This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
The article is blank and is locked. Why is this?
Issue here is the sole focus on Gores loss in 2000 as it relates to ballots in one state. Reality is a candidate needs to get the electoral votes of many states to gain the office. How did campaign strategy affect the electoral outcomes would be another subject that should be addressed here as well. Some 9 years later I cannot recall which states Gore focused at the end, nor can I recall which states he pulled support out of with that strategy in the final weeks. But I do recall reports near the end of focusing his campaign to a few regions.
Case I think should be addressed specifically is that of Tennessee. An issue in my mind is bigger than the perceptions of Florida. A major party candidate failing to to win his home state. This has to be a story compelling enough to be included. A state where he was a multi term Rep and Senator. What changed?
Another issue, not as big in my mind is affect of "other party candidates". Refer to "United States presidential election, 2000" as linked here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000 for how this is handled.
Only thing I feel is omitted from "United States presidential election, 2000" are hard numbers. They provided the percentages for each state. But as each status has varied populations and voter turn out, is hard to put the percentage in perspective.
"Recount
On election night, news networks first called Florida for Gore, later retracted the projection, and then called Florida for Bush, before finally retracting that projection as well.[122] Florida's Republican Secretary of State, Katherine Harris, eventually certified Florida's vote count.[123] This led to the Florida election recount, a move to further examine the Florida results.[124]
The Florida recount was stopped a few weeks later by the Supreme Court of the United States. In the ruling, Bush v. Gore, the Florida recount was called unconstitutional and that no constitutionally valid recount could be completed by the December 12 deadline, effectively ending the recounts. This 7-2 vote ruled that the standards the Florida Supreme Court provided for a recount were unconstitutional due to violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and further ruled 5-4 that no constitutionally valid recount could be completed by the December 12 deadline. This case ordered an end to recounting underway in selected Florida counties, effectively giving George W. Bush a 537[125] vote victory in Florida and consequently Florida's 25 electoral votes and the presidency.[126] The results of the decision led to Gore winning the popular vote by approximately 500,000 votes nationwide, but receiving 266 electoral votes to Bush's 271 (1 District of Columbia Elector abstained).[127] On December 13, 2000, Gore conceded the election.[128] Gore strongly disagreed with the Court's decision, but in his concession speech stated that, "for the sake of our unity as a people and the strength of our democracy, I offer my concession."[129]
The 2000 election is the subject of a 2008 made-for-TV movie directed by Jay Roach, produced by, and starring Kevin Spacey called Recount. It premiered on the HBO cable network on May 25, 2008.[130]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.122.47 ( talk) 05:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Of course the place to correct this would be to add information to the article 2000 presidential election (so it could be summarized into this article). Note there are also articles for Bush v. Gore and Florida election recount—that would help explain distribution of information here in those contexts.
Of course it is also true that what anyone says about why he lost in Tennessee is going to be speculation, while the basis of stopping the voting in Florida was clearly articulated (whether one agrees with the rationales or not etc).
BOTTOM LINE Florida was where the drama was. Florida is where things could have been different ... by the decision of a few. etc etc. But, yes, there are other things that could be said ... and perhaps those should be added first in the 2000 presidential election article and then summarized here. Proofreader77 ( talk) 01:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
"United States" is incorrectly abbreviated in each of the first two paragraphs of this article. "US" and "U. S." should be edited to read "U.S." 264356triv ( talk) 22:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Can this article really be considered complete without reference to Al Gore's engagement in hunting and killing ManBearPig??-- Achim ( talk) 03:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
i couldn't find it, but there doesn't seem to be mentions of Al Gore in the film/tv industry. Like his appearances in film and tv: 30 rock, Futurama, etc. Why isn't this here? IAmTheCoinMan ( talk) 21:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Seems there's a mini edit-war over whether a few websites criticizing Gore for incorrectly stating that the center of the Earth is millions of degrees is noteworthy or appropriate for mention in Wikipedia. I'd say no for various reasons, primarily it's generally just a bunch of whining rather than valid criticism. Newsbusters, Newsmax, WND, Drudge, and a host of other sites criticize just about everything any Democrat has ever said or done. We could, if we wanted to, make almost every political biographic article a grocery list of critiques of everything the subject said or did, down to Obama's choice of beer at the "Beer Summit", and we could source it all. However, that makes for one godawful article. This is not the first time, nor the last, a politician got their facts wrong (or maybe simply misspoke; there is a chance, I suppose, he meant to say "thousands") and we are not in the business of chronicling every single one. Al Gore said something that was incorrect. Whoop-de-doo. If it were something terribly significant, and real sources (not these mountains-out-of-molehill sites that solely exist to attack everything their political opponents do) picked up on it do any real degree, we'd have something that quite possibly would warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia article. But we don't, because it's trivial. Besides, his main point is that geothermal energy should be pursued, and even though the Earth's interior isn't millions of degrees, geothermal energy can still work in certain areas. - R. fiend ( talk) 17:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Reminder (or informing) I added that subtopic *to visually illustrate* that the amount of criticism was *out of proportion.* The situation is now worse than it was then.
(Also note that Environmental activism topic is supposed to be a summary of the article Al Gore and the environment where information should be added first, then summarized here -- in proportion). Bottom line: the "criticism" subtopic was not added to be a collector of criticism, but to help allow visual inspection of proportionality. Proofreader77 ( talk) 20:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
In the first sentence of the article as it stands, it says 'Albert Arnold "Al" Gore, Jr. (born March 31, 1948) is the former 45th Vice President of the United States'. Has there been more than one 45th VPOTUS? Either former or 45th makes sense, but not really both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.246.142 ( talk) 08:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
This article in the Times has created some buzz about Gore's speech at Copenhagen:
The article cites a statement Gore made which was then questioned by a scientist. A number of media outlets have picked up this Times article.
However, this link from the North County Times contradicts the report above:
Thus, I'm not sure if any of this belongs in the article but in the event that someone thinks it does, we need to get all of the facts right. - Classicfilms ( talk) 18:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I have reverted both because of the assertion implied is that the article is not neutral because there is not a seperate "Controversy and criticism" section about Al Gore.
If the neutrality tag is reinserted, then a talk page topic should be begun by the person placing the tag expressing their reasons for placing the tag.
I will address the matter at greater length if there are questions. Proofreader77 ( talk) 20:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
There should be more then one point of view on all the topics discussed, as this can be considered a praise of the person the article is about rather then a source of information. A "Controversy and criticism" section should be added for each portion of the wiki that needs it. There have been some good points of view on this article on the talk page with reference that should be added by someone better at coding than me. I am referring mainly to the "Environmental activism and Nobel Peace Prize". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scoobertjoo ( talk • contribs) 20 September 2009
Compare proportionality of "Environmental activism vs Environmental criticism"
| ||
---|---|---|
|
By moving the criticism to its own subsection, the relative proportionality should be clear. NOTE: The whole environmental section here should be a summary of the article Al Gore and the environment. That is not what we have now. Large chunks of criticism have been nearly copy-pasted into main article—making the criticism out of proportion (even if not all that people would like mentioned is mentioned).
What next? What we have is out of proportion and should be summarized. As for new elements of criticism, that should be developed in Al Gore and the environment, and THEN summarized here.
NOTE: If you are waiting for passages about Bjorn Lomberg before removing the POV tag from this article, that is an inappropriate demand. See if an NPOV addition to the main article Al Gore and the environment can be composed (then we can summarize here—there'll be more room once current utility bill overload is appropriately summarized). Find sources, including those that might illuminate why Gore will not debate him. etc. etc. Proofreader77 ( talk) 10:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Please see Template:POV-check for information which must be added here to support the tag:
If such information is not added by 11/23, tag will be removed. Proofreader77 ( talk) 01:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
The article is blank and is locked. Why is this?
Issue here is the sole focus on Gores loss in 2000 as it relates to ballots in one state. Reality is a candidate needs to get the electoral votes of many states to gain the office. How did campaign strategy affect the electoral outcomes would be another subject that should be addressed here as well. Some 9 years later I cannot recall which states Gore focused at the end, nor can I recall which states he pulled support out of with that strategy in the final weeks. But I do recall reports near the end of focusing his campaign to a few regions.
Case I think should be addressed specifically is that of Tennessee. An issue in my mind is bigger than the perceptions of Florida. A major party candidate failing to to win his home state. This has to be a story compelling enough to be included. A state where he was a multi term Rep and Senator. What changed?
Another issue, not as big in my mind is affect of "other party candidates". Refer to "United States presidential election, 2000" as linked here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000 for how this is handled.
Only thing I feel is omitted from "United States presidential election, 2000" are hard numbers. They provided the percentages for each state. But as each status has varied populations and voter turn out, is hard to put the percentage in perspective.
"Recount
On election night, news networks first called Florida for Gore, later retracted the projection, and then called Florida for Bush, before finally retracting that projection as well.[122] Florida's Republican Secretary of State, Katherine Harris, eventually certified Florida's vote count.[123] This led to the Florida election recount, a move to further examine the Florida results.[124]
The Florida recount was stopped a few weeks later by the Supreme Court of the United States. In the ruling, Bush v. Gore, the Florida recount was called unconstitutional and that no constitutionally valid recount could be completed by the December 12 deadline, effectively ending the recounts. This 7-2 vote ruled that the standards the Florida Supreme Court provided for a recount were unconstitutional due to violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and further ruled 5-4 that no constitutionally valid recount could be completed by the December 12 deadline. This case ordered an end to recounting underway in selected Florida counties, effectively giving George W. Bush a 537[125] vote victory in Florida and consequently Florida's 25 electoral votes and the presidency.[126] The results of the decision led to Gore winning the popular vote by approximately 500,000 votes nationwide, but receiving 266 electoral votes to Bush's 271 (1 District of Columbia Elector abstained).[127] On December 13, 2000, Gore conceded the election.[128] Gore strongly disagreed with the Court's decision, but in his concession speech stated that, "for the sake of our unity as a people and the strength of our democracy, I offer my concession."[129]
The 2000 election is the subject of a 2008 made-for-TV movie directed by Jay Roach, produced by, and starring Kevin Spacey called Recount. It premiered on the HBO cable network on May 25, 2008.[130]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.122.47 ( talk) 05:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Of course the place to correct this would be to add information to the article 2000 presidential election (so it could be summarized into this article). Note there are also articles for Bush v. Gore and Florida election recount—that would help explain distribution of information here in those contexts.
Of course it is also true that what anyone says about why he lost in Tennessee is going to be speculation, while the basis of stopping the voting in Florida was clearly articulated (whether one agrees with the rationales or not etc).
BOTTOM LINE Florida was where the drama was. Florida is where things could have been different ... by the decision of a few. etc etc. But, yes, there are other things that could be said ... and perhaps those should be added first in the 2000 presidential election article and then summarized here. Proofreader77 ( talk) 01:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
"United States" is incorrectly abbreviated in each of the first two paragraphs of this article. "US" and "U. S." should be edited to read "U.S." 264356triv ( talk) 22:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Can this article really be considered complete without reference to Al Gore's engagement in hunting and killing ManBearPig??-- Achim ( talk) 03:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
i couldn't find it, but there doesn't seem to be mentions of Al Gore in the film/tv industry. Like his appearances in film and tv: 30 rock, Futurama, etc. Why isn't this here? IAmTheCoinMan ( talk) 21:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Seems there's a mini edit-war over whether a few websites criticizing Gore for incorrectly stating that the center of the Earth is millions of degrees is noteworthy or appropriate for mention in Wikipedia. I'd say no for various reasons, primarily it's generally just a bunch of whining rather than valid criticism. Newsbusters, Newsmax, WND, Drudge, and a host of other sites criticize just about everything any Democrat has ever said or done. We could, if we wanted to, make almost every political biographic article a grocery list of critiques of everything the subject said or did, down to Obama's choice of beer at the "Beer Summit", and we could source it all. However, that makes for one godawful article. This is not the first time, nor the last, a politician got their facts wrong (or maybe simply misspoke; there is a chance, I suppose, he meant to say "thousands") and we are not in the business of chronicling every single one. Al Gore said something that was incorrect. Whoop-de-doo. If it were something terribly significant, and real sources (not these mountains-out-of-molehill sites that solely exist to attack everything their political opponents do) picked up on it do any real degree, we'd have something that quite possibly would warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia article. But we don't, because it's trivial. Besides, his main point is that geothermal energy should be pursued, and even though the Earth's interior isn't millions of degrees, geothermal energy can still work in certain areas. - R. fiend ( talk) 17:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Reminder (or informing) I added that subtopic *to visually illustrate* that the amount of criticism was *out of proportion.* The situation is now worse than it was then.
(Also note that Environmental activism topic is supposed to be a summary of the article Al Gore and the environment where information should be added first, then summarized here -- in proportion). Bottom line: the "criticism" subtopic was not added to be a collector of criticism, but to help allow visual inspection of proportionality. Proofreader77 ( talk) 20:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
In the first sentence of the article as it stands, it says 'Albert Arnold "Al" Gore, Jr. (born March 31, 1948) is the former 45th Vice President of the United States'. Has there been more than one 45th VPOTUS? Either former or 45th makes sense, but not really both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.246.142 ( talk) 08:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
This article in the Times has created some buzz about Gore's speech at Copenhagen:
The article cites a statement Gore made which was then questioned by a scientist. A number of media outlets have picked up this Times article.
However, this link from the North County Times contradicts the report above:
Thus, I'm not sure if any of this belongs in the article but in the event that someone thinks it does, we need to get all of the facts right. - Classicfilms ( talk) 18:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I have reverted both because of the assertion implied is that the article is not neutral because there is not a seperate "Controversy and criticism" section about Al Gore.
If the neutrality tag is reinserted, then a talk page topic should be begun by the person placing the tag expressing their reasons for placing the tag.
I will address the matter at greater length if there are questions. Proofreader77 ( talk) 20:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
There should be more then one point of view on all the topics discussed, as this can be considered a praise of the person the article is about rather then a source of information. A "Controversy and criticism" section should be added for each portion of the wiki that needs it. There have been some good points of view on this article on the talk page with reference that should be added by someone better at coding than me. I am referring mainly to the "Environmental activism and Nobel Peace Prize". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scoobertjoo ( talk • contribs) 20 September 2009
Compare proportionality of "Environmental activism vs Environmental criticism"
| ||
---|---|---|
|
By moving the criticism to its own subsection, the relative proportionality should be clear. NOTE: The whole environmental section here should be a summary of the article Al Gore and the environment. That is not what we have now. Large chunks of criticism have been nearly copy-pasted into main article—making the criticism out of proportion (even if not all that people would like mentioned is mentioned).
What next? What we have is out of proportion and should be summarized. As for new elements of criticism, that should be developed in Al Gore and the environment, and THEN summarized here.
NOTE: If you are waiting for passages about Bjorn Lomberg before removing the POV tag from this article, that is an inappropriate demand. See if an NPOV addition to the main article Al Gore and the environment can be composed (then we can summarize here—there'll be more room once current utility bill overload is appropriately summarized). Find sources, including those that might illuminate why Gore will not debate him. etc. etc. Proofreader77 ( talk) 10:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Please see Template:POV-check for information which must be added here to support the tag:
If such information is not added by 11/23, tag will be removed. Proofreader77 ( talk) 01:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)