Talk:Al Gore/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Picture

The picture of Al is kind of outdated. Can we get a more recent picture?Samnuva (talk) 02:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I second the motion to provide a contemporary photo 151.197.115.161 (talk) 02:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC) OxfordDen151.197.115.161 (talk) 02:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Al Gore/Archive 9#Image for rationale. Chris Cunningham (talk) 11:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that would be possible. It's incredibly hard to acquire the correct licenses for pictures, so unless you have a good quality picture taken by yourself... --24.6.103.162 (talk) 04:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Well there is a more recent picture[1] down in the Environmental Issues section that just says "This file is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License. In short: you are free to distribute and modify the file as long as you attribute its author(s) or licensor(s)." So, maybe somebody wants to switch the header one out with that one, or maybe there was already something greed upon, and I am just too late. -Ethan c.00 (talk) 03:55:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This is more than a matter of copyright. The images used for bio pages of Vice-Presidents are all official ones - see images used in the articles associated with Vice President of the United States. As far as I could tell, images used for currently living former VP's have not been "updated." The current image used for Gore in the infobox is - like the others - his official portrait. This image [2] is not. The image in the info box should adhere to copyright but it should also be a professional one. -Classicfilms (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

But Gore was more than a vice-president, he was the popular vote Presidential nominee and there are scores of public domain photographs of Gore from within the last two decades. I mean, Al isn't really even recognizable here. You're doing him a disservice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.205.205 (talk) 09:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you could put both official portrait and recent pictures on the table, one on one half and one on the other. And, under them, you could put a subtitle that says it's more recent. Moreno Valley User (talk) 02:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Why no edit rights?

There is no election going on for Al Gore. Why don't we have edit rights? 151.197.115.161 (talk) 02:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Oxfordden(151.197.115.161 (talk) 02:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC))

The article is constantly vandalised. Editing is restricted to users who have been registered for a few days to dissuade this. Chris Cunningham (talk) 11:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You obviously haven't heard some of the things being said about Al Gore. He's a perfectly fine person. He's just a messenger, and people are shooting him. --24.6.103.162 (talk) 04:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Electoral history incorrect

The current article mentions the 2000 presidential election results as Gore having received "51,003,926 (48.4%", according to the Federal Election Commision (fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm) the actual total number of votes is: 50,999,897 (48.4%) total votes. Joshman1122 (talk) 01:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Joshman1122

It is fixed. Thanks. -Classicfilms (talk) 18:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Potential Candidacy

In the opening section, the article claims there is speculation over the possibility of Gore's candidacy for president. At this point, it is essentially too late for Gore to run and this should be edited. Unfortunately, I am simply anonymous and cannot edit this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.19.100 (talk) 05:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I changed that. However, Gore's possible candidate in 2008 should still be part of the article, due to its importance of his political career. --haha169 (talk) 00:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Portrait

The portrait of Gore in the intro is far too old. It is from 1994-- 13 years ago. I found a recent picture of Gore on Wikipedia in the article about his movie. I propose using this more recent photo. Image:AlGorerecent.JPG The Noosphere (talk) 06:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No, because it's a non-free image. The portrait in the intro has the benefit of being free. —C.Fred (talk) 06:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. In addition to being free, the 1994 photo is an "official" portrait more suited to the top of an article. The later photo may be more suited to the section which deals with the film. There is nothing I know of which indicates photos on headers must be up to date.THD3 (talk) 14:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Al Gore new interview 2008.január.07.

• The Gore Interview, TIME Magazin
• BBC.co.uk Al Gore interviews

--Tamás Kádár (talk) 13:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

archive

actually, even this isn't a full restore of everything since 30 days ago, but that's not a big deal. what about setting up miszabot for archiving? i've never used it, but from the few talk pages i've seen that it's used on, it sure seems to do the job adequately. Anastrophe (talk) 17:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Apologies - my hope was just to clean up a bit and there were relatively old conversations in the mix. Go ahead and restore any conversations that you think need to be. And yes, I think setting up an automatic archive is a good idea. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

it's a shame there isn't an 'official' archiving system in the wiki software, the need is there. but i digress. Anastrophe (talk) 18:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a fantastic idea. I think that many people would appreciate an official archiving system as it would save time and effort. Perhaps it's a topic to be raised elsewhere in the Wikipedia. -Classicfilms (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

since i'm not much of a policy wonk myself, i don't have a clue where one might bring it up...Anastrophe (talk) 07:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe the reason there isn't an official one right now is because the bots usually make an absolute hash of it imo. I manually archive pages because I haven't yet found a bot which has a sane syntax and can be trusted to archive in a timely manner at a sensible length. Chris Cunningham (talk) 07:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

well admittedly i've not paid that close attention to the quality of what the bots do. i've merely noticed there's a fair number of pages that use the 'miszabot', and it's never stuck out like a sore thumb. but again - not paying close attention. however, i do believe there really is a need for some form of 'official' archiving mechanism - perhaps the wiki wonks who do the core programming can come up with something, maybe even a code contest or something to jump start the process. easy for me to say though, about all i'm capable of is typing './configure; make; make install' and crossing my fingers. Anastrophe (talk) 07:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. As I'm not familiar with 'miszabot', could you post a link to an article that uses it? Or perhaps to a main page for it? -Classicfilms (talk) 15:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

i believe this is the right place: User:miszabot. setting it up right appears to be non-trivial - which may explain why results are sometimes bad. and also further amplifies that a better, simpler mechanism is needed. 18:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anastrophe. (talk • contribs)

I would like to propose that we set this up for a trial run and see what the results would be. If it works, great. If people don't like the results, they can always be reverted and the bot removed. Thoughts? -Classicfilms (talk) 18:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

i'm game, but will be away for several days, so will have to leave it to others to implement/test. Anastrophe (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Environmental Issues, Recent Activism

In the second paragraph under "Recent activism," it states that Gore owns Generation Investment management. Gore is Chairman of Generation, not the sole owner (see www.generationim.com).

Also, Gore does not purchase carbon credits from Generation--this fact was inaccurately reported by certain media outlets, and was later clarified by a Generation spokesperson (see http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200703/NAT20070307a.html). Generation purchases carbon credits from third party providers like the Carbon Neutral Company to offset the personal emissions of all employees and their families, including Gore's (see http://www.generationim.com/news/memberships.html). Generation does not sell carbon credits, nor does it develop them--rather, they voluntarily purchase credits from others on behalf of employees.

Max1910 (talk) 16:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks good - go ahead and make the appropriate changes. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Or if you do not yet have access, write a draft of the paragraph as you would like to suggest it be written and paste it here. Someone else can add it. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I made the suggested changes. -Classicfilms (talk) 00:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

It was suggested that in order to gain FA status, a criticism section be added. Of course, like all criticism sections on Wikipedia, it may not be exceedingly negative and must stay as neutral as possible. Please cite everything. What do you think?--haha169 (talk) 04:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggested by who? A vandal? Turtlescrubber (talk) 04:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Check here User is Ibaranoff24, and he does have a fair point, although I don't like his idea as much as the next person. Anything to get this guy onto the list of FAs. --haha169 (talk) 06:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Such sections are usually considered red flags for FA status. So adding one would be a step backwards. Chris Cunningham (talk) 11:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This is an old comment which has already been addressed - criticism was added and woven into various sections throughout the article (which is a standard approach in many biographies in the Wikipedia - see for example Barack Obama which is a featured article). The current FA has better suggestions for improving the article such as adding more citations and developing sections such as the "Vice Presidency" portion. -Classicfilms (talk) 12:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I have some text to possibly add under this hypothetical new "Criticism" section. He, directly quotted, had "a major hand in the development of the Internet" and found Love Canal ("That was the one that started it all!") The Person Who Is Strange 18:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Person Who Is Strange (talk • contribs)

Malfeasance in Florida in 2000

The section on the 2000 election (specifically Florida) contained this unsupported assertion: “No malfeasance has ever been proven on anyone's part however.” I removed this statement because it’s false. The Jeb Bush administration engineered the purging of approximately 50,000 names from the voter rolls, despite knowing that the method being used would result in many false positives (i.e., removals of voters who were actually qualified). The methods used ensured that the improper removals would disproportionately affect Democratic voters. This purge resulted in a lawsuit. In 2002 (too late to help Gore, obviously), Florida settled the case against it by agreeing to restore the voting rights of the affected individuals, and to implement other remedial measures. See, for example, this link about the settlement. Accordingly, I removed the unsubstantiated sentence that falsely exonerated the culprits in Florida. My ES said, “rm assertion of no malfeasance; lawsuit established that many of the 50,000 purge victims were purged illegally”.

Anastrophe restored the sentence, writing, “Interesting assertion, but would be best served by providing a citation and copyediting to indicate the malfeasance.” I believe that following that suggestion would entail getting into excessive detail for the Al Gore bio article. It would require discussion of the suit and settlement, NPOV presentation of the opposing view (that the purge was proper), and similar detail about the other malfeasance issues (such as the “riot” that interfered with the recount).

It seems to me to be much simpler just to remove the sentence.

Of course, as it stands, it flatly asserts that no malfeasance has been established. There is no citation for what I and many others consider a falsehood. As an interim measure, I’ve added a “citation needed” tag. I don’t think it’s my burden to meet Anastrophe’s demand for a citation. If the article is to assert that no malfeasance has been established, that assertion must be backed by a citation. NPOV would call for acknowledgment of the contrary opinion.

It really seems better just to remove the sentence and leave the detailed discussion of Florida 2000 to several other Wikipedia articles where it’s more on point. Here, it would just be clutter. JamesMLane t c 11:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

One of the major criticisms in the current FAC concerns the surplus of information in the article that remains unsourced. The sentence you refer to was referenced by one editor as part of a longer paragraph which entirely lacks sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Al_Gore&redirect=no

In order for this article to be seriously considered in a FAC, existing information needs to be sourced or removed. According to Wikipedia:Verifiability:

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence

The article - and that entire section - is in dire need of sources. If a statement cannot be sourced, it should be removed. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant Information

Why are Al Gore's SAT and IQ test scores on this page? It just seems completely irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pendragoness (talk • contribs) 22:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You make a good point. This detail appears to not comply with Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information

Following the suggestions made in the current FAC, it would help the article to remove indiscriminate detail in order to increase its quality.-Classicfilms (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It's completely irrelevant to the article to include unsubstantiated allegations. With that in mind, I have removed the following:

This election remains extremely controversial and some have questioned the legality and propriety of the role of Florida politicians on both sides, including Florida Governor Jeb Bush. No malfeasance has ever been proven on anyone's part however.

If none of the claims in this quoted material have been proven, then the accusations should not be present in the article. When someone has credible proof, not merely citing someone else making the same unproven accusations, then these claims can be returned to the article. --SMP0328. (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Your deletion is not in accord with WP:NPOV. We are to report facts, including facts about opinions. If the POV that there were illegalities and improprieties is advanced widely enough to be notable, then our readers should be informed of it existence, whether or not it can be "proven" to be true. The statement that the election was controversial, particularly the election in Florida, cannot be reasonably disputed. Do we need a specific citation? Well, do we need a specific citation for the assertion that Gore was born in 1948? I believe that the demand for citations should be subject to a rule of reason. JamesMLane t c 11:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Al Gore Ashden Awards 2007

Al Gore gave a keynote speech to award winners and guests of the Ashden Award for Sustainable Energy prize-giving ceremony, at the Royal Geographical Society in London, United Kingdom on 21st June 2007.

The Ashden Awards for Sustainable Energy highlights and rewards exemplary and successful examples of sustainable energy use both in the UK and the developing world. Through the awards scheme and related activities, the Ashden Awards aim to persuade policy makers, funders and the wider public to recognise renewable energy and energy efficiency as a crucial tool for addressing the urgent global issues of climate change, pollution and energy supply as well as the social and economic needs of local communities across the globe.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=CxVKSBV8IXU --Tamás Kádár (talk) 12:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Al Gore new book after the Inconvenient Truth: The Path To Survival

Al Gore new book after the Inconvenient Truth: The Path to Survival. Who will write an article about this new book here in en.wikipedia.org? --Tamás Kádár (talk) 09:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC) When can we read this book in hungarian? --Tamás Kádár (talk) 09:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I just created it. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool. we need a picture later.--Tamás Kádár (talk) 10:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

A list of books written by Al Gore

would be a helpful addition.-Rich Peterson130.86.14.88 (talk) 06:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Intro makes it seem like he's dead

In my opinion, the article's introduction paragraph makes it seem like he is dead. It is most common on Wikipedia for the deceased's articles to open "Name (XXXX-XXXX)was...", and Gore's article starts "Albert Arnold "Al" Gore, Jr. (born March 31, 1948) was...". It's kind of confusing.

The first thing I thought when I read the opening sentence of this article was "Wow... I didn't know he died".

Perhaps it should be changed to follow the unofficial Wikipedia standard, saying "Name (born xxxx) is a(n) nationality here occupations here"

Thoughts? Save-Me-Oprah^(talk) 23:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I tweaked it a bit. See what you think...-Classicfilms (talk) 04:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

New info

Don't add it on just yet...

But I have interesting new information. I won't be following this Al Gore thing, since I'm going to be quite busy for a while, so I'm hoping someone might do it for me. If something interesting happens...you know what to do! [3] --haha169 (talk) 03:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

New $1 Million Prize for Gore

Al Gore wins one of three $1 million Dan David Prizes. He is coming to Israel in May to collect the prize, which he says he will donate to charity.

http://www.aftau.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6375

Two other American climate change researchers win part of a second $1 million prize. Can a registered writer update this in prizes and awards for 2008?

85.250.198.206 (talk) 12:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Karin (Feb 19)

I added the prize. -Classicfilms (talk) 14:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Controversy

There should be a section on the controversies throughout Al Gore's life. There was one if I could recall but somehow it got deleted. Mrld (talk) 17:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

See the topic Criticism above. Short answer: Such sections are discoraged, the critique has been woven into the text instead. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

To maintain NPOV, criticism should always exist in an article. However it decreases the quality of an article to create a section devoted to it as Kim D. Petersen noted. Thus criticism is in this article but is woven throughout rather than clustered together.

On a related topic, Media Matters for America has discussed what it calls the "War against Gore" in the media. See:

http://mediamatters.org/columns/200703200006

and

http://mediamatters.org/items/200711210004?f=h_latest

I was thinking that some of this could be added to a section or different sections, though I wanted to get feedback first before doing so. -Classicfilms (talk) 22:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

One more article:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200707210002?f=s_search

-Classicfilms (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to add - Wikipedia:Criticism states, "In general, making separate sections with the title "Criticism" is discouraged. The main argument for this is that they are often a troll magnet" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criticism#Criticism_in_a_.22Criticism.22_section -Classicfilms (talk) 03:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Albert Gore, Jr. is very much a member of America's ruling class. One need only look at the history of his family to see this. The nominal American Left tends to elevate Albert Gore, Jr. into a demi-god because of his environmental positions--see Nobel icon with his portrait, for example. I would like to see this article address his voting record while a senator, namely his willingness to support military appropriations legislation, his position on what America refers to as Gulf War I, and his attitude toward NAFTA, TANF, the tax bill of 1997, the execution of Ricky Ray Rector, the withdrawal of support for Lani Guiner on the part of the Clinton-Gore WH, and the hundreds of thousands that were starved in Iraq in the 1990's consequent the embargo imposed in that country. ---Kab ibn al Ashraf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.36.238.145 (talk) 19:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Scroll bar for footnotes?

Is it acceptable to have a scroll bar for the footnotes as a user has added to this article? I've never seen it used on any article before, even those with more references than this article, so I'm surprised to see it here. Gary King (talk) 16:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know whether its acceptable or not - but its a pain when reading / using / verifying references. So in my opinion shouldn't be there --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe the warning on top of {{Scroll box}} pretty much answers your question. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Good catch! --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

fatuous

"made the election one of several controversial Presidential elections in American history." What kind of fatuous statement is this? Either say "made the election one of the most controversial Presidential elections in American history" or if that is thought to be too bold, delete it altogether. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 09:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

went to harvard college not harvard university —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.201.34.94 (talk) 00:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

New section for environmental issues?

The environmental issues section is becoming unwieldy. I would be interested in feedback concerning the creation of a subarticle on environmental issues similar to Al Gore's contributions to the Internet and technology. If other editors think that this is a good idea, we would need to discuss:

• A title for the article
• A basic structure for the article
• How the summary in the main article should read

Once this has been decided, I would be willing to create the article. -Classicfilms (talk) 09:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll wait another day or two and if there is no feedback, will create a new subarticle titled Al Gore's contributions to the environment which is based upon the existing article on the Internet and technology. If someone has a better idea for a title, please post it within the next day or two. Thanks, -Classicfilms (talk) 00:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

That title is inherently POV. Perhaps Al Gore and the environment or Al Gore's environmental activism. -- Zsero (talk) 07:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I think Al Gore and the environment is a good title, so unless I hear any other suggestions, I will use that. Any further feedback would be appreciated before I start working on this, probably tomorrow. Thanks, -Classicfilms (talk) 09:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The subarticle Al Gore and the environment is now active, though it could probably use some re-org and editing. The summary on the main page also could use some re-write and editing. -Classicfilms (talk) 15:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

New title for Internet article

I would like to propose changing the title for the article Al Gore's contributions to the Internet and technology to match the new subarticle Al Gore and the environment. My suggestion is Al Gore and information technology which is shorter and NPOV.

Feedback and other suggestions would be appreciated. -Classicfilms (talk) 00:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The page has been moved. -Classicfilms (talk) 23:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Personal Life

Al Gore's youngest daughter Sarah married according to a family spokeswoman. Sarah Gore, 28, married (Taiwanese American) Bill Lee 36, a Los Angeles businessman, The daughter of the former vice president and Democratic presidential nominee is a Harvard graduate and a medical student at the University of California, San Francisco. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.138.188.31 (talk) 16:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

http://blog.algore.com/

More, daily info: http://blog.algore.com/ --Tamás Kádár (talk) 20:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

vice presidency

Why was nearly all the information on his vice presidency moved to a (very very clumsy) new article without any discussion? john k (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

His voice acting career needs to be mentioned

His voice acting career needs to be mentioned. He did voice acting on Futurama: Bender's Big Score. William Ortiz (talk) 13:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Dr.h.c.

He recieved today, 15.04.2008 a Dr.h.c. of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Lausanne. --128.178.20.27 (talk) 18:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)