'd be better trying to edit productively. Chris Cunningham 19:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed with the last sentence. Let's calm down everyone. All this talk about preschool and playschool is making me itch for rousing a game of duck duck goose. Organ123 19:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
The piped link is misleading, as a casual reader, i would assume that the link is for a general page about the '88 campaign - not a specific page on Gore's campaign. Thats nice if what you need to know is about the general campaign (you'd click the link then). But not nice if you'd like specifics. If its a summary of a subsidiary article, it really should be headed with a {{main}} indication. Both to tell readers, and editors what it is. --Kim D. Petersen 00:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Kim D. Petersen. The featured article Rabindranath Tagore uses main links frequently and quite well - maybe it's just a matter of re-writing the first sentence of the section. -Classicfilms 01:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I would really rather the sentence were rewritten. The Rabindranath Tagore article uses mainlinks for things which really couldn't be wikilinked sensibly; I feel that these ones are easier to link inline. Chris Cunningham 08:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
The problem is not wikilinks. The problem is that the sections are summaries (see: WP:SUMMARY), this means something for both readers and editors.... For readers it means that they can go to the subarticle and read more. And to editors it means that this section must be a summary of the subarticle, and that content shouldn't be changed, without it being a reflection of the content in the subarticle. By using the {{main}} tag - you indicate both. By using a wikilink - you do not. --Kim D. Petersen 14:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. Chris Cunningham 15:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Mainlinks, again

This is an extremely silly edit war we're involved in right now. An Inconvenient Truth is linked in the intro, and is only as notable as a half-dozen other achievements he's made so doesn't really need an eponymous header any more than Gore Bill does or whatever.

There's no need to go four layers deep with headers on this article. Overuse of headers was one big gripe from the peer review and the article seems to accumulate them as fast as they can be removed. Let's not assume that every reader has a three-second memory. Chris Cunningham 13:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

From WP:SUMMARY
Basic technique
Longer articles are split into sections, each about several good-sized paragraphs long. Subsectioning can increase this amount. Ideally many of those sections will eventually provide summaries of separate articles on the subtopic covered in that section (a Main article or similar link would be below the section title—see
Main article: [[{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]]
For more details on this topic, see [[{{{1}}}]].
Each article on each subtopic, as well as the main article have lead sections that are concise encyclopedic articles in their own right.Turtlescrubber 13:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
An Inconvenient Truth is not a subtopic of this article. And this rule is being overapplied to the detriment of the article's style already. Chris Cunningham 14:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone else have any thoughts on the matter? I think an inconvenient truth is still a reason why people may come to the Al Gore page and it deserves its own subsection, link and summary. The article (an inconvenient truth) is well researched and fully referenced. However, if other editors on this page want the main link and header removed then I will acquiesce. We could always initiate another peer review and see if there are too many headers/links (I think there aren't) as the last peer review was months ago and the article looked completely different. So, does anyone have an opinion on the matter. Turtlescrubber 14:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
We don't need to be making any ground on this, so I'm removing it again. The film's own article is prominently linked in the intro, it's only given three short paragraphs here and it isn't really a sub-article, so the subheader/mainlink thing is really unnecessary. It keeps us at three levels of headers too, thus not encouraging further expansion of an already comprehensive summary-style article. Chris Cunningham 18:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

1996 United States campaign finance controversy‎

Why nothing on this? Gore seem to be a fairly significant player in this? 1996 United States campaign finance controversy‎. Hempbilly 03:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It's discussed here: Al Gore controversies. -Classicfilms 04:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Ahh, thar she be. Hempbilly 04:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Taipei Times article

Per this, it would appear that this is inaccurate. I've removed the paragraph. Chris Cunningham 12:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

THIS article should mention the controversy surrounding Al Gore instead of hiding the information away in another article. 12va34 21:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The only reason the "controversy" is notable is because the media's endless devotion to covering it is the main reason he's not currently President. The actual minutiae of such charges are only of import to wingnuts, which makes separating them out into a separate playpen a very good idea. Chris Cunningham 11:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is meantfor presenting information. All information. Period. No exceptions. The bad points surrounding Gore deserve just as much attention as the good ones. There is no room for a leftist slant in this encyclopedia. 75.2.220.238 03:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
As Convervativism's Greatest Leader has pointed out, reality has a well-known liberal bias. Gore's negative aspects mostly consist of made-up nonsense spread to discredit him. Go play on Conservapedia, which exists for this sort of thing. Chris Cunningham 09:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Why are the criticisms separate? On every other politicians page, be they republican or democrat, there is at least mention of ONE controversy. There should be one here, we have to remain non-partisan remember. It is not for us to judge what is a credible concern and what is bs. If we do that we are simply putting forth propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.57.18 (talk • contribs) 13:14, 8 July 2007


Non-partisan does not mean fair and balanced. Chris Cunningham 13:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

what are you talking about? If we are coming from a non-partisan/apolitical perspective then we remain neutral. Even if other 'fair and balanced' news outlets don't

Controversy here does not mean controversy surrounding Gore, it means 'should we include a controversy section in the article? Or something along those lines.' Brusegadi 00:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I beleive the controversy should be mentioned on this article. I didn't even suspect a seperate page existed untill I read this! (And I was looking for it!) 204.102.108.31 00:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Political beliefs

how come theres no "political beliefs of al gore" section like there is for other politicians? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.245.232 (talk • contribs) 06:31, 4 July 2007

Nobody's written one. Seeing as he isn't currently a politician it doesn't seem directly relevant anyway. Chris Cunningham 08:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I think it would help to have a politics section. Even though he is not a politician anymore, he's still political. Clinton, Regan aren't politicians anymore but they have a 'political beliefs' section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.57.18 (talk • contribs) 13:25, 8 July 2007
Gore's are mostly integrated into the rest of the article. To be honest, I hardly think his opinion on, say, abortion is as notable as his climate or technology accomplishments. If he runs (fingers crossed) there'll be one soon enough. Chris Cunningham 13:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I really don't see anything about his politics in the article. I think its really important there is one- otherwise people do not know what he stands for.

Al Gore III

WHERE is the page for his son? why does it re-direct here? Why is there a link claiming to take you there, and then merely bring you back to this same page? With all of the whining on this site, could somebody do something constructive? I have no idea how to fix it or I would. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.78.227.105 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 5 July 2007

It appears there used to be an article on Gore III. He wasn't really notable, though, and it now redirects here. The essential question is whether a politician's son who gets busted a few times and is the associate publisher of a magazine is notable. I say no. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 22:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Even if he doesn't get his own article, it should definitely be mentioned in here. Wikipediarules2221 23:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Why? Wikipedia is not a scandal sheet. This was extremely minor news in responsible publications. The Chicago Tribune had a short article buried deep in the paper. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
It's on the front page of CNN's website... "Extremely minor" and "responsible publications"...I'm glad to see that you are using facts and not your personal qualifications to back your argument up... What is a "responsible publication" by the way? Is it one with a heavy liberal slant? Wikipediarules2221 23:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
The Anna Nicole channel? They've gone downhill. You probably wouldn't be impressed by the short shrift being given the story in the New York Times and Washington Post. However, I do note that the Washington Times doesn't seem to be giving it much coverage either. Thanks for confirming my suspicions that much of the desire to see this published here stems from political motives. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, he has his own article now so I guess more people saw it my way. Wikipediarules2221 00:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
And since he now has his own article, and it's wikilinked from this one, I'm going to remove the information about the arrest from this one. Sperril 17:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy and NPOV status of 2000 Election description

The initial mention of "the popular vote" is likely to confuse people who don't know that the popular vote carries no legal significance and strikes me as trying the leader in to drawing the conclusion that it does or should. Also, it would be more accurate and much less POV to state that the Supreme Court refused to block the certification of Florida's electors rather than the "handed" language used here. Wouldn't the results of the many independant post-election recounts be on topic here? 12.10.223.247 03:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually inclined to agree with this. I'll trim it. Cheers. Chris Cunningham 07:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a "Popular Culture" section?

Could we possibly split off the section about his involvement with "Futurama" to be positioned in a new "Popular Culture" section? There seems to be many Al Gore parodies and other points of mention on television although I could only name a few outright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.31.193.50 (talk • contribs) 06:02, 8 July 2007

Most aren't notable in any real sense. We should assign due weight, which really belongs elsewhere. If you want, you could risk an Al Gore in popular culture article. I think there used to be one, but it was deleted. Chris Cunningham 09:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Correction needed: In "Anthology of Interest", Al Gore was not portraying his own severed head in a jar. His appearance in that episode was in the year 2000, a "what is" scenario where Fry did not get frozen and wind up in the year 3000. Other episodes in the year 3000 have him as a severed head. Dj.retcon 19:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Image

It seems a little inappropriate to have such an old image at the top when he doesn't really look like that anymore. Are there not any more up to date images we can use? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 01:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't imagine George Washington looks like that now, either :) It's an infobox vice president, and that's still what he's best known for. Chris Cunningham 08:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
That seems a little ridiculous. Are we still going to have the same picture there when he is 80? I would also question that the first thing people think when they hear or see Al Gore is that he used to be Vice President. I'd say they think much more about his global warming activism and his film An Inconvenient Truth as well as the losing the 2000 election to Bush. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 10:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Completely off the top of my head, see the infoboxen of Jimmy Carter and Dan Quayle. (No significance to these particular examples.) As for "what people think of", we're not meant to be pandering to current popular events. Being Vice President is still more notable than winning an Oscar and being a notable campaigner. Chris Cunningham 10:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I know other articles use old pictures- I think it is a bad idea and makes it look like Wikipedia is stuck in the past. I don't see a problem with an infobox in the article with the vice/presidential picture but I don't think it should be right at the top. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 12:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I really don't get this. Biographies almost always use prominent but non-current pictures. Tell you what though, when he does the right thing and jumps into the 2008 race I'll be the first to upload a new pic when I'm changing it to Infobox President ;) Chris Cunningham 13:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't know where you get the "almost always" from. It might be the case with US presidents/vice-presidents but everywhere else the most recent image is the preferred one. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 15:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Hrm. Again, these are random examples: see Nancy Sinatra, or Sean Connery, or John Cleese. Those pictures all predate Gore's despite the continued fame of the subjects. Not buying it. Chris Cunningham 19:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
The reason the Cleese and Connery photos are used is that no newer image exists under a free license. The Nancy Sinatra one is actually not allowed as it a copyright image. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 23:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
BTW upto date free images do exist of Al Gore- I'll upload them tomorrow. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 23:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
The "Best" image available should be used. This means the highest quality and clearest image. If the best image was taken last week then we use that one. If the best image was taken 15 years ago then we use that one. Wikidudeman (talk) 22:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Based on what I'm seeing at [[1]], The current image being used, the one taken in 1994 is the best one so far. Until someone uploads better photographs that are recent, we need to use the one that's currently being used simply due to it's quality. Wikidudeman (talk) 22:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Study

What did he study (in the University)?. --HybridBoy 13:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Questions? Ask them through Wikinews

Hello,

I'm Nick Moreau, an accredited reporter for Wikinews. I'm co-ordinating our 2008 US Presidential election interviews. We will be interviewing as many candidates as possible, from the Democrats, Republicans, and other parties/independents.

I'll be sending out requests for interviews to the major candidates very soon, but I want your input, as people interested in American politics: what should I ask them?

Please go to any of these three pages, and add a question.

Questions? Don't ask them here, I'll never see them. Either ask them on the talk page of any of these three pages, or e-mail me.

Thanks, Nick -- Zanimum 19:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

Al Gore has undeniable faults that deserve to be mentioned in this article. Nearly all other political figures' articles mention criticisms. To have this article not mention Gore's mistakes or wrondoings would make it biased. 75.2.219.195 00:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Criticism should only exist if it's very very relevant, pervasive and notable, and above all factually accurate. If you can provide criticism that meets this criteria then do it. If it gets deleted then defend your addition of it here.Wikidudeman (talk) 03:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
There is a whole article on controversies.Turtlescrubber 04:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Indeed there is. Al Gore controversies. IMO, it could easily be merged and integrated into this article. Wikidudeman (talk) 06:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
How so? It is a rather large page. Turtlescrubber 14:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Not that large. It could be trimmed up. Wikidudeman (talk) 20:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Gore has some faults that need to be mentioned. Who would expect there to be a whole seperate article on controversie. It definitely should be merged with this article. 12va34 20:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's feasible or desirable, considering the size of the controversy article. Having a separate article on controversies in wikipedia is fairly commonplace, but not altogether preferable. The controversy article would have to be chopped to about a quarter of it's current size to reasonably fit into the main article, and then we would have people whining about adding this and that until the article is split again. "Gore has some faults that need to be mentioned" is not a compelling reason to merge the articles, as there is a whole page that mentions these "faults". Turtlescrubber 20:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
It seems like a WP:POVFORK to me. Wikidudeman (talk) 09:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

In South Park, Al Gore's Climate Change crusade is metaphored with ManBearPig

It seems that negative information surrounding Gore is being "Hidden" away on another page. No average wikipedia user is going to look up the Al Gore Controversy page; they simply don't expect it to exist. 71.156.39.75 16:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems to make good sense. 12va34 16:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The critisism section is indeed hidden on another page to keep this one looking good.. No wonder it looks good! They moved the entire critical POV to another page!
We have this problem at the Global Warming article and what has been done is to include 'criticism' in the main page but the criticism is elaborated on other pages. The pages are properly hyper-linked in the body of the main article so that the interested reader can follow them. Brusegadi 00:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
apples and oranges. it's a whitewash to have no mention at all of gore's controversies in this article. i recently read this article looking for the timeline of the illegal fundraising gore participated in from within the whitehouse. not a word of it. i overlooked the "see also" section. others will also. Anastrophe 18:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Under the heading "Political career (1976–2000)", sub-headings "Congressional service" and "Opposition to U.S. government support of Saddam Hussein", in the first sentence the text reads "...by the Bush-Reagan and Bush-Quayle administrations.".

Should this text be changed to read "...by the Reagan-Bush and Bush-Quayle administrations."?

Is the proper wording of an administration's leaders Alphabetical or is it by superior first? If it is by superior first (as I believe it is) then several places in the article need to be edited to be worded properly.


Shatterfist 16:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Shatterfist, Proper English Enforcer

Two points the first is Gole environmental double standard.http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367

Second what about his refusal to debate scientists who disagree with him. I think thats should be on the main page on evironmental concerns.Kirin4 20:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Succession box

As one can easily see, I have extensively edited the succession box for Al Gore. More specifically:

  • I have substituted all templates with those of the s-start series, including the templates for United States representatives and senators, which I have also simplified.
  • I have added headers for all titles in the succession box and have categorised the succession lines under said headers and according to the guidelines of WikiProject Succession Box Standardization (SBS)
  • I have removed the "win"/"lost" labels from the candidate succession lines' title fields due to their redundancy; one can easily see which bids were won and which ones were lost by looking at the "Political offices" section at the top of the succession box and seeing which offices were indeed held by Al Gore.
  • I have removed the "as of 2007" label from the order of precedence succession line's title field due to redundancy; orders of precedence are always supposed to be valid at the time one sees the succession box. I have replaced it with a label giving the capacity in which Al Gore has a place in the order of precedence.

This succession box is intended to be used as a sample for the general re-organisation of the succession boxes for United States politicians. Please discuss any changes that you might want to perform on it before you proceed. I hope the result of my edit has been beneficial to both the box and to the article as a whole. Waltham, The Duke of 08:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

— —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoenix1177 (talk • contribs) 03:09, August 29, 2007 (UTC)