Talk:Al Gore and the environment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Al Gore and the environment article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
WikiProject Environment
Portal		 This environment-related article is part of the Environment WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment.
The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
See WikiProject Environment and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Criticism

Al Gore has been criticized by not just "biased" conservative "propagandists" but by legitmate scientists worldwide. This page seems biased that it does not address said criticisms. Thorn in Side (talk) 13:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed 100% It's so biased I wonder if someone on the payroll of any one of Gore's online companies is sitting around all day watching this article. Bancroft EIR (talk) 21:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Content disupte

User:Gamaliel has twice reverted my contributions, including referenced factual content from journalist and professor Robert Zelnick, offering no explanation on the talk page. I doubt Gamaliel is familar with Zelnick, judging by a remark he/she made in the edit summary.

Gamaliel, FYI - Zelnick is a former ABC News reporter and a professor of Professor of Journalism at Boston University. [1]

Please stop reverting and be willing to discuss contributions to the article by other editors. Bancroft EIR (talk) 02:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I have been clear about my objections. I will restate them here.
  • The headshot is more appropriate as such pictures are standard on Wikipedia, this headshot is clearer than the picture you prefer, in which the subject's face is turned to the side and is far from the camera, and it is clear from your comments at Talk:Al_Gore#Portrait_photo that you are pushing that version of the photo to highlight Gore's "girth" and not for any valid editorial reason.
    • I would prefer a headshot as well. I chose the one in question because I am not aware of another photo that is both free to use, and not ridiculously outdated. I will accept a compromise if you can find a headshot that was taken recently. Bancroft EIR (talk) 01:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Your use of qualifiers added to text regarding Gore's motivations - and only to text regarding Gore's motivations - is unnecessary and is clearly pushing doubt or ambiguity where it does not belong. Instead of POV language twisting, find a reliable source if you feel that doubt should be cast on his motivations.
    • What did I add that specifically 'pushed doubt or ambiguity where it does not belong'? Praise of Al Gore should be attributed to his supporters. This is not to cast doubts on his motivations, but per Wikipedia guidelines of attribution and NPOV. Bancroft EIR (talk) 01:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • There is plenty of criticism of Al Gore out there, we don't need a book from a fringe publisher comparing him to Nazi Germany. That kind of crap is not encyclopedic and violates WP:BLP.
    • Zelnick is not a fringe publisher. He is a former ABC News reporter and a professor of Professor of Journalism at Boston University. Moreover, Zelnick did not compare Gore to Nazi Germany, but merely reported the reaction of some of Gore's critics. Stop removing factual content from a solid source. Bancroft EIR (talk) 01:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I trust this is all clear, if not, feel free to ask for clarification. Gamaliel (talk) 17:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

In the interests of compromise, I have replaced the headshot with a free picture that is even more recent than the one you initially placed in the article. I trust you will find this satisfactory.

On the other issues, I'm afraid I can't compromise as WP:NPOV and WP:BLP are quite clear on these issues. Gamaliel (talk) 15:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Stop deleting referenced factual material from solid sources without offering any explanations. NPOV requires criticism from verifiable sources. You have yet to comment on the fact that Zelnick is not a fringe publisher. He is a former ABC News reporter and a professor of Professor of Journalism at Boston University. Zelnick also references Tony Snow, hardly a fringe personality. Bancroft EIR (talk) 22:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Obviously there should be criticism; that is a strawman. But there is plenty of criticism to draw from, there is no need to cite a fringe publisher and a partisan appointee as your sole criticism of the book. This is non-neutral and non-representative. You do not include praise either, thus making the section even further POV. Perhaps you could use some text from the Earth in the Balance article to create a more representative and NPOV account of the reception of the book.
Zelnick is not a fringe source. You cannot just incldue praise from newspaper articles, if you censor the views of Republicans like Tony Snow. Bancroft EIR (talk) 03:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
You attribute a newspaper article to "supporters of Al Gore", which is inaccurate and inappropriate. You also added a qualifier to Gore's statement about when he began his interest in the environment. why is this necessary? What does this add to the article? Gamaliel (talk) 01:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The newspaper is praising his work on the environment, hence it agrees with his views on the matter. A qualifer is necessary for the statement about when he began his interest on the environment, as he is the source of the claim. Bancroft EIR (talk) 03:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I have made these to compromise edits. [2] I will compromise with you on adding praise about Earth in the Balance. But removing referenced factual material from Zelnick, a solid mainsteam source, is unacceptable. Bancroft EIR (talk) 03:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I can live with the edits you made to the other sections, but not with the EitB section. Providing a complete and representative view of reactions to the book is not a "compromise", it is mandated by WP policy. There certainly should be criticism of the book here and in the EitB article, but we can't stick in a couple of partisan fringe viewpoints and then hope someone will come along and balance it out later. NPOV and BLP demand that we get it right now. Gamaliel (talk) 16:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I am offering a compromise. I have added to the paragraph the fact that the Boston Globe called Earth in the Balance "a genuinely prophetic book." Now that this fact is mentioned, please stop deleting sourced, verifiable criticism. Bancroft EIR (talk) 01:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Seems that bringing in comparisons to nazis and the unabomber violate WP:BLP no matter how well sourced the stuff is. We can find relevant criticisms without including those blatant headline making journalist slurs. Vsmith (talk) 02:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The article does not compare Gore to anyone. There is a difference between the article attacking the subject, and reporting the comments of critics. Tony Snow is quite a notable critic. Please stop deleting well-referenced material. Bancroft EIR (talk) 04:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The journalist compares Gore's writing style with nazi German writing - an obvious politically motivated slur. Tony Snow is a political speechwriter making a comparison with the unabomber's writing - an association obviously designed to denigrate Gore in the mind of the voter and thus a slur. Snow may be notable, but this negative political attack is not. Vsmith (talk) 01:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
This is complete nonsense. Zelnick does not compare Gore's style to that of the Nazis. He is reporting that some of his critics have made the comparison. I have no idea what his own viewpoint is. Regarding Tony Snow, his remark is more than counter-balanced by the views of plent of Gore supporters in this article. WP:BLP has nothing to do with the censorship of Republican viewpoints. Bancroft EIR (talk) 02:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed nazi and unabomber criticism bit. The book no doubt has been criticized by many, but those verge on WP:BLP issues. Vsmith (talk) 13:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Gamamiel, please refrain from making personal attacks and assuming bad faith in your edit summaries, as you did here. [3] Bancroft EIR (talk) 01:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It was not intended as a personal attack, but a statement of the effect of your edits, regardless of their motivation. I will be more cautious in my language in the future, if you will return the favor and refrain from making threats in your edit summaries. Gamaliel (talk) 01:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
You have yet to defend the mertits of your reversion. The issue of WP:BLP here is a complete red herring. My text does not assert Gore's style is comparable to that of the Nazis. Zelnick does not assert Gore's style is comprable to that of the Nazis either. My text reports the fact that Zelnick reports that some of Gore's critics have made the comparison. Tony Snow's remark is also extremely notable, as past remarks by someone who would become a White House Press Secretary are inherently notable in an article about a major U.S. political figure. Bancroft EIR (talk) 03:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Your concerns have already been addressed, I'm sorry if you don't like the response. Gamaliel (talk) 01:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Bancroft EIR's concerns have not just been addressed at all. They have just been steamrolled by relentless POV reversions. The content is factual. The removal of it is outright censorship. Maglev Power (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary break

The disputed content consists of obviously politically motivated slurs - the attempted association with nazis and the unabomber with little context are in violation of WP:BLP and quite irrelevant to this article. If the Wikipedia article on the book in question were to contain an extended and in depth critique of the book and its style, then an in context mention of the might be appropriate. However, the current article is not the place for any such extended and intensive evaluation/critique. Vsmith (talk) 00:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Once again - the content is stating a matter of fact. It is not a slur against Gore. As I said earlier ... The issue of WP:BLP here is a complete red herring. My text does not assert Gore's style is comparable to that of the Nazis. Zelnick does not assert Gore's style is comprable to that of the Nazis either. My text reports the fact that Zelnick reports that some of Gore's critics have made the comparison. Tony Snow's remark is also extremely notable, as past remarks by someone who would become a White House Press Secretary are inherently notable in an article about a major U.S. political figure. Bancroft EIR (talk) 22:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
NPOV and BLP do not cover merely individual sentences, but the effect those sentences have on the overall article. An individual sentence may be factually true, neutral, and notable, but if it creates an effect which skews the article, it violates NPOV and BLP. In this case, as has been pointed out to you, whatever the merits of these individual parts, including only the most fringe and partisan criticism and little else creates a skewed and inaccurate view of the matter which does not reflect the overall criticism of the book. Gamaliel (talk) 19:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Something that is factually true, neutral, and notable cannot "skew" an article. That is utter nonsense. It sounds like the only thing that is fringe and skewed here is your interpretation of BLP. Also, Tony Snow is hardly fringe. A White House press secretary is about as mainstream as you can get in the U.S.
If that's a joke, it is not a very tasteful one. Afasmit (talk) 20:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
By calling Tony Snow fringe [personal attack removed] Maglev Power (talk) 00:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I am calling Regenery Publishing fringe, which it is. Tony Snow is a partisan operative. These are not sources that should be relied up for the only criticism in an article. They are extreme views, and they are unrepresentative, and thus they skew the article. Facts can skew the article if they are presented in such a manner; this is a well-established part of BLP and NPOV. Also, please leave your insults on a message board somewhere. See WP:CIVIL. Gamaliel (talk) 01:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Tony Snow is no more a partisan operative than Al Gore. Regarding the publisher, you bring forth no evidence disputing the credibility of the information presented in Zelnick's book. Try again. Maglev Power (talk) 01:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
It's not just about the credibilty of Snow or Zelnick's fringe publisher. It's about creating a full and neutral picture of criticism. Including only two of the most partisan and fringe criticism and nothing else creates a skewed picture of the issue which violates NPOV and BLP. Gamaliel (talk) 15:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
You fail to back up your opinions with fact. You fail to offer evidence that Zelnick's publisher is "fringe." You fail to demonstrate how Tony Snow is any more partisan than Al Gore. You fail to show how this statement of fact is remotely libelous, and puts Wikipedia at risk. The issue of BLP strikes me as a smokescreen to cover up criticism of Al Gore. Bancroft EIR (talk) 03:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Hardly. I think the article and other related articles should contain more criticism, but it should not be presented in this fashion, a fashion which violates NPOV and BLP for the reasons numerous editors have repeatedly explained to you. Gamaliel (talk) 04:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
You and Vsmith, both avowed Democratic activists, do not constitute numerous editors. So far the opinion is split 1:1, with you and Vsmith making the reversions, and Maglev Power and I restoring the factual content. Bancroft EIR (talk) 05:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
By focusing on insults and personalities, you have both prolonged the edit war and demonstrated that you don't have any actual arguments to rebut the comments made by other editors about your problematic edits. Gamaliel (talk) 16:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
BLP is designed to protect Wikipedia from the risk of posting libelous content. The content I have added is a statement of fact about Tony Snow and Gore critics, not a characterization of Al Gore from the standpoint of the article. It is not libelous against Gore by any stretch of the imagination, and thus not a violation of BLP. We can work toward compromise by adding additional factual content about the book. Reverting existing factual content, however, causes edit wars and does not help. Bancroft EIR (talk) 02:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
BLP does not merely equal libel, and content which is indisputably true can be a BLP violation. You would do well to familiarize yourself with the BLP policy and its implementation on Wikipedia before you criticize others. BLP also is designed to prevent articles from becoming hatchet jobs, which is what the section is question is. BLP also demands the immediate removal of offending material. You can not insert a fringe, offending version and then "work towards compromise" later. The material must adhere to BLP and NPOV before it is included. Gamaliel (talk) 17:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I have familiarized myself with BLP. Indeed it is designed to prevent articles from becoming "hatchet jobs." I firmly disagree my edits constitute one, or have that effect. Bancroft EIR (talk) 02:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
You really don't think having two quotes from extreme, partisan sources as essentially the entirety of the criticism section is inappropriate? Gamaliel (talk) 16:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The more diverse the range of quotations reflecting notable opinion on the book, the better-- pro-Gore and even 'extreme and partisan' from your personal point of view.Bancroft EIR (talk) 00:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Exactly! And having only two extreme quotes is hardly diversity, and violates NPOV. This is exactly what we have been getting at. Gamaliel (talk) 00:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I've watch listed this page for awhile and have been watching this all unfold. While I have no personal opinion on the current dispute perhaps it is time for the involved parties to pursue the next stage in dispute resolution. WP:DR suggests posting at a noticeboard for advice. Have any of the involved editors asked for outside opinions at either the reliable sources noticeboard or fringe theories noticeboard? Perhaps some editors there could shed some light on this. It's really starting to sound like outside intervention/advice is necessary to resolve this. Stardust8212 17:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I will welcome intervention, and thank Stardust8212 and Will Beback for their offers. I have tried compromise, noting the example of a respected newspaper calling Gore's book prophetic, but my edits have been reverted entirely each time from the start. I will be happy to work toward further compromise that that not involve complete reversions of factual content. Bancroft EIR (talk) 02:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Adding an example of something which should be in the article anyway isn't a reason to pat yourself on the back for "compromising", it's what you should have done to begin with: make a reasonable attempt to provide a neutral, balanced, and representative account of the reaction to the book. Including an insignificant bit of praise from some newspaper article isn't "compromise", it's a figleaf to provide cover for the fringe, partisan criticism you wish to include and which dominates the section in violation of BLP and NPOV. Gamaliel (talk) 17:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Please assume good. Assuming good faith would help us avoid going up the next stage of dispute resolution, as the editors intervening suggested. Again, I will be happy to work toward further compromise that that not involve complete reversions of factual content. What do you suggest be added? Bancroft EIR (talk) 02:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
When you accuse and insult and threaten, you lose all right to good faith from other editors. Gamaliel (talk) 16:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Pot, kettle. But I extend the right of good faith to you. I will be willing to extend the first hand of compromise to avoid advancing to the next stage of dispute resolution. Bancroft EIR (talk) 00:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, so in the spirit of compromise please suggest a version of the disputed section which will not violate BLP and NPOV. Gamaliel (talk) 00:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I suggest not changing the existing text, but adding two summaries of positive reviews, and one example of a mild critique. Bancroft EIR (talk) 23:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
You don't achieve NPOV by having x number of positives "balanced" by x number of negatives. You have a section which is representative of the actual criticism, backed up by references. However, assuming we accepted your numerical standard of balance, the current section which you have repeatedly inserted into the article is inappropriate even by your proposed standard! Advocating a balanced section isn't "compromise", it is what should have been done in the first place, and it is what is demanded by NPOV and BLP. If you have such a section in mind, feel free to post your version here and we can discuss it. Gamaliel (talk) 03:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

Due to recent edit warring I've protected the page temporarily. Please take advantage of the respite to work towards consensus. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)