Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Gore controversies

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge and redirect, as the argument that this is a point of view fork is well-made and has consensus. In this case, due to the nature of the subject and such, what I have done is protect the Al Gore controversies redirect while leaving the history there. Content can be merged back into Al Gore by editorial consensus and "being bold" edits at involved parties' discretion.

However, it's clear this article shouldn't exist by itself, hence the protected redirect. Parties can determine what, if anything, can be merged and how, through discussion at Talk:Al Gore. Daniel 07:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Al Gore controversies

Al Gore controversies (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Nominating for deletion, as a fork of only negative tone about a WP:BLP subject. Also, controversy articles are bad in practice, violating WP:NPOV, WP:Content forking, and WP:Criticism. Featured articles such as Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, Wesley Clark, Barack Obama, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, and Theodore Roosevelt do not have associated articles like this. It needs to be pointed out that articles like this turn into dumping grounds for negative material of dubious relevance and none of the material has been "deleted" or will be deleted if this AfD is successful. Any administrator can review and give copies of the data to editors who wish to import relevant, sourced, and on-topic information to Al Gore. As an alternative to outright deletion, I can support redirecting this to the parent article. • Lawrence Cohen 18:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note/precedent: Other articles that are similar in inappropriate tone and existence, such as Hillary Clinton controversies were removed, and see also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversies of Rudy Giuliani. • Lawrence Cohen 18:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - the Giuliani article could, in theory, still survive, which would muddy the "precedent" --- tqbf 20:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep, but with a {{POV}} tag. There is a link to this article on the main Al Gore article, which is already long enough as it is. --Blanchardb 18:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

That isn't compatible with NPOV and BLP, or precedent. • Lawrence Cohen 18:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment I agree with Lawrence Cohen on this point - A POV tag should not be a justification for an article to exist - policy, precedent, common sense, anything you like says that if a subject cannot be made to conform to NPOV, it shouldn't be on Wikipedia at all. Hence we arrive at the major problem with any "controversies" or "criticism" articles. Even the existence of such an article seems to imply bias, and will always attract negative attention.Tx17777 19:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Then Merge some of the content with the main article. The fact is, while I agree with TX17777's argument about attracting negative attention, articles like these state matters whose omission does by itself constitute a form of POV. To me, the only way to achieve NPOV in a controversial matter is by stating all POV's as long as they are reasonable and notable enough, and doing so without comment. Nothing should be kept under silence. Or, one may add Criticism of Wal-Mart, and several other articles, to this discussion.

So, yes, maybe these controversies do go in the main article. There are currently only two lines in there about them. --Blanchardb 19:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Merge useful content, if any, and delete. Not sure if there is any useful content or not, but this is a blatant POV fork. No more bongos 20:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: If there is any notable content, it can easily be merged into the main Al Gore article.-Hal Raglan 21:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Reluctant delete: My own personal opinion is that we should be more liberal with wikipedia content, however, I have watched many biography pages being trimmed of criticism and criticism sections citing WP:BLP & WP:Criticism. In light of that activity, this page sticks out. Robneild 23:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment It's strange that most people think the Giuliani article should be kept but that this one should be deleted. Either they both go, or they're both kept. Deleting or keeping articles because they happen to chime with particular political beliefs is not what Wikipedi should be about. Nick mallory 23:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't notice anyone that !voted here doing the opposite number on the Giuliani article. I myself am happy with both going outright or being a redirection, as I stated on each AfD. Where did you see such innapropriate behavior? • Lawrence Cohen 00:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about individual editors, I was talking about the principle. I am agreeing with you that both should stay or both should go. I would not want to see a situation where, for example, every republican had a 'controversies' article and those of every democrat were removed. That's all I'm saying. 203.108.239.12 03:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Although I'm a Gore fan, it's a case of "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend you're right to say it". Well-known public figures are entitled to less protection from defamation than the average human being. BLP is in place to avoid libel (which by definition is untrue) about living persons, not to prevent a repetition of published reports that are unfavorable. Were that so, we could not mention that Richard Nixon resigned as a result of being accused of obstruction of justice or of an attempted coverup of the Watergate scandal. In this case, however, I see someone else's well-sourced list of unfavorable information about Al Gore. Like Mallory, I think what's sauce for Rudy is sauce for Al. Mandsford 01:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I am coming at this from the same angle as you, but come to a different conclusion - which is to incorporate the sourced criticism, including the sources, into the article. WP:POVFORK makes for interesting reading in this discussion. Same should be done for any similar articles, as far as I'm concerned. No more bongos 01:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete As a POV fork. Any verifiable content can be merged into the main bio article about Gore. Edison 03:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Not sure Here's a precedent to consider: Controversies surrounding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. That has a "merge" tag, but mergeing articles does not go through a formal process like AFD. As a practical matter, I'm not in favor of content forking the controversies to a separate article, but if it's difficult to merge the content back in to the main article, I don't want to lose content for no reason. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, after dismantling, disbursing, and integrating legitimate contents into other Al Gore-related articles. I'm the editor who's done this for the Hillary Rodham Clinton and Rudy Giuliani articles, and there are a few misconceptions in the comments above. In this process, legitimate material is not removed from Wikipedia, it's just moved to the correct context, and thereby put into conformance with WP:NPOV, WP:Content forking, and WP:Criticism. Lengthening already lengthy main articles is always a concern, but material can often be moved to subarticles or main article footnotes instead. In this case, "Fund raising" can be added into the main article; it's a legitimate ethical/legal issue that did damage to his career, and "no controlling legal authority" was a damaging phrase that should be mentioned there. The "created the Internet" material can go into the Al Gore's contributions to the Internet and technology subarticle (a lot of it already is) and referenced from the main article. "Love Canal" probably belongs as a brief reference in the main article, augmented by a main article footnote that tells the story of the whole mix-up (the Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton articles make good use of footnotes this way). "Use of energy in home" I'm not sure about, I'd have to look closer at all the Al Gore articles; it's always possible to create a new article dedicated to a particular controversy, if it is merited (Hillary Rodham cattle futures controversy and Rudy Giuliani promotions of Bernard Kerik were created during dismantling this way). "Meat-eating and Climate Change" is really a policy disagreement, not a controversy; it can go into the An Inconvenient Truth article, which it pertains to (actually, I think the same material is already there). Also, a redirect-with-protect is an alternative to delete as a final disposition, as that allows everyone to see what the contents were (and that they were fairly disbursed) without being able to revert the article back into existence. Wasted Time R 13:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge content with parent articles, redirect and protect. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - until the content is appropriately merged, then delete. the biggest problem is that outright deletion is no more or less 'pov' than keeping it. editors have attempted to incorporate criticisms from the 'controversies' article, but are routinely overridden and reverted. the article used to have a 'merge' tag, but because nobody seems to be able to successfully merge the content without being battered with reversions, it goes nowhere - then a helpful editor removes the 'merge' tag. so, what do we have when we have a main article that some editors won't allow to be 'sullied' with controversial content? a pov main article. and a bastard child controversies article where the criticism is conveniently ensconced out of the main spotlight. Anastrophe 18:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect Pretty much agree with what Wasted Time R said, except the PETA complaint, which is more of an example of why controversy/criticism sections/articles should be avoided. Controversy/criticism articles turn into crap collectors for every minor criticism for the subject of the article and give undue weight to minor issues (like the PETA complaint) and are content forks for the truly notable issues in that they shunt the negative aspects off the main article and leave only the positive. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep A section/article on controversies deserves it place. Deleting it outright as someone else here has already said, is no less POV than retaining it. If retaining it is POV, then so it deleting it, given that the same content is included in both cases Ethereal 14:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It's the presentation of the article that is POV, not the actual content. I don't think anyone is saying that the notable content currently in the article should not be retained on Wikipedia, just how that information is presented needs to be changed. Including notable information about a subject, whether it is negative, positive, or neutral, is perfectly acceptable and encouraged. The problem with Criticism/Controversy articles/sections is the same problem that plagues trivia sections/articles in that they are generally a sign of poor editing style and invariably collect every minor issue about the subject and give that minor issue undue weight. There is also a lack of balance with controversy/criticism articles in that the main article generally has all negative information about the subject expunged and shuffled to the controversy/criticism sub-article, which results in a positive biased main article and a negative biased sub-article. Neither of these results are a good thing and the two articles should be merged as much as possible. Granted, in some cases, the section that the negative information would be included in has been calved off into a sub-article of its own, so the negative information that would normally go there would be summarized per WP:SS in the main article and detailed in the sub-article. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Bobblehead has it exactly right. We're not deleting content, we're deleting a way of organizing and presenting that content that does not conform to stated WP guidelines. Wasted Time R 17:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Or, in simpler terms, the problem with the point of view violations is in the presentation itself. In simple (probably too simple) analogy terms, it would be the equivalent of a notable painter creating two notable works of art. The painter, and the two pieces of art, both merit articles of their own. However, say the two paintings were: 1. Hillary Clinton in bondage gear, emasculating a man; and 2. Rudy Giuliani, dressed as a SS German officer with a little square mustache. Would we include those two very iconic images that would drive the right and left both gleeful and furious at the same time in the articles Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton? NPOV is as much about the information presented as how its presented. Deleting these unneeded controversy pages, that basically amount to "Why this subject sucks" articles, is in full compliance with BLP and NPOV, unless the fact that the subject is heavily, heavily criticized is subject to bulletproof notability. That is probably reserved for someone on the level of a President, however. • Lawrence Cohen 17:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nominater and others. Controversy pages and sections are almost always bad ideas, as they tend to become troll magnets, and dumping grounds for negative material (of dubios relevance) about the subject. Relevant material should be merged into the main article, and preferably not into section called "Controversies" or "Criticisms," and definitely in a manner that doesn't give anything undue weight. Yilloslime (t) 17:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Politicians attract criticism by merely being politicians - and the actions that politicians take which cause criticism define what politicians stand for and mean. This is impossible to get around. However criticism pages should also have the politician's response to criticism in order to balance out POV concerns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmegill (talk • contribs) 21:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

This kind of comment is really non-responsive to what is being proposed. Nobody is saying that articles about political figures should omit criticisms of those figures; the issue is how the material is organized. See Ronald Reagan, for example: it includes Reaganomics/trickle-down/deficit, Bitburg, slow response to AIDS, Iran-Contra, militaristic foreign policy, and other criticisms, but without a "Controveries" or "Criticisms" section or article. Wasted Time R 22:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there is a criticisms page to the Ronald Reagan article. The criticisms page is called Reagan_administration_scandals and has reciprocal links to the main article. I repeat again: politicians attract criticism. Criticism/Controversy/Scandal whatever you want to call it provide an organizing structure.Jmegill 23:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to note: The Ronald Reagan article was a featured article. This is contrary to your assertion that featured articles do not have criticism pages. Jmegill 00:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, what a steaming pile of crap that article is.. Looks like we found the next target for AFD. Although, technically, the article is about Reagan's administration, not him. The only parts of the article that are notable and not covered in Reagan's Presidential article or a sub-article off that article are the HUD grant rigging and EPA Superfund "scandal". The Savings and Loan and Iran/Contra are covered in the Presidential article and the lobbying scandal doesn't seems to have more to do with former administration officials being stupid and lying to Congress than anything else, so it's given the appropriate amount of coverage in the articles about those people. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I was aware of Reagan_administration_scandals, and its really badly done cousin Reagan administration convictions, but yes, I think they are different as they are about an administration, not the life of a given individual. And hey, I'm all for political scandal articles — look who the main writer of Travelgate and Filegate has been — but I like each notable scandal to have its own article, and not be pasted together under some kind of group concept. In particular, the HUD, lobbying, and S&L scandals all have timeless human foibles as causes that are hardly unique to the Reagan administration. Wasted Time R 01:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, after dismantling, dispersing, and integrating as per Wasted Time R. We don't need more PoV forks, we need fewer. His work on the Hillary Rodham Clinton and Rudy Giuliani controversy articles is an example of what we should be doing, instead of hit jobs slapped together without context. Horologium t-c 23:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Merge and delete - there is ongoing contention on the Al Gore talk page re criticism there. (one example) It's frequently discussed whether to keep or make a new article. If both options are exercised, it represents bias. Either the criticism goes in the main article (prefereable I think) or the POV forks need to be allowed. Arthur 00:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• With this sort of POV-fork, I think the most preferable option is to merge the content, where appropriate, into Al Gore - bearing in mind giving the criticisms their proper weight in the article.Pastordavid 19:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and perhaps rename as Criticism of Al Gore. There is nothing wrong with having "Criticism" articles.Biophys 20:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It says "Don't make articles entirely devoted to criticism" here, WP:Criticism#Separate_articles_devoted_to_criticism. Robneild 15:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete after merging appropriate content to main or related articles. Rillian 20:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Merge and delete as POV fork, as with other 'X politician controversies' articles. -- Terraxos (talk) 18:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.