Talk:Al Gore/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Investigation coming toward a conclusion, therefore we should wait

Gore has now been interviewed by the Portland police, which shows that their investigation is moving toward a conclusion. This is all the more reason not to include the allegations now per WP:NOTNEWS as well as WP:BLP. Let's see what the police say. If they move forward with the case, then nearly everyone will agree that this incident should be included in his bio. If they close the case for the third time due to insufficient evidence, then obviously the unsupported allegations should not be in his Wiki bio. KeptSouth (talk) 08:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

See below - the case has been closed. Tvoz/talk 23:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Banner

The Removal of a proper wikedia banner in which an editor has a serious concern against consenus is disruptive on wikipedia. Please refrain from doing so in the future, as your actions do not show WP:good faith. Remember, the majority of editors have expressed that this information should be in the aerticle, so, removing the banner is against the consensus of this talk page.--Jojhutton (talk) 12:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

(the following reply from FormerIP, was cut and pasted from his talk page)

Jo, the banner is against consesus and also, IMO, a BLP violation because of the way you worded it. It is legimitmate to keep a banner up until a consenus disucssion has reached a conclusion. It is clear that this had already happened in this case before you added the banner. I would be careful, because I think a majority of admins, if polled, would think that your behaviour is disruptive at this point. --FormerIP (talk) 12:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

First, let me remind you that your opinion is still the minority opinion at this time, so it is not clear that the discussion has reached a conclusion. Second, the banner has been placed on the article in order to help reach the consensus, that you say has not been reached, so its removal shows that you have no respect for the wikipedia process. Thirdly, you again have engaged in speculation by already determining what others will say and think. You should have already figured out from this talk page, that not everyone is going to agree with you. We don't all have to agree, but minority opinion should not take precidence over the majority (Per WP:Consensus). I will address your concern with the banner and reword, per your request. Fourthly, in has been my experience, that admins consider, in most cases,s those who continue to revert against the majority opinion, to be the more disruptive editors. That's not speculation, thats a fact.--Jojhutton (talk) 14:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

First, let me remind you that this article is on probation. Second, thie is a BLP violation. ----moreno oso (talk) 14:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

If, then, the article is on probation, then removing the banner is a violation of the probation, because it is against the majority opinion.--Jojhutton (talk) 14:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• No, its inclusion is a violation of the probation. ----moreno oso (talk) 14:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

And where in probation does it say that an editor, Who is in the majority opinion, who has a concern, cannot add a banner to aid in the formation of consensus?--Jojhutton (talk) 14:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Show where it says you can include. BTW, the article is on probation for this very reason: the inclusion of a non-substantiated allegation in a BLP article. While the allegation may be well reported in reliable sources, the allegation is a "she said/he said" matter. The article was placed on probation because another editor edit-warred on the matter and got blocked. Including the banner is a continuation of the edit-war. ----moreno oso (talk) 14:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Nope, sorry, but I did some research (hoping I wouldn't do that?), and the article is on Climate Change probation. This topic has nothing to do with climate change, so continued reference to "how this article is on probation and I better stop enforcing the majority opinion" needs to stop right now. Continued mention of article probation on this topic by you or anyone else who is aware of this thread wil be considered disruptive toward the consensus building process. And since you brought it up, which editor was blocked for edit warring on this topic? I would like to review that editors contributions, if I may.

And nowhere in the article was it suggested that the allegations were true, only that they were made and that there is an investigation. These are cited facts.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

If anything needs to stop, it's POV pushing. And, I don't need to prove anything to you since you seem to interpret policy as threats. ----moreno oso (talk) 15:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Well if you can't provide proof of what you claimed then I guess it didn't happen than.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You can choose to believe what you want to. I've seen you here on Wikipedia. If you are half the editor I believe you to be, you would extend me the same trust or belief. But, I guess not. ----moreno oso (talk) 15:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

All I wished to do was take a look at the blocked editors contributions, so that I could see what was being edit warred on. nothing more. I wasn't questioning anyones ethics. I did, though, search through the contributions on this page, looking for editors who were blocked. I did find one account User:TruthfulPerson who was blocked for edit warring on another page, but not on this one. (Albeit the same topic). The probation is in place over Climate Change, not on this matter, as you claim.

On a serious side note. As I was searching over the page, looking for the account that was blocked, I noticed a serious error in my initial count for and against the inclusion of this information. Apparently I still didn't go back far enough. I originally only counted back to July 2nd, begining with the section titled Dispute over allegations of sexual abuse. This discussion is so long, and seperated into so many sections, that its hard to keep track of it all. User:KeptSouth attempted to do so on July 4th by adding the above list. He did a really good job and I'm sure that it took him a long time to do. This conversation actually began on June 23rd with the title "Recent allegations". If Morenooso had been able to link the blocked user, there would have been no need to go back and check. So thanks. That being said, I was incorrect in initial count on who was for and who was against. I will create a new section below this one at a later time revealing what I have learned. I believe it will theoretically put a crimp in the "no-consensus" cry, as the numbers are overwelling. I say theoretically, because I've been on wikipedia long enough to know that people usually don't desert a sinking ship, if they still think that it can be saved.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You are saying Al Gore is nothing to do with climate change? --FormerIP (talk) 15:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes of course Al Gore has something to do with Climate Change, but this is a non-climate change topic. Do you really think that the Climate Change probation is binding on every topic of this article? I think that goes well beyond the scope and intention of Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation, wouldn't you agree?--Jojhutton (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it applies to articles relating to climate change "widely construed". That means it applies here and it applies to the whole article, even if the dispute were about the subject's date of birth. --FormerIP (talk) 15:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jo. I don't mind on this occasion, but think you should normally link to someone's talkpage in preference in cutting and pasting from it. Particularly since you included the timestamp, which might make it look as if I had posted in this section when I hadn't. No big deal for me, but I would expect some users might have got annoyed about it. --FormerIP (talk) 14:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I was just trying to keep the conversation on this page. Good lesson learned for me.--Jojhutton (talk) 14:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Oregon D.A. closes the case

And so should we. This does not belong in the biography of his life. ([[1]) Tvoz/talk 23:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Concur. NBC News is reporting the same story. ----moreno oso (talk) 00:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting "unnamed sources"...

Heads up w/rgd mysterious acquaintances of person alleging Gore's nonconsensual physical encounter with her, from the Portland Tribune:

Budnick learned that he already knew professionally someone who, in turn, knew two acquaintances of the alleged victim who strongly questioned her credibility. The source, with no allegiance to Gore, was credible and seemed to have no agenda as to whether a story appeared. The source would not name the alleged victim, but the source’s questions compelled the Tribune to do more reporting before publishing a story. (link)

--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The Gore Effect AfD

The Gore Effect, an article related to this one, has been proposed for deletion. Comments are invited at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gore Effect‎. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The result of the AfD was "keep". I don't think that the other article warrants a mention in the text of this one but since we seem to agree that they are related I have added a See also section with a wiki link to the other. --Rush's Algore (talk) 07:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Alleged affair

New information will probably be fast and furious, but the fact that it is now being discussed by news organizations and talk radio make it important to note, regardless of how things shake out.grifterlake (talk) 19:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but no, this would be in violation of a few WP policies. At the present stage, Star Magazine has made an allegation without evidence as noted by U.S.A. Today:

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/entertainment/post/2010/06/star-mag-al-gore-affair-broke-up-marriage/1

which amounts at this stage to rumor or speculation. The WP has strict policies prohibiting either - see WP:NOTGOSSIP. In addition, this is a BLP, or Biography of Living Person. According to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons:

Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

Unless this changes, the information does not belong here.-Classicfilms (talk) 20:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Another reason to avoid speculation here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/15/laurie-david-al-gore-affa_n_613211.html

-Classicfilms (talk) 20:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. PhilKnight (talk) 01:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. This is a biography, not a news article. Once the sensationalism of the accusation dies down and we learn whether or not there is actually anything to them, the issue could be revisited. --B (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Gore's alleged COI as green-tech investor and advocate of taxpayer funding of it

Wikipedia editor KeptSouth has tagged the following sentence as being in dispute: "He has been accused of a having a conflict-of-interest for simultaneously investing in green-energy technologies while advocating for their taxpayer subsidization." I think this tag should be removed. I don't think this is in reasonable dispute. There have been countless articles, videos, et cetera, discussing this potential conflict of interest. Gore was even questioned for his connection to Kliener Perkins during a U.S. congressional hearing in November 2009. While the citation provided doesn't specifically use the words "conflict of interest," there is no question that this is exactly what the article suggests. The citation does provide the following question from a Congresswoman to Gore: "The legislation that we are discussing here today, is that something that you are going to personally benefit from?" So, how is it disputed that this allegation has been made? The quote is right there in perfect English. Thanks for your input. 72.79.134.73 (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I am going to remove KeptSouth's tag right now. 72.79.134.73 (talk) 15:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Photo

With all of the countless high-res photos of Gore available, including his official photo from when he was VP, how much sense does it make to use an off-center low-res photo where he is not looking at the camera? While he has obviously aged considerably since he was in office, I think we usually use official photos for former Presidents and VPs, even if we have more recent ones available. See Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Dan Quayle, George H. W. Bush, Walter Mondale, etc. All of them use their official photos from when they were in office, even though there are plenty of PD or otherwise free photos of them in their older ages. --B (talk) 15:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I like the new (or old) photo that is now posted. Leave it as is. 148.129.129.154 (talk) 11:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I think a current photo should be used for living persons. There should be no automatic preference for official photos. After any subject's death, I think it is fine to go back and pick a nice photo from anywhere in his or her life. There's some 1975-era photo by Alan Greenspan that someone replaced a recent one with, and I disagree with that. I also definitely think this Al Gore article should have a more recent photo than the 16-year-old picture there now. DanielM (talk) 10:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the reversion back to the official VP photo, keeping in line with similar articles. Even though Jimmy Carter has had far more impact on the world in the decades since his 1-term presidency, the infobox photo still retains his official picture. More recent images of Gore can be used in sub-sections, or related article, as needed. Tarc (talk) 13:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Tarc's reasoning here - newer pictures are appropriate in the sections, but the infobox should use the official veep pic. Tvoz/talk 18:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I personally am of the opinion that a current picture would be better. If presidents have pictures from the time they were president that would also be the time they got most of their media coverage. Doesn't Gore get more media coverage since he won the noble peace price, made a movie, became very active as an environmentalist? As I think the time much later than him being a vice president got covered much more by the media and so got much more attention by regular citizens I think a picture from this time would also be appropriate as the top picture of this article. As he is pretty much still at the hight of his media attention it seems to me a recent picture makes sense. I don't want to persuade anybody into my opinion but thought this might be interesting as an argument also for others to consider. -Orangwiki (talk) 20:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

And I don't think comparison to other presidents and vice presidents helps very much here. If someone is dead you don't put a picture here of the last year before their death but one at the hight of their career or when they where in office. If someone currently holds office like Obama or Biden, then the current picture of course is the choice. If someone was president and is now 85 years old, of course it makes more sense to put a picture from the hight of their career (like Jimmy Carter). So who was US president or vice president and is now age somewhere below 75 years? May be five people ore less? George W. Bush - picture is still recent enough because his term just ended last year. So I think it is required here to argue individually for Al Gore. Has any other president or vice president ever gained more media attention after their term then during their term, besides Al Gore? I don't think Jimmy Carter has. So here we face the tough Wikipedia decision, shall we apply a rule former US president or vice president always gets the photo from the time in office and it will never get changed (of course talking about the top picture of the article)? Or do we decide such a rule does not make sense and we consider every case individually? --Orangwiki (talk) 21:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

If someone asks you "Who is Al Gore?", for example someone who visits the US from another country, what would you respond at first? Would you say Al Gore is an environmental activist? Or would you say Al Gore is the former vice president of the US? Or would you say Al Gore is a nobel peace price winner? I think whatever the majority of the people would respond describing Al Gore is the time that the picture should represent. If the majority would say "environmental activist" I think this article should have a recent picture as his activities about this were most intense in recent years. If the majority would respond with "former vice president" I think then the official picture as vice president would be best. --Orangwiki (talk) 22:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Fred Lucas report

A user has tried to delete a citation to a very well-balanced report on Gore by Fred Lucas, of the Capital Research Center. The report is available on a website titled "IhateAlGore.com". The deleting author says that this website is not credible. HOWEVER, the Wikipedia citation is not to information authored by this website. The only reason "IhateAlGore.com" is part of the citation is because this website is hosting the Fred Lucas report. If anyone knows of an alternative website link to the Lucas report, than by all means, add it. Otherwise, I think the citation should be left as is. I think that if you read the Lucas report you will see that it is very well balanced and Lucas's assertions are well sourced. He does highlight Gore's alleged conflict of interest with the green technology, but it is by no means an attack piece. Yankey504 (talk) 18:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

If this is to be believed, then find it hosted somewhere other than a Scribd notation on an extremely partisan attack site. Tarc (talk) 18:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, I did a Google search and found several other sites hosting this. I will change the link from "IhateAlGore.com" to "docstoc.com", which appears to have the most readable version. In any event, there isn't anything "unbelievable" about the report. It is from 2008, and mostly reports things that those who are familiar with Gore already know. Also, it's not an attack piece, as I already mentioned. Yankey504 (talk) 18:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks like it is WP:SELFPUB and not suitable for use on WP. --FormerIP (talk) 00:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a Rah-Rah piece

This haplessly hopeless thread has been around for six months and has not come close to improving the article. Time to shut down the forum.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This article is a cheerleader piece for Al Gore that could benefit by some objective editing. The whole piece looks like it was written up by Gore's PR staff. Statements such as "Some have cited" are given without detail, then the undetailed accusations are refuted by statements such as "Gore has denied" without any details as well, as though Gore's denial is proof enough that the accusations are baseless. Example: Gore's involvement in environmental issues has also been the subject of criticism. Some have cited "conflict of interest," labeling him a "carbon billionaire." [189] Gore has denied that he is a "carbon billionaire." [190] Others have questioned the validity of his data, such as the High Court of Justice which argued that there were "nine significant errors" in the film, An Inconvenient Truth.[191] Gore responded by suggesting that the ruling was in his favor.[192] I'm not even sure what the last sentence in that example (taken from the Wiki page) is supposed to imply. Is it denial? Counterpoint? Is it even accurate? The entire article is laden with praise and positive points from top to bottom, with no acknowledgment of the potential for legitimate criticisms. Example: "...some have criticized Gore for his personal use of electricity, stating that he has large electricity bills.[193][194] Gore's spokesperson responded by stating that the Gores use renewable energy which is more expensive than regular energy." First of all, again, I was under the impression that it was discouraged in Wikipedia entries to use such identifiers such as "Some have" as opposed to actually naming who "Some" refers to specifically. But the main point of this quoted text is to say an objective text should not only say that "some" criticize his personal use of electricity and then defend it, but should also acknowledge that it is excessive to own three homes, one of which is over 10,000 square feet, while gathering accolades as a proponent for the individual sacrifices that must be made in the name of fighting global warming and the coming doom he has predicted. Renewable energy or not, environmentally retrofitted or not, a 10,000 square foot house and two additional homes consume much more energy than the needs of the average American citizen he is calling upon to take up the fight against global warming. Bottom line: This article is a spin piece. My suggestion is to remove the criticisms and praise altogether and just leave the actual facts minus the interpretations (opinions) of praise or critique. Don't include undetailed criticisms and it's not necessary to provide undetailed counterpoints. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.196.104.150 (talk) 17:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)  Done I have removed some of the "somes" and added a few specifics on the criticisms and Gore's denials, per this discussion and WP:wta KeptSouth (talk) 08:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC) I agree. In an effort to bring relevant facts to this article, I have edited the Vice Presidential section to describe the $100's of millions in US federal budget cuts made by Clinton & Gore, reducing environmental enforcement and reducing environmental cleanups. For example, the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) site had some of the worst radioactivity and High Explosives contamination in the USA from WW2 and the Cold War. Clinton and Gore cut LANL's Environmental Restoration (ER) Program's budget from it's high of $100 under the first Bush Administration, cut down to a level ($27 million)that supported only govt employee salaries, leaving no money for clean-ups & sampling of contaminated sites across LANL. Clinton-Gore cut federal environmental clean-up spending across the US, as evidenced by the dramatic reduction in sampling at contaminated DOD & DOE sites, causing 2/3 of the US environmental lab community to go out of business between 1993-1998, due to the dramatic drop in federal environmental clean-ups. I was an official at a large environmental lab that did work at all but 2 of the major US DOE sites, and the local and regional DOE officials and scientists were muzzled by their Washington management at the time. While I was working on a multi-million $ drinking water clean-up project in Kiev, Ukraine, Oct 1993, Al Gore personally negotiated visited Kiev and negotiated a deal eliminating the funding local USAID environmental projects, to pay for an agreement for the US to pay $60 million in Ukraine's previous year's unpaid fuel bills in return for "privatization" efforts by Kuchma & the Ukrainian Govt. Our USAID office manager made it very clear that Mr. Gore had to immediately take all of our Ukrainian environmental funding and other Newly Independent State's environmental project's funding to pay for his agreement with Kuchma. For the person who keeps deleting this information, look up the LANL ER budget from 1990 - 2000 and you can read the results for yourself. I currently do not have access to Govt. records, but a simple review of DOE and DOD environmental spending budgets during the Clinton Gore administration will prove the veracity of the facts that Clinton-Gore slashed federal spending on environmental clean-ups at contaminated DOD & DOE sites in an effort to reduce the deficits and balance the budget.The Good Doctor Fry (talk) 23:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC) Removed as unsourced. Please provide reliable sources for additions you make. Vsmith (talk) 23:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC) NY Times December 20, 1994 reported "...senior Clinton Administration officials explained the broad details of proposed budget cuts in energy, transportation and housing programs, ... Of the $10.6 billion the Energy Department has proposed to cut, $4.4 billion is in its environmental budget. " http://www.nytimes.com/1994/12/20/us/president-s-suggested-reductions-face-many-obstacles.html?scp=2&sq=+President+Clinton++%244.4+billion+environmental&st=nyt Does a $4.4 billion dollar planned cut by Clinton Gore, a cut in DOE environmental spending merit mention? I currently am outside the United States and do not have access to Federal Govt. Budget and Los Alamos official records, but I was working there during that period, and the Environmental Restoration budget at LANL was definitely cut from $100 million under the first Bush president, and LANL's environmental clean-ups ground to a halt under Clinton-Gore. A lack of sources does not change the facts. Gore's secret deal with Kuchma that cut US environmental spending in Eastern Europe will be more difficult to document, but no less true. Our company had $1 million and $5 million dollars cut from promised contractual funding on projects that I personally managed.189.148.112.120 (talk) 02:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Another description of Gore-Clinton's ongoing plans slashing environmental clean-up funding: Jan 21, 1996 "Deep in the fine print of President Clinton's seven-year balanced-budget plan is a little zinger that might surprise supporters impressed by his vow to protect education and environmental programs. In the seventh year, Clinton proposes even deeper cuts in domestic programs than Republicans are proposing in their balanced-budget plan. By that time, he would be out of office, even if he were elected to a second term. The $110 billion in cuts in programs subject to annual spending bills, such as education, environment and defense, is the critical element that tips Clinton's plan into balance in 2002. " http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19960121&slug=2309836 It is clear the Clinton-Gore had motive, intent, ability, and authority to cut environmental clean-up spending. Still looking for the written proof with only crummy internet access. Anyone out there interested in something more factual than the current politically-correct but less-than-factual portrayal of Gore's record on environmental spending? I've pointed to the places where Gore actually cut clean-up budgets - who wants to dig (since I have no good shovel)? The Good Doctor Fry (talk) 13:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC) The sentence in the opening segment 'It was the only time in history that the Supreme Court may have determined the outcome of a presidential election.' is inaccurate and biased at best. It should read 'It was the only time in history the Supreme Court was called upon to make a ruling regarding a presidential election.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.76.173.228 (talk) 04:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC) I wanted to comment on the same topic regarding the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court did not "vote" or "determine the outcome", but held that Florida had the right to certify its election results after 3 recounts all showed George W Bush won the election. Please correct this section as it seems terribly partisan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.110.144 (talk) 14:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Agreed! This article shows the worst of Wikipedia. It is way too long, and just one huge love-in. I now understand why it was Al Gore who invented the Internets. Never in history has one man done so much in one lifetime (and he could have another 30 years left in him. God help us! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.175.143 (talk) 06:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC) Where is the information on the Oregon sexual abuse allegations??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.218.227.254 (talk) 18:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC) In the archieves as the case was closed.TMCk (talk) 21:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC) I don't understand there is no mention of the Oregon sexual abusal allegations. Why is this not included in the article? I notice that the articles about Lou Dobbs and Meg Whiteman both substantial sections on allegations of illegal immigrants working for them, but there is no mention of the sexual abuse allegations by Gore. Is this another case of biased reporting in Wikepedia or is there a logical and unbiased explanation of it? A section should be added to the Gore article about the Orgegon allegations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.76.164.99 (talk) 23:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC) This article is extremely biased. It needs to be reworked to abide by Wikepedia standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.76.187.161 (talk) 18:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC) It's being guarded by fans who fiercely remove anything that's not to their liking. The latest proof would be the allegations of Al's affair with Laurie David, which were covered by reliable sources and, as clearly stated in WP:BLP, need to be included in the biography as such. They are being removed without proper explanations, other than "it's tabloidish" (although Wikipedia states that mere pointing at policies or calling something "trivial" or "undue" won't suffice) or "if it contains the word rumor it will be removed on sight". Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Why are those 'fans' then not being blocked and prevented from editing and changing the article?? Doesn't Wikepedia have some basic standards that they must follow? There are many other articles - as I mentioned Lou Dobbs and Meg Whitman - that have 'accusations' which have been leveled at them included in the article. And I would not say the Al Gore article should say 'he raped a woman while in Oregon', but it should include a comment that a police report was submitted to Oregon police. The George W Bush article includes comments about accusations he improperly got excused from the National Guard. We need to stay civil in our discussion, but gross biased changing of articles should not be allowed on Wikepedia - otherwise accusations of its liberal bias will become confirmed and its impact greated reduced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.90.236.158 (talk) 00:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC) I just found something called 'Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents'. At that site you can report and deal with administrators who are acting improperly. They advised that before I report any improper actions to them, that I first discuss it with the administor directly. Therefore, I am writing this to discuss this article with you. This article is very biased. Look through some of the comments and you will see many people expressing grave concern regarding it. If you would like to discuss it we can - otherwise I will report it to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. (Please understand, that is not a 'threat', just wanting to inform you of that ahead of time because I want to be fair to you and deal with this in a proper way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.90.236.158 (talk) 10:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC) Not to mention the blatant lie that Gore never claimed he invented the internet. Any posts proving he made that statement are promptly removed, and even carefully cleand from the Talk pages. Actual Gore quote - In context: on CNN's "Late Edition" March 9, 1999. When asked to describe what distinguished him from Bill Bradley of New Jersey for the Democratic Nomination, Gore replied: "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." That's the exact quote. Gore said it - on national TV, 30 years after the Internet began. The only ones calling this an urban legend are the far-left blogs trying to cover it up. The Wikipedia description of it is nothing but running around finding quotes from people who felt Gore supported commercial expansion of the internet, and completely ignoring that he DID make the above quote. I hop there's no students taking this WP misinformation and liberal re-writing of history at face value in their studies. --216.114.194.20 (talk) 03:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC) You, just like many others, have warped and taken out of context a very old and tired interview. Back away from the dead horse and find something better to do. Tarc (talk) 03:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC) I quoted the EXACT quote IN CONTEXT, in Gore's OWN WORDS. Still not sufficient to get the liberal moderators to stop trying to re-write history, apparently. --216.114.194.20 (talk) 04:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC) Al Gore did not claim to literally be the inventor of the internet; it was a poorly-phrased response on his part to a question which has, again, been warped and taken completely out of context by partisan hacks for years now. Your similarly warped take on the matter will not be appearing in the article. Tarc (talk) 13:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC) You have just exposed exactly the bias I am talking about. You are saying it is up to some WP liberal moderator to make an excuse for Gore's response as "poorly phrased", rather than the article standing on what he actually said. You are saying that a liberal moderator can simply dismiss "inconvenient statements" of their favorite politicians with a wave of a hand, and make an excuse on the part of their hero to keep it out of WP. Is WP's purpose to document the actual statement, or to publish a liberal moderators personal analysis of it? Unbelievable.--216.114.194.20 (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC) Actually, no. Wikipedia's purpose in this article is not to document statements, that's what newspapers are for. Our purpose here in the main article is to write a biographical piece about a person's whole life and career, not to cherrypick one comment that puts an individual in a bad - or a good - light, for some other agenda. (And by describing the editors here as "liberal moderators", you reveal your own biases, which don't belong here.) There is an entire article on Gore's involvement with information technology, clearly linked in the relevant section here, which if you were actually interested in presenting a comprehensive picture of this indivudual, you would have read and seen how detailed its explanation of this faux controversy is. Tarc is right - not here. Tvoz/talk 22:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC) So, a videotape of someone in their own words making a statement is not a reliable citation, but a liberal journalists analysis of it is. So goes the story of WP - poisoning our history.--216.114.194.20 (talk) 23:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC) As I said above, it was a verbal gaffe. No one outside of the truly lunatic believes that Al Gore made a literal claim to have invented the Internet. People have taken his words and used them as a sort of punchline, a source of ridicule. When Dan Quayle said "Republicans understand the importance of bondage between a mother and child", which do you believe; did he advocate for parent-child S&M activity, or did he mean to speak of the importance of parent-child bonds? Tarc (talk) 00:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Sanctions against South Africa

Add something about Gore's pressure on South Africa to stop using AIDS medication that was cheaper than American made medication. I don't care about wikipedia enough to do it but it should not be omitted

If you don't care, why should I? --FormerIP (talk) 00:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Unless you can locate a reliable source that can verify what you assert, there is no point in even mentioning it. What the person who started this section is saying amounts to "I am too lazy to gossip, can you do it for me?" Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Should we remove the nearly full page of discussions...

w/rgd Hagerty's allegations above, per blp?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 02:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Usually that part remains as the discussion reflects what the editors debated in good faith and should be preserved for the record. Eventually it will be archived; ergo, no reason for its deletion. ----moreno oso (talk) 02:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree w/moreno oso that the discussion should not be removed. It could be argued that some of the debate was not in good faith, but why bother?KeptSouth (talk) 07:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

We can archive the talk page whenever we want - this is at the editors' discretion - so yes, we can do it now to satisfy BLP concerns. Note that archiving does preserve it for the record - there is no reason to keep it plain view. And considering the length of this talk page, all the more reason to do a manual archive. (See WP:ARCHIVE). Tvoz/talk 07:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree w/Tvoz - it should all be archived manually, which would preserve it for the record, and satisfy BLP concerns.— KeptSouth (talk) 08:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with all. Another option I'd recommend is {{collapse top}} {{collapse}} {{collapse bottom}} or even better {{hat}} {{hab}} on all the sections with/concerning the BLP issue. HAT/HAB would be preferred. ----moreno oso (talk) 10:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Done - see Talk:Al Gore/Archive 19 Tvoz/talk 16:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Laurie David

The affair rumor was covered (and promptly denied) by several reliable sources, which quote Laurie David herself, as well as some of the Gores' friends. Any good reason for excluding this? Just to remind everyone, pointing at policies won't suffice. Here's a quote from WP:BLP that supports the addition:

• Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but The New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing The New York Times as the source. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 15:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

If you have to preface an edit to a WP:BLP with "It was rumored..." it will in all likelihood be removed. Swiftly. Tarc (talk) 15:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Changed the wording. Now you need to adhere to BLP and leave the addition alone. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Clearly, you haven't... apparently, when BLP is backing me up, the excuse changes to WP:UNDUE. Quote please? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

First, your quote of BLP doesn't apply. Your sources are a mass-market tabloid gossip column (the NYDN) and a web site (the HuffPo), both of them denying a story that appeared in a supermarket tabloid (the Star). Not good enough. Second, the matter is entirely trivial, and not WP:WEIGHTy enough for a necessarily brief biography. The stuff stays out. PhGustaf (talk) 16:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh. Your BLP quote posited that the allegations were published in The New York Times. The allegations were published by Star. Can you perceive the difference? PhGustaf (talk) 17:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Some people have a vague to no idea of what a tabloid is – here's your answer. The NY Daily News has won ten Pulitzer prizes and is widely known as a reliable source. As for the Huffington Post, same applies – well known as reliable. Did you know that some blogs are even used as a source for Google news and such? And as for "the matter is entirely trivial" – how do you back up this claim? Oh, and by the way, the New York times is only used as an example for any source. I can remove the Star magazine reference – it still leaves two reliable sources that published the allegation. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Your NYDN cite is from their gossip column, which didn't win no Pulitzers. The allegation, as opposed to its denials, appeared only in the Star (which you, to your credit, didn't cite), which likely once asserted Gore was an alien. PhGustaf (talk) 17:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually it was mentioned in the New York Times here. But, as Hear said, the NYT is simply used as an example. You're not suggesting that the NYT is the only reliable source that can be used in Wikipedia, are you? The Huffington Post has been deemed reliable on WP:RSN Drrll (talk) 17:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm by no means asserting that the NYT is the only good source, and I agree that HuffPo is good too. I'm just pointing out that the original assertion, as opposed to its denials, appeared only in the Star. Tarc's point below is sound as well. Sorry for being so unclear. PhGustaf (talk) 17:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

That's true about the denials being in the HuffPo & NYT, but not the accusations. My question is whether there is WP policy that prohibits using gossip columns of otherwise reliable sources like the NYDN. BTW, based upon the WP:BLP policy quoted by Hear and based on the fact that accusations were widely reported in reliable sources, the Oregon sexual assault charges should be included (of course with the denials and with the news that the DA dropped the case). Drrll (talk) 17:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether there's a formal policy about it, but good judgment would preclude using gossip columns as sources about, well, gossip, which is what this matter is. We discussed the Oregon matter before and decided to leave it out, but apparently someone took the discussion out as WP:BLP in itself. PhGustaf (talk) 18:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess I understand that, but I'm a little disappointed in a way as the Oregon incident (whatever it was) was clearly alluded to in the last episode of The Good Wife so I was interested in a refresher on the actual facts of it.--T. Anthony (talk) 00:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing alone isn't the issue; not everything that is printed by a reliable source is fit for inclusion in an article, as noted above by WP:UNDUE, which serves as a barrier for reprinting every gossip, innuendo, charge, and rumor about public figures in their respective Wikipedia articles. Tarc (talk) 17:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It's an excuse. I specifically cited BLP for such cases, you're just repeating the words "undue" and "weight". Perhaps WP:Arguments to avoid would be a good refresher for all those who insist on excluding this piece of information. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

We simply don't give weight to fringe rumours in wikipedia articles, especially biographies. And since we're not having a deletion discussion here, a pointer to that page is, um, pointless. Tarc (talk) 18:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

So why is it a "fringe rumor" – other than a collection of personal opinions? WP:BLP allows affair allegations to be included in biographies, as long as they are covered by reliable sources, and here you can see at least three. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Apple Inc?

Hi, this article is protected, I cannot modify it. Could someone please remove the link to "Book:Apple Inc" at the end of the article? It has nothing to do with Al Gore. Thanks 62.168.34.2 (talk) 08:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

As a member of Apple's Board of Directors, this article is included in the Apple, Inc. book; thus the link at the end of the article. Rishi.bedi (talk) 05:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Futurama

Al Gore provides the voice for himself in the TV show Futurama. Should this be mentioned, and if so, then where? --Kierkk (talk) 01:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest a list of Gore's media endeavors, i.e writing and appearances. There is a brief sampling in the fourth paragraph at the opening of the article, but no comprehensive list.

Beside his more serious contributions, his work on Futurama puts him in the same class as full-time media professionals. Kid Bugs (talk) 03:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

TED talks

This article doesn't mention Al Gore's association with TED. Could someone add it, please? Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 12:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Isn't It True That?

Isn't it true that Gore dropped out of law school with failing grades (i.e., that he had to drop out before flunking out)? Wikipedia generally favors the liberal viewpoint, so perhaps this was edited out of the article, but it would be better to simply print the facts rather than spin them to make Gore look more scholarly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.149.170 (talk) 00:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Surely instead of whining, you could find a reliable source to cite this and add it? Dainamo (talk) 18:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Supreme Court Deciding the ELection

This article says "It was the only time in history that the Supreme Court may have determined the outcome of a presidential election." I'm not sure if this is 100% true, since some Supreme Court justices helped decide the results of the 1876 presidential election. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.235.28.77 (talk) 02:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The sentence should be removed regardless. With the 'may' is obviously is admitting it is not factual. It could say something like: The election was the first time in history where the Supreme Court was called up to make a ruling regarding a presidential election. Though even that I am not sure is true. Rodchen (talk) 01:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

This sentence is clearly a political one. To expand on what the Supreme Court ruled on would be appropriate, but you chose to instead only include a shortened version, which makes it seem like the Supreme Court 'gave' the presidency to George W Bush. The Court ruled that the Florida Supreme Court's method for recounting ballots was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, that is the hand picking of what areas to recount. Only solidly democratic ones, and not republican ones? I think a proper sentence should be something like " The Supreme Court ruled that the recounting ballots in only solidly democratic districts was a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th ammendment. The hand recounts did go on however, under the direction of various media outlets, who found that even after 3 subsequent times, that George W Bush still won the election" By the way, I got all this information from searching individual Wikipedia pages... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.113.199 (talk) 18:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Dr Mahathir Mohamed & Anwar Ibrahim

Dr Mahathir bin Mohamed was Prime Minister of Malaysia from 1981 to 2003, but he was never President as Malaysia is not a republic but a constitutional monarchy.

Anwar bin Ibrahim was Dr Mahathir's deputy from 1993 to 1998. The "bin" in these two names means "son of" and is not part of a surname. Malays have no surnames. Therefore, a Malay name should always be shortened to the first name rather than the last name, because the last name would be the father's name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.82.82.24 (talk) 14:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Infidelity

Remember right around when Gore was breaking up with his wife there was the accusation that he sexually assaulted a massage therapist? This seems like it was big news and should be included in his Wiki bio. JettaMann (talk) 21:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC) http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20396495,00.html

Tabloid rubbish does not belong in and will not go into Wikipedia articles. This isn't TMZ. Tarc (talk) 21:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The media only reported the allegations, no one reported that he was guilty of anything. It wasn't just TMZ and the tabloids making the reports either.--JOJ ^Hutton 21:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Roswell Incident

Al Gore was born exactly nine months after the Roswell Crash. If I can find some reliable sources, can I include this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.48.166 (talk) 01:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Only if you can find a reliable source that says that this coincidence was somehow relevant to Gore's career. PhGustaf (talk) 01:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

some resources related to http://climaterealityproject.org/

• http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/climte-reality-project-2011 Sept 14, 2011 Climate Reality Project Begins 24-Hour Blitz Tonight; Al Gore's latest effort to catalyze political will to address climate change is dubbed "24 Hours of Reality."
• http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/20110921-NEWS-109210336 September 21, 2011 York gathers for climate event; Online stream sparks debate, call for action among viewers
• http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/15/seeking-reality-on-climate/ September 15, 2011, Seeking Reality on Climate by Andrew C. Revkin
• http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/a-climate-reality-presenter-weighs-gore-project/ 20.Sept 2011 A ‘Climate Reality’ Presenter Weighs Gore Project by Andrew C. Revkin
• http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2011/09/15/climate-reality-project/ Climate Reality Project by Bill Hewitt on Foreignpolicyblogs September 15th, 2011
• http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011/09/climate-reality-videos-doubt-climate101-grassroots.php Must-See Climate Reality Videos: 'Doubt', 'Climate 101', and 'Grassroots' by Brian Merchant on TreeHugger 09.16.11
• http://vimeo.com/29107248 Doubt by The Climate Reality Project
• http://blogs.nature.com/news/2011/09/invited_guests_weigh_in_on_al_1.html September 16, 2011 Nature (journal)
• http://thinkprogress.org/green/2011/09/15/320480/exclusive-look-behind-climate-reality-maggie-fox-on-glaciers-people-and-climate-action/ Exclusive Look Behind Climate Reality: Maggie Fox On Glaciers, People, And Climate Action by Brad Johnson on Sep 15, 2011 on Think Progress
• http://blogs.worldwatch.org/nourishingtheplanet/tune-in-to-24-hours-of-reality/ on Worldwatch
• http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/7265 by Ben Jervey 17 September 2011 "Doubt" Video On Fossil Fuel Industry's Tobacco PR Tactics To Undermine Science on DeSmogBlog

99.181.130.172 (talk) 03:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's another After 24 Hours of Climate Reality, What Comes Next? September 16, 2011 on Good (magazine) 99.181.130.172 (talk) 03:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Is any of those a reliable source. Most are clearly not. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The Portsmouth Herald is seacoastonline.com 97.87.29.188 (talk) 17:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

NYTimes 99.190.87.246 (talk) 03:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

New York Times blogs. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Climate Reality Project wp article created. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

arpanet

apparently before being shipped off to vietnam he worked for darpa...... i remember reading this in one of my comp sci books, showing a picture of an apparently young al gore sitting next to a sign that said darpa. yes on the internet. 64.121.14.115 (talk) 11:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Semi Protected for six months

This BLP has been semi-protected for 6 months. Semi-protection prevents edits from unregistered users (IP addresses), as well as edits from any account that is not autoconfirmed (is at least four days old and has ten or more edits to Wikipedia) or confirmed. Such users can request edits to a semi-protected page by proposing them on its talk page, using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template if necessary to gain attention. You can also alternatively make your edit request at Wikipedia:Request for edit. New users may also request the confirmed user right by visiting Requests for permissions. Administrators may apply indefinite semi-protection to pages like this which are subject to heavy and persistent vandalism.

• Please contact me directly on my talk page for any assistance. Wifione ^Message 09:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Screaming Picture

Why don't we have that picture of Al Gore screaming in front of MoveOn.org? That was a major speech of his. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LutzaButza (talk • contribs) 19:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

in the lead, in the 5th paragraph, the wikilink to "An inconvenient truth" should go to An Inconvenient Truth (book) because the grammy award was for the book reading or something i think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.206.237 (talk • contribs)

Done - with this edit. Thank you. Begoon ^talk 17:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Another request: (may have been addressed in 2000) I suggest the 2nd sentence of the article be changed to: He was the Democratic Party's nominee for President in 2000, and became the fourth candidate to lose the electoral vote and win the popular vote. ("despite" is incorrect because electoral vote determines winner, not popular vote) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.153.24.99 (talk) 02:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Missing: Al Gore i member of the board of directors at Apple Inc.

62.107.219.125 (talk) 23:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Of value here, from Simon–Ehrlich wager#Other wagers?

In recent years, there have been many bets and bet challenges related to global warming. For instance, J. Scott Armstrong challenged Al Gore to a climate-related bet in 2007 that focused on year-to-year variation in temperatures but not on betting over longer term changes in global average temperatures.

99.109.126.11 (talk) 07:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Asperger's Syndrome

Does anyone know if it is true that he has it. If he does, it might be worth mentioning. Then again, it might not. If he does indeed have it, someone else can decide whether it should be mentioned in this article or not.

65.214.69.226 (talk) 05:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

AFAIK there is no proof that he does, and I doubt it'd be of great interest. I don't think it's worth worrying about.  — TORTOISEWRATH 01:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Category to add

There is a category to add on the page: Category:Honorary degree recipients from the École polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne. Thanks! S. D. Évid (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC).

See also

Perhaps add Eduardo Braga in the see also section; he's called the "Brazilian Al Gore" KVDP (talk) 12:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I changed the wording on his Tennessee home's electricity use from "high amounts of electricity" to the more accurate "more than 20 times as much electricity as the national average."

The article had stated that Gore was criticized because his Tennessee home used "high amounts of electricity."

I changed this to the more accurate "more than 20 times as much electricity as the national average."

I made this change for two reasons.

First, all of the sources specifically cited the fact that his home used more than 20 times as much electricity as the national average.

Second, the wording "high amounts" is more of an opinion, whereas the wording "more than 20 times as much electricity as the national average" is a reliably sourced fact.

Chucky Cheerio (talk) 02:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Lawrencekhoo reverted my edit, and commented, "Overweight for a minor factoid."

I disagree with this revert, because #1 Wikipedia articles are supposed to reflect the source, and #2 "more than 20 times as much" is a fact, whereas "high amount" is an opinion.

I also have to question the meaning of User:Lawrencekhoo's comment. How is it "overweight" to have the article match what the source says?

I am in favor of reverting User:Lawrencekhoo's reversion of my edit, but I would like to hear what other editors think before I do this.

Chucky Cheerio (talk) 20:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how either edit gives more weight versus the other. The issue I think is whether mentioning that Gore's home uses a lot of energy (whether a "high amount" or a specific measure) is WP:UNDUE (it isn't); how it's said is not really an issue, and I prefer Chucky Cheerio's more accurate revision, simply because it's more accurate. The rest of the section balances this POV, regardless of how it's stated. However, I would like to hear from Lawrencekhoo and I have not made any changes. Ivanvector (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Criticism needs update re. Sale to oil emirate by former U.S. vice president and Current TV founder Al Gore. Gore reportedly making an estimated $70 million for his 20 percent stake selling his progressive cable network to Al Jazeera. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbgfour (talk • contribs) 01:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Criticism update

Criticism needs update re. Sale to oil emirate by former U.S. vice president and Current TV founder Al Gore. Gore reportedly making an estimated $70 million for his 20 percent stake selling his progressive cable network to Al Jazeera. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbgfour (talk • contribs) 01:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

environmentalism

the environmentalism section says he began speaking on the topic of global warming in 1976, and continued to "through the 1980s." he is still active in the topic of global warming, so shouldn't it say that he continued to speak about it through the 2000s? it's possible i'm misunderstanding something. if no one has any objections, i will make that change. let me know please. GoGatorMeds (talk) 18:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

gay rights

gore voiced his position against gay marriage in the 1980s, but in 2008 he showed his support of gay marriage. the article only contained the information of him speaking against it, so i added a sentence explaining his opinion change. i think its important to have this information, especially based on the fact this is a biography of a living person. let me know if you have any questions. GoGatorMeds (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit requests for protected redirects to this page

On these pages, could the following text:

[[Category:Protected redirects]]

...please be replaced with the following text:

{{R fully protected}}

...so that the redirect is is put into the category via a tranclusion in an Rcat template rather than a category transclusion? Thanks! Steel1943 (talk) 07:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The Abortion Issue

I seem to recall that before his 1988 presidential run Gore was very pro-life, but by 1992 he was openly pro-choice. In any case, this issue should be discussed.Carpo- Rusyn (talk) 09:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

controversy

We need a section on controversies. This page is almost uniformly positive. As an example, there used to be a mention on here of the controversy surrounding his public declaration that he created the internet. That's been wiped, and now I see a small section on criticism involving his environmental stances, in which every criticism ends with a decidedly pro-Gore counterpoint. One could say, for example, that Gore dodged the question on nine inaccuracies in his film when his reply was "the court ruled in my favor." That's not a counterpoint unless you're a defendent. It does not actually answer the question, but this article ends the critical discussion with Gore having "the last word." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.151 (talk) 17:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Did he invent the internet?

Unclear even after I read the wikipedia article.

I deem it a bad article because this is an important question. Did he or didn't he? Is it a joke? Or he really did co-invent it? I am almost certain he didn't invent it single handedly but this WP article gives no clue.

Please address!

Eating Glass Is Bad (talk) 16:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

No, Gore did not invent the internet. That issue is addressed in detail in this section and here as well.--JayJasper (talk) 16:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. The second link is a completely different WP article. The first link doesn't answer the question too well....did he or didn't he? But it starts to answer it. Eating Glass Is Bad (talk) 21:25, 16 November 2014 (UTC) |

There should be a section on Al and Tipper's involvement with the pmrc

Surely Al Gore's involvement with what was basically sensorship and an attempt to violate the first amendment is relevant infomation for someone who came very close to being POTUS. It was not just his wife Tipper's project, Al took a very active stance in all three congressional hearings with artists Frank Zappa, John Denver and Dee Snyder (see youtube). Many liberals decided to vote for Ralph Nader instead of Gore as president because of this, thus seriously impacting U.S. and world history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.101.39.252 (talk) 23:28, 27 December 2014 (UTC)