Talk:Al Gore/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Discussion

Chinadialogue editor Isabel Hilton interviews the Nobel Peace Prize winner, October 12, 2007:

On running again for office:

“I ran for president twice. I did not get the office. I haven’t ruled out possibly getting into politics again at some point. But frankly I don’t expect to, and I have no intention of doing it, because I find the whole process rather toxic”.

On national positions towards climate change mitigation and abatement:

“China and India are sometimes stereotyped unfairly. The truth is they know, or many of their leaders and scientists know full well, how much they have to lose if this climate crisis is not checked. …Twenty million people around Beijing would have to relocate, 40 million people around Shanghai, millions more in other coastal cities … other consequences have caught their attention. They have their own equities involved here. So I don’t think it’s right to just assume that they’re not going to care about solving this crisis”.

On more general actions necessary for tackling climate change:

“There are moral questions raised concerning our responsibility for what we do, now that we are on notice and have constructive knowledge of what the consequences are. But those are questions we can’t afford to entertain. We need to focus on putting together a practical solution.”

http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/413 and in Chinese: http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/ch/413.


- Hi again. Please please put the beard thing in there.

- Dude! The BEARD debate was HILARIOUS! I mean, who gives a damn whether a bearded Gore pic is put into the article or not? Man, I can't stop laughing.

This article needs NPOV-ing. (Yes, this will be hard) --k.lee


Speaking of which: [1] just added some poorly fact-checked junk on Gore's academic record. In fact, Gore did not "rarely get grades better than C's and D's"---he graduated cum laude from Harvard [2] which is perhaps not spectacular but respectable nonetheless. Contrast w/ the entry on George W. Bush. If I may be so bold, a horde of anonymous cowards is conspiring to make Bush's entry a hagiography and Gore's entry a farce.

- No, actually graduating cum laude from Harvard is not respectable, considering the 94% of graduating seniors graduate with honors (ie. cum laude). Therefore, it is no special accomplishment that Gore graduated cum laude--he merely graduated in the top 94% of his class!

Some more fact checking:

  • The current commercialized private-sector Internet and the Defense Dept.'s ARPANET are not the same, and it was far from a foregone conclusion that one would become the other. See Internet, this should be obvious.
  • Winifred Skinner did not collcans as a hobby, and no media source I can find (including the conservative National Review) has claimed this. The most they have alleged is that Skinner's son could have given her money for the medication. Sources report that her income was a little over $800 a month, and her prescription drugs cost about $250 a month, which certainly means that prescription drug costs constituted a large portion of her small income.

Anyway, I suggest we reorganize this page substantially; breakdown:

  • "42nd vice president..."
  • Gore birthdate and family. (1-2 sentences)
  • 1-paragraph summary of Gore's career (just facts: went to Harvard, Vietnam, reporter, elected senator, attempts to get Presidential nomination, VP.)
  • Short section on (alleged) accomplishments of Gore political career
  • Long section on Gore biographical controversies: academics, Vietnam
  • Long section on 2000 campaign: alleged lies and character problems, media coverage thereof
  • Short section on political presence after 2000 election

--k.lee

---

The "poorly fact checked junk" came from the washington post. THe source is listed on the page. If it's incorrect, it can be deleted. Although, I've seen it backed up on a number of news pages.

The Bush page is full of criticisms (for example, he's the only president I've seen on Wiki that has an entire section of his page devoted to how he's "ruining" the environment), so I don't see why a few negative things shouldn't be added to Gore's page in fairness. I don't care about criticizing any politician, but let's do it to all of them if we're going to do it to one.

The thing about Skinner: Her son said himself said that he has offered on many occasions to pay for her perscription drugs, but she refuses it because she enjoys picking up the cans. Those were the son's words, not mine. There is a quote from her son on one of the cable news websites. I'll see if I can find it again. - jazz77


The exact information from the Washington Post has been documented by many pages: Gore got a number of C's in college, including one bad year in which he got several C's and a D. This does not justify your phrasing of the matter: I defy you to explain to me how someone could graduate from Harvard cum laude while "rarely" doing better than C's and D's. All the other citations on conservative magazines and websites appear to be echo chamber ramblings. For some rare actual facts, see the following: [3].

BTW I am entirely in favor of criticism of Al Gore. I simply prefer that the criticisms be grounded in fact and given appropriate proportional time in a balanced article---Gore's undergraduate transcript does not belong in the second real paragraph, ahead of his entire political career. (I would prefer even more that the criticisms be of his political positions rather than miscellaneous random trivialities, but perhaps that's a bit much to hope for.) Anyway, talk is cheap. I'll be editing the entry myself soon enough, and then you can edit my edit. --k.lee

--- I was under the impression that I was quoting exact information as reported by the Washington Post. Anything I added to the article was found on multiple websites for news organizations, so I assumed they knew what they were talking about (not that being a news organization means that you know what you're talking about of course). The information I saw said that he "rarely did better" than Cs and Ds.. that was exactly how it was posted on the news article. Do not assume that I am not interested in "actual facts". I thought I was quoting "actual facts" and did my best to make sure I could find more than one source for each addition I made. -jazz77


I haven't researched Gore's education at all, but based on the article as it is at the moment, I can't even verify that he completed a bachelor's degree, much less what sort of degree it is. At a minimum, please indicate what degree(s) he did earn and from what universities; whether those degrees were also cum laude or whatever would be relevant, as well as what his major was for his bachelor's degree. Wesley


Wesley, here's the result of a bit of Google searching (Ed Poor):

"Gore received a degree in government with honors from Harvard University in 1969." [4]

Gore received a degree in government with honors from Harvard University in 1969. After graduation, he volunteered for enlistment in the U.S. Army and served in Vietnam. Returning to civilian life, Vice President Gore became an investigative reporter with The Tennessean in Nashville. He attended Vanderbilt University Divinity School and Vanderbilt Law School. [5], [6], [7]

Gore got bad grades at Harvard, flunked out of Vanderbilt twice. Boston Globe column

Thanks Ed, now we're getting somewhere. So what was the degree? Was it a B.S., a B.A., an M.A.?? I'm guessing B.A., but could be B.S. for all I know. Wesley
I don't know. I suspect it's BS (wink), because all 4 sites I cited used the same wording -- one copying the other, no doubt. No, seriously, it's unclear whether the "honors" degree was undergraduate or graduate -- although generally postgraduate degrees name the School (like Yale Law School or Harvard Business School), so we could guess that it was undergrad. Then, we could take further guesses on whether "goverment" is considered science or liberal arts. The point is, though, that Bush's educational career clearly outstrips Gore's -- despite Democratic Party propagandizing to the contrary. (Although Gore rightfully gets credit for pushing Internet funding.) --Ed Poor

Thanks, Soulpatch. As a liberal myself, I would have found it hard to consider Gore a liberal, but I was afraid of changing that paragraph for fear of being NPOV. -- Zoe

You're welcome. :) soulpatch

OK, finally got my promised rewrite done. There are probably parts that edge off NPOV, but I make no apologies. The prior Gore piece had a number of strong ideological slants, and I did a lot of fact checking for my rewrite. This may not be purely NPOV but it's way fairer than it was before. I encourage you to edit at will, but do your fact checking, and by that I mean more than copying and pasting from random partisan Geocities pages (yes, prior editors of both this page and Gore-ism clearly did exactly that). The Washington Post series on Al Gore's life is excellent, BTW (I linked it up at bottom).

It's a pure right-wing smear to claim that Gore "flunked" out of Vanderbilt Law School. He left law school to run for Congress, a detail that all conservative sources I've seen omit. As for flunking in Divinity School, that seems legit. BTW the fact that people are posting about the merits of Gore's academic career without even knowing basic facts about it does not give me warm fuzzy feelings.

Also, I am hard-pressed to find the "rarely got better than C's and D's" wording anywhere on Google. Perhaps jazz was confused by the Boston Globe, which wrote that Gore's transcript was "riddled with C's". This is a sneaky way of phrasing the matter: the propositional content is simply that Gore's transript had some unspecified number of C's, but it makes it sound as if Gore's transcript consisted mostly of C's without actually saying so (which would be an outright lie). In any case, until someone cites sources that give more details on Gore's transcript, I will go on what I have.

Finally, regarding my edits on Gore-ism, those may also be non-NPOV, but frankly the old page was a wholesale copy-and-paste from conservative hit pieces (Google will turn them up) so I make no apologies there either. It's less slanted than before, and I will stand by that.

k.lee


What an awful article right now (11/13/02), written from the perspective of Gore-haters vs. Gore-defenders, rather than attempting to write a comprehensive history of Gore's career. I may try to slog through this mess, but it may take someone more daring than I.--The Cunctator

Gee, thanks. If you go back to the old version prior to my edits, you'll see it was disogranized, slanted, and factually incorrect. I went and did some research to flesh out the article and decrease the bogosity level, rather than deleting the previous NPOV nonsense about his academic career and his military service (which would have been my first inclination). If you think this is now too much, then go ahead and edit it down. I would not mind if the sections on "controversies about Gore's personal life" and "controversies about Gore's political views and career" were substantially trimmed. k.lee

Somebody should add the fact that he said he was quitting politics a few days ago. Lduperval


Posting more of your un-fact-checked right-wing talking points, huh Jazz?

The 2003 Florida Statistical Abstract census asked how people voted in the 2000 election. The results showed that Gore received over 1000 fewer votes than President George W. Bush.

Given the margin of error and the margin of victory, this number is as statistically meaningless as every other statistic that has been compiled regarding the votes in the 2000 election, and falls under the umbrella of the "confusing results" mentioned in the previous paragraph.

Actually no, the margin of error was far less than the 1000. According to the "ultra-right wing" CNN.
In early 2003, Gore was embarrassed by a statement made by former campaign strategist Michael Whouley, where it was revealed that Gore's 2000 presidential campaign deliberately caused a traffic jam on a major road in southern New Hampshire on primary day to keep Bill Bradley voters away from the polls. Whouley said that the Gore campaign team had seen exit polls that suggested that a large number of independents living in southern New Hampshire suburbs, were turning out to vote for Bradley. Gore's campaign team organized a caravan to clog traffic along Interstate 93, to keep potential Bradley voters away.

Oh really? http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh021203.shtml k.lee

Tell it to CNN.
You can blather all you like about CNN. Given your past edit history on this article, I will assume you are lying or misremembering, and delete any edits you introduce that contain these "facts", until you produce a link to credible documentation. k.lee
Time to stop being a jerk, K. Lee. I added the information minutes after they made a HUGE deal about it on CNN. I don't give a rats ass if its here or it isn't.
Likewise, I don't give a shit about cable news, which I consider about as generally reliable as the supermarket tabloids. Call me whatever names you like; it doesn't change the fact that your edits are unreliable and slanted. k.lee



WHy is this page protected, like homelessness, and me censored? If you think that my points are so well laid out that it might acutally get a liberal or a socialist to start to think for the first time in their life, why don't you rewrite all my points in a subtle manner, like the other writers did on Islamofascism? Please, don't censor all POVs that aren't left-wing liberal. JoeM

STOP THE LEFTWING CENSORSHIP OF THIS ARTICLE RIGHT NOW!!!!

Are you kidding me


Chris isn't just POVing this article shamelessly, he's also deleting the interwiki links and the table formatting. RickK 05:37, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"Stop reverting, I'm not done"

Indeed. This article is a shambles. I'd suggest looking at a [reputable entry in an encyclopedia|entry in a reputable encyclopedia] before continuing the consistent blather that has become this article's edit history. We're capable of doing this in an NPOV manner, and it would be nice if we could do so before my grandson's elected president. ;) - Hephaestos 06:05, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Most of this article used to contain the text at Gore Personal and Political Controversies. In my opinion, that article is a complete POV waste (maybe 10% salvageable). It has been listed on vfd and should be deleted. Therefore, reverting to the pre-Chris version is not fine. I've tried to trim some of his POV text. What is needed now? --Jiang 06:16, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Stating pure facts is not POV, this is what the page should look like: http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Al_Gore --Chris

It should be noted that you wrote that page http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Al_Gore&action=history. Maximus Rex 07:18, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

No, not presenting all facts, selectively presenting pure facts, or distorting pure facts by using certain words is POV. I will restore your last two edits:

in 1998. He also supported the bombing campaign (Operation Desert Fox) in Iraq in response to Saddam Hussein's unwillingness to cooperate with UN inspectors.

But what is the relevance. As a member of the administration, isn't it expected that he support its position? What was his specific role here? --Jiang 07:21, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It is relevant because he has recently opposed the 2003 Iraq war, which was included in my version of PRIVATE Citizen:

Under private citizen, it ends by saying he vowed to stay invovled. That doesnt even go there. Please revert it to this:

Private citizen

Following his election loss, Gore accepted visiting professorships at Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism and Middle Tennessee State University. In 2002, Al Gore accepted a consulting job with a Los Angeles law firm and become an adviser to Google. Following the November 5, 2002 midterm elections Gore re-emerged into the public eye with a 14-city book tour and a well-orchestrated "full Gore" media blitz which included a pair of policy speeches. On September 23rd, Gore delivered a speech on the impending War with Iraq and the War on Terrorism that generated a fair amount of commentary. Less than two weeks later, on October 2, he made a speech on Bush's handling of the economy to the Brookings Institution. Also, during this time period Gore guest starred on several programs such as the David Letterman Show and Saturday Night Live appearing much more relaxed and funnier as a private citizen than he did while holding public office. Gore ended his media blitz on December, 15th 2002 when he announced that he would not seek his party's nomination. (See 2004 election for more)

The following year Gore joined the board of directors of Apple Computer. He also made the news around this time when it was reported that he was looking to buy the Vivendi Cable Network to start a news station that would have a combination of CNN and MTV and would try to reach to young viewers. However, till this point in time, no deal has been struck between the Gore led group and Vivendi. Gore also assumed an elder statesman like role in the Democratic Party when he challenged the Bush Administration on issues such as The War with Iraq, civil liberties, and terrorism.

Again, I don't see where you two say that is biased towards anyone. -ChrisDJackson

The Iraq War and Operation Desert Fox are under different cirumstances. Desert Fox was not a full-fledged invasion and had UN backing and support. Therefore, it's not entirely illogicial for him to support one but not the other. If there's irony, the irony must be explcicit, but I dont see it.

The last sentence of your second paragraph can be avoided because it is basically a summary of your first paragraph, which is a listing of all the major speeches he made. Just find the first link for "2003 invasion of Iraq" to see what I'm talking about. There's no need to mention things twice.

And please sign your posts. --Jiang 07:35, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

They are two different conflicts, but many criticized him for supporting one and not the other. I think that should be put in the endorsement area of Dean. He said that that is the major reason he endorsed Dean. ( Not supporting the war)

The two set of speeches mentioned is two differnt things and times. The first set was when he was making up his mind to run or not, that was in 2002. The second set with civilv liberties and such was in 2003.

--ChrisDJackson

Ok, went back and revised so it is not redundant:

Private citizen

Following his election loss, Gore accepted visiting professorships at Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism and Middle Tennessee State University. In 2002, Al Gore accepted a consulting job with a Los Angeles law firm and become an adviser to Google. Following the November 5, 2002 midterm elections Gore re-emerged into the public eye with a 14-city book tour and a well-orchestrated "full Gore" media blitz which included a pair of policy speeches. On September 23rd, Gore delivered a speech on the impending War with Iraq and the War on Terrorism that generated a fair amount of commentary. Less than two weeks later, on October 2, he made a speech on Bush's handling of the economy to the Brookings Institution. Also, during this time period Gore guest starred on several programs such as the David Letterman Show and Saturday Night Live appearing much more relaxed and funnier as a private citizen than he did while holding public office.

The following year Gore joined the board of directors of Apple Computer. He also made the news around this time when it was reported that he was looking to buy the Vivendi Cable Network to start a news station that would have a combination of CNN and MTV and would try to reach to young viewers. However, till this point in time, no deal has been struck between the Gore led group and Vivendi. Gore also assumed an elder statesman like role in the Democratic Party when he denounced the Bush Administration on issues such as the Occupation of Iraq, USA Patriot Act, and the environment.

How is that?

Also, I like the rest of the page. You just need to include the above; IMHO.

Thanks, ChrisDJackson

Again, Gore also assumed an elder statesman like role portrays him as something not all people share. Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms --Jiang 10:13, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

We only care about his pre-politican profession. The World Book Encyclopedia (the only other source that tabulates date like this) lists his profession as journalist. If you really want to cite that he teaches, list him as a teacher, like Woodrow Wilson. "Clinton Administration"[8] has almost 1,100,000 more links to it that "Clinton-Gore Administration"[9]. That's the term we'll use. --Jiang 08:16, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Old VfD discussion

The page in question has been reintegrated into this article, the WP:VfD discussion is below:

  • Gore Personal and Political Controversies. Besides an ill-advised title, hopelessly POV. RickK 04:18, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Content was moved from Al Gore. Delete, but do not move all this POV crap back, salvage whatver is relevant for a biographical article, not some anti-Gore political rant. --Jiang 04:53, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Any NPOV content on the subject belongs in the Al Gore article itself, not swept under the carpet like this. Salsa Shark 20:12, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Removing controversy to a seperate article is not acceptable. Given the user's edits, calling this an attempt to "sweep under the carpet" seems plausible. Information about Gore should stay in the Al Gore page. Maximus Rex 05:59, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I learned quite a bit from this article and found it NPOV. Content is good, does it belong on the Al Gore page? Or was it moved from there because Al Gore was getting too big? No vote on the page, but I vote to keep the content. moink 19:01, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep the information! I strongly agree with Moink that this is an informative, useful, even necessary addition to an accurate and full article on Gore. While some may have an agenda and prefer one type of (flattering) information, if you sincerely find the tone rather than the content POV, please edit the article. If you are looking to remove facts which you dislike, find a new subject, your POV has gotten out of hand here. Jack 21:01, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Appears NPOV and informative. Or perhaps move contents back to the full article. Coren 21:10, Jan 1, 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge and delete. Davodd 00:13, Jan 2, 2004 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I think it would be fine to return this to the original article, but without removing any of the content. Jack 00:22, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge into main Gore article. Interesting and overwhelmingly NPOV. -- stewacide 11:17, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor is it located at snopes.com. In writing an encyclopedic biography, it is not in our interests to dispell rumors, only to state the hard and basic facts. Just because it's factual doesn't mean it should stay. --Jiang 12:56, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. A very good article. I went presuming a heap of nonsense based on comments made here. But it is well sourced, well written, and unambiguously NPOV and encyclopædic. Rumours and conspiracies are part and parcel of politics and a credible encyclopædia should have no problem explaining what are the claims, who makes them and what the factual evidence is. We do it about JFK, Bush and others. Gore warrants the same. FearÉIREANN 03:02, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep the content. -- Cyan 06:01, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, as it stands now. This article has potential, but it is currently a mess. If I were grading this as a paper, I'd give it a D. It is formatted poorly and organized weakly. It quotes items second and third hand without citing references. Parts were paraphrased from other sites. Its title is sloppy. It should really be named Personal and political controversies of Al Gore. In order to save this article, someone has to do some heavy overhauls. Kingturtle 06:31, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Remerged into Al Gore article, needs organ

Controversies

I haven't followed this debate, but the controversies clearly belong in this article, preferably in the sections where the historical events they relate to are discussed (and with an even level of detail throughout). Having separate controversies articles is increasingly recognized as POV, and the same is the case here.—Eloquence 20:17, Jan 3, 2004 (UTC)