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 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Al_Gore article:
Additionally, there are some other articles which may be able to linked to this one (also known as "backlinks"):
Notes: The article text has not been changed in any way; Some of these suggestions may be wrong, some may be right.
Feedback:
I like it,
I hate it,
Please don't link to —
LinkBot 11:27, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Why does this article make no mention of the "lock box"? Timan123 16:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
How about a picture of the historically significant beard he grew after the election and why? A Secret Service suggestion? It really reminded me of the role in " Amerika" of Kris Kristofferson
There was a speech by Al Gore a year or two ago concerning the use of fear in politics post-9/11. In it, he coined the phrase "amygdala politics". I wanted to add a reference to this in the "recent speeches" list, but I can't seem to find an online source for the text of the speech. Does anyone know where one can be found?-- 12.15.238.50 23:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to add that Al Gore was on the Charlie Rose Show last week, but the article doesn't seem editable. Am I mistaken? Thanks.
I'd like to make a correction: Gore's latest appearance on Late Show with David Letterman was Fri June 23, not June 8.
From 'Views and Controversies': "His views on environmental policy have been cast in the media as politically radical and Canada hating." Any documentation there? I googled "Al Gore Canada Controversy" and found a Wikipedia article stating that in a 2000 poll, Canadians said that they would vote for Gore over Bush by a 20% margin.
Recent edits were by me, my first contribution to wikipedia, hope it's appreciated. Just noticed the account creation option after making edits.
Brief summary of changes:
1) Margin of 537 votes on which the election hung out of approx 105 million was astonishingly close.
2) Article presented only one side of the significant controversies surrounding the election and the recounts.
3) Statement was made that if a statewide recount had been made, Gore "would have" won the election. The cited source does NOT state OR support this conclusion; it states very clearly that Gore "MIGHT" have won. Huge difference there.
From intro: "He is also considered by many political pundits to be a front runner for the 2008 Democratic nomination if he decides to run." I haven't seen this opinion expressed anywhere, and I don't think history really supports it. Unless this has some backing, I think it should be removed. -- Twinxor 03:40, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Opinions on Gore in 2008:
Also, there have been other columnists and pundits who have said that if Gore was to run, he would be the frontrunner. I think it is common logic to realize that. If he and Hillary were both to run, they each would be frontrunners. Notice, the sentence did not say the frontrunner, but a frontrunner, which is gramatically correct. ChrisDJackson
Al Gore presidential campaigns and add any useful information you have. It's basically just a stub right now. Thank you.
Mean temp was lower in 1968,'94 - check noaa.gov tables. Minimum temperature isn’t displayed at (that part of?) the site, did reach its minimum in 1957 indeed and was 2oF on January 15, 2004 (according to Weather Underground (an amusingly named site) — which is, yes, why climate change/catastr. cc is more the issue than is global warming. Emphasizing the latter inapplicable, at best misleading, terminology does seem to make one a cheap target without doubt. Schissel‐ bowl listen 15:43, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
Whoops, I misinterpreted (time for me to reread that, yes. Ah. 'The coldest day in New York City in decades'. No, that it was not. I suppose to be charitable, it may have felt that way, though I hadn't been in NY City for a few weeks at the time. Equally irrelevant either way.) what was being said, actually (egg on face..) I thought that all that was being claimed, was that this was the coldest January 15 (measured by lowest temperature) in 47 years. (For which I know of no evidence but would be interested. If measured by mean temperature, instead of lowest temperature, it's not true, for which see evidence at noaa.gov, going to their climate data for NY City.) Schissel‐ bowl listen 02:52, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
Comment general but also for Mr. Jackson... As to the adding of a long section that still should best go under/link to Global warming controversy I can only say for myself that I should think adding a response to the Washington Times article, that they were simply factually mistaken, is enough for this article. That their charges were also irrelevant, (I happen to agree there. And egomaniac that I am, nevertheless that is also irrelevant, no?) can be pointed out — and debated too.. — in the other article, not in the one on Al Gore... Schissel‐ bowl listen 15:35, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
No contribution, just a comment to an edit summary: "We are not putting about the coldest day crap. That is right wing propoganda. Anyone who knows about Glob. Warming knows that is part of the process."
Yeah, true, but then again, some of us feel that global warming itself is left wing propaganda, so good job with that one. -- Golbez 19:13, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
And if you really think global warming is left-wing propaganda, you're a moron on the wrong side of science.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36624 http://www.cnsnews.com/Politics/Archive/200401/POL20040115e.html
It did happen to be one of the coldest days, its a fact, how can that be propoganda?
It is an irrelevant piece of information. Here is an example "John was born in Florida, it was 75 degrees outside"
It may not be relevent to the article -- but BOY is it funny! Hey, can we add in the fact that at the Cannes opening of his Loony Left propaganda movie, he and his entire MOTORCADE actually had the gall to DRIVE a frickin' HALF OF A MILE. Is that sort of obvious hypocrisy a little to non-NPOV? LOL. A half-mile. The whole motorcade. Saving the environment! Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha oh you leftist sheeple are funny.
Ideologues think that anything that undermines or contradicts their agenda is propaganda put forth by their opponents. Doesn't matter if it's factual or not, or even where the ideologue is on the political spectrum...
And it doesn't matter if global warming has been proven to exist. If it sounds like a really bad thing, then we have to treat it as if it definitely exists, just because of the gravity of the situation, hypothetical or not. There are ideologues on both sides of the issue.
I know this has been discussed before, but that discussion in now in an archive, so I'd like to bring it up again. This page is now 42KB, well above the 32KB recommended for a page. I attempted to split off the Vice Presidency section, but that only shrank the page by 5KB. Additionally, the real space hog is the 2000 Presidential election. There currently exists an article, Al Gore presidential campaign, 2000 which covers this topic. Most of the information here is duplicated there. Why can't we simply move any non-redundant content there and convert the 2000 Presidential election section to See Al Gore presidential campaign, 2000. — DLJessup 22:12, 2004 Dec 25 (UTC)
Mr. Jackson, I am not the only person to complain about this. As you will note from my previous comment, the size of the article was discussed in March 2004 — which you know, because you participated in that discussion. Moreover, the wiki itself complains about articles that get over 32KB in size, which is why I noticed the problem in the first place.
I am definitely not trying to destroy content. I am trying to relocate content and remove duplication of content. What is the point of having a really in-depth discussion of Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign here when there is already an article specifically discussing Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign? It's much better to keep all this information in one place, if only so that the reader doesn't have to shuttle back-and-forth between that article and this just to get all the facts.
Finally, putting on my spelling and grammar nazi hat: neither of the "its" in your comment should have an apostrophe. "In depthness", insofar as it is a word or phrase, should be hyphenated.
— DLJessup 23:27, 2004 Dec 25 (UTC)
Please try not to save your editing until you are truly done, nice job but 8-10 edits in a row with only a comma or period deletion difference is ridiculous.
JamesMLane, be sure that counting every vote was not important in 2004. If it were important in 2000, this time was different. Kerry would have to count every vote plus 4 million more votes ;-) to make a difference. -- Lumidek 04:45, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Over several revisions, I had come up with the following paragraph, which I believe to be as balanced and npov as possible:
This paragraph has repeatedly been excised by
ChrisDJackson. First, I'd like to get some feedback from the community about the paragraph itself. Should this paragraph appear in this article? If not, why not? While I fully expect that I will hear from Mr. Jackson, I would also like to hear from others in the community. I have other questions, but they can wait until I get some feedback on this question.
After writing my previous three paragraphs, I learned that my paragraph still survives, but is located in Al Gore controversies. This is a good change, and therefore I struck out the above three paragraphs.
— DLJessup 05:39, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
I said over and over I was moving it to the controversies page were it belongs. Maybe if people would actually listen to me for a change instead of just dismissing it. Anyway, good job on the writing. ChrisDJackson 01:18, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I would like whoever is removing the reference in election 2000 to the challenge of the Florida electors to stop doing so. It is a crucial part of election 2000 and I believe it needs to be included. Didn't you see Fahrenheit 911? It is truth the the Congressional Black Caucus stood up in the congressional chambers to challenge the Florida electors. It is truth that not one Senator's signature could be garnered to sign the challlenge. It is truth that the lawsutis were initiated by George W. Bush. It is truth that the Florida electors counted were not the original set of electors sent to Washington. It is truth that there was outrage about disenfranchisement of blacks. It was not just an "abnormality," it was fraud, as was shown when the NAACP had to settle out of court with Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris which is also a fact not included here. Why do you insist on sugarcoating the facts of this heionous act? Is not an encyclopedia supposed to tell the truth? And yes, I am an anon user and I prefer to stay that way. Thank you. (unsigned contribution from User:67.82.3.41)
Why should I have to discuss this, when you say people (plural) have reverted my edits, without showing any reason WHY or discussing it themselves? I am being treated biasedly here. This encyclopedia is for anyone to edit articles. How then can a rule be broken if users are allowed to edit? You have also given me NO substantiated reason as to why I cannot include historical fact regarding the challenge to the electoral votes in this section. You have already taken it upon yourself that my edits will be given NO consideration by your unfriendly responses. Check your facts regarding the challenge to the Florida electors that took place in 2001. Check your facts regarding how the electors were chosen. Check your facts regarding the outcome of the recount. I won't even waste my time anymore trying to tell truth here. It is obvious you and all who run this page are only out to make a sugarcoated version of this event. I will then look elsewhere to find people who post this historical event truthfully. I will also tell anyone who wants an acccurate depiction of this election to not look here.
Please, please tell me you did not just try to back up a factual assertion by asking "Didn't you see Fahrenheit 911?" Tell me you didn't. oh - sheesh. Too freakin' funny. I assume if a conservative tried to back up an argument by saying "Didn't you listen to Rush Limbaugh last night?" you'd think that was kosher? .... "Didn't you see Fahrenheit 911?" ... I'll be laughing at that one all day!! :) 172.167.74.234 14:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Will he run for president in 2008?
-- Relaxation 18:54, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I question why there's even a section documenting an event that may or may not occur in the future. If there was actually some evidence that Gore was planning a bid for the Whithouse in '08 then the fact that he is making plans could be included. But as it is the section says very little other than "Gore could run in '08."
Even if the section is kept, it should be written in a way that would still make sense if it was being read in 2009 whether or not Gore had run. The last sentence with it's "Gore has not yet..." is the problem IMO.
I think it should be noted that your including polls from websites like Daily Kos is erroneous in how you present them because you need to explain that no one winning any poll on that or any other Internet site is indicative of anything other than the usual members pumping up the numbers. It was not a poll whereby ALL members of the blog voted, therefore, the results are not pure. I do not then understand how polls like this can even be entertained on Wikipedia. JMMoore 16:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
On Futurama, Al Gore had his Vice Presidential Action Rangers. The episode also ended with him playing D&D with Gary Gygax as a "10th level Vice President". This might not be the most appropriate thing to add to the page though. 129.110.240.1 07:50, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
How does tying an article to a PAC committee website seeking political donations add to the concept, value, or nature of an encyclopedia? How does removal of such links constitute vandalism? Johnwhunt 18:29, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
From Wikipedia: "Vandalism is indisputable bad-faith addition, deletion, or change to content, made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. The largest quantity of vandalism consists of replacement of prominent articles with obscenities, namecalling, or other wholly irrelevant content. Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad faith edits that do not make their bad faith nature explicit and inarguable, are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia."
Jpgordon, I ask again - how is deleting PAC committee websites vandalism? Johnwhunt 15:26, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, James, for the comment. It was not vandalism, and I, in case you couldn't tell, bristled at the suggestion. However, I still believe it is inappropriate for an article to link onto a PAC or other donation site.
From Wikipedia: What Wikipedia is not: Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a chatroom, discussion forum, or vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not: 1. Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.
Of course, it seems this dictum is more often honored in the breech. :-)) Johnwhunt 21:13, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think the link to Snopes should be removed. It claims to debunk the "rumor" that Gore claimed credit for the internet, but what it actually does is quote Gore:
And then procedes to try to spin Gore's quote into not saying what it obviously says.
User:165.247.205.243 :Good work, I tried to find the original from the Gore/Lieberman site but it was dead. It should, however be labeled A New Approach for a New Century Major Foreign Policy Speech 30 April 2004, to distinguish it as such. One would not know where to go on the page to find Mr. Gore's foreign policy positions as such at the time. Thx Nobs 03:21, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Added a note emphasizing that Gore is not only misinterpreted on this matter, but openly misquoted--and frequently. 24.33.28.52 17:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
It means that people do it deliberately when they know better. Would you prefer "cynically"? Would that be "nicer"? When people deliberately misquote it is not misinterpretation, it's misrepresentation. 24.33.28.52 23:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
By the fact that people repeat the stuff after being corrected? I guess I should just assume that the memory spans in question are really short? You're right, no one EVER miquotes Gore deliberately and repeatedly often and in public. I'll remove the offending word. 24.33.28.52 23:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
The section on the TV network "Current" should be updated.
BBC Link with more info: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/4411905.stm
"Abortion on demand" is a GOP buzzword. It doesn't belong in the article. "Supports legalized abortion" is more NPOV. Gore is no more aggressively pro-choice than any other mainstream Democrat. -- Saucy Intruder 19:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"Some have suggested that Gore already foresaw that military service might be advantageous in his future career in politics."
Wikipedia should strive for a level of accuracy significantly higher than that of television "news".
If "some" have suggested this that Gore went to Vietnam to help his future political career, a few of those "some" should be named.
I removed this sentence: "Among other things, Gore can hypnotize chickens, a talent he demonstrated once in a television interview."
Although that is...awesome... something like that should specify a source before I believe it. :p TheCoffee 15:16, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, he *can* hypnotize chickens, just check the following website out. [4]
He was in politics for 25 years, 8 of them as Vice President of the USA. Anyone else think his biography should describe him as "an American politician," or "an American politician and businessman?" Is he actually known as a businessman at all, or is that just what he does now that he's not in an elected office? It's not like he's H. Ross Perot or someone- a businessman who turned to politics. He was just about always a politician, from a political family, etc. I think the intro should be changed. Kaisershatner 18:55, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
The mention of being cousins with Gore Vidal has been deleted as "believed to be false". Vidal has mentioned this several times in easily confirmable media. It is also easy to confirm that Vidal's grandfather was Thomas Gore, the senator from Oklahoma. It might be a total coincidence that there was a totally unrelated senator Al Gore Sr. from Tennessee a few decades later, but membership in congress often runs in the family and it seems uncoincidental when combined with Vidal's statements. I haven't seen any documentation showing that Vidal lied about this. The fact that Al Gore Jr. doesn't seem to have commented is understandable since he wants to keep his centrist appeal and avoid public emphasis on a family connection with an outspoken liberal. Where's the proof that this is wrong?
Reaverdrop 09:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Lawson's point is correct. The proponent of any assertion bears the burden of proving it, while the opponent has no affirmative burden to debunk the proffered statement. 64.124.183.195 18:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Has Gore's Vice Presidential Bust for the US Senate been completed yet? 0:06, 2 November 2005
Lawson's point is correct. The proponent of any assertion bears the burden of proving it, while the opponent has no affirmative burden to debunk the proffered statement. 64.124.183.195 18:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey, what? -- I have no idea what I'm talking about... 03:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
There was text in the "Views and Controversies" section that referred to Gore's 9-23-02 speech to the Commonwealth Club [5] as supporting the invasion. I kept the citation but removed the text, because the speech actually opposed the invasion:
- Allen 05:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
The years (in the succession box) are incorrect, regarding his service as Congressman (Represenative) & Senator. For Congressman it should be 1977-1985 ,for Senator 1985-92 (he resigned in '92, I think). I was going to make minor edits to this, but I'd like some views on this first (from other Wikipedians). GoodDay 01:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
"The election remains one of the most divisive and controversial topics in recent American politics."
Is this really true? Maybe a few years ago.... I think right now there are much more divisive and controversial topics. I think we should delete this line.
The thing about Gore not telling Lieberman that he was about to endore Dean... if anyone wants to reinsert that in a way that doesn't disrupt the flow of the writing, I won't object, but it would be better with a reference. In contrast, I will insist on a verifiable reference for any claim that Gore ever supported President Bush's invasion of Iraq. I have followed the issue and have seen no evidence that he ever took a position other than to oppose the invasion. -- Allen 06:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I know Bush was born in Connecticut, but his home state is generally seen as Texas. To say he lost his home state in 2000, one would have to make an argument that his home state isn't what a lot of people think it is, and such an argument wouldn't really belong on Al Gore. -- Allen 05:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Some of the material that Kirby Morgan edited did indeed contain POV language in favor of Gore. But in several cases, Morgan has replaced it with language that I feel is POV against Gore. For example, to say that Gore "claimed" something makes sense if the claim is genuinely disputed, but if the claim is not disputed it is more neutral to say that Gore "said" something.
In other cases, Morgan has added what appear to me to be unsourced allegations against Gore. Did Gore really call Rush Limbaugh a "distinguished American"? Morgan hasn't given us a reference for this, so I don't know. One could argue that much of what is already in the article is unreferenced, which would be true. But it is especially important to provide references for negative (or laudatory) statements about Gore, because they are especially likely to be controversial.
Kirby, thanks for your edits. If we build on them I think they will ultimately lead to a better article.
-- Allen 00:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I find that the section of Al Gore's vietnam service fails the neutral POV test. It describes his service *exclusively* in terms of how it has been contradicted by various (imo irreputable) sources, completely fails to mention Mr. Gore's service as a swift boat captain, completely fails to mention how Mr. Gore earned his three purple hearts that eventually lead to his honorable discharge.
The fact that the end of Mr. Gore's end of service is describe as a "discharge" as opposed to an "honorable discharge" is an insult to servicemen everywhere.
I'm not exactly sure how to fix this section, but it's clear to me that extensive revision is necessary. Neutral POV does not mean simply omitting all the information that any knucklehead objects to.
-- Jonathan 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I am removing the text in parentheses from this sentence:
Irregularities favoring Bush included the notorious Palm Beach "butterfly ballots", which were alleged to have produced an unexpectedly large number of votes for Reform Rarty candidate Pat Buchanan (however, the Reform Party candidate had received about as many votes in the 1996 election), and a purge of some 50,000 alleged felons from the Florida voting rolls that included many voters who were eligible to vote under Florida law.
It is unreferenced and I don't know whether it's true. But more importantly, it's not the comparison that most people found relevant in 2000. In 1996, Ross Perot was the Reform Party candidate and did far better nationwide than did Pat Buchanan in 2000. Pat Buchanan got far more votes in Palm Beach County, per capita, than in other Florida counties in 2000, and that's the comparison that most people made. [6] -- Allen 20:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm removing the second block of text in bold here, and substituting the first part in bold for what was there before:
Al Gore publicly conceded the election after the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore voted 7 to 2 to declare the ongoing recount procedure unconstitutional because it feared that different standards would be used in different parts of the state, and 5 to 4 to ban recounts using other procedures which could have extended the deadline for the vote count. A practical matter, that there was no longer time to recount the votes yet again without a deadline extension, sealed the election victory for President George W. Bush.
The second sentence I'm removing because I feel it is stating an opinion as fact: Florida was ordered to stop the recount, and the Supreme Court judged there was not time to recount within the deadline. Florida was in the process of trying, and we'll never know if they would have succeeded. The last part of the first sentence I don't understand. I thought the "other procedures" referred to procedures that would correct the problems the Court had with the recount as it was. Where did extending the deadline come in? Finally, I'm making the change in the first sentence because that's my understanding of the decision. The ongoing recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court was already statewide. If I'm wrong please explain. -- Allen 22:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Why is it there's no mention of his New Democrat affiliation? The article should discuss this aspect as well. -- speedoflight | talk to me 11:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
On election night, news networks first called Florida for Gore, then Fox News decided to call it for Bush and all of the other news stations followed their decision. This quote is seriously biased and misleading. Here's a chronology of that night: 19:49 EST: NBC calls Florida for Gore 19:50 EST: CBS calls Florida for Gore 19:52 EST: Fox calls Florida for Gore 20:02 EST: ABC calls Florida for Gore 22:00 EST: CBS retracts Florida for Gore 2:16 EST: Fox calls Florida for Bush 2:17:30 EST: NBC calls Florida for Bush 2:17:52 EST: CBS calls Florida for Bush 2:20 EST: ABC calls Florida for Bush 3:57 EST: CBS retracts Florida for Bush 4:00 EST: ABC retracts Florida for Bush 4:02 EST: NBC retracts Florida for Bush 4:05 EST: Fox retracts Florida for Bush
The reason that the decisions seem clumped together is because all the networks shared the same feed from the Voter News Survey. The quote makes it seem that everyone called Florida for Gore than switched to Bush on Fox's singso. In fact in the space of a few minutes everyone called it for Gore, there was a long pause where the networks retract that [not listed up there, but the other non-CBS networks will retract Florida], in the space of a few minutes everyone calls it for Bush, there is another interugnum and (to repeat the refrain) in the space of a few minutes everyone retracts it from Bush. (Page 12 http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/c2k/pdf/REPFINAL.pdf) How should we clean this line up to make more accurate?
I moved the following piece out of the article as it doesn't actually relate to an "Al Gore" controversy, it's just a bit of political mudslinging. If it happens to become something more interesting the text is preserved here. Joffan 01:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
removed from the article: |
On 16 January 2006, Gore accused U.S. President Bush of "breaking the law repeatedly and insistently," and called for a special investigation of NSA spying on Americans because the spying was without a warrant from a special federal court that authorizes such requests to eavesdrop on Americans.
Bush press secretary Scott McClellan and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales both responded to reporters that the Clinton-Gore administration had done illegal warrantless physical searches themselves of Aldrich Ames without permission from a judge.
"I think his hypocrisy knows no bounds," McClellan said of Gore. But the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act at the time did not cover physical searches. The law had changed in 1995. Gore claimed that because Gonzales made a "political defense" for Bush, he was no longer eligible to review charges against Bush and therefore must name a special counsel.
"His charges are factually wrong," said Gore, "Both before and after the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was amended in 1995; the Clinton-Gore administration complied fully and completely with the terms of the law." [7]
end of removed piece |
Hello,
Al Gore in Relationships is meant to give the visitor a wide angle view of how Al Gore handles his relationships in essence and in practice. It also allows the visitors to examine the characteristics of their own relationships with Al Gore.
Both content and test are based on sound astrological knowledge and research and they gained popularity among web surfers.
I believe that even though Astrology is not considered a mainstream science, these knowledge and compatibility tool should be made available to whoever wishes to study Al Gore as broadly as possible.
I have no desire to be considered a spammer and I don't want to force Top Synergy on the authors of Al Gore's article.
I ask you, authors of Al Gore that if you have an objection to placing a link to Al Gore in Relationships in the External Links section, please write it here. Else, I’ll place the link hoping that it would be a valid resource for Al Gore's fans and researchers.
With appreciation, Midas touch 05:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Al Gore ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because of no references
Tarret, to be accurate, the article does have references; but they aren't listed correctly. -- Allen 16:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Before renomination as a good article, this article also needs its images to be appropriately tagged and article-specific fair use rationale provided if the image is claimed as fair use. TheGrappler 17:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
This phrase in the opening paragraph seems awkward and confusing to me:
He was defeated in the Electoral College vote by the Republican candidate George W. Bush on a vote of 271-266 with a Gore-committed Elector from Washington, DC abstaining. However, Gore did receive more individual votes than Bush.
It's the phrase "individual votes" that strikes me as weird. I'm very tempted to change it to "However, Gore did win a plurality of the popular vote." I hesitate because awkward phrasing like this on controversial topics in Wikipedia is often the result of torturous edit war controversies, so I thought I'd give y'all on opportunity to chime in on why what seems to me to be an obvious statement of fact is TOTALLY POV AND BIASED before I change anything. :) -- Jfruh 00:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I think this entry should have a trivia section. Here is one piece of interesting trivia:
-- No Dodo 04:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that South Park featuring Gore as a character in an episode (not actually voiced by Gore) is a notable part of his life. If a barely-notable person were featured as a character on South Park, that might be a notable part of his or her life (probably not, but maybe). But for someone as hugely famous as Gore, I don't think it really registers. I doubt it would even appear in a book-length biography. -- Allen 02:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
This article includes the Electoral College vote numbers. For balance, I believe the article should include the figures on the popular vote. I suggest that this sentence:
Should be edited to read thusly:
Al Gore used to have a pro-life political stance and therefore belongs in the Pro-life politican category. Even though he no longer has this stance, he still belongs in the category, just as former Jews are still in Jewish categories. 75.3.4.54 01:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
What is that even supposed to mean? I suggest this line be deleted.
Anytime something is quoted from a speech, it should be referenced with a link!!! There are TONS of these unsourced quotes in this article and they need to be fixed! Additionally, use "<ref>" tags in citations. Paul C/ T + 03:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Here's one: His PowerPoint presentation on global warming has received standing ovations, and he has presented it at least 1000 times."
Source:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.05/gore.html
"The book of the same name will be released in May". It seems it will be in June Source:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1594865671/103-6730785-0218255?v=glance&n=283155
(
TaffyDownUnder 06:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC))
"Gore contended the US government had committed ‘terrible abuses’ against Arabs living in America after the 9/11 attacks, and that most Americans did not support such treatment." Source:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0213-03.htm
(
TaffyDownUnder 06:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC))
"The worst thing we can possibly do is to cut off the channels of friendship and mutual understanding between Saudi Arabia and the United States"
http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/63452.htm
(
TaffyDownUnder 06:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC))
“indiscriminately rounded up, often on minor charges of overstaying a visa or not having a green card in proper order, and held in conditions that were just unforgivable.”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184804,00.html
http://www.house.gov/doolittle/itk-2-17-06.html ( TaffyDownUnder 06:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC))
"Unfortunately there have been terrible abuses and it’s wrong. I do want you to know that it does not represent the desires or wishes or feelings of the majority of the citizens of my country"
http://www.house.gov/doolittle/itk-2-17-06.html
(
TaffyDownUnder 06:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC))
"who want to learn about the world in a voice they recognize and a view they recognize as their own."
http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,14032,00.html?newsrellink
(
TaffyDownUnder 06:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC))
"re-elect Al Gore"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/01/08/03_gore.html
(
TaffyDownUnder 06:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC))
Gore's endorsement of Dean and the fallout
http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2003%20Opinion%20Editorials/December/17%20o/The%20Gore%20Endorsement%20By%20James%20J.%20Zogby.htm
(
TaffyDownUnder 06:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC))
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/Bush-Broke-Law-Gore16jan06.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/17/politics/main1213941.shtml
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/16/gore.constitution/
( TaffyDownUnder 05:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC))
These may be possible cites for Gore giving his powerpoint presentation a 1,000 times:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,1702168,00.html
http://www.sierraclub.org/carlpope/2006/04/inconvenient-truth-is-getting-out_24.asp
( TaffyDownUnder 05:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC))
Surprised to see nothing here of Gore's new film. Fishhead64 15:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Or the fact that while attending the Cannes premier, Gore and his WHOLE MOTORCADE decided to DRIVE rather than walk a single half-mile to the theater. It would be interesting to compare the amount of global-warming pollution Gore created in that single half-mile with his WHOLE MOTORCADE to the average created by individual Americans (and we won't even discuss the pollution he created just attending the premier ...). Don't you liberals ever have trouble keeping a straight face sometimes when you're preaching this silliness?
Al Gore Flew to Cannes on his private jet, which caused massive pollution! Anarchopedia 03:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
It does not matter if he uses a jet. The fact is that it is so important to raise awareness that any social cost of the jet fuel burned is offset by the social value of his making those speeches. 68.0.214.211 06:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I have added some citation links to the Environment section that should (but probably won't) end this sort of pointless and false character assassination. Frankie
I would like to ask why there is no reference in this article to his Climate Project, or his organization, Alliance for Climate Protection. I would be more than happy to write up a paragraph including those links if I can. Also, as I have read here previously, this is a site that deals in facts. Therefore I find it curious that political speculation is being allowed to be posted here. I think it is obvious that people wanting him to run are posting biased views on that rather than concentrating on the important work he is doing now regarding the climate crisis. He is also starting a grassroots effort in 2007 calling for a carbon freeze, and hoping to deliver 1 million signatures to Congress regarding global warming legislation. I really fail to see how this article cannot be deemed biased when it is obviously geared more to political speculation than current reality. JMMoore 23:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC) On second look, I do see that there was a mention of the training, but again, nothing specific with no websites noted.
Should we have links to political campaign/advocacy sites in an encyclopedia? Seems to have advocacy or criticism sites linked to the article would be to tip the POV toward or away from the subject. Dubc0724 14:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
The "Environment" section claims that Gore "helped" MMT receive funding from DOE. The reference, which isn't a suitable source anyway, says nothing of the kind. I'll note that it was full of highly POV phrasing, which I redacted. If anyone can verifiably source that Gore extended regulatory assistance to this company, that would be great. Otherwise, I'm not sure what the notability of a campaign contribution is. Derex 22:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Related to the following portion of the article:
According to Newsweek journalist Bill Turque's biography Inventing Al Gore (which does not shy away from criticism and scandals, such as charging Gore with smoking marijuana far more frequently than he admits):
The parenthetical statement is distracting and irrelevant to the quotation it prefaces. Could we remove it or place it in a footnote?
Thanks
Should mention be made that people are calling Gore an Arch Druid? Mathiastck 18:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
This strikes me as a peripheral controversy at best. I think it's unclear whether it belongs at Al Gore controversies, but it definitely doesn't belong here. By all means we could replace with some other controversy that got more play, e.g. Love Story, Love Canal, summers at the farm, earth tones, etc., etc. Crust 17:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
This photo appears deliberately selected to show Gore with an angry expression in ironic contrast to the caption "party elder". Should we delete/replace it? On the other hand, perhaps that is my subjective appraisal and others disagree? Crust 13:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to be working and it's making the page scroll. -- TJive 07:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
This needs a brief summary of the controversies article. Strangely, "views and controversies" was a section. I separated out the views, and was left with only a greatly over-detailed internet quote section for controversies. I cut that as unsuitable. So, now we need a paragraph or two describing each section on the controversy article in a sentence or two. For the moment, I've added a "see also link" to the controveries article at the bottom, replacing a narrower controversies link. The coverage of "views" is embarassingly slim. Derex 21:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
June 12, 2006, Al Gore's global warming theory is a hoax according to the Canada Free Press and about 60 accredited scientists. [10]
Al Gore was born in Washington, D.C., to Albert A. Gore, Sr., a former U.S. Senator of Tennessee, and Pauline LaFon Gore, one of the first women to graduate from Vanderbilt Law School. Since his father was a veteran Democratic senator from Tennessee, Al Gore, Jr. divided his childhood between Washington, D.C., and Carthage, Tennessee. During the school year, the younger Gore lived in a hotel in Washington, during summer vacations, he lived in Carthage, where he worked on the Gore family farm. citation needed
Gore attended the elite St. Albans School [1] where he ranked 25th (of 51) in his senior class. [2] In preparation for his college applications, Al Gore scored a 1355 on his SAT (625 in verbal and 730 in math). [3]
In 1965, Gore enrolled at Harvard College, the only university that he applied to. [4] His roommates (in Dunster House) were actor Tommy Lee Jones and former Columbia University women's basketball star Katie Day's father, Bart Day. After finding himself bored with his classes in his declared English major, Gore switched majors and graduated from Harvard in June 1969 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in government. [5]
After serving as an United States Army journalist during the Vietnam War, Gore decided to return to school. In 1971, Gore enrolled in graduate course in religious studies at Vanderbilt University. [6] Gore later transfered in to Vanderbilt's Law School, which he prematurely left (without getting a law degree) to run for congress in 1976.
Al Gore's IQ from tests administered in at St. Alban's School 1961 and 1964 (his freshman and senior years) respectively, have been recorded to be 133 and 134. [7] Both IQ scores are in the 98 – 99.3 percentile. [8]
There was an {{ editprotected}} here, but the article is only semi-protected (now?) - so any registered user can add the info (if their account is older than 4 days).-- Commander Keane 10:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
David Foster Edits were reverted for the following reasons. Other politicians articles do not list grades. These facts are well documented and not in dispute. Al Gore was not the first Presidential candidate to lose his home state. GHW Bush lost all of New England in 1992 just to name one. -- 8bitJake 18:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
You're in error, Jake. GHWBush claimed Texas as his home state, despite the fact that his 'property' in Texas was an undeveloped smallish lot in a prestigious area of Houston, and his 'home' in Texas was a hotel suite permanently rented in his name, and he spent much more time in his Kennebunkport Maine vacation home. Even though the Bushs are definitely from Connecticut, they call themselves Texans.
Then the information should also be changed on the 2000 presidential election page for it has the very facts which you reverted (—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.122.192.129 ( talk • contribs).)
How can it be argued that supporting the 1991 Gulf War and then opposing the 2003 Iraq War is evidence of a change in political stance. The 1991 War was the response to an Iraqi invasion of a sovereign state and was supported by the United Nations and a massive coalition contributing troops and logistical support to Desert Shield/Desert Storm/Operation Granby. The 2003 War (which I support incidentally) was, regardless of stance, sold to the American and British public through deception and outright lies based on heavily flawed intelligence. The fact that Gore's stance has not changed is shown in this article by the fact that he supported the 1998 actions against Slobodan Milosovic and also Operation Desert Fox.
Andyj461-- 194.203.94.95 17:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that Al Gore should be in "climate change" category. Perhaps admin could add [[category:climatologists]] and remove [[category:climate change]] 137.110.7.57 06:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I recently restored his official VP portrait since it doesn't have source/copyright issues like the others that have been added. This image, however, is 12 years old. It is a good image, and should be kept in the article in the VP section, but a more recent free use image definitely needs to be added, since Gore has changed considerably since 1994. I say free use since I wonder whether or not an unfree photo would qualify as fair use since a free alternative is available (his official VP photo is free). -- tomf688 ( talk - email) 05:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
That picture does not portray Gore in a good light, and I don't think it falls into NPOV. I have restored his official VP picture, the "more recent" picture can go lower on the page if you think it must be here. It is not a good introduction picture.
I don’t see anyone explaining why this tag is here or what is un-verified in the article. If someone wants to say why this article should be tagged then fine, but I am removing it until then. Redd Dragon talk contributions 04:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
This struck me as odd and out of place while reading on Al Gore:
"His Keynote presentation on global warming has received standing ovations, and he has presented it at least 1000 times."
I think a statement like this should be referenced somehow to show its factual basis, and thus prove its objectivity as a statement. It looks like someone who just wanted me to know Al Gore's speech is cool and he speaks it alot.
Here's a paragraph on Gore's effect (or lack thereof) on the environment in general during 1993-2001 that his fans censor from the main article. It's contrary to the perceptions that they wish to promote. Bottom line is that Gore has never owned up or even mentioned these items in his "new" championing of the environment.
[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.91.172.36 ( talk • contribs) .
Some clarification probably needs to be made in the second paragraph as far as "7-2" vs. "5-4" on the decision. The Bush v. Gore article referenced in the same paragraph states "In three separate opinions, seven justices found that a ballot recount then being conducted in certain counties in the State of Florida was to be stopped due to the lack of a consistent standard; two justices disagreed. A 5-4 majority further declared in a per curiam opinion that there was insufficient time to establish standards for a new recount that would meet Florida's deadline for certifying electors." Given this, I can see why someone would change this article to read 7-2, since that seems to apply to the stopping of the recount while the 5-4 said that there was not time to establish a new standard. I don't know which is correct, but I perceive an inconsistency which should be corrected in one or both articles. -- Brian G ( Talk) 17:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I know this is completely OT and if you want to remove it go ahead. But I always thought Al Gore was a bit of an idiot and probably would be a typical US president. Having read the article tho I now realise I was probably wrong, I have to say OMFG I can't believe you voted (or nearly voted) for Bush instead of Gore...!!! Nil Einne 16:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't see anything about his views on Gun Control. Odd since many in the Democratic Party and most pundits say it cost him his home state and the election. There is even something about Al Gore and Gun Control on the Joe Lieberman page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Lieberman
Over a long period, the Southpark pic has been inserted and removed numerous times. I don't really see the relevance of even the reference, and certainly not of a picture of it. It's an encylopedia article about Gore. And a reference in a comedy central cartoon just doesn't seem that relevant to the scope of the man's importance. Not that it should be censored, there's already an entire article on it. should leave the ManBearPig pic to that SouthPark episode article. (It's very dubious whether the use of that pic even qualifies as fair use for this article, but that's a separate issue.)
But at any rate, to those of you who support the inclusion here. Would you also support putting the Southpark "Jesus shitting on Bush and US flag" picture in both the Jesus and Bush articles? I don't think it has much relevance to them, no more so than SouthPark to this. But what's the difference, if there is one? It all seems silly to me. Derex 05:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Here are the first four paragraphs of http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/environment_gore_dc :
I'm not sure how to work this apparently rather novel proposal into the article, and I don't have an account and the article is protected anyway, so I'll leave it to others. I think this should be included though, because this sort of thing hints he may be running for the 2008 nomination. 66.159.220.115 02:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
In order to make a super-Al Gore, an unstoppable force for inanity and paranoia in environmental politics. We must pay homage to the omnipotent Alva Gore, inventor of the Internet, patron saint of Wikipedia, and reknowned film-maker. Have mercy on us oh supreme Al, for we knew not that our carbon dioxide emissions would bring death and devastation upon your concubine, Gaia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.144.172 ( talk • contribs)
"Although opposed to the Vietnam War, Gore voluntarily enlisted in the army in order to participate in the war."
Uh, I think this needs some kind of explanation. Kaldari 06:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
The article currently reads:
The popular political blog The Daily Howler contends that Gore lost the election due to a relentless media "war," (...) Singled out by The Daily Howler for particularly misleading accounts of Gore and his candidacy are Ceci Connolly of the Washington Post, Katherine "Kit" Seelye of the New York Times and television talk-show host Chris Matthews.
This is an important topic, although loaded with partisan sentiments. However, there is more than just the dailyhowler blog (which is, by political blog standards, only semipopular) making this claim:
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5920188/the_press_vs_al_gore and also statements in Harris/Halperin: The Way to Win: Taking the White House in 2008 Centrist democrat blogger Mickey Kaus and even conservative pundit Joe Scarborough ("I think, in the 2000 election, I think [the media] were fairly brutal to Al Gore. I think they hit him hard on a lot of things like inventing the Internet and some of those other things, and I think there was a generalization they bought into that, if they had done that to a Republican candidate, I’d be going on your show saying, you know, that they were being biased.") made public statements going in the same direction.
I suggest to change as follows: There are several commentators (Eric Boehlert/link, Bob Somerby blog daily howler) contending that Gore etc ... Singled out for particularly misleading accounts of Gore and his candidacy etc
One might even go for a stronger formulation: "There are several accounts, some of which are well-documented, that ..." etc. It's clearly much more than just one blogger's opinion. Rbrilla 19:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that this page should have a trivia section. Would anyone be opposed to the merging of the most important pieces into other sections in the article? Jasper23 04:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
2000 Presidential election Photograph caption reads:
After a close campaign, Gore greets President-select Bush at the White House in late December of 2000.
This should read "President-elect" to maintain with the proper title of Bush. NemoX 23:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. That's an official policy, not a guideline. Isn't that pretty much the very definition of trivia. I still think this ought go. Derex 12:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
After reading WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information it is pretty clear that this trivia section needs to be reformatted into the rest of the article. I made some edits to get rid of the things that Al Gore didn't actually do. I think the best way to approach this is to take the trivia section out and post it on the talk page to be reformatted into the article. Anyone disagree? Jasper23 23:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Pls someone to add the link in bulgarian bg:Ал Гор! Thanks -- Chickem4o 20:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally. Thanks. --- J.S ( t| c) 07:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I didn't remove it because the format would be far drastic. While I recognize that the 2000 election is highly relevent to Al Gore, it takes up far to much space considering that there already is "Presidential election 2000" article! This should at least be shortened or directed to the 2000 election. Please cite your agreement or dissent before I make the edit. StayinAnon 00:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0101/06/se.05.html
I don't know if this page is locked or what but i can't edit, so here is a link for the claim about florida representatives lacking a senator to back up their complaints 60.240.41.159 09:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
from the Al Gore controversy page.
Enjoy. Jasper23 02:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Why are Gore's SAT scores listed? I haven't seen any other biographies with SAT scores listed, and Gore's aren't even that Spectacular.
For what it's worth, I think it's a good idea to update the picture in the infobox with a newer picture of Gore (the current picture is 12 years old). Thus, I *would* support a picture like the one shown in this revision *if* an image with known copyright status is used. Obviously, we shouldn't be using a picture that has unknown copyright status. But I hope the copyright status is the reason the image is being reverted, not merely a desire to have the old picture in the infobox. · j e r s y k o talk · 00:39, 15 December 2006 (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 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Al_Gore article:
Additionally, there are some other articles which may be able to linked to this one (also known as "backlinks"):
Notes: The article text has not been changed in any way; Some of these suggestions may be wrong, some may be right.
Feedback:
I like it,
I hate it,
Please don't link to —
LinkBot 11:27, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Why does this article make no mention of the "lock box"? Timan123 16:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
How about a picture of the historically significant beard he grew after the election and why? A Secret Service suggestion? It really reminded me of the role in " Amerika" of Kris Kristofferson
There was a speech by Al Gore a year or two ago concerning the use of fear in politics post-9/11. In it, he coined the phrase "amygdala politics". I wanted to add a reference to this in the "recent speeches" list, but I can't seem to find an online source for the text of the speech. Does anyone know where one can be found?-- 12.15.238.50 23:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to add that Al Gore was on the Charlie Rose Show last week, but the article doesn't seem editable. Am I mistaken? Thanks.
I'd like to make a correction: Gore's latest appearance on Late Show with David Letterman was Fri June 23, not June 8.
From 'Views and Controversies': "His views on environmental policy have been cast in the media as politically radical and Canada hating." Any documentation there? I googled "Al Gore Canada Controversy" and found a Wikipedia article stating that in a 2000 poll, Canadians said that they would vote for Gore over Bush by a 20% margin.
Recent edits were by me, my first contribution to wikipedia, hope it's appreciated. Just noticed the account creation option after making edits.
Brief summary of changes:
1) Margin of 537 votes on which the election hung out of approx 105 million was astonishingly close.
2) Article presented only one side of the significant controversies surrounding the election and the recounts.
3) Statement was made that if a statewide recount had been made, Gore "would have" won the election. The cited source does NOT state OR support this conclusion; it states very clearly that Gore "MIGHT" have won. Huge difference there.
From intro: "He is also considered by many political pundits to be a front runner for the 2008 Democratic nomination if he decides to run." I haven't seen this opinion expressed anywhere, and I don't think history really supports it. Unless this has some backing, I think it should be removed. -- Twinxor 03:40, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Opinions on Gore in 2008:
Also, there have been other columnists and pundits who have said that if Gore was to run, he would be the frontrunner. I think it is common logic to realize that. If he and Hillary were both to run, they each would be frontrunners. Notice, the sentence did not say the frontrunner, but a frontrunner, which is gramatically correct. ChrisDJackson
Al Gore presidential campaigns and add any useful information you have. It's basically just a stub right now. Thank you.
Mean temp was lower in 1968,'94 - check noaa.gov tables. Minimum temperature isn’t displayed at (that part of?) the site, did reach its minimum in 1957 indeed and was 2oF on January 15, 2004 (according to Weather Underground (an amusingly named site) — which is, yes, why climate change/catastr. cc is more the issue than is global warming. Emphasizing the latter inapplicable, at best misleading, terminology does seem to make one a cheap target without doubt. Schissel‐ bowl listen 15:43, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
Whoops, I misinterpreted (time for me to reread that, yes. Ah. 'The coldest day in New York City in decades'. No, that it was not. I suppose to be charitable, it may have felt that way, though I hadn't been in NY City for a few weeks at the time. Equally irrelevant either way.) what was being said, actually (egg on face..) I thought that all that was being claimed, was that this was the coldest January 15 (measured by lowest temperature) in 47 years. (For which I know of no evidence but would be interested. If measured by mean temperature, instead of lowest temperature, it's not true, for which see evidence at noaa.gov, going to their climate data for NY City.) Schissel‐ bowl listen 02:52, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
Comment general but also for Mr. Jackson... As to the adding of a long section that still should best go under/link to Global warming controversy I can only say for myself that I should think adding a response to the Washington Times article, that they were simply factually mistaken, is enough for this article. That their charges were also irrelevant, (I happen to agree there. And egomaniac that I am, nevertheless that is also irrelevant, no?) can be pointed out — and debated too.. — in the other article, not in the one on Al Gore... Schissel‐ bowl listen 15:35, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
No contribution, just a comment to an edit summary: "We are not putting about the coldest day crap. That is right wing propoganda. Anyone who knows about Glob. Warming knows that is part of the process."
Yeah, true, but then again, some of us feel that global warming itself is left wing propaganda, so good job with that one. -- Golbez 19:13, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
And if you really think global warming is left-wing propaganda, you're a moron on the wrong side of science.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36624 http://www.cnsnews.com/Politics/Archive/200401/POL20040115e.html
It did happen to be one of the coldest days, its a fact, how can that be propoganda?
It is an irrelevant piece of information. Here is an example "John was born in Florida, it was 75 degrees outside"
It may not be relevent to the article -- but BOY is it funny! Hey, can we add in the fact that at the Cannes opening of his Loony Left propaganda movie, he and his entire MOTORCADE actually had the gall to DRIVE a frickin' HALF OF A MILE. Is that sort of obvious hypocrisy a little to non-NPOV? LOL. A half-mile. The whole motorcade. Saving the environment! Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha oh you leftist sheeple are funny.
Ideologues think that anything that undermines or contradicts their agenda is propaganda put forth by their opponents. Doesn't matter if it's factual or not, or even where the ideologue is on the political spectrum...
And it doesn't matter if global warming has been proven to exist. If it sounds like a really bad thing, then we have to treat it as if it definitely exists, just because of the gravity of the situation, hypothetical or not. There are ideologues on both sides of the issue.
I know this has been discussed before, but that discussion in now in an archive, so I'd like to bring it up again. This page is now 42KB, well above the 32KB recommended for a page. I attempted to split off the Vice Presidency section, but that only shrank the page by 5KB. Additionally, the real space hog is the 2000 Presidential election. There currently exists an article, Al Gore presidential campaign, 2000 which covers this topic. Most of the information here is duplicated there. Why can't we simply move any non-redundant content there and convert the 2000 Presidential election section to See Al Gore presidential campaign, 2000. — DLJessup 22:12, 2004 Dec 25 (UTC)
Mr. Jackson, I am not the only person to complain about this. As you will note from my previous comment, the size of the article was discussed in March 2004 — which you know, because you participated in that discussion. Moreover, the wiki itself complains about articles that get over 32KB in size, which is why I noticed the problem in the first place.
I am definitely not trying to destroy content. I am trying to relocate content and remove duplication of content. What is the point of having a really in-depth discussion of Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign here when there is already an article specifically discussing Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign? It's much better to keep all this information in one place, if only so that the reader doesn't have to shuttle back-and-forth between that article and this just to get all the facts.
Finally, putting on my spelling and grammar nazi hat: neither of the "its" in your comment should have an apostrophe. "In depthness", insofar as it is a word or phrase, should be hyphenated.
— DLJessup 23:27, 2004 Dec 25 (UTC)
Please try not to save your editing until you are truly done, nice job but 8-10 edits in a row with only a comma or period deletion difference is ridiculous.
JamesMLane, be sure that counting every vote was not important in 2004. If it were important in 2000, this time was different. Kerry would have to count every vote plus 4 million more votes ;-) to make a difference. -- Lumidek 04:45, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Over several revisions, I had come up with the following paragraph, which I believe to be as balanced and npov as possible:
This paragraph has repeatedly been excised by
ChrisDJackson. First, I'd like to get some feedback from the community about the paragraph itself. Should this paragraph appear in this article? If not, why not? While I fully expect that I will hear from Mr. Jackson, I would also like to hear from others in the community. I have other questions, but they can wait until I get some feedback on this question.
After writing my previous three paragraphs, I learned that my paragraph still survives, but is located in Al Gore controversies. This is a good change, and therefore I struck out the above three paragraphs.
— DLJessup 05:39, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
I said over and over I was moving it to the controversies page were it belongs. Maybe if people would actually listen to me for a change instead of just dismissing it. Anyway, good job on the writing. ChrisDJackson 01:18, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I would like whoever is removing the reference in election 2000 to the challenge of the Florida electors to stop doing so. It is a crucial part of election 2000 and I believe it needs to be included. Didn't you see Fahrenheit 911? It is truth the the Congressional Black Caucus stood up in the congressional chambers to challenge the Florida electors. It is truth that not one Senator's signature could be garnered to sign the challlenge. It is truth that the lawsutis were initiated by George W. Bush. It is truth that the Florida electors counted were not the original set of electors sent to Washington. It is truth that there was outrage about disenfranchisement of blacks. It was not just an "abnormality," it was fraud, as was shown when the NAACP had to settle out of court with Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris which is also a fact not included here. Why do you insist on sugarcoating the facts of this heionous act? Is not an encyclopedia supposed to tell the truth? And yes, I am an anon user and I prefer to stay that way. Thank you. (unsigned contribution from User:67.82.3.41)
Why should I have to discuss this, when you say people (plural) have reverted my edits, without showing any reason WHY or discussing it themselves? I am being treated biasedly here. This encyclopedia is for anyone to edit articles. How then can a rule be broken if users are allowed to edit? You have also given me NO substantiated reason as to why I cannot include historical fact regarding the challenge to the electoral votes in this section. You have already taken it upon yourself that my edits will be given NO consideration by your unfriendly responses. Check your facts regarding the challenge to the Florida electors that took place in 2001. Check your facts regarding how the electors were chosen. Check your facts regarding the outcome of the recount. I won't even waste my time anymore trying to tell truth here. It is obvious you and all who run this page are only out to make a sugarcoated version of this event. I will then look elsewhere to find people who post this historical event truthfully. I will also tell anyone who wants an acccurate depiction of this election to not look here.
Please, please tell me you did not just try to back up a factual assertion by asking "Didn't you see Fahrenheit 911?" Tell me you didn't. oh - sheesh. Too freakin' funny. I assume if a conservative tried to back up an argument by saying "Didn't you listen to Rush Limbaugh last night?" you'd think that was kosher? .... "Didn't you see Fahrenheit 911?" ... I'll be laughing at that one all day!! :) 172.167.74.234 14:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Will he run for president in 2008?
-- Relaxation 18:54, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I question why there's even a section documenting an event that may or may not occur in the future. If there was actually some evidence that Gore was planning a bid for the Whithouse in '08 then the fact that he is making plans could be included. But as it is the section says very little other than "Gore could run in '08."
Even if the section is kept, it should be written in a way that would still make sense if it was being read in 2009 whether or not Gore had run. The last sentence with it's "Gore has not yet..." is the problem IMO.
I think it should be noted that your including polls from websites like Daily Kos is erroneous in how you present them because you need to explain that no one winning any poll on that or any other Internet site is indicative of anything other than the usual members pumping up the numbers. It was not a poll whereby ALL members of the blog voted, therefore, the results are not pure. I do not then understand how polls like this can even be entertained on Wikipedia. JMMoore 16:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
On Futurama, Al Gore had his Vice Presidential Action Rangers. The episode also ended with him playing D&D with Gary Gygax as a "10th level Vice President". This might not be the most appropriate thing to add to the page though. 129.110.240.1 07:50, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
How does tying an article to a PAC committee website seeking political donations add to the concept, value, or nature of an encyclopedia? How does removal of such links constitute vandalism? Johnwhunt 18:29, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
From Wikipedia: "Vandalism is indisputable bad-faith addition, deletion, or change to content, made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. The largest quantity of vandalism consists of replacement of prominent articles with obscenities, namecalling, or other wholly irrelevant content. Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad faith edits that do not make their bad faith nature explicit and inarguable, are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia."
Jpgordon, I ask again - how is deleting PAC committee websites vandalism? Johnwhunt 15:26, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, James, for the comment. It was not vandalism, and I, in case you couldn't tell, bristled at the suggestion. However, I still believe it is inappropriate for an article to link onto a PAC or other donation site.
From Wikipedia: What Wikipedia is not: Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a chatroom, discussion forum, or vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not: 1. Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.
Of course, it seems this dictum is more often honored in the breech. :-)) Johnwhunt 21:13, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think the link to Snopes should be removed. It claims to debunk the "rumor" that Gore claimed credit for the internet, but what it actually does is quote Gore:
And then procedes to try to spin Gore's quote into not saying what it obviously says.
User:165.247.205.243 :Good work, I tried to find the original from the Gore/Lieberman site but it was dead. It should, however be labeled A New Approach for a New Century Major Foreign Policy Speech 30 April 2004, to distinguish it as such. One would not know where to go on the page to find Mr. Gore's foreign policy positions as such at the time. Thx Nobs 03:21, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Added a note emphasizing that Gore is not only misinterpreted on this matter, but openly misquoted--and frequently. 24.33.28.52 17:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
It means that people do it deliberately when they know better. Would you prefer "cynically"? Would that be "nicer"? When people deliberately misquote it is not misinterpretation, it's misrepresentation. 24.33.28.52 23:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
By the fact that people repeat the stuff after being corrected? I guess I should just assume that the memory spans in question are really short? You're right, no one EVER miquotes Gore deliberately and repeatedly often and in public. I'll remove the offending word. 24.33.28.52 23:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
The section on the TV network "Current" should be updated.
BBC Link with more info: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/4411905.stm
"Abortion on demand" is a GOP buzzword. It doesn't belong in the article. "Supports legalized abortion" is more NPOV. Gore is no more aggressively pro-choice than any other mainstream Democrat. -- Saucy Intruder 19:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"Some have suggested that Gore already foresaw that military service might be advantageous in his future career in politics."
Wikipedia should strive for a level of accuracy significantly higher than that of television "news".
If "some" have suggested this that Gore went to Vietnam to help his future political career, a few of those "some" should be named.
I removed this sentence: "Among other things, Gore can hypnotize chickens, a talent he demonstrated once in a television interview."
Although that is...awesome... something like that should specify a source before I believe it. :p TheCoffee 15:16, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, he *can* hypnotize chickens, just check the following website out. [4]
He was in politics for 25 years, 8 of them as Vice President of the USA. Anyone else think his biography should describe him as "an American politician," or "an American politician and businessman?" Is he actually known as a businessman at all, or is that just what he does now that he's not in an elected office? It's not like he's H. Ross Perot or someone- a businessman who turned to politics. He was just about always a politician, from a political family, etc. I think the intro should be changed. Kaisershatner 18:55, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
The mention of being cousins with Gore Vidal has been deleted as "believed to be false". Vidal has mentioned this several times in easily confirmable media. It is also easy to confirm that Vidal's grandfather was Thomas Gore, the senator from Oklahoma. It might be a total coincidence that there was a totally unrelated senator Al Gore Sr. from Tennessee a few decades later, but membership in congress often runs in the family and it seems uncoincidental when combined with Vidal's statements. I haven't seen any documentation showing that Vidal lied about this. The fact that Al Gore Jr. doesn't seem to have commented is understandable since he wants to keep his centrist appeal and avoid public emphasis on a family connection with an outspoken liberal. Where's the proof that this is wrong?
Reaverdrop 09:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Lawson's point is correct. The proponent of any assertion bears the burden of proving it, while the opponent has no affirmative burden to debunk the proffered statement. 64.124.183.195 18:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Has Gore's Vice Presidential Bust for the US Senate been completed yet? 0:06, 2 November 2005
Lawson's point is correct. The proponent of any assertion bears the burden of proving it, while the opponent has no affirmative burden to debunk the proffered statement. 64.124.183.195 18:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey, what? -- I have no idea what I'm talking about... 03:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
There was text in the "Views and Controversies" section that referred to Gore's 9-23-02 speech to the Commonwealth Club [5] as supporting the invasion. I kept the citation but removed the text, because the speech actually opposed the invasion:
- Allen 05:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
The years (in the succession box) are incorrect, regarding his service as Congressman (Represenative) & Senator. For Congressman it should be 1977-1985 ,for Senator 1985-92 (he resigned in '92, I think). I was going to make minor edits to this, but I'd like some views on this first (from other Wikipedians). GoodDay 01:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
"The election remains one of the most divisive and controversial topics in recent American politics."
Is this really true? Maybe a few years ago.... I think right now there are much more divisive and controversial topics. I think we should delete this line.
The thing about Gore not telling Lieberman that he was about to endore Dean... if anyone wants to reinsert that in a way that doesn't disrupt the flow of the writing, I won't object, but it would be better with a reference. In contrast, I will insist on a verifiable reference for any claim that Gore ever supported President Bush's invasion of Iraq. I have followed the issue and have seen no evidence that he ever took a position other than to oppose the invasion. -- Allen 06:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I know Bush was born in Connecticut, but his home state is generally seen as Texas. To say he lost his home state in 2000, one would have to make an argument that his home state isn't what a lot of people think it is, and such an argument wouldn't really belong on Al Gore. -- Allen 05:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Some of the material that Kirby Morgan edited did indeed contain POV language in favor of Gore. But in several cases, Morgan has replaced it with language that I feel is POV against Gore. For example, to say that Gore "claimed" something makes sense if the claim is genuinely disputed, but if the claim is not disputed it is more neutral to say that Gore "said" something.
In other cases, Morgan has added what appear to me to be unsourced allegations against Gore. Did Gore really call Rush Limbaugh a "distinguished American"? Morgan hasn't given us a reference for this, so I don't know. One could argue that much of what is already in the article is unreferenced, which would be true. But it is especially important to provide references for negative (or laudatory) statements about Gore, because they are especially likely to be controversial.
Kirby, thanks for your edits. If we build on them I think they will ultimately lead to a better article.
-- Allen 00:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I find that the section of Al Gore's vietnam service fails the neutral POV test. It describes his service *exclusively* in terms of how it has been contradicted by various (imo irreputable) sources, completely fails to mention Mr. Gore's service as a swift boat captain, completely fails to mention how Mr. Gore earned his three purple hearts that eventually lead to his honorable discharge.
The fact that the end of Mr. Gore's end of service is describe as a "discharge" as opposed to an "honorable discharge" is an insult to servicemen everywhere.
I'm not exactly sure how to fix this section, but it's clear to me that extensive revision is necessary. Neutral POV does not mean simply omitting all the information that any knucklehead objects to.
-- Jonathan 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I am removing the text in parentheses from this sentence:
Irregularities favoring Bush included the notorious Palm Beach "butterfly ballots", which were alleged to have produced an unexpectedly large number of votes for Reform Rarty candidate Pat Buchanan (however, the Reform Party candidate had received about as many votes in the 1996 election), and a purge of some 50,000 alleged felons from the Florida voting rolls that included many voters who were eligible to vote under Florida law.
It is unreferenced and I don't know whether it's true. But more importantly, it's not the comparison that most people found relevant in 2000. In 1996, Ross Perot was the Reform Party candidate and did far better nationwide than did Pat Buchanan in 2000. Pat Buchanan got far more votes in Palm Beach County, per capita, than in other Florida counties in 2000, and that's the comparison that most people made. [6] -- Allen 20:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm removing the second block of text in bold here, and substituting the first part in bold for what was there before:
Al Gore publicly conceded the election after the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore voted 7 to 2 to declare the ongoing recount procedure unconstitutional because it feared that different standards would be used in different parts of the state, and 5 to 4 to ban recounts using other procedures which could have extended the deadline for the vote count. A practical matter, that there was no longer time to recount the votes yet again without a deadline extension, sealed the election victory for President George W. Bush.
The second sentence I'm removing because I feel it is stating an opinion as fact: Florida was ordered to stop the recount, and the Supreme Court judged there was not time to recount within the deadline. Florida was in the process of trying, and we'll never know if they would have succeeded. The last part of the first sentence I don't understand. I thought the "other procedures" referred to procedures that would correct the problems the Court had with the recount as it was. Where did extending the deadline come in? Finally, I'm making the change in the first sentence because that's my understanding of the decision. The ongoing recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court was already statewide. If I'm wrong please explain. -- Allen 22:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Why is it there's no mention of his New Democrat affiliation? The article should discuss this aspect as well. -- speedoflight | talk to me 11:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
On election night, news networks first called Florida for Gore, then Fox News decided to call it for Bush and all of the other news stations followed their decision. This quote is seriously biased and misleading. Here's a chronology of that night: 19:49 EST: NBC calls Florida for Gore 19:50 EST: CBS calls Florida for Gore 19:52 EST: Fox calls Florida for Gore 20:02 EST: ABC calls Florida for Gore 22:00 EST: CBS retracts Florida for Gore 2:16 EST: Fox calls Florida for Bush 2:17:30 EST: NBC calls Florida for Bush 2:17:52 EST: CBS calls Florida for Bush 2:20 EST: ABC calls Florida for Bush 3:57 EST: CBS retracts Florida for Bush 4:00 EST: ABC retracts Florida for Bush 4:02 EST: NBC retracts Florida for Bush 4:05 EST: Fox retracts Florida for Bush
The reason that the decisions seem clumped together is because all the networks shared the same feed from the Voter News Survey. The quote makes it seem that everyone called Florida for Gore than switched to Bush on Fox's singso. In fact in the space of a few minutes everyone called it for Gore, there was a long pause where the networks retract that [not listed up there, but the other non-CBS networks will retract Florida], in the space of a few minutes everyone calls it for Bush, there is another interugnum and (to repeat the refrain) in the space of a few minutes everyone retracts it from Bush. (Page 12 http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/c2k/pdf/REPFINAL.pdf) How should we clean this line up to make more accurate?
I moved the following piece out of the article as it doesn't actually relate to an "Al Gore" controversy, it's just a bit of political mudslinging. If it happens to become something more interesting the text is preserved here. Joffan 01:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
removed from the article: |
On 16 January 2006, Gore accused U.S. President Bush of "breaking the law repeatedly and insistently," and called for a special investigation of NSA spying on Americans because the spying was without a warrant from a special federal court that authorizes such requests to eavesdrop on Americans.
Bush press secretary Scott McClellan and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales both responded to reporters that the Clinton-Gore administration had done illegal warrantless physical searches themselves of Aldrich Ames without permission from a judge.
"I think his hypocrisy knows no bounds," McClellan said of Gore. But the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act at the time did not cover physical searches. The law had changed in 1995. Gore claimed that because Gonzales made a "political defense" for Bush, he was no longer eligible to review charges against Bush and therefore must name a special counsel.
"His charges are factually wrong," said Gore, "Both before and after the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was amended in 1995; the Clinton-Gore administration complied fully and completely with the terms of the law." [7]
end of removed piece |
Hello,
Al Gore in Relationships is meant to give the visitor a wide angle view of how Al Gore handles his relationships in essence and in practice. It also allows the visitors to examine the characteristics of their own relationships with Al Gore.
Both content and test are based on sound astrological knowledge and research and they gained popularity among web surfers.
I believe that even though Astrology is not considered a mainstream science, these knowledge and compatibility tool should be made available to whoever wishes to study Al Gore as broadly as possible.
I have no desire to be considered a spammer and I don't want to force Top Synergy on the authors of Al Gore's article.
I ask you, authors of Al Gore that if you have an objection to placing a link to Al Gore in Relationships in the External Links section, please write it here. Else, I’ll place the link hoping that it would be a valid resource for Al Gore's fans and researchers.
With appreciation, Midas touch 05:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Al Gore ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because of no references
Tarret, to be accurate, the article does have references; but they aren't listed correctly. -- Allen 16:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Before renomination as a good article, this article also needs its images to be appropriately tagged and article-specific fair use rationale provided if the image is claimed as fair use. TheGrappler 17:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
This phrase in the opening paragraph seems awkward and confusing to me:
He was defeated in the Electoral College vote by the Republican candidate George W. Bush on a vote of 271-266 with a Gore-committed Elector from Washington, DC abstaining. However, Gore did receive more individual votes than Bush.
It's the phrase "individual votes" that strikes me as weird. I'm very tempted to change it to "However, Gore did win a plurality of the popular vote." I hesitate because awkward phrasing like this on controversial topics in Wikipedia is often the result of torturous edit war controversies, so I thought I'd give y'all on opportunity to chime in on why what seems to me to be an obvious statement of fact is TOTALLY POV AND BIASED before I change anything. :) -- Jfruh 00:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I think this entry should have a trivia section. Here is one piece of interesting trivia:
-- No Dodo 04:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that South Park featuring Gore as a character in an episode (not actually voiced by Gore) is a notable part of his life. If a barely-notable person were featured as a character on South Park, that might be a notable part of his or her life (probably not, but maybe). But for someone as hugely famous as Gore, I don't think it really registers. I doubt it would even appear in a book-length biography. -- Allen 02:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
This article includes the Electoral College vote numbers. For balance, I believe the article should include the figures on the popular vote. I suggest that this sentence:
Should be edited to read thusly:
Al Gore used to have a pro-life political stance and therefore belongs in the Pro-life politican category. Even though he no longer has this stance, he still belongs in the category, just as former Jews are still in Jewish categories. 75.3.4.54 01:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
What is that even supposed to mean? I suggest this line be deleted.
Anytime something is quoted from a speech, it should be referenced with a link!!! There are TONS of these unsourced quotes in this article and they need to be fixed! Additionally, use "<ref>" tags in citations. Paul C/ T + 03:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Here's one: His PowerPoint presentation on global warming has received standing ovations, and he has presented it at least 1000 times."
Source:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.05/gore.html
"The book of the same name will be released in May". It seems it will be in June Source:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1594865671/103-6730785-0218255?v=glance&n=283155
(
TaffyDownUnder 06:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC))
"Gore contended the US government had committed ‘terrible abuses’ against Arabs living in America after the 9/11 attacks, and that most Americans did not support such treatment." Source:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0213-03.htm
(
TaffyDownUnder 06:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC))
"The worst thing we can possibly do is to cut off the channels of friendship and mutual understanding between Saudi Arabia and the United States"
http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/63452.htm
(
TaffyDownUnder 06:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC))
“indiscriminately rounded up, often on minor charges of overstaying a visa or not having a green card in proper order, and held in conditions that were just unforgivable.”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184804,00.html
http://www.house.gov/doolittle/itk-2-17-06.html ( TaffyDownUnder 06:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC))
"Unfortunately there have been terrible abuses and it’s wrong. I do want you to know that it does not represent the desires or wishes or feelings of the majority of the citizens of my country"
http://www.house.gov/doolittle/itk-2-17-06.html
(
TaffyDownUnder 06:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC))
"who want to learn about the world in a voice they recognize and a view they recognize as their own."
http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,14032,00.html?newsrellink
(
TaffyDownUnder 06:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC))
"re-elect Al Gore"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/01/08/03_gore.html
(
TaffyDownUnder 06:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC))
Gore's endorsement of Dean and the fallout
http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2003%20Opinion%20Editorials/December/17%20o/The%20Gore%20Endorsement%20By%20James%20J.%20Zogby.htm
(
TaffyDownUnder 06:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC))
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/Bush-Broke-Law-Gore16jan06.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/17/politics/main1213941.shtml
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/16/gore.constitution/
( TaffyDownUnder 05:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC))
These may be possible cites for Gore giving his powerpoint presentation a 1,000 times:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,1702168,00.html
http://www.sierraclub.org/carlpope/2006/04/inconvenient-truth-is-getting-out_24.asp
( TaffyDownUnder 05:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC))
Surprised to see nothing here of Gore's new film. Fishhead64 15:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Or the fact that while attending the Cannes premier, Gore and his WHOLE MOTORCADE decided to DRIVE rather than walk a single half-mile to the theater. It would be interesting to compare the amount of global-warming pollution Gore created in that single half-mile with his WHOLE MOTORCADE to the average created by individual Americans (and we won't even discuss the pollution he created just attending the premier ...). Don't you liberals ever have trouble keeping a straight face sometimes when you're preaching this silliness?
Al Gore Flew to Cannes on his private jet, which caused massive pollution! Anarchopedia 03:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
It does not matter if he uses a jet. The fact is that it is so important to raise awareness that any social cost of the jet fuel burned is offset by the social value of his making those speeches. 68.0.214.211 06:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I have added some citation links to the Environment section that should (but probably won't) end this sort of pointless and false character assassination. Frankie
I would like to ask why there is no reference in this article to his Climate Project, or his organization, Alliance for Climate Protection. I would be more than happy to write up a paragraph including those links if I can. Also, as I have read here previously, this is a site that deals in facts. Therefore I find it curious that political speculation is being allowed to be posted here. I think it is obvious that people wanting him to run are posting biased views on that rather than concentrating on the important work he is doing now regarding the climate crisis. He is also starting a grassroots effort in 2007 calling for a carbon freeze, and hoping to deliver 1 million signatures to Congress regarding global warming legislation. I really fail to see how this article cannot be deemed biased when it is obviously geared more to political speculation than current reality. JMMoore 23:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC) On second look, I do see that there was a mention of the training, but again, nothing specific with no websites noted.
Should we have links to political campaign/advocacy sites in an encyclopedia? Seems to have advocacy or criticism sites linked to the article would be to tip the POV toward or away from the subject. Dubc0724 14:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
The "Environment" section claims that Gore "helped" MMT receive funding from DOE. The reference, which isn't a suitable source anyway, says nothing of the kind. I'll note that it was full of highly POV phrasing, which I redacted. If anyone can verifiably source that Gore extended regulatory assistance to this company, that would be great. Otherwise, I'm not sure what the notability of a campaign contribution is. Derex 22:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Related to the following portion of the article:
According to Newsweek journalist Bill Turque's biography Inventing Al Gore (which does not shy away from criticism and scandals, such as charging Gore with smoking marijuana far more frequently than he admits):
The parenthetical statement is distracting and irrelevant to the quotation it prefaces. Could we remove it or place it in a footnote?
Thanks
Should mention be made that people are calling Gore an Arch Druid? Mathiastck 18:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
This strikes me as a peripheral controversy at best. I think it's unclear whether it belongs at Al Gore controversies, but it definitely doesn't belong here. By all means we could replace with some other controversy that got more play, e.g. Love Story, Love Canal, summers at the farm, earth tones, etc., etc. Crust 17:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
This photo appears deliberately selected to show Gore with an angry expression in ironic contrast to the caption "party elder". Should we delete/replace it? On the other hand, perhaps that is my subjective appraisal and others disagree? Crust 13:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to be working and it's making the page scroll. -- TJive 07:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
This needs a brief summary of the controversies article. Strangely, "views and controversies" was a section. I separated out the views, and was left with only a greatly over-detailed internet quote section for controversies. I cut that as unsuitable. So, now we need a paragraph or two describing each section on the controversy article in a sentence or two. For the moment, I've added a "see also link" to the controveries article at the bottom, replacing a narrower controversies link. The coverage of "views" is embarassingly slim. Derex 21:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
June 12, 2006, Al Gore's global warming theory is a hoax according to the Canada Free Press and about 60 accredited scientists. [10]
Al Gore was born in Washington, D.C., to Albert A. Gore, Sr., a former U.S. Senator of Tennessee, and Pauline LaFon Gore, one of the first women to graduate from Vanderbilt Law School. Since his father was a veteran Democratic senator from Tennessee, Al Gore, Jr. divided his childhood between Washington, D.C., and Carthage, Tennessee. During the school year, the younger Gore lived in a hotel in Washington, during summer vacations, he lived in Carthage, where he worked on the Gore family farm. citation needed
Gore attended the elite St. Albans School [1] where he ranked 25th (of 51) in his senior class. [2] In preparation for his college applications, Al Gore scored a 1355 on his SAT (625 in verbal and 730 in math). [3]
In 1965, Gore enrolled at Harvard College, the only university that he applied to. [4] His roommates (in Dunster House) were actor Tommy Lee Jones and former Columbia University women's basketball star Katie Day's father, Bart Day. After finding himself bored with his classes in his declared English major, Gore switched majors and graduated from Harvard in June 1969 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in government. [5]
After serving as an United States Army journalist during the Vietnam War, Gore decided to return to school. In 1971, Gore enrolled in graduate course in religious studies at Vanderbilt University. [6] Gore later transfered in to Vanderbilt's Law School, which he prematurely left (without getting a law degree) to run for congress in 1976.
Al Gore's IQ from tests administered in at St. Alban's School 1961 and 1964 (his freshman and senior years) respectively, have been recorded to be 133 and 134. [7] Both IQ scores are in the 98 – 99.3 percentile. [8]
There was an {{ editprotected}} here, but the article is only semi-protected (now?) - so any registered user can add the info (if their account is older than 4 days).-- Commander Keane 10:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
David Foster Edits were reverted for the following reasons. Other politicians articles do not list grades. These facts are well documented and not in dispute. Al Gore was not the first Presidential candidate to lose his home state. GHW Bush lost all of New England in 1992 just to name one. -- 8bitJake 18:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
You're in error, Jake. GHWBush claimed Texas as his home state, despite the fact that his 'property' in Texas was an undeveloped smallish lot in a prestigious area of Houston, and his 'home' in Texas was a hotel suite permanently rented in his name, and he spent much more time in his Kennebunkport Maine vacation home. Even though the Bushs are definitely from Connecticut, they call themselves Texans.
Then the information should also be changed on the 2000 presidential election page for it has the very facts which you reverted (—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.122.192.129 ( talk • contribs).)
How can it be argued that supporting the 1991 Gulf War and then opposing the 2003 Iraq War is evidence of a change in political stance. The 1991 War was the response to an Iraqi invasion of a sovereign state and was supported by the United Nations and a massive coalition contributing troops and logistical support to Desert Shield/Desert Storm/Operation Granby. The 2003 War (which I support incidentally) was, regardless of stance, sold to the American and British public through deception and outright lies based on heavily flawed intelligence. The fact that Gore's stance has not changed is shown in this article by the fact that he supported the 1998 actions against Slobodan Milosovic and also Operation Desert Fox.
Andyj461-- 194.203.94.95 17:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that Al Gore should be in "climate change" category. Perhaps admin could add [[category:climatologists]] and remove [[category:climate change]] 137.110.7.57 06:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I recently restored his official VP portrait since it doesn't have source/copyright issues like the others that have been added. This image, however, is 12 years old. It is a good image, and should be kept in the article in the VP section, but a more recent free use image definitely needs to be added, since Gore has changed considerably since 1994. I say free use since I wonder whether or not an unfree photo would qualify as fair use since a free alternative is available (his official VP photo is free). -- tomf688 ( talk - email) 05:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
That picture does not portray Gore in a good light, and I don't think it falls into NPOV. I have restored his official VP picture, the "more recent" picture can go lower on the page if you think it must be here. It is not a good introduction picture.
I don’t see anyone explaining why this tag is here or what is un-verified in the article. If someone wants to say why this article should be tagged then fine, but I am removing it until then. Redd Dragon talk contributions 04:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
This struck me as odd and out of place while reading on Al Gore:
"His Keynote presentation on global warming has received standing ovations, and he has presented it at least 1000 times."
I think a statement like this should be referenced somehow to show its factual basis, and thus prove its objectivity as a statement. It looks like someone who just wanted me to know Al Gore's speech is cool and he speaks it alot.
Here's a paragraph on Gore's effect (or lack thereof) on the environment in general during 1993-2001 that his fans censor from the main article. It's contrary to the perceptions that they wish to promote. Bottom line is that Gore has never owned up or even mentioned these items in his "new" championing of the environment.
[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.91.172.36 ( talk • contribs) .
Some clarification probably needs to be made in the second paragraph as far as "7-2" vs. "5-4" on the decision. The Bush v. Gore article referenced in the same paragraph states "In three separate opinions, seven justices found that a ballot recount then being conducted in certain counties in the State of Florida was to be stopped due to the lack of a consistent standard; two justices disagreed. A 5-4 majority further declared in a per curiam opinion that there was insufficient time to establish standards for a new recount that would meet Florida's deadline for certifying electors." Given this, I can see why someone would change this article to read 7-2, since that seems to apply to the stopping of the recount while the 5-4 said that there was not time to establish a new standard. I don't know which is correct, but I perceive an inconsistency which should be corrected in one or both articles. -- Brian G ( Talk) 17:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I know this is completely OT and if you want to remove it go ahead. But I always thought Al Gore was a bit of an idiot and probably would be a typical US president. Having read the article tho I now realise I was probably wrong, I have to say OMFG I can't believe you voted (or nearly voted) for Bush instead of Gore...!!! Nil Einne 16:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't see anything about his views on Gun Control. Odd since many in the Democratic Party and most pundits say it cost him his home state and the election. There is even something about Al Gore and Gun Control on the Joe Lieberman page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Lieberman
Over a long period, the Southpark pic has been inserted and removed numerous times. I don't really see the relevance of even the reference, and certainly not of a picture of it. It's an encylopedia article about Gore. And a reference in a comedy central cartoon just doesn't seem that relevant to the scope of the man's importance. Not that it should be censored, there's already an entire article on it. should leave the ManBearPig pic to that SouthPark episode article. (It's very dubious whether the use of that pic even qualifies as fair use for this article, but that's a separate issue.)
But at any rate, to those of you who support the inclusion here. Would you also support putting the Southpark "Jesus shitting on Bush and US flag" picture in both the Jesus and Bush articles? I don't think it has much relevance to them, no more so than SouthPark to this. But what's the difference, if there is one? It all seems silly to me. Derex 05:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Here are the first four paragraphs of http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/environment_gore_dc :
I'm not sure how to work this apparently rather novel proposal into the article, and I don't have an account and the article is protected anyway, so I'll leave it to others. I think this should be included though, because this sort of thing hints he may be running for the 2008 nomination. 66.159.220.115 02:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
In order to make a super-Al Gore, an unstoppable force for inanity and paranoia in environmental politics. We must pay homage to the omnipotent Alva Gore, inventor of the Internet, patron saint of Wikipedia, and reknowned film-maker. Have mercy on us oh supreme Al, for we knew not that our carbon dioxide emissions would bring death and devastation upon your concubine, Gaia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.144.172 ( talk • contribs)
"Although opposed to the Vietnam War, Gore voluntarily enlisted in the army in order to participate in the war."
Uh, I think this needs some kind of explanation. Kaldari 06:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
The article currently reads:
The popular political blog The Daily Howler contends that Gore lost the election due to a relentless media "war," (...) Singled out by The Daily Howler for particularly misleading accounts of Gore and his candidacy are Ceci Connolly of the Washington Post, Katherine "Kit" Seelye of the New York Times and television talk-show host Chris Matthews.
This is an important topic, although loaded with partisan sentiments. However, there is more than just the dailyhowler blog (which is, by political blog standards, only semipopular) making this claim:
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5920188/the_press_vs_al_gore and also statements in Harris/Halperin: The Way to Win: Taking the White House in 2008 Centrist democrat blogger Mickey Kaus and even conservative pundit Joe Scarborough ("I think, in the 2000 election, I think [the media] were fairly brutal to Al Gore. I think they hit him hard on a lot of things like inventing the Internet and some of those other things, and I think there was a generalization they bought into that, if they had done that to a Republican candidate, I’d be going on your show saying, you know, that they were being biased.") made public statements going in the same direction.
I suggest to change as follows: There are several commentators (Eric Boehlert/link, Bob Somerby blog daily howler) contending that Gore etc ... Singled out for particularly misleading accounts of Gore and his candidacy etc
One might even go for a stronger formulation: "There are several accounts, some of which are well-documented, that ..." etc. It's clearly much more than just one blogger's opinion. Rbrilla 19:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that this page should have a trivia section. Would anyone be opposed to the merging of the most important pieces into other sections in the article? Jasper23 04:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
2000 Presidential election Photograph caption reads:
After a close campaign, Gore greets President-select Bush at the White House in late December of 2000.
This should read "President-elect" to maintain with the proper title of Bush. NemoX 23:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. That's an official policy, not a guideline. Isn't that pretty much the very definition of trivia. I still think this ought go. Derex 12:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
After reading WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information it is pretty clear that this trivia section needs to be reformatted into the rest of the article. I made some edits to get rid of the things that Al Gore didn't actually do. I think the best way to approach this is to take the trivia section out and post it on the talk page to be reformatted into the article. Anyone disagree? Jasper23 23:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Pls someone to add the link in bulgarian bg:Ал Гор! Thanks -- Chickem4o 20:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally. Thanks. --- J.S ( t| c) 07:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I didn't remove it because the format would be far drastic. While I recognize that the 2000 election is highly relevent to Al Gore, it takes up far to much space considering that there already is "Presidential election 2000" article! This should at least be shortened or directed to the 2000 election. Please cite your agreement or dissent before I make the edit. StayinAnon 00:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0101/06/se.05.html
I don't know if this page is locked or what but i can't edit, so here is a link for the claim about florida representatives lacking a senator to back up their complaints 60.240.41.159 09:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
from the Al Gore controversy page.
Enjoy. Jasper23 02:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Why are Gore's SAT scores listed? I haven't seen any other biographies with SAT scores listed, and Gore's aren't even that Spectacular.
For what it's worth, I think it's a good idea to update the picture in the infobox with a newer picture of Gore (the current picture is 12 years old). Thus, I *would* support a picture like the one shown in this revision *if* an image with known copyright status is used. Obviously, we shouldn't be using a picture that has unknown copyright status. But I hope the copyright status is the reason the image is being reverted, not merely a desire to have the old picture in the infobox. · j e r s y k o talk · 00:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)