Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:37, 1 August 2007

Biography: Politics and Government Redirect‑class

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Redirect This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This redirect is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Top-importance).

One problem I have with this article is that it presents only Gore contoversies that favor the man.

If you know of any Gore controversy that does not favor him, feel free to add it. --C S 03:15, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

Dude.. we do, but the Gore heads edit faster than everyone else and bury the controversy in a love fest of Gore praise.. Hell, they even got away with this retarted POV fork that should be on the main page.

Side note, due to the POV of fervant Gore heads this article is forever dooomed to "B status"—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.61.124.28 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 30 July 2007.

Occidental petroleum; AIDS drugs; Cockburn-St. Clair book; a few more notes

The connection between VP Gore and Occidental Petroleum was at least a minor controversy. The article mentions that Gore's father (Sen. Albert Gore, Sr.) was closely tied to Occidental, but the coverage in this article should probably be expanded to make clearer what the allegations were.

Especially during the 2000 campaign, AIDS activists caused considerable grief for Gore in demonstrations alleging that Gore was in league with pharmaceutical companies in preventing inexpensive life-saving drugs from helping AIDS victims in Africa and elsewhere.

The Cockburn-St. Clair book, Al Gore: A User's Manual (2000), is a rather nasty slamming of Gore on all sorts of grounds. Even though their work is exceptionally well documented, it is written from an intensely anti-Gore perspective, with pens dipped in clever venom. Some of their more awful stories about Gore (even though based in fact) seem too unpleasant to repeat in an encyclopedia, especially allegations that did not involve widespread controversy at the time. (For example, Cockburn and St. Clair report that, despite Gore's hypocritical posturing in a famous Convention speech against the evils of tobacco, where he spoke poignantly and tearfully before a national audience about having held the hand of his dying sister----a cancer victim----Gore had shortly before that speech been boasting publicly to tobacco associations that he himself was a tobacco farmer.)

The WTI incinerator episode (East Liverpool, Ohio) is probably an important enough controversy to be included within a separate sub-heading under the environmental rubric. Also, it was shortly after (and perhaps because of) the big WTI-float anti-Gore protest outside the White House that Pennsylvania Avenue was blocked off to vehicular traffic.

I came across this from a little quiz (http://politicalcompass.org/iconochasms) , here's the question: Who in 1997 championed the privatisation of California's National Oil Reserve, and the subsequent drilling by Occidental that resulted in serious environmental damage, destruction to a sacred Indian burial ground and a windfall for his family trust's Occidental stocks? (Occidental also put a pipeline through the Colombian rain forest.)?. I've been meaning to read about it, but, y'know, laziness, mmm. -Kfor 12:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Willie Horton "murderer furlough issue" as originated by Al Gore

I don't want to initiate a reversion-deletion war, but I would respectfully suggest that it was entirely inappropriate to remove the section outlining the controversy concerning Al Gore's use of the issue of the Massachusetts convict-furlough ("Willie Horton") against Michael Dukakis in 1988. The report aimed for balance (making it clear that Gore was not at all directly responsible for the Bush-Quayle campaign's later use of Willie Horton); if the report wasn't balanced, the cure should be to strive to edit it to make it balanced, not to delete it with the unhelpful exclamation "bullshit!"

The URL the deleter cites (from Jesse Jackson, Jr.) as refuting the section actually substantiates the fact that Al Gore was the first to introduce the murderer-furlough issue into the 1988 presidential campaign. It is true (and an editor could accurately point out) that Sen. Gore did not use Willie Horton's name when he raised this accusation against Dukakis, but he clearly referred to the furlough-escape-rape incident and attempted to portray Gov. Dukakis as soft on crime.

Also inappropriate, it would seem, was the deletion of the section concerning the controversy surrounding the claim by supporters of Jesse Jackson in 1988, that Gore at that time was being supported by the anti-Jackson establishment, as the "Great White Hope" in the South. Ed Koch's anti-Jackson comments in particular were highly controversial and probably embarrassed Gore himself, even though Koch was attempting to support Gore. Denunciations by Wilkins (and other civil rights leaders) of the 1988 Gore campaign's tactics indicate that this was was a serious controversy. To balance this section, there was information that Jesse Jackson later supported Al Gore on the national ticket, three time.

Let's discuss this a bit, and then I would suggest restoring information about those controversies.

 65.223.141.108 19:44, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Now I see that 68.6.82.11 has evidently also deleted any reference to Occidential Petroleum, which was certainly a controversy involving Al Gore. It would appear that the edits by 68.6.82.11 are aimed at protecting Al Gore from what I suppose 68.6.82.11 feels is unfair reportage of Al Gore controversies, but it strikes me that it is not at all neutral or fair simply to delete this information about controversies involving Al Gore (in an article devoted to "Al Gore controversies").

A) it is simply inaccurate to say there was a "controversy" over Al Gore introducing Willie Horton. There was no controversy at all over his remarks at the time on the furlough program, and in fact he never mentioned Willie Horton. There was a "controversy" later over ads run by George Bush, designed by Lee Atwater by his own admission to appeal to racist sentiment. That was the controversy. It is perfectly fine to mention in the Willie Horton article that Gore mentioned the program in a debate. It is, however, simply silly to say that it is therefore a "controversy" about Al Gore.

B) Ed Koch's remarks may belong in an Ed Koch controversy article. they weren't remarks made by or endorsed by Al Gore. Again, it is silly to put them in an Al Gore controversy article. You claim that there were denunciations of Al Gore by civil rights leaders. Fine, then quote a few of them with sources and provide evidence it was treated as a controversy by the press. A criticism does not by itself make a controversy.

C) In fact, the environment write-up was generally in Gore's favor. Also, it mentioned not a controversy, but a criticism. To say that a second-hand interest in stock in a major international corporations is "controversial" distorts the definition of controversy beyond comprehension. Show me some evidence of a media circus around it; if you think it was a controversy, provide some sort evidence to that effect. If you feel there is no difference between a criticism and a controversy, we should move this article to Criticisms of Al Gore.

Some criticisms (perhaps all disputed criticisms) involve controversies, so I don't see the point of this distinction. A controversy is a disputed matter, usually a publicly disputed matter.

If you take a look at any of the contemporary newspaper accounts of Koch's role as Gore's main anti-Jackson hatchetman in 1988, you'll see that this was extremely controversial, and it was discussed as a controversy about Al Gore. Jackson's campaign was especially irritated that Al Gore made a statement to the effect of, "I haven't mentioned Jackson's statement about 'Hymietown.'" The Gore campaign's role in attacking Jackson was hugely controversial in 1988. For example, see Edward Walsh and Gwen Ifill, "3 Democrats Await New York's Verdict; Koch Keeps Up Assaults on Jackson" The Washington Post, Apr 19, 1988, p. a14: Koch, who has upstaged Gore at their personal appearances and in news coverage since he endorsed the Tennessee senator last Thursday, heaped new fuel on the fire today by saying Jackson had shown "arrogance and contempt" by declining to join Gore and Dukakis in Sunday's "Salute to Israel" parade on Fifth Avenue. Koch, who previously had accused Jackson of "lying" about his past, was in turn labeled "a lunatic" by Jackson's campaign manager, Gerald Austin. Jackson said he had received "more death threats in this campaign than all the others combined, because the climate . . . has been so divisive." Before his final round of rallies in Chinatown and Harlem, Jackson told a civic group that "leaders must not shout `fire' in the darkness . . . . Hysteria will not create hope." Or look at Edward Walsh and Thomas B. Edsall, "Campaign's Legacy to Gore: Experience and Hard Feelings?: N.Y. Tactics, Koch Alliance May Be Future Liabilities," Washington Post Apr 21, 1988, p. a17: Gore's alliance with the outspoken Koch, who spent most of the campaign denouncing Jackson, could damage Gore with black voters, according to some Democrats. Although Gore insisted that Koch helped him in New York, a campaign aide said the mayor's performance in the final days of the race "unpleasantly astonished us." Some of Gore's friends yesterday acknowledged these potential problems, but said they would not last and were far outweighed by the national campaign experience and contacts that Gore acquired in the race. "There is some negative, but it is very short-term," said Rep. Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.). "Intermediate and long-term, it will be very helpful." "There may be some short-term animosity in the black community in Tennessee, but I think he'll rebound from that very quickly," said Sen. Jim Sasser (D-Tenn.). Rep. Thomas J. Downey (D-N.Y.), Gore's New York campaign chairman, said Gore "has some fence-mending to do with some people" but overall the campaign was a "net positive" for his long-term ambitions. Downey said Koch "overdid it at the end. Some of it will rub off on Al and he knows it. He'll just have to work a little harder."

http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/democracy/gore/stories/gore/index2.html "He put himself in the hands of Ed Koch, who, as mayor, had clearly staked out a position on the right wing of the Democratic Party and in opposition to the aspirations of black people in the city of New York," says Roger Wilkins, a history professor at George Mason University and Pulitzer Prize winning journalist. "Al Gore had to know that."

The above citations are only the first few that came up. This is not difficult to research.

That will make a wonderful addition to the Ed Koch article, or to [[Al Gore presidential campaigns which ought to be started. Since it is not difficult to research, I trust you will do so in the future Misplaced Pages:Cite your sources. Now, where exactly is the "controversy" about Gore? I see a little about Koch, and none about Gore. I do see a pretty standard political spat, not a "controversy".

Also, as you don't see any difference between controversy and criticism, I move that we rename this article Criticisms of Al Gore; presumably you have no objection.

(1) Ed Koch was speaking on behalf of Al Gore. Ed Koch was the featured speaker at Al Gore campaign rallies when he unleashed his harshest attacks against Jesse Jackson in 1988.

(2) I would like to understand the gist of your proposed distinction between controversy and criticism. I'm not yet able to see how it would accomplish anything to redirect from a "controversy" page to a "criticism" page. Is there a Misplaced Pages article-naming convention that prefers "criticism" pages? I didn't name this article, so maybe those who created it in the first place should be consulted, in case there was a good reason for article's title. (3) I would also like to understand what criteria you might propose using, to distinguish a "standard political spat" from a "controversy." It seems to me that you may be aiming to dismiss certain controversies as either "mere criticism" or "mere political spat." What are the salient differences, if any? If criteria are difficult to articulate, can you explain by example? Do you consider Gary Hart's dalliance with Donna Rice a "criticism" of Hart, rather than a controversy? Were the accusations and counter-accusations in the campaign concerning Joe Biden's alleged plagiarism a "political spat" and not a "controversy"? (4) You suggest a new article to be named Al Gore campaign 2004, but Gore chose not to run in 2004 (he made this announcement in December 2002). I suppose you meant 1988, but some of the relevant controversies concerning Al Gore remained topics of dispute when Al Gore ran in 1992, 1996, and 2000, also, so I don't think the controversial aspects can be limited to the 1988 campaign alone. (5) The quote above from Roger Wilkins makes it clear that Mayor Koch's controversial statements----made expressly on Gore's behalf----were treated by African-American leaders at the time as an "Al Gore controversy." Wilkins pointed out that Gore knew that Koch was perceived as anti-Black and yet Gore embraced Koch and hit the campaign trail with Koch as Gore's featured speaker, with Koch's anti-Jackson message at full tilt; Gore not only did not repudiate Koch or his anti-Jackson statements, he instead applauded Koch for his support. As controversy erupted, Gore at some point began to distance himself a bit from the extremism of Koch's anti-Jackson vitriol, but during the campaign Gore gave every appearance of endorsing Koch's statements. Much of the anti-Palestinian rhetoric that highlighted Gore's 1988 campaign (including Gore's controversial publication of an "open letter" criticizing Senate Democratics for allegedly being too critical of Israeli policies) were in part aimed directly against Jesse Jackson, who was openly sympathetic to Palestinian human rights concerns and critical of various Israeli policies. Gore made it part of his standard stump speech to slam Jackson (and others) for not supporting Israel. It is actually rather remarkable that Al Gore was, some years later, able sufficiently to overcome the controversy of what the Jackson campaign alleged was "subtle racism and not-so-subtle racism" to get Jesse Jackson to support him later on. (6) It wasn't just Ed Koch who was perceived as anti-Jackson. The thrust of Gore's campaign in 1988 was widely viewed as an effort to undermine Jackson (and to pick up the anti-Jackson mantle in case Dukakis should falter); senior members of Jackson's campaign repeatedly complained about Gore's campaign as racially tinged. Regardless of whether those complaints were justified, they were part of a major political controversy surrounding Al Gore and his campaign. (7) You are correct in pointing out that the controversy regarding Gore's introduction of the Massachusetts furlough-escape-rape-story ("Willie Horton") against Dukakis in the primary debate was different in some important ways from the later controversy regarding Bush-Quayle supporters' use of the Willie Horton story. It is true that in the debate before the New York primary Al Gore did not use Willie Horton's name when he referred to Willie Horton. It is also true that Al Gore did not create the ugly television ads that the Republicans later used. But this doesn't negate the fact that Gore initiated this controversial issue about furloughs for convicts in Massachusetts, nor does it negate the later controversy that emerged during 1999 (as the 2000 campaign was getting underway) when Kristol and other right-wingers had the audacity to try (unfarily) to pin the full ugliness of "Willie Hortonism" on Gore. Standing alone, Gore's use of the Willie Horton anecdote against Dukakis seems considerably less noteworthy than when it is seen in the context of the 1988 Gore campaign's overall strategy. (8) I'm not sure what you want, in the way of citing more sources. Do you have access to a national newspaper backfile database like ProQuest? Would you be interested in a citation to sources for the widely disseminated news reports in 1988 (about which Jackson's campaign became very angry) that Al Gore made statements to the press, to the effect of, "I haven't mentioned Jackson's statement about 'Hymietown.'"? Or will the response be simply to say that this wasn't really part of a controversy but was instead only a criticism, or perhaps that it was a Jesse Jackson controversy and not an Al Gore controversy, or perhaps that it was only a mere political spat? (9) Do you consider "controversial" (or a mere "criticism") the big deal that was made of the AIDS Act Up group's repeated confrontations (covered in the press) of Al Gore, including the group's interruption of Gore's campaign kickoff ceremony during the 2000 campaign, to protest what they argued was Vice-President Gore's role, as co-chair the U.S.-South Africa Binational Commission, in protecting the profits of Pfizer, Merck, and other drug companies, to the detriment of the 5 million or so HIV-positive individuals in Africa? (10) Have you read the section in the 2000 Cockburn-St.Clair Al Gore book concerning Occidental Petroleum? I'm no fan of the meanness of their muck-raking style, but they build a case concerning Al Gore and oil that goes beyond guilt by family association; if you really are eager to see source citations, feel free to check Cockburn's extensive bibliography. (11) By the way, what did you believe your citation to the Jesse Jackson Jr. website proved? To me, it might prove that supporters of Jesse Jackson's son have since forgiven Gore for his allusion to Willie Horton against Dukakis, but does this negate the fact that there was a controversy? Respectfully, looking forward to your clarifications, so we can keep working together for a better encyclopedia. 151.200.152.6 03:03, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

1. if you put each point on a separate line, starting with a #, you will get a readable numbered list.
2. so put the Koch stuff in the campaign article like I suggested. (i went ahead and did it Al Gore presidential campaigns). that's a campaign spat, not a controversy. a controversy is someone calling you a liar, or alleging a crime, or catching you shoving a cigar up an intern's twat, or giving no-bid contracts to your buddies, or taking laundered donations, or skipping the draft, or using daddy to get you into TANG, or god-help-us lying your ass off to get us into a war. yes, there is a useful distinction between garden variety criticisms and "controversies".
3. there was no willie horton controversy about gore. just because some right-wingers tried unsuccessfully to pin it on gore does not make it a controversy. no one bought that; the meme never caught on. it did manage to make some right-wingers look like smarmy f*cks though. put it in horton article. if you look at the Willie Horton article, you'll see the information is already there.
4. the aids thing, i don't know anything about. maybe that was a controversy. but i sort of doubt it. was it controversial to the public at large, or just to the aids-activists community?
5. i don't have cockburn's book. but if ownership of stock in a major company is controversial, then everyone who's got a pension plan is the subject of controversy. but whatever, i stuck it back in because there's no other obvious place to put the info.
6. i am not trying to supress or censor information. i just want it to be properly sourced, and go in the appropriate places. in my view, the things i deleted should go elsewhere. my objection is that years later, readers will thing these things were big deals at the time. in truth, they weren't. now the "no controlling authority" was. the buddhist nuns thing was. someone ought to throw in the pot-smoking which was at least a semi-big deal. but owning some stock was not, and neither was gore's role in willie horton.
7. if you must, include a subsection of the article on "protests directed at gore" so we can get stuff like the ActUp thing without giving the false impression that the general public got worked up over it.

Editing Clean up

Is is possible to wait until one is acutally done editing until they click the "Save page" button? Editing is fine, but 10 edits in a row with the difference of only a few new commas or wikilinks is ridiculous.--63.167.255.30 17:47, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Re recent Wolfman purges -- If you read NPOV you will see that text being POV is not usually an reason for a purge. If an entry is POV it should be made NPOV, if it lacks a reference, a reference should be found. Text should be deleted only in the most extreme circumstances. Robneild 18:06, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

By all means edit it yourself if you disagree with me. For the most part, I kept the neutral essence by condensing out the pov phrasing. I think it's a rather dramatic improvement in neutrality, you may not. As far as purging text, I believe I cut only two items, for being plainly silly. (1) that gore made a statement that he would fire liars. how in the hell can that possibly be controversial? (2) that gore said he'd want to think about it when asked a question regarding the death penalty. again, how is a desire to think about a question controversial? If that's the standard for controversy, i've got all sorts of controversies to add here: like how he loves his mother, and goes to church, and pays his taxes. Wolfman 00:03, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Al Gore and the media coverage

I think this section should be removed. It's nothing but an excuse to insert the opinions of Paul Begala, a Democratic Partisan. Unless there's an unbiased source that makes the same claim it should be removed.

I agree that this section should be removed, but for different reasons. Begala is indeed partisan, but he is a famous pundit and his opinions can be notable. But the section does not suggest a controversy, just a point made by Begala. I remember discussion about the issue in 2000, so I wouldn't be surprised if we could eventually re-write this section in a way that would make plain some controversy, but for now I'll delete it. --Allen 21:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Al Gore and the internet

I find it interesting that discussions of Al Gore often stess his huge contributions to the internet, but articals on the history of the Internet never make any mention of him. I suspect his contributions are being over-emphasized to make his "I took the initiative in creating the Internet" claim to seem less inaccurate. Personally, I think the Al Gore and the Internet section needs to be rewritten to be more NPOV. I left it alone however except to remove the statement that "Al Gore did invent in the internet in the United State Congress." No matter what his contributions to it, Gore did not invent the internet and adding the phrase "in the US Congress" doesn't make it true.

GORE DID NOT CREATE THE INTERNET!

I don't why this is so hard to grasp. Al Gore did not create the internet. It's not bias or POV to say this. It's simply a fact. His statement that he took the initiative in the creation of the internet was a stupid blunder and perhaps even an example of him simply misspeaking, but it was a blunder none-the-less. Gore caught a lot of flack because it was a stupid thing to say. People need to quit trying to rationalize his statement into something other than what it is and quit pretending that Gore did in some sense create the internet.--198.93.113.49 16:54, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No one is claiming that Al Gore created the internet. The disagreement is over whether he ever said he had. He didn't. It's complete nonsense and always has been. When George Bush says that he built new roads in Texas, created new jobs, and captured Saddam Hussein nobody thinks he is saying he did those things PERSONALLY and single-handedly. That would be stupid. Yet that is >precisely< what people go to absurd lengths to PRETEND Al Gore MUST have meant on the internet quote... even though he used TWO qualifying phrases, "took the initiative" and "in Congress". It's pathetic. If what Gore said was such a heinous 'blunder' then why aren't you mocking George Bush for having claimed to have dug Saddam Hussein out of his foxhole? Because it's nonsense. That's why. CBDunkerson 13:47, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Some people indeed mock Gore as-if he'd claimed to design the 'Net, lay the fiber-optic cable, &c. But others are objecting to his assertion to have created the 'Net even in a very lose sense analogous to someone else claiming tha Bush captured Hussein. Until Gore made his claim, there was relatively little controversy over to what “the Internet” referred, but computer professionals referred to various things that were not created as a result of initiative by Gore, and most non-professionals seemd to be thinking of the World Wide Web per se which was also not created as a result of initiative by Gore. It could reasonably be claimed that Gore had taken significant initiative in the development of the 'Net; but that's not what he said. His overstatement perhaps got too much attention, but it was pretty wild. —Gamahucheur 09:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know of many people who actually think the world wide web as being 'the internet'. The world wide web was something that could exist THANKS to the internet, it's not the internet itself. I'm sure some of those who don't understand the internet may think the WWW is the internet, but most people who have even a basic understanding of what the internet is know it's not. I mean some people think e-mail is an internet but it doesn't mean this is a resonable interpretation. The reality is, Gore's contribution to the creation of the internet as a politican was something of note, as the people who did create the internet have pointed out Nil Einne 00:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

fuel-efficient vehicles

I am reverting the addition on fuel-efficient vehicles for the following reasons:

• References don't show that this is a controversy -- just the opinion of someone named Thomas.
• References don't show that Gore has called for using fuel-efficient vehicles as a personal choice; they only refer to policy initiatives.
• References don't specify the model of the car Gore was driving.
• Wording of addition is POV.

--Allen 04:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually the National Review has an article about this as well, however I agree it may not be a controvery as cited, I will look around a bit more though

my changes re Saudi speech

I'm removing that second quote because the ABC source given didn't report it as a direct quote. I'm also making clear who made the point about the 9/11 commission, and I'm removing the FOX News link because it didn't contain that point. I'm removing the GOP link because it's the same info as the Malkin link, and the Malkin link has a quote from Jeffrey. Finally, I'm removing the sentece about expired visas because it isn't sourced. --Allen 02:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It is a fact that Atta was in the US on an expired visa, so I dont really get why it was removed--David Foster 10:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry it took me so long to answer; I haven't been editing for a few days. This one issue isn't a big deal to me, but my overall point is that on a page about controversies involving Al Gore, we need sources not just to show that an allegation against Gore is true, but that the allegation against Gore actually constitues a controversy -- that is, it has actually been made by someone notable, and people have paid attention to it. Again, not a big deal with this one sentence, but that's overall how I look at this article. --Allen 01:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Al Gore says "Arabs were indiscriminately rounded up, often on minor charges of overstaying a visa" Atta was in the US illegally having overstayed his visa, a 'minor charge' according to Gore's own words. If such a 'minor charge' was enforced, 9/11 as we know it may not of happened. Is this not a huge controversy? I do however see your point in that the media for whatever reason has not made a big deal of this, so it may not belong on his page without that, anyone else has a say in this? Funny how Dick Cheney in a hunting accident gets more press time, but that is a discussion for another board;)--David Foster 22:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

why I'm moving Gore on Iraq section to here

I've edited this section before myself, but in taking a second look at it, I see no source given that any of this was actually a controversy. The quotes are sourced and accurate, but the idea that the quotes contradict each other is not sourced. Following is the section I'm talking about. --Allen 02:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Al Gore on the War in Iraq

Al Gore is well known for recently giving speeches that are against the War in Iraq, as well as speeches that are against the reasons the Bush Administraion choose to go to war. However, some critics claim that his current views contradict his views from 2002. On 2003-08-07, Gore gave a prepared speech on Moveon.org at New York University saying;

"What we now know to have been false impressions (for the war) that includes Saddam was about to give the terrorists poison gas and deadly germs that he had made into weapons which they could use to kill millions of Americans…Saddam was on the verge of building nuclear bombs and giving them to the terrorists. And since the only thing preventing Saddam from acquiring a nuclear arsenal was access to enriched uranium, once our spies found out that he had bought the enrichment technology he needed and was actively trying to buy uranium from Africa, we had very little time left…Now, of course, everybody knows that every single one of these impressions was just dead wrong”

Gore also gave a speech on 2004-02-09, on the eve of the Tennessee primary;

" betrayed this country!" Mr. Gore shouted into the microphone. "He played on our fears. He took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure dangerous to our troops, an adventure preordained and planned before 9/11 ever took place!”

On 2002-09-23 Gore spoke in San Francisco to The Commonwealth Club. In this speech, he attacks Saddam Hussein and his government:

"What makes Saddam dangerous is his effort to acquire weapons of mass destruction...What if the Al Qaeda members infiltrated across the borders of Iraq the way they are in Afghanistan? Then the question wouldn't be, Is Saddam Hussein going to share these weapons with the terrorist group? The terrorist groups would have an enhanced ability to just walk in there and get them"

"We know that has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power...We have a goal of regime change in Iraq, we have had for a number of years. We also have a clear goal of victory in the war against terror. In the case of Iraq, it would be difficult to go it alone, but it's theoretically possible to achieve our goals in Iraq unilaterally."

Some critics have taken this as evidence that Gore supported the Iraq invasion at the time of this speech, which would contradict his later opposition to the invasion. However, though Gore supported regime change in Iraq, his speech to the Commonwealth Club also detailed his opposition to the Bush administration's planned invasion:

"I am deeply concerned that the course of action that we are presently embarking upon with respect to Iraq has the potential to seriously damage our ability to win the war against terrorism and to weaken our ability to lead the world in this new century."

Gore as yet has not responded to assertions that he changed his stance on the Iraq invasion.

I have moved the above section to the talk page for the reasons given above. I'm moving it, rather than deleting it, to make it easier for anyone who wants to provide sources for it. --Allen 02:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

explaining my Pigeon River changes

I'm partially reverting the recent edit to the Pigeon River section. Gore writing to the EPA only constitutes a controversy because some people saw his letter as a response to political pressure. It's the interpretation of the letter, not its existence, that is at issue and needs attribution. If others agree with Newsweek, they can be cited as well. --Allen 22:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Looking at this again, there is no sourced assertion that Gore was responding inappropriately to political pressure, which means there's no source that this constitutes a controversy. Did Newsweek publish such an assertion? If not, then I think we should remove the paragraph. --Allen 01:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, taking it out. Here it is for those interested: --Allen 09:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Pigeon River

In 1987, as Gore started running for president the first time, Newsweek magazine reported that Gore was pressured by North Carolina Senator Terry Sanford and congressmen Jamie Clarke to ease up on his campaign to prevent Champion International paper mill from dumping tons of chemicals and byproducts into the Pigeon River. According to Newsweek, Gore complied with their request, writing to the EPA and asking for a more permissive water pollution standard. Sanford and Clarke then endorsed Gore, and Gore won the North Carolina primary. ("Gore's Pollution Problem", Newsweek, 1997-11-24)

Controversial Al Gore quotes — Spacing Errors?

Someone seems to have confused the well-established convention of block quotation with spacing error. The “Controversial Al Gore quotes” needs further clean-up, but it was a much greater mess of arbitrary indentations and whatnot. —Gamahucheur 09:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

This article was cited

http://www.filmthreat.com/index.php?section=reviews&Id=8451 Just thought I'd let you know

Hell, that's embarrassing. Thanks for letting us know. Maybe this will serve as an incentive to me and others to get serious about cleaning this article up. --Allen 09:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Embarrassing? The article just cites it, it does not comment on if the facts are in dispute. One should not find criticism embarrassing.

Should this article even exist?

Is it possible that this article is inherently a POV fork? I've been rationalizing its existence by saying to myself, "well, Al Gore really has been involved with a lot of controversies; it makes sense that they wouldn't all fit into the main article." But it often seems that the real purpose of this page is to provide a forum for criticism of Gore, rather than NPOV presentations of controversies involving Al Gore (see most of my above comments on this talk page). The filmthreat citation makes this issue seem more urgent for me. What are others' thoughts? --Allen 09:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it should exist. Two reasons. First, it takes the scandal-mongering heat off the main article. Otherwise, articles get simply over-run by those crying censorhip at attempts to keep minor incidents in scope. Second, legitimate controversies clearly have a place. Moreover, even bogus "controversies" ought to be addressed, because this provides a place for neutral information. These accusations are all over the conservative web, but very few places actually present all the facts. To the extent this article fails in that, it should be improved, not discarded. Derex 19:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't exist. The fact that almost no other articles on major political figures on Misplaced Pages "quarantine" their criticism or controversy sections (see the articles on Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, for example) is a major tip off. I posted this comment in the main article's discussion section:

Why is there no "Criticisms" section in the Al Gore article? Articles on prominent political figures (i.e., Ronald Reagan, etc.) on Misplaced Pages have one. There is a link to a "Controversies" article, but if you look at the history of that article you see (rightly) that anything the editors deem a criticism, not a controversy, is systematically removed from there, to the point that many of the criticisms in the original article are gone. It seems to be a pattern; the criticisms are moved to the controversy page, they are eventually labeled not technically controversies, and then they are removed. Don't get me wrong..I don't know Al Gore from a hole in the head and don't have any factual information to contribute, but it seems like a strange break in standard procedure. The Controversies section seems toothless for such a prominent person and a poor substitute for an honest section on criticisms. For that matter, why was the Controversies section moved to a separate page in the first place...it seems to only leave, at best, an incomplete picture of the man in his biography.

I apologize for posting Anonymously, but this article seems highly polarized, and I don't want to spend the rest of my days responding to angry posts or petty acts of article vandalism from people who assume my bias is either pro or anti Al Gore. It just seems that Al Gore deserves the same treatment, good and bad, as any other public figure on Misplaced Pages. I would suggest this article be returned in its current state to the original with the title "Controversies and Criticisms." If someone has a problem with the semantics and a good argument then it could be split into two parts; one for controversies and one for criticisms. Anonymous Monday, 2007-02-12 T 15:46(UTC)

explanation for removal of large section of article

I am removing the entire "Environment" section. It is very long, so I am simply deleting it rather than moving it here. It is still available the history, of course. As I and others have pointed out several times above on this talk page, this article, assuming it should even exist, is for controversies. It is not a list of criticisms of Gore, even if the criticisms themselves are verifiable. What we need for things on this page is not a reference to the primary source criticising Gore, but rather a reference to a third-party source, like a mainstream newspaper, saying something along the lines of "So-and-so made X criticism of Gore. Gore's defenders responded by saying Y. People are interested in this for reason Z." None of the subsections of the "Environment" section were sourced in this way, even though I and others have been arguing for months now that they should be. --Allen 01:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

"even though I and others have been arguing for months now that they should be" -Really? with who? I see no one else here who is in agreement, in fact you are one of the only regular posters on here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.224.117.192 (talk • contribs).

Hal Raglan has been making this argument in edit summaries on the article history page, and earlier on some anonymous editors were discussing it on this talk page. But you're basically right... as far as this talk page itself and recent months go, it's pretty much me vs. nobody. Which is part of why I haven't really known what to do; I'm not used to nobody being home on the talk page of such a high-profile article. So I've been picking around the edges for a while, and now I'm trying to be bolder. --Allen 03:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts, but for now I think we should leave the page as it was. Just one or two people who don't agree with the way the page is, that's fine but to have such a major edit based on it, I can't see it now. Keep this talk page open for discussion and debate on how to change and improve the existing article, but lets not just delete it. It pains me to edit someone else’s work and I apologize for any forwardness on my part, but lets not forget the 100's if not 1000's of people who have seen the main article and have accepted it and left it alone.--David Foster 17:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you have a good point, although at the same time it is difficult to build consensus without an active talk page. I'll take the subsections one at a time instead. To begin with, I'm moving this section to the talk page:

In 2004, Al Gore was caught speeding near Astoria, Oregon and was issued a $141 speeding ticket. Gore was in a Hertz rental car and was clocked at 75 mph along Highway 26 where the posted speed limit is 55. Conservative news reports immediately aired the story, questioning whether an environmentally conscious person would rent a low gas mileage four-door Lincoln, and why he would be consuming more gas by speeding.

The references given are to people actually making the criticism, not to mainsteam news coverage of any controversy. --Allen 13:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Pigeon River again

David, when you reverted my major edit, did you mean to also revert my removal of the Pigeon River subsection? I made that edit before I removed the entire "Environment" section, and I explained the edit above. If you did mean to put the subsection back in, could you explain your thinking? Thanks. --Allen 00:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the subsection again. --Allen 02:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

This story has been on here for a very long time with no one complaining. I must agree with some of the other posters that it is a story that deserves to be on a page titled Al Gore Controversies. It was good enough to be reported by Newsweek and carried by other news outlets following, so why not here? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.167.255.231 (talk • contribs).

(Conversation continued in later section) --Allen 17:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

removing "Al Gore: A User's Manual" criticisms

I'm removing the following text. It appears to be a description of one book's criticism of Gore, rather than a description of a verifiable controversy. --Allen 23:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Critics of Gore as an environmental hypocrite claim that Gore has shown preference for corporate interests over conservation. Gore was an ardent supporter of the Clinch River Breeder Reactor, and later of the Fast Flux Test Facility in the Hanford nuclear reservation. Gore's efforts to secure an Endangered Species Act wavier for the Tellico Dam on the Little Tennessee River were said to have paved the way for the gutting of the ESA. According to David Brower, "This was the beginning of the end of the Endangered Species Act." Environmentalists who considered Gore an environmental phony pointed to Gore's persistent support of increased logging in the Pacific Northwest, Alaska, and elsewhere; Gore's support of NAFTA despite public concerns about its environmental consequences; Gore's support, as Vice-President, for the WTI hazardous waste incinerator in East Liverpool, Ohio (despite his having vowed during the 1992 campaign to oppose it); Gore's engineering of what some environmentalists called a "missiles for dead whales" deal with Norway; Gore's championing of a "pollution credits" system at the Kyoto Conference in December 1997; etc. These and other allegedly environmentally harmful actions attributed to Al Gore, as well as criticisms of Gore by various prominent environmentalists, are detailed in Chapter 13 of Al Gore: A User's Manual, by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair. Although the Sierra Club endorsed Gore for President in July of 2000, the vote was not unanimous. There was some sentiment on the Club's Board of Directors to endorse Ralph Nader in 2000, as some believed that Gore's actual environmental record was deficient and that Gore had largely been only rhetorically pro-environment.

On the other hand, Gore was frequently caricatured by the Bush-Quayle campaign in 1992 as an irrational environmental extremist.

I am also removing the following subsection for the same reason as last time: it's just a description of one book's criticism, not a verifiable controversy. --Allen 01:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

During the 2000 presidential campaign, Gore was accused of hypocrisy because of the behavior of corporations that had contracted to extract resources from land owned by his family. The corporations were the Occidental Petroleum Corporation and the Pasminco Zinc Mine.

Al Gore owned (indirectly through his father's estate) several thousand shares of Occidental Petroleum Corporation. Occidental Petroleum angered environmentalists by trying to open a new oil/gas drilling field in Colombia. Critics of Al Gore, including Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair in their Al Gore: A User's Manual, (2000), argued that the connection between Al Gore and Occidental Petroleum tycoon Armand Hammer was by no means "indirect," as Armand Hammer was not only a close personal friend and business partner of Senator Al Gore, Sr., but was also (until Hammer's death in 1990) a major mentor, advisor, and financial backer of the political career of Al Gore, Jr. However, Gore did not purchase the shares and did not have control over the estate with which to sell them. Defenders of Gore dismissed this as a claim of 'guilt by inheritance'.

Additionally, the Gore family licensed mining rights on their Cumberland River Valley farm to Pasminco Zinc, which was fined in 2000 for exceeding water pollution limits. Specifically, the Environmental Protection Agency found that zinc levels in the Caney Fork river near the mine were 1.480 mg/L (milligrams per L); the maximum allowed monthly average was .65 mg/L, and the daily allowed maximum was 1.30 mg/L. Therefore, Pasminco Zinc was found on one occasion to exceed the daily maximum for zinc pollution by about 14%.

However, even the conservative Wall Street Journal stated that "mining is intrinsically a messy business, and Pasminco Zinc generally has a good environmental record" (The Wall Street Journal, 2000-06-29). Two independent tests sponsored by the Wall Street Journal, conducted in September 1999 and June 2000, found that the water in the river was within legal limits, although soil tests near the river revealed troublingly high levels of heavy metals.

removing coldest-day thing

I'm removing the following text from the article. As it is written now, it's not clear what the controversy is about. If there really is a controversy over this, it must be over whether or not it matters that he spoke on the coldest January 15th in Manhattan since 1957. But did anyone explicitly argue over whether or not this mattered? If so, feel free to add sources and put this text back into the article. If not, then the controversy really lies in unverifiable interpretations. --Allen 02:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

On 2004-01-15, Al Gore gave a major policy address on climate change and Bush administration policy. The speech was given in New York City, which hit a low of 2 °F on that day. Critics, such as the Washington Times, claimed that Gore was giving a speech on "global warming" on Manhattan's coldest day in 47 years. Indeed, this was the coldest January 15th since 1957, but colder temperatures had been observed on days other than January 15th in the intervening years. (For instance, 1977-01-17 hit a low of -2 °F. However, it was the coldest day since a subzero reading on 1994-01-09) Moreover, proponents of global warming claim that extreme temperatures, both cold and hot, are to be expected from the global warming phenomenon. (Please see Global warming controversy for a detailed discussion of this claim.)

utility of "Campaign fundraising" section?

What does the section Al_Gore_controversies#Campaign_fundraising add to Misplaced Pages that isn't covered at least as well by 1996 U.S. campaign finance scandal? To me, it doesn't look like it adds anything, and we should consider removing it from this article, leaving just the link or a very brief summary. --Allen 02:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

agree. i'd say use the main template followed by a one paragraph summary. ironically, this is really the only legitimate "controversy" involving gore, in the sense that there is a concern over something more than the very pettiest ethical slip. however, jayzel68 is a man on a mission over at the campaign finance article, and it's much more thorough than anything we might put here. i actually think it's over-thorough, weaving together disparate bits and pieces to make create an illusion of connections where there may be none. but, i have no energy to edit such a zealously guarded article, unless it's just bad. and it's not blatantly unreasonable, just spun a little hard. Derex 16:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I take objection to your comment about "weaving together disparate bits and pieces", Derex. This is all information from the Senate and House reports and had been thoroughly reported by all the major U.S. papers at the time. There is zero spin in the article at all. Please do not use the excuse "i have no energy to edit such a zealously guarded article". If you see something wrong, jump in and make a change. A number of other people have over the last 4 months and I have yet to get into a single edit war. Even though I wrote the article, I don't own it. In fact, I encourage others to contribute. The more eyes an article sees the better it becomes. --Jayzel 02:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Re this being a "legitimate" controversy: I'm not so sure. The prosecutor in the Hsia case didn't think Gore did anything wrong. Crust 17:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not saying Gore actually did anything wrong. But this is the only case I'm aware of that it was actually suggested that he might have done anything seriously wrong. I mean making a call on your office phone, using a private calling card, is hardly earth-shattering even if the press thinks it's of the same national urgency as Hillary's new hairstyle. Derex 17:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

You mean there wasn't something deeply troubling about the fact that Gore bought a brown suit? ;) Crust 18:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

wording of internet quote

SpinyNorman, I appreciate your recent edits, but I'm still concerned about the internet issue. Some people simply don't know Gore's actual quote, and the article does a fine job of correcting that. But among people who do know the real quote, the issue of whether "took the initiative in creating" is synonymous with "created" is the very basis of the controversy. Gore's defenders on this issue feel that "took the initiative in creating" does not imply sole credit the way "created" would have, while his critics feel that it does imply sole credit. These different interpretations are why I feel that "Some people criticised this statement, interpreting it to mean that Gore had created or invented the internet" is more NPOV than "Some people criticised Gore's claim to have created the Internet". Let me know what you think. --Allen 22:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

SpinyNorman, I'm changing it back for now; feel free to talk about it further here if you still think it should be the other way. Thanks. --Allen 04:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Pigeon River section re-added

(Xanxz re-added the Pigeon River section with the edit summary "I don't see how this is not a controversy. Gore went on the record against the EPA for political favors. Gore is well-known for being 'green' Thus, is a controversy")

Xanxz, I think of a "controversy" as being a situation where people actually debate something, not a situation where they could debate something, which is a matter of opinion. And a verifiable controversy, the only kind that should be included here, is a situation where reliable sources describe a debate about something. Please read my comments above at Talk:Al_Gore_controversies#explaining_my_Pigeon_River_changes and Talk:Al_Gore_controversies#explanation_for_removal_of_large_section_of_article, and explain in more detail why you think the Pigeon River issue counts as a verifiable controversy. Thanks. --Allen 13:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Spot on. Removed pending documentation of an actual and significant controversy. Such events are identified by continuing coverage in major publications over an extended period of time. I don't Google up much fitting that bill, and the few I do find are better characterized as editorial criticisms, rather than documentation of an external controversy. Garden-variety criticism of any politician are not acceptably encyclopedic material. Anyone with any prominence surely has literally thousands of criticism lodged against them, and this is not the place to document minutiae. Rather we are covering significant controversies — the sort of which a substantial fraction of the politically informed public would be aware. I've found and seen no evidence that the Pigeon River is, or was, such an issue. Derex 04:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Just because it is not extensively indexed on Google, it does not mean it is not worthy of being on here. That is beside the point however. Can you explain your rationale between an editorial criticisms and a documentation of an external controversy? Are both not controveries? I could see you point if this was a a so-called 'garden variety' criticism such as an editor saying he doesn’t like Gore because of X or Y, but this is a set of facts that took place and goes against Al Gore's environmental stance. The editor has not made up the facts in this case out of thin air or is expressing his opinion. A controversy had to happen to make the story. --Mad Max 10:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Depending on what's in the Newsweek article, which I haven't read and can't find online, I could conceive of something relating to this issue being appropriate here. But it would have to be worded so that it's clear that Newsweek, as opposed to the Misplaced Pages editor adding the text, is accusing Gore of bowing to political pressure on this issue. If anyone has a link to the text of the Newsweek piece that'd be great; otherwise I'll try to look for it next time I'm in a library. (Derex, I realize I may be disagreeing with you here... In my opinion, Newsweek is a substantial enough publication that if they devote an entire piece to a criticism of Gore, then it could be worth noting here. I wouldn't say the same about most newspaper or books (like that "User Manual")). --Allen 17:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Allen, disagreement with me or criticism of my position are perfectly fine — and that doesn't make this a "controversy". One criterion this fails to meet is any sort of sustained media coverage in major outlets. That's a hallmark of a criticism. But, I think there's a better criterion. Gore had 3 options with respect to the Pigeon River (a) ignore it, thus dodging the issues (b) support a tightening of water quality standards to help clean up the environment (c) oppose new and burdensome government regulations on a major local employer that would achieve quite modest increases in quality at great expense. Now, which action could he have taken that would not have received criticism that would appear at least once in a major media outlet. I am quite confident that, no matter what he did, a critical story would have appeared about it. That is particularly true since this was during an election. We have to have a standard about what passes the bar, and I think there are reasonable and practical criteria which exclude this. If the bar is set low enough to admit this, based on the supporting evidence presented so far, can you fathom how long this article would be. It would have, at a minimum a hundred sections, given how long Gore has been a major political figure.

By the way, the few minor media outlets I found that mentioned this in the subsequent years have remarked how almost nobody outside Tennessee had heard of this. That's doesn't support the contention that this was a "controversy", especially since this was in the midst of a presidential campaign. I feel quite strongly that this should be removed, unless some affirmative evidence is presented. Ideally, one difference between an encyclopedia and a blog, is that we have standards and stick to them. That said, I do think that if this is added independently several times by different editors (not simple re-insertions), then it probably does belong. Because that, in itself, would be evidence for a reasonable level of public awareness of the issue, and thus perhaps "controversy". At the least, there would then be evidence of sufficiently widespread interest that a neutral presentation would be valuable. Derex 19:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Derex; I didn't mean to imply that you'd have a problem with my disagreeing with you. Since we've mostly agreed on things lately, I just wanted to acknowledge that I knew we didn't agree on this one. You about have me convinced anyway. As big as Newsweek is, Gore has been so important for so long that there are probably a lot of criticisms even on that level. --Allen 19:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, not at all. I was just using it as a sort of literary device about the limits of controversy. Didn't mean to make anything of it otherwise. Best, Derex 06:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

"A citizens group was about to put up a nasty billboard resurrecting a ghost from the vice president's past: the Pigeon River" Seems like it was enough of a controversy for something like this to be considered.

There is a mention in a previous post

"One criterion this fails to meet is any sort of sustained media coverage in major outlets. That's a hallmark of a criticism"

I must ask then 30 years ago when no major outlet existed, was there no such thing than as a criticism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.167.255.231 (talk • contribs)

The premise of your question is incorrect. Derex 16:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I moved the info to Pigeon River (Tennessee - North Carolina), where no mention had previously been made. Derex 05:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you show me where in Misplaced Pages guidelines does it say a controvery has to be well known in the major outlets to be posted?

I took it out again. As for the last comment above if a controversy is not well known then it is not a controversy. However, if this is better sourced and the reputable newspaper or magazine proves this to be a controversy than this should go in. However, I searched for this for quite awhile and could find almost no references to this and certainly no mainstream one. Good luck. Here is the text again for those interested.

In 1987, as Gore started running for president the first time, Newsweek magazine reported that Gore was pressured by North Carolina Senator Terry Sanford and congressman Jamie Clarke to ease up on his campaign to prevent Champion International paper mill from dumping tons of chemicals and byproducts into the Pigeon River. Newsweek reported that Gore did in fact write to the EPA and ask for a more permissive water pollution standard.

Good luck on the sourcing. Jasper23 06:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

removing Arab quote

I'm removing the following subsection. Criticism from conservative blogs does not constitute a controversy; see above discussion for more. --Allen 23:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• On 8 February 2006, Al Gore traveled to Saudi Arabia for a speech that included the topic of the United States' treatment of Arabs post 9/11.

  "The U.S. committed terrible abuses against Arabs after 9/11. Arabs were indiscriminately rounded up, often on minor charges of overstaying a visa and not having a green card in proper order, and held in conditions that were just unforgivable…. The Bush administration is playing into al Qaida's hands by subjecting Saudi visa applicants to special scrutiny."

  Terrence Jeffrey of Human Events and Jack Kelly of RealClearPolitics.com criticized Gore's comments, pointed out that 9/11 Commission reported that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who planned the attacks, told interrogators most of the hijackers he selected were Saudis because they had the easiest time getting visas (page 492).

removing Winifred Skinner quote

I'm removing the following subsection from the article. No controversy, or even criticism, is made clear here. I can imagine what people might have said to criticize the quote, but unless a reliable source actually covered a controversy over this, it shouldn't be here. --Allen 04:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• During the 2000-10-03 Presidential debate, Gore was speaking of Medicare prescription reform. He referred to Winifred Skinner, 79,

  "In order to pay for her prescription drug benefits, she has to go out seven days a week, several hours a day, picking up cans. She came all the way from Iowa in a Winnebago with her poodle in order to attend here tonight."

  The Gore campaign did not disclose until later that they paid her expenses for the visit including gas and vehicle rental. Skinner's son stated that she had declined his offers to help her financially. (Washington Post, 2000-10-05, page A20)

I agree with the cut. A year ago, I tried to delete it, when it was written over-the-top POV. A bunch of anon's reverted, so I settled for neutralizing it. As you can see, when written neutrally it's quite bizarre to include standalone. However, while this specific example is silly, the broader context is notable. It came from the time in the campaign where the opposition was spinning him as a "serial exaggerator", and otherwise intimating he was dishonest. This was one of the opposition talking points after the debate. As anything other than a small example of that broad spin campaign, it's not notable. If included at all, it should be in that context. Derex 05:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The great grape ape is straight out of the know, you re-added this section with the comment, "The reliable source you seek for this quote is documented, read the Washington Post, 10/05/2000 page A20. This is nearly an exact copy of that article." First, if it really is that close to a copy of the article, it could be a copyright violation. Second, I was not seeking a reliable source for the quote. I was seeking a reliable source covering the quote as a controversy. I'm seeking, for example, a quote from the Washington Post that said something like, "Gore's reference to Skinner was criticized by Republicans, who said that Gore's statement implied that Skinner had paid for the trip herself, while in fact it was paid for by the Gore campaign. Gore's defenders disagreed with Republican criticisms, saying Gore's statement, 'She came all the way from Iowa in a Winnebago with her poodle in order to attend here tonight,' did not imply that Skinner owned the Winnebago or that she had purchased the necessary gasoline herself." (Please keep in mind that I made this up; I know of no such quote.)

That's the kind of reference I'm talking about; that's the kind of reference that would help make the quote a verifiable controversy rather than simply a verifiable quote. --Allen 23:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you show me the evidence that this is a 'broad spin campagin'? You also point out that Gore's defenders disagrees with Republican criticims. Fine, add that as well, but don't just cover up the article. The Post would not print the article just to waste paper, it printed the article because of the controversy that it was misleading to the people. Gore's supporters might not agree with it, thats fine, please add what you think would show their point of view, but I will re-add the article.--The great grape ape is straight out of the know 07:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that by itself this wasn't notable. For a good article, I say take it out. Personally, and taking off my Wikipedian hat, I'd be perfectly happy to leave it in, because I kind of like Gore. And if that's what counts as a controversy for Gore, then he comes off looking pretty darn wholesome. Derex 08:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Internet wording again

SpinyNorman, I expained in this section above why I worded the sentence about the internet the way I did. If you disagree with my wording, please explain your thinking here, rather than reverting my edit without any explanation. --Allen 04:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

SpinyNorman, you haven't answered, and I'm not sure what your argument is in favor of the change you made to this text, so I'm reverting. Please feel free to discuss if you disagree, but on Misplaced Pages it's considered best not to revert changes, especially changes discussed on a talk page, with no explanation. --Allen 23:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this section. Here's my reasoning: The original statement "Some people criticised this statement, interpreting it to mean that Gore had created or invented the internet, despite ARPANET, the Internet's predecessor, existing in 1971, five years before Gore was elected to Congress." is inaccurate. It is inaccurate to imply that Gore's claim to have created the internet is subjective. Gore's claim is unambiguous. He said "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet". Interpretation has nothing to do with either the controversy or the criticism. --SpinyNorman 00:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree; I think it is ambiguous. It can be parsed in two different ways. It could mean, "In my creating the internet, I took the initiative." Or it could mean, "In our creating the internet, I took the initiative." It's unambiguous that "took the initiative" refers to Gore individually, but "creating" could refer to just him or to everyone who created the internet. There are many people who, like you, think he meant the former... but the disagreement we are having right now is, at least among people who know the real quote, the entire basis of the controversy. An NPOV treatment has to reflect these different views. --Allen 00:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Internet quote: duplicates main article

The main Al Gore article already has a very similar section about the internet controversy. I think we only need to have the more detailed version in one place. Does anyone feel that it should be in both places? If so, why? If not, which article is a better place for it? --Allen 23:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I just addressed this in the main talk. Suffice it to say that I would actually write to like an article about Al Gore that would be most useful in a classroom. Does anyone think that the Internet comment is central to Gore's notability? I do not. An article shouldn't be a hodge-podge of blogger talking points, but a synopsis of the most signficant aspects of the subject. The internet issue details belong here, and then one or two sentences in the controversy summary in the main article. Derex 23:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Since this is the Al Gore Controversies page, it should be included. Does anyone think that the Internet comment is central to Gore's notability? Yes, Gore and the internet are forever linked due to his quote. How many late night talk shows, comedy shows, skits, video games (CIV IV) and newspaper articles have there been? I have not counted, but suffice to say, most people know that Gore said he created the internet

To clarify, I also thought it should be on this page. I don't think it's central enough to his notability to receive lengthy coverage on the main article — that's supposed to be a concise overview. Derex 12:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm Done

I've given my opinion on why items should be included in this page, how controversies do not have to be widely known to be a controversy, what is a controversy etc. etc., I'm done in this revert war and you can change this page to whatever you want. I wish we could of worked things out and am disappointed that all the hundreds if not thousands of people who have graced their presence on reading this article and have accepted it, have not had a say in the way it was changed. The needs of the many as they say I guess does not count if the many do not speak. God Bless and Success. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.167.255.231 (talk • contribs)

explaining my reverts

I am reverting the last two edits. In the case of the first edit, I am reverting because I think the shorter version is the appropriate application of Misplaced Pages:Summary style here. It's best not to duplicate information from another article, because it divides the effort needed to maintain quality on the subject. If there's disagreement, please explain here. In the case of the second edit, I'm reverting for the same reason I've given before on this talk page -- we need reliable sources not that Gore said something, but that the quote is controversial. Not everything said on Meet the Press is controversial. --Allen 02:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough on the Meet the Press revert. However on the first edit on the temple, it reads in the paragraph that it is "the best known controversy" of Al Gore, so I would think an in-depth explanation would be warranted, especially since is this the Al Gore controversy page. Also I checked the main article for the Temple controversy and it is covered a little different and not all the facts are there from the reverted edit. Thank you--Mr Jiggy Fly 16:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

If there is duplicate information from another article on the campain controversy about Al Gore, it should not be erased here, it should be erased on the page that is not called "Al Gore controversies", for this is the page to show Al Gore's role in the controversy. The main page of the Temple controversy does not go in depth about Al Gores role and so it should not, this is the page to do it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ] (] • ])

Since nearly all of the so-called controversies surrounding Al Gore were bogus ones created by Republicans and dutifully promoted by the "liberal" media (see "I created the internet!" and "I discovered Love Canal!"), the fact that a real controversy actually exists should be reflected in this article, and explained as fully as possible w/out going into ludicrous detail. The way the section is now seems fine to me, although it could use a few more citations, and seems to present the facts relatively fairly.--Hal Raglan 16:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

"Bush has never put together a budget"

This article exists to note and detail controversies surrounding Al Gore. In the article's "Controversial quotes" section, the only Gore comments that should be included are those that generated actual controversy. One would think that would be obvious, but an anonymous editor keeps insisting that Gore's comment about Bush never having put together a budget was hugely controversial. It is noted that The Washington Post said that Gore's statement was incorrect. Unless there was a subsequent widespread attack by conservative editorialists, or some kind of public outcry, one mention in a newspaper doesn't qualify as a controversy. I've removed the quote from the article. Please discuss here if you feel the quote should be reinstated as having created a storm of controversy. Hal Raglan 03:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

"only Gore comments that should be included are those that generated actual controversy" Can you show me that it did not create controversy, because it was published for it was a controversial decision/quote. Where is it said that if the mainstream media does not consider it caused a 'storm of controversy' that it is not suitable for this section? Can you direct me to the controversy section of Misplaced Pages? The "Bush has never put together a budget" has been on here for years, suddenly you are saying it should go? Surely when you read it a many months ago you thought it did not belong? Is your plan to remove a little at a time until the whole article is gone? Forgive me, I am not trying to accuse you of anything and I apologize for any such language, but I cannot believe that these quotes where not a controversy, big or small, being published in a major newspaper and/or on major news TV channels. Does something have to be a huge controversy to be listed, if so where is the standard on Misplaced Pages? For example the pigeon river section did not create a "storm of controversy" in much places other than Tennessee, but believe me those people never forgave Gore, they protested, they did go on National TV and the national news. It did not get more publicity than a Newsweek article and the few said interviews on TV, but it was a huge controversy in Tennessee, enough for Gore to lose his home state in the election! But that did not get much of a story and it belongs here as does the aforementioned quotes. Thank you.

Anonymous, it is up to the editor who inserts ostensibly "controversial" quotes/details into this article to show that an actual controversy resulted. The editor must include citations to reliable sources that indicated controversies ensued. This article should not simply be a list of things Gore did/said that someone, such as yourself, did not agree with. That's not a wikipedia rule, just common sense.-Hal Raglan 13:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

removing abortion section

I'm removing the abortion section because it doesn't point out a controversy in its present state; rather, it simply lists some facts followed by two POV statements. If someone did some digging, though, I think controversy probably could be established here, so anyone who wants to do the work should feel free to re-add the section as far as I'm concerned. (The section would need to cite sources saying who alleged that Gore's statements were inconsistent, and who disagreed.) --Allen 05:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

"The section would need to cite sources saying who alleged that Gore's statements were inconsistent, and who disagreed."

Gore - It is my deep personal conviction that abortion is wrong. Let me assure you that I share your belief that innocent human life must be protected. In my opinion, it is wrong to spend federal funds for what is arguably the taking of a human life.

Gore - I've always, always, always supported Roe v. Wade

I don't see many who would not see the inconsistent statement. As for it being POV, they are direct quotes from Gore himself.

I will also add sources and better balanced statements as well, Thank you

Anonymous, Allen clearly noted that the "section would need to cite sources saying who alleged that Gore's statements were inconsistent, and who disagreed." It doesn't matter in the least whether you personally find Gore's comment outrageous. An actual, real controversy needs to be demonstrated. Notable individuals need to be quoted and sourced. The section as it is now does no such thing, and reads like a POV editorial. But I've now made it easy for you. I've rewritten the "Tobacco" and "Roe vs. Wade" sections and provided citation tags where critics/sources should be inserted. Simply add the names of notable critics, link to a reliable source, and the section will be complete to everyone's liking. However, if this is not done and any controversy is never demonstrated, these sections should and will be removed.-Hal Raglan 14:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is the removed section in case anyone wants to fix it and put it back in.

Roe vs. Wade

During the 2000 presidential campaign, The New York Times (2000-02-20) quoted Al Gore as saying, "I have always, always, always supported Roe v. Wade." This comment generated controversy among conservative critics because of Gore's past pro-life voting record. In 1977, Gore voted for the Hyde Amendment to prevent federal funding of abortion. Gore at one point also opposed a provision allowing exceptions in the case of rape. Gore's House voting record was rated by the National Right to Life Committee as 84% anti-abortion. Another critic stated that, in a letter dated 1984-07-18 to a constituent, then-Congressman Gore wrote "It is my deep personal conviction that abortion is wrong. I hope that some day we will see the current outrageously large number of abortions drop sharply. Let me assure you that I share your belief that innocent human life must be protected. In my opinion, it is wrong to spend federal funds for what is arguably the taking of a human life…." Gore did not start consistently voting pro-choice until 1988. Gore distinguished his view on federal funding of institutions performing abortions from his view on the legality of abortion, "I voted to restrict federal funding of abortions I've always supported Roe v. Wade. I've always supported keeping abortions legal...."

Thanks. Jasper23 08:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

This needs proper sourcing and relevance proven

• In 1988, four years after his sister Nancy died from lung cancer, Gore defended tobacco farmers while campaigning in Southern tobacco states:

  "Throughout most of my life, I raised tobacco. I want you to know that with my own hands, all of my life, I put it in the plant beds and transferred it. I've hoed it. I've dug in it. I've sprayed it, I've chopped it, I've shredded it, spiked it, put it in the barn and stripped it and sold it."(Newsday, 2-26-88)

In an interview in 2000, Gore stated:

"It's not fair to say, ‘Okay, after his sister died (in 1984), he continued in the same relationship with the tobacco industry.' I did not. I did not. I began to confront them forcefully. I don't see the inconsistency there."

According to an article by John J. Miller in the National Review, in the same month Gore's sister died he received a $1,000 speaking fee from U.S. Tobacco, in 1985 voted against cigarette and tobacco tax increases three times and favored a bill allowing major cigarette makers to purchase discounted tobacco.

In a 1996 speech, Gore referred to his sister's painful death from lung cancer. Gore apologized for profiting from his family tobacco farm and accepting campaign contributions from tobacco companies in the years following his sister's death, saying "Sometimes, you never fully face up to things that you ought to face up to." Gore became a leading advocate for the Clinton administration's aggressive anti-smoking campaign.

What is the controversy? Who says so? This needs to prove a point and not just be a collection of random thoughts strung together. There must be a reliable source that spells this out as a controversy that received news coverage or at least some media attention. What do people think? Jasper23 20:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Al Gore even talks about his family's farm in which he is sorry for and about speeched that were made during it. Also Here is a CNN transcript talking about in part the controversy

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.167.255.231 (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Dear anonymous user,

Please understand that the validity of the quotes is not in question. Please diagram the actual controversy in relation to the quotes. As this stands this is just a random collection of quotes and not an actual controversy. Reliable sources must be used to connect the dots and not original research. As it stands there is no research of any kind done except for the random quotes. Please understand that I am not trying to censor anything. Jasper23 21:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Sir, as a frequent editor on here as well, sometimes I and others do not agree on issues here, however please let it be known that I greatly appreciate another point of view and the work of you and others on here. It is this that keeps Misplaced Pages a reliable source of information. On the point of the above mentioned quotes, I am not sure of the anon's views, but I look at it this way; If there was no controversy, Al Gore would not of given an apology. There was sufficient controversy over his history and past record of tobacco farms and payment verses his statements that he gave (forced by aides?) an apology. The quotes seem to be a build up to an explanation of what he said vs what he did. Again thank you.--David Foster 22:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the cordial greeting. You are right that the quotes build up a bit of an explanation. However, without a reputably sourced critical view of the situation, this constitutes original research. However, as a measure of good faith I will put it back in the article for now but will probably rewrite this in the future.Jasper23 22:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of the provided Gore "apology", an actual controversy needs to be demonstrated. Who were these mysterious critics? Citation tags have been repeatedly added to this section requesting verification of a controversy and these tags have been repeatedly removed, with no attempt to add actual critics or sources. Jasper23, I would suggest that, after another month or so, this section be entirely removed if nobody at all has made attempts to prove any kind of controversy actually existed.-Hal Raglan 16:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, after further investigation the source material for this article is just a juxtaposition of quotations without any commentary. I don't think this section (or the abortion section) count as a real controversy as they are now sourced or presented. Since they have already been on the page page for so long I think that a month is a bit too generous. Jasper23 17:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. I was being overly generous for those (mostly anonymous) editors who keep insisting in their edit summary details that this was a notable controversy. As I noted in my previous comment, citation tags have been repeatedly added and repeatedly deleted/ignored. I think its safe to remove this section at any time you see fit, since nobody to date has made any attempts to provide actual evidence of a controversy.-Hal Raglan 01:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I broke down and removed the section. It has been posted to the top of this section of the talk page. If you want to put it back in please read the discussion notes. If the problems are not fixed with the section, then it will be reverted. Please feel free to discuss your thoughts in this section. Jasper23 21:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This needs to be sourced....

Accusation of urging press self-censorship

In 1992, the same year Gore published his book on the subject, Newsweek journalist Gregg Easterbrook wrote about calls by Al Gore and Paul R. Ehrlich for journalistic self-censorship about criticisms of climate change, saying they had "ventured into dangerous territory by suggesting that journalists quietly self-censor environmental evidence that is not alarming, because such reports, in Gore's words, undermine the effort to build a solid base of public support for the difficult actions we must soon take." Easterbrook wrote: "Skeptical debate is supposed to be one of the strengths of liberalism; it's eerie to hear liberal environmentalists asserting that views they disagree with ought not to be heard."

The old link on this one died and I this needs a reputable source to go back in as per WP:BIO Jasper23 03:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Extra chromosome Section has been left in the article...however it needs proper sourcing. Jasper23 22:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Gun control

On June 14, 1999, during a Conference of Mayors on the subject of gun control, Gore stated that young people between the ages of 18 and 20 commit almost a quarter of all gun murder. Gore claimed: "Incredibly, while these 18 to 20 year-olds cannot legally buy a beer, cannot purchase a bottle of wine and cannot order a drink in a bar, right now they can walk into any gun shop, any pawn shop, any gun show, anywhere in America and buy a handgun."NBC nightly news host Tom Brokaw commented: "That’s simply wrong. The Gun Control Act of 1968 made it illegal to sell a handgun to anyone under the age of 21. And other laws make it illegal for anyone under 18 to posses a handgun." According to The Daily Howler, "The second part of what Brokaw said has nothing to do with Gore’s statement. And the first part of what he said is 'simply wrong,' like Gore’s remark. People aged 18-20 can legally buy handguns: at gun shows, from private dealers, or from friends." Dan Rather also noted Gore's error, then claimed "Handgun sales to those under 21 are forbidden by federal law, though other firearms are available." The Daily Howler noted, "But handgun sales are not 'forbidden.' Gun shows can sell handguns to a 19-year-old."

What is the controversy? How was it reported? Jasper23 22:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the alleged controversy is that two prominent newscasters pointed out an error in Gore's comment about how/where teenagers can purchase weapons. Although I had my hand in this section, having earlier attempted to edit it due to POV problems, I really don't see a controversy here either.-Hal Raglan 00:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

§ External links PoV

Am I the only one who feels the External links section is — maybe — just a little — biased? The rest of the article seems pretty NPoV, though it's a shamble in terms of cleanliness (always the result of revert warring). I don't want to start a feud, but I think removal of the entire section is a good place to start. On a related note, why isn't this page protected from unregistered users? —auk 23:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

On a look at the history, it appears unregistered users are a small part of this article. But wow, Jasper. —auk 00:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

ape

The plagairism is from the second source and not the newsweek story. The tobacco page has been talked to death and if you do want to discuss it I suggest you read the talk page and then bring it up here. Jiffypopmetaltop 02:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

POV Fork

Al Gore criticisms and misconceptions is clearly a WP:POV fork. It should be AFD'd. Derex 02:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

If there is not an NPOV summary of each item on Gore's main page then I'd agree. Right now there are many things on this page that do not appear, in summary form, on Gore's main page. That needs to be fixed. If it isn't I'd support deletion.MikeURL 03:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The summary on Gore's page reads as follows, "Like most current and former politicians, there has at times been controversy surrounding Gore and his actions. These may range from his tenure as Vice President up through today." No summary. This information should be on his page imo. --Jim732 20:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Home Energy Use

I'd like to go ahead and delete this business from the Tennessee Policy Group. A bit of research about the organization reveals that they're a right-wing public relations group with dubious claims of legitimacy (the Tennessee Tax Department doesn't recognize them as a legitimate organization according to :http://www.nashvillecitypaper.com/index.cfm?news_id=54656). This looks like a smear campaign agaisnt Al Gore to me, and doesn't rightfully belong in his Misplaced Pages entry. Furthermore, I'd like to know how the TPG got ahold of Al Gore's private utility bills. Benji 16:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It certainly does appear that the reliability of the source is questionable.MikeURL 21:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It's obviously a smear campaign. However, it worked and got national coverage. I think some mention of it does therefore belong. The controversy does include the 'smear' aspect of it, and the dodgy source, and that should be mentioned as well. Derex 22:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Per wikipedia's NPOV policy "Attributing and substantiating biased statements", and WP:BLP, we must qualify who is making these claims. Because we do not have an article on "Tennessee Center for Policy Research", and we do not explain who they are, I added that they were a free market think tank, which is accurate. I see that there is a footnote to an article that criticized the group, but I feel we should also have something in the actual text of the article explaining who they are. Perhaps "free market think tank" isn't the best descriptor, but I feel we need something. What do you suggest?-Andrew c 23:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that they're basically a Republican front group put together for the purpose of publicizing Gore's garbage. So, "free market think tank" lends an aura of legitimacy and long-standing purpose that seems entirely absent here. Derex 23:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

As the VP of Operations for the institute, I can confirm that we are a free-market, non-partisan think tank. If one word must be used to describe the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, libertarian with a lower case "l" to indicate a classical liberal philosophy as set forth by Friedrich A Hayek, and Ludwig von Mises, etc., is a decent descriptor.nysara 03:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

They bill themselves as non-partisan and the beef the revenue department has with them ("illegitmate organization") is apparently over the groups opposition to taxing drug dealers. Characterizing them from the perspective of one side of a dispute is not NPOV. Considering the response, it appears their data is accurate and that appears to be what's relevant to Gore. Ad hominem attacks on the people who provide the data shouldn't be the standard. Only whether it's relevant and notable. --Tbeatty 06:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It'll all come out in the wash, The TDRS called them 'not ligitimate'. That's documented. It doesn't matter that it was over a different issue. The would not have called the other group Johnson used to work with, The national taxpayers union' the same. They called his GROUP that, not the group's stance on one issue. Here are a few links for starters. link1 and link2 and link3 and link4 Please don't revert this meticulousely sourced fact again. Thanks ! - FaAfA (yap) 09:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

That they "bill themselves as non-partisan" does not necessarily mean that they are non-partisan and it is entirely reasonable to cite other published views on this. That is what NPOV, properly understood, is about. Perhaps you should just add that they bill themselves as non-partisan, as part of the mix of views. I have indicated an inconsistency in the data so I am not sure you can say that "their data is (sic) accurate". If anything, the whole thing is simply an ad hominem attack on Al Gore and should be clearly characterized as such. Does the fact that George W. Bush is a climate change skeptic absolve him from buying green energy, carbon credits etc to offset his massive energy usage, as Gore apparently has done? I think not. And yes, I buy green energy myself. AussieBoy 09:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it's a form of ad hominem argument that doesn't address the data. This article is not about that group. Not including the data should come before the style of argument that attacks the source in way that isn't even relevant to the current data is dishonest. It's ad hominem attack coupled with an appeal to authority. It's very poor style and non-encyclopedic. --Tbeatty 14:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The group was called "illegitimate" over a dispute with the organization that is making the characterization. The group was criticising the Department of Revenue over having a departemnt to issue tax stamps to crack dealers. The way it's presented here makes it look like a third, neutral party, with authority, is making a determination about the groups validity. It certainly is not. In fact, it's patently obvious that the department of revenue considers them "legitimate" because it allows tax deductible donations to be made. The out of context "legitmate" statement regarding crack cocaine tax stamps should not be inlcuded in an article about Al Gore. --Tbeatty 14:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

A glance at the organization's home page leaves no doubt to what their political bent is, and their allegations are not only riddled with half-truths but factually false as well. I do agree that the Department of Revenue's appraisal of them on an unrelated issue in an internal memo is not relevant here, however.SonoftheMorning 05:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

BBC quote

I removed the BBC quote which Andrew c readded.

I removed the quote not becuase of the BBC sourcing, but because of the attributed source for the quote. An unidentified "former Gore aide" commenting on his assessment of the motivations of the group bringing the information to light is not what I would call a strong source. Next we could go look for a quote from some partisan Republican source that questions the bias of the unidentified former Gore aide in making an assessment of the...well, I think you can get the idea. The article already includes one statement opining on the motivation for the statements, and the response section is already several times longer than what it is responding to, so I really don't see what this quote is adding to the article. I've removed the quote again because it really is tangential and because of WP:NPOV#Undue weight concerns. Please discuss here before readding. —Doug Bell  06:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

"former Gore aide" seems like a much more precise attribution than the attribution of the original allegation itself -- "a Tennessee-based free market think-tank". The "think tank" does not, for example, disclose the names of its officers or board members — despite IRS rules requiring that for tax-exempt organizations. Derex 06:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

What does precision have to do with it? At this point it wouldn't matter if it was a homeless man who made the allegation as it is the media coverage of the allegation that makes it notable, not who made it. Do you have a point that is relevant to my comment above? —Doug Bell  18:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You said "not what I'd call a strong source". Why? The only reason I can see is that he's "unidentified". Well, the main source is considerably less identified, so that's not much of a complaint. Thus, my response is relevant to what is the only apparent underpinning of your comment. Do you have a response that is relevant to my comment that examines the merits of yours? Derex 22:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: Besides, the quote there now is perfect:

Sometimes when people don't like the message, in this case that global warming is real, it's convenient to attack the messenger.

It has the double meaning of describing both the comment by the Tennessee Center for Policy Research as well as the response to the same comment in this article. It's hard to fathom why a simple statement of undisputed fact regarding energy consumption has invited so much focus on the messenger, so the irony of the quote there now is priceless. —Doug Bell  18:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know any wikipedia policy that says we need to start questioning our sources' sources. We should decide of the BBC is a reliable source. There are valid reasons why sources wish to remain anonymous. There is no wikipedia policy that says anonymous quotes from reliable sources can be thrown out. It's like saying Robert Novak cannot be quotes on Plame because his "two senior administration officials" were left anonymous. Maybe I am missing your argument, but your reasoning behind the deletion is very poor. Could you explain it better if I am missing something? What we need to ask ourselves is a) is the statement sourced and b) is the source reliable and c) are there any undue weight/POV concerns that could be cleared up by attribution/qualification or removed entirely if found non-notable. You seem to be attacking b), but I don't see the wikipedia policy to support your criticism of the reliability of the source.-Andrew c 23:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are missing my point: the quote adds nothing useful to the article. There is already undue weight in the article centered around the credentials of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research when as yet no source has disputed their findings, only the conclusion that can be drawn from the facts. The article has already given—and it's still there, just reduced somewhat—undue weight to comments surrounding the messenger without a compensatory focus on the message. The quote from an unidentified Gore aide adds nothing, and in fact, the response section still needs work to fix it's undue emphasis on the messenger. I was simply removing the most egregious example of undue weight—something I thought would be patently obvious, but I guess it's hard to see it if you're only looking at the article from the POV you want the article to reflect. —Doug Bell  00:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't accuse me of what you did in your last sentence. You said not particularly relevant and sourcing is weak then Removing BBC quote from an unidentified former Gore aide--see discussion on talk page and then I removed the quote not becuase of the BBC sourcing, but because of the attributed source for the quote. An unidentified "former Gore aide" commenting on his assessment of the motivations of the group bringing the information to light is not what I would call a strong source. You can't blame me for focusing on your sourcing comments when they dominated your rationale. I was and still am unaware of any wikipedia policy that says "reliable sources, such as the BBC, stop being reliable when they protect the identity of their own sources". I also think you are missing what undue weight means. It isn't, "every view gets equal space", but instead "less notable views get less space". If we have reliable sources like the BBC and Time magazine supplying these quotes that question the messenger, it is our job to report that. We shouldn't give 'equal' credence to the accusations of an otherwise unknown think tank if our sources do not. It is ok for things to be unbalanced, as long as our sources portray things unbalanced. That is the escence of NPOV/undue weight. -Andrew c 00:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Look, when I saw the quote in the article, I thought, "gee, now isn't that surprising, somebody found a quote from an unidentified former Gore aide who questions the motives of the source". I had already seen the other quote in the preceeding paragraph from a Gore spokesperson saying basically the same thing. I really didn't see where having both quotes in the article were making for a better article, so I removed the one with a weak source for the quote. Clearly, the act of writing an article involves editorial judgement to select what information and sources create the best, most balanced and neutral article—we're trying to write encyclopedic articles here, not make a directory of every quote from every news report on the event. Now of course, a simple editorial decision with the purpose of trying to make the article at least a little better written has run into some POV warrior who rather than discussing the issue of whether the quote adds anything to the article, wants to engage me in one of the many pointless partisan discussions that are the trademark of the talk pages on any article with a political connection. Just as in the article, where the focus of the response is inappropriately and disproportionally on the source of the as yet to be disputed statements of fact, the response to an effort to in a small way improve the writing of the article is instead going to focus on a wikilawyering argument as to whether the quote could be in the article, not whether it should be. I suppose it doesn't much matter—I guess these articles are best left to the cesspool of POV warriors. It's pointless to try and edit these into better encyclopedic articles because that's not the goal of most of the people that contribute to them.

So let me just ask a simple question. Is it a better article with or without the BBC quote? Try stepping aside from your POV when considering the answer. —Doug Bell  01:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

"Conservative Organization" according to the Dept of Revenue

Firstly, I will identify myself as Nicole Williams, the VP of Operations for the Tennessee Center for Policy Research (TCPR) so everyone knows where my allegiance lies here. I deleted the reference in the first paragraph to the Department of Revenue referring to TCPR as a "conservative think tank" because upon exploring the reference, no such quote is in the article. Secondly, I deleted the quote about the Department of Revenue referring to TCPR as "not a legitimate organization" because it a. does not belong in the description of the energy consumption controversy as it has nothing to do with the data, and b. is not the official position of the Department of Revenue, and c. the Department of Revenue is not in the position to decide if TCPR is or is not legitimate (This is the job of the Secretary of State). A call to the Secretary of State will confirm that TCPR is indeed registered in Tennessee as a 501(c)3 and up to date on its paperwork. Finally, we are not a conservative think tank. We can most accurately be described as libertarian. My comment from earlier on this page: "As the VP of Operations for the institute, I can confirm that we are a free-market, non-partisan think tank. If one word must be used to describe the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, libertarian with a lower case "l" to indicate a classical liberal philosophy as set forth by Friedrich A Hayek, and Ludwig von Mises, etc., is a decent descriptor." This loosely translates into our finding solutions to public policy issues that are often unpopular with conservatives or liberals, depending on the issue at hand. I encourage all to visit our website and review our commentaries and studies. You will find critiques and praise for ideas promoted by Democrats and Republicans alike. I fail to understand why the word "libertarian" continues to be deleted from this entry. Is a statement directly from the organization, therefore directly from the source, not a good enough citation to describe said organization?nysara 03:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, wikipedia has a policy on original research. We cannot publish something for the first time here. No where on your website does it say you are libertarian. However, we have a local newspaper that calls you a "conservative watchdog organization". We also have source watch that calls you "right-wing". I personally wouldn't mind changing the word to "libertarian" as long as there is a citation in a reliable source. Unfortunately, you coming here and telling us this is considered original research. I hope you understand. Do you have a 3rd party citation that refers to you as libertarian? That could help. Thanks.-Andrew c 01:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

If you have a link to your website where you describe yourself as libertarian we could probably use that as a source for what you call yourself. Note however it is not unresonable to mention other reliably sourced interpretations of what you are as both. It is obviously inappropriate to go into too much detail in this article but as there is no article on your organisation and it appears there is question of whether your noteable enough for an article, we have to go into whatever is sufficient detail to provide readers an overview of what you are Nil Einne 01:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I will discuss adjusting our website with the President in the morning. We use the term free-market in the hope of better describing our philosophy. Meanwhile, NPR correctly used the term "libertarian". Is tht a decent source? --Nysara 01:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Since I hadn't previously heard of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, I didn't know who they were or how they should properly be described. I figured, as Andrew points out, we shouldn't be deciding how to describe them, and we shouldn't use the primary source of their web page, but we should instead use secondary sources of how major media entities describe them. So I googled "Tennessee Center for Policy Research". I got the Web site itself first, and a bunch of blog entires. I scanned down and pulled out the first three major media outlets in the results:

1. ABC News: "Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth'? -- A $30,000 Utility Bill" descibes them as
   a local free-market think tank
2. National Public Radio (NPR) "Group Faults Al Gore on Environmental Claims" descibes them as
   a libertarian think tank
3. BusinessWeek: "Al Gore's Carbon Footprint Is Big" descibes them as
   an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization committed to achieving a freer, more prosperous Tennessee through free market policy solutions

I didn't cherry pick these, as I'm not trying to support either side. None of these calls the group "conservative", and in general these references support nysara's description more than it does Andrew c's. —Doug Bell  01:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Why are you singling me out? I specifically said I wouldn't mind changing to libertarian if it was sourced. And it appears it is.--Andrew c 01:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to single you out, sorry if it came across that way. You were the one inserting "conservative", I thought. I didn't find any major media outlet using that description. I was also edit conflicted on that post with the two posts following yours, so it's a bit out of the context I was originally responding to. —Doug Bell  01:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I got defensive everyone. I ask that everyone look up a few posts to my "1 March 2007" post. I had inserted the text "free market think tank" into the article and it was removed by someone else. I made a case for why I felt we needed some sort of descriptor and the compromise that arose in the article was "conservative think tank". I think its ok for now to proceed and use "liberation" per NPR. However, there were other editors who were objecting to that terms use, so perhaps we should allow them a chance to make their case here.-Andrew c 01:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Not so fast! A claim has been made that no major media outlet has used "conservative" regarding this group's political bent. Is Time not a major media outlet? They call the Tennessee Center for Policy Research "a conservative group.". How about ABC News: "An obscure conservative think tank." Or The New York Times: "An obscure conservative group in Tennessee" Seems like there's more major media outlets that refer to them as "conservative" than "libertarian".-Hal Raglan 01:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say no major media outlet described them that way, I say I hadn't found one in my search. I only copied the first three here, but I looked at several additional ones. I was surveying, not trying to find references that supported a particular point of view that I wanted to promote. —Doug Bell  01:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Ack. Well, there we have it. As long as we have some sort of descriptor that isn't verbatim taken from a mission statement I'll be happy. "Free market", "Conservative", "libertarian" all work with me. Perhaps we could compromise and use more than one adjective? Just as long as we avoid going into a big ado about "some sources call them x, while other sources call them y". We might also want to consider self-identity here (although the L word isn't used as self-identity, not yet at least).-Andrew c 01:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Its important for this group's apparent conservative political bent to be addressed. Probably the best way to do that would be for someone to simply write a wikipedia article about TCPR and then link to it from here. Until that is done, since most major media outlets do seem to consider them conservative, we should refer to them that way in this article. I certainly have no problem noting that they are a self-described "libertarian" think tank, as long its also noted that others don't necessarily agree with this descriptor. (And my apologies to Doug Bell for misreading his comment.)-Hal Raglan 02:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else find it interesting that characterizations made by people who do not have Master's Degrees in Political Science or Philosophy, but rather degrees in Journalism, are more important than fact? Misplaced Pages itself has a definition of each philosophy for your reference. I leave this libertarian versus conservative issue in your hands at this point because in the grander scheme of things, I know the facts and they have been corroborated. Our website, in fact, promotes policy solutions grounded in free-market concepts. If fact is not important, then that says something about the reliability of this online encyclopedia, but nothing about the TCPR. I thank you all for your time. --Nysara 22:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

And you have found one of the 'faults' of wikipedia. Anyone can contribute to wikipedia. In theory, we give no extra favor to those with credentials than anonymous editors. To make up for the fact that anyone can contribute, we require that everything be sourced, verifiable, and attributed. We have guidelines on reliable sourcing and so forth. Because of this, while something may be The Truth, wikipedia only cares what is sourced and verifiable (we also must consider the neutral point of view). Therefore, when sources conflict, the solution is to present both sides, as opposed to trying to find out what is True. It's a fact that certain media outlets have referred to your organization as 'conservative'. You dispute that here, but we cannot deny the label exists, even if it is wrong. Now, this isn't the place to have that debate because the article is about Al Gore controversies. I know it can be frustrating, and may not be the best policy, but these guidelines generally work and help to insure than anyone can contribute, and that all relevant points of view are heard.-Andrew c 01:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

As the recent controversy involving the individual who faked his way into Jimmy Wales and Wikia's good graces has demonstrated, individuals with "credentials" (real or otherwise) DO get preferential treatment. --PeanutCheeseBar 20:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I largely agree with Hal altho we're AFAIK still waiting on a reference for the self-description. Once we have one, I suggest we mention both the self-description and the conservative label given by numerous sources Nil Einne 03:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

After a long discussion with the Institute's President, we will stick with "free market" as the descriptive term from our mission statement and the faq page on our website. Free market is actually the most accurate term, and it has its own entry at wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/Free_market where folks may link if they choose to use the term. Does anyone else find it interesting that the quote about the Department of Revenue stands, though it is actually an excerpt from an email sent by a person who works for the Department? Interesting... Ciao!--70.146.141.109 --Nysara 19:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Pledge

Let's talk out this section. I've noticed a lot of edit activity there since the paragraph was added regarding Inhofe's pledge, and recently a lot of reverting. The US today article explained that Inhofe was a GW denier, and I feel it is important to mention that information about the senator. It is part of qualifying and substantiating sources. I also thing saying "Gore declined" is not enough. While we do not need to mount his defense again, saying that he commented that he already offsets his energy use is important information. Saying "he declined" and nothing else leaves the reader wanting more.

All that said, I personally do not think a senator asking Gore to take a pledge is one of Gores controversies. I would personally support removing the whole paragraph (besides, how does it fit into the section on the response to the TCPR press release?) So either remove the paragraph completely, or revise it to include some form of the information suggested above (and previously in that section). What do others think?-Andrew c 23:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. Like you, I don't believe Inhofe's public buffoonery represents a controversy and can easily be excised from the article. However, if we are to include it, the information should be provided in an uncensored form. Removing any mention of Inhofe's infamous "hoax" comment and abruptly ending at "he declined" smacks of a clear anti-Gore bias.-Hal Raglan 01:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The Gore pledge was widely reported, and is an undeniable piece of the "home energy use" controversy.

The pledge section is about Gore's energy usage in light of his urging others to curtail theirs. The sub-controvery is whether Gore is being hypocritical. A senator asked Gore to take a pledge to reduce his own energy consumption. The senator's motivations are not the issue; why does it matter why Inhofe asked him to pledge to reduce his energy consumption? Why does it matter that Inhofe regards GW as a chimera? Whether he's the world's greatest champion or biggest critic of GW is not relevant here. That you feel obligated to discredit him informs the reader that you're basically a Gore worshipper out to smear any critic. What if Boxer had asked him to take some pro-GW pledge? Would you include any of her ludicrous hyperbole on GW? Of course not. Or why is it that you don't insert the phrase "who predicted ocean levels would rise 20+ ft," after Gore's name? Why don't you list Gore's most controversial statements along with Inhofe's? Answer: because you're a Gore apologist, out to sanitize history to suit your PoV.

As for Gore's response to why he won't take the pledge, that's already well noted in the section. Your version, in which you insist on repeating Gore's defense multiple times, after every criticism, is wholly transparent.

More generally, it's clear the purpose of the entire article is to try to explain why certain Gore controversies were unfair or unjustified. It should be retitled for accuracy, something like, "Responses to Selected Gore Criticisms".

Indeed, Gore's biggest controversies are ignored entirely, such as 1. the film AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH itself and all of its wild predictions and questionable science (some of which were recently detailed in a high profile NYTimes story), 2. his post-election strategy of requesting hand recounts in only 3-4 largely democratic counties in Florida, 3. his dilapidated rental units and indifference to tenants who sought maintenance, etc.

But you won't see any of those here any time soon. And if I did include them, we all know that Hal would immediately smear any quoted critic and then bloviate about how omitting them was evidence of "PoV". It's a joke.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.90.188.25 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 20 April 2007.

Changed title of section to Critisisms in the Media

Much less POV, the title before sounded as if the editors were defending Al Gore from the media. Also, in the technology section, I placed the Gore quote where he claims to have created the internet because that's the important quote for that particular controversy.--Jim732 15:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey Jim. You made quite a few changes that kind of go against some consensus decisions made on the talk page. Please take a quick look at this page and some of the more recent archives. Personally, I don't like the criticism section because this is a controversy page and having a criticism section in an article about a controversial figure is pretty unmanageable. So I know that it must be frustrating (because you have been waiting to edit this article), but I would suggest to go at it a little slower and use the talk page for most, if not all, edits. Thanks. Turtlescrubber 15:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello, my main critisism with this topic is that "misconceptions in the media" reveals a predetermined bias that the media is wrong and that the follwing section will defend Gore from the media. That's rediculous wouldn't you say? --Jim732 15:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Are there any other titles that you can think of that don't use the word criticism. I have a problem with using that word on bio articles but I don't see any reason why another title would be such a bad idea. Turtlescrubber 15:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for hearing me on it, actually I suggest a reorganization to give each controversy it's own header. I mean each was reported in the media so it's kind of reduntant in that aspect as well. Jim732 15:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

There ya go, I switched it per your comments. And i agree the title was redundant. It looks nicer this way. :) --Jim732 16:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Changed "Gore Aid" quote to cite it specifically as CounterPunch Newsletter stating it. --74.73.16.230 20:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Gore on creating the internet

This section should focus on the wildly circulated quote that Gore claimed to create the internet. Describing how he helped techies get funding is fine but the controversy is that he took credit for it's creation years after it had been created.

Is there a reason for somone moving internet to the campaign section? --Jim732 20:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so I edited the opening paragraph of the section to adress exactly what the controvesy was with breif summary. Thoughts? --Jim732 20:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

POV tag

220.237.57.18 has repeatedly placed a POV tag on the top of this page without discussion on the talk page. After a request was made for an explanation, the anonymous user noted the following on his/her talk page, copied here for any further discussion as needed: "This article is very biased towards Al Gore. It uses selective information in an attempt to refute/ dismiss the criticisms and concerns that exist. In ths way, the article is not impartial and I felt it necessary to say something (though others have been addressing this very issue on the discussion board.) ps. I am not a crazed, right-wing climate change skeptic who hates Al Gore. I am actually a left-wing, environmental science student." "it is apparent that the author has decided to focus heavily on the 'positive' aspects of the criticism. Look at the section on Gore's energy use. This small paragraph includes 1 or 2 references that criticize Gore for his energy use, insinuating that this issue was just a minor controversy amongst some crazy right wing nuts. The response/defense of Gore's energy use, in contrast, is at least twice the size and includes more references to people who defended Gore. Secondly the references are more varied- including quotes from several commentators/ writers- which suggests that this position is in someways was more credible or popular. This is a criticism page, and as such, the focus should be on the criticism that has been levelled at Gore, instead on trying to lead the reader to form a particular conclusion. It has a touch of political propaganda to me. p.s Others have expressed this opinion on the discussion section of this page. As there is a legitimate dispute about the neutrality of this article, (including quite a few people who seem to agree with) the tag should remain until the dispute is resolved. It is only appropriate." In addition, the anonymous editor's most recent placing of the tag included the following edit summary "The part of the article that describes Al Gore's energy usage is particulaly biased. The balance (in size, references, detail) between the critics/defenders of Gore is really skewed". Accordingly, I have moved the tag from the top of the page to the energy usage section.-Hal Raglan 13:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

pov and reference tag

I tried to removed section a section entirely sourced by bloggers, world net daily and cybercast news service. None of these are reliable, well known or neutral enough to be the primary and secondary sources of a section on a wp:blp article. Instead of continuing user bi's edit war I will just add the tags until the section is properly sourced. I am not asking for it's removal but for proper verification. Turtlescrubber 14:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, what's so hard to understand about the sentence "CNS has editorial oversight and therefore is reliable enough for WP:RS"? Bi 14:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, what's so hard to understand about the policy "wp:blp"? Turtlescrubber 15:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

And which part of WP:BLP says that a source with editorial oversight is unreliable? You keep using WP:BLP as a blanket reason, and you keep shouting that CNS is unreliable, unreliable, unreliable, without explaining which part of WP:RS it violates. Bi 15:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

And the fact that a conservative news source is being used as a source for a statement that goes contrary to the common conservative line... makes me wonder what kind of POV issue you're worried about at all. Bi 15:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't care if it's conservative or not. See, that's what makes me neutral. I only care about sourcing. ::::Well, if you're not going to read the page; here is an excerpt:

Reliable sources Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, a biography will violate the No original research and Verifiability policies, and could lead to libel claims.

Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source about a living person, including as an external link, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below).

Editors should avoid repeating gossip published by tabloids and scandal sheets. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. When less-than-reliable publications print material they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases. Look out for these. If the original publication doesn't believe its own story, why should we?

Check it out Holmes. Turtlescrubber 15:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You have still failed to explain why CNS, which has editorial oversight, should be considered "unreliable" per WP:RS. Read WP:RS carefully, for Gore's sake. Bi 15:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

"I don't care if it's conservative or not. See, that's what makes me neutral." So you're applying your understanding of the sourcing rules mindlessly, and what's more, your understanding of the sourcing rules is simplistic to the point of being wrong. That's not being neutral, that's just being anal. Jeez. Bi 15:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

From WP:RS:

"Editorial oversight -- A publication with a declared editorial policy will have greater reliability than one without, since the content is subject to verification. Self published sources have not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking and so have lower levels of reliability than published news media (e.g. The Economist) and other sources with editorial oversight, which is less reliable itself than professional or peer reviewed journal (e.g. Nature).

"Declaration of sources -- A source which is explicit about the data from which it derives its conclusions may be more reliable than one which does not."

--Bi 15:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow. You still haven't read what I posted on this page! Here is a close up:

"Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all."

Editorial oversight is just one, of many, factors which determine reliability. Your citing of wp:rs in no way proves your point. Can you back up the info you posted from non-partisan non-obscure sources? No? Then don't put it in a wp:blp article. That's it. Done. However, if you can source it properly, then feel free to put it on the page. Easy as pie, my friend.

Oh,just for fun, here are some questions to ask yourself: " Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. When less-than-reliable publications print material they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases. Look out for these. If the original publication doesn't believe its own story, why should we? Turtlescrubber 15:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Turtlescrubber sez to find a source from "cnn,nyt,washington post, wall street journal, la times". Trouble is, "Holmes", they won't report it. And why not include Fox News in the mix?DominantMediaBias 20:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

You've made a great point. No reputable news source has reported this. If two right-wing bloggers criticize Al Gore, and the only "news sources" to gleefully report their claims are two obscure conservative-biased ones, this is clearly not a controversy and has no place in this article.-Hal Raglan 20:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Response to Bias: Why not fox? Because I was mainly thinking of print sources, like newspapers. Cable media outlets are fine though. So, you think wikipedia should include this information because reputable sources won't print it. Interesting theory. So, I made my case, where the hell is yours? Turtlescrubber 20:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Fact is, ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN/Nat'l Public Radio/NY Times/LA Times, etc have a liberal bias, so they won't report such a criticism about Al Gore. Similarly, Fox News/Rush Limbaugh/Wall Street Journal, etc. won't readily report on criticism about a right-winger. When you hold up one news source as a higher standard then a "conservative" blogger, you need to clarify where that news source stands. How is their reporting style on the news page indicative of their editorial agenda i.e. bias. If you wish to stripmind the article of a conservative quote, you better be prepared to do the same for the liberal salutations of gore from recognized liberal sources. A nuetral point of view should present both sides, not hampstring one because a couple left-wingers do not like the light shining to brightly in their faces. Let both sides present their case in a documented fashion, simple as that (Note: I'm neither liberal nor conservative).DominantMediaBias 03:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, going with your logic; Why don't Fox News/Rush Limbaugh/Wall Street Journal report on it? By the way, are you calling me a "left-winger"? Turtlescrubber 03:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to take a step back from any labeling of participants here as "left" or "right". There are a multitude of news organizations, and several minor ones have broken major newsstories (see: the Clinton affair broke on the Dredge Report as opposed to Newsweek, which had the story). Often times major news organizations are scared of diving into the pool of controversy as the backlash can seem intense (see CBS' Dan Rather's ouster after a controversial report on George W Bush). And quoting the aforementions standard above: "Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all." This does not preclude using the information in dispute, only that we use it with "caution". Is is derogatory? I'm hardpressed to see it that way, and two other editors feel similarly above.Mister Fax 13:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think what is clear is that there isn't consensus yet to add the content. Please everyone, stop edit warring. Let's reach a compromise, or at least stop editing the article while this is under dispute. No one can force their edit to stick if it is controversial. Further edit warring could result in a page protection while this dispute is underway. So please stop and work things out.-Andrew c  15:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

My stance on this disputed content has already been stated. I can't believe there is a problem with this. The name of the article is "Al Gore Controversies". Two right-wing bloggers complaining about Gore does not constitute a controversy unless reputable media outlets pick up on the story. If any major newspaper, or Fox, CNN, etc, reported on the claims, this would warrant inclusion here. I don't believe this has even been widely reported in the right-wing blogosphere. This article should not simply exist as a listing of every single criticism lodged by Gore-haters. It doesn't matter if the material is "derogatory" or not, the point here is that the content in question is not by any standards a controversy, and should be removed from the article.-Hal Raglan 16:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Without better sourcing, it doesn't go on the page. "Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all."Seriously, why are we still talking about this. Find a better source and put it on the page...or not. Thats it. Turtlescrubber 21:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The question seems to be if it is derrogatory...it doesn't appear overtly so. And how do we quantify "better source". Taking a stance "it doesn't go on the page" seems to indicate WP:OWN on Turtlescrubber's part, and no individual editor owns any page. The emphasis on the above statement is "handled with caution" so instead of summarily removing the quote, perhaps a more concise reference can be inserted to appease the participants of this dispute?Mister Fax 23:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I've rewritten your paragraph, fixing an incredible error (CBS News?) and making the paragraph a little bit more readable and coherent. If this information is to remain in the article, it should be written in such a way as to reflect what the conservative-biased "news" article actually claims. Its important to note that the accusations have come from unnamed "other media outlets" (a hilarious euphemism for right-wing bloggers).-Hal Raglan 20:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

As Mister Fax's deceptive editing show, he seems to have a problem with wp:own. No single editors "owns" this page Mister Fax. Why don't you discuss the info before trying to shove it down the article's throat. You are still using blog sourcing and a no named paper to sling mud. Turtlescrubber 22:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting theory as to "deceptive editing". The quote stands on its own merits, and was made as a compromise according to the above request to reach a middle ground, locating a major outlet that reported the issue in question. Equating my edit with WP:OWN is hilarious, to say the least. An "incredible error"? CBS reported this on their website...not in an editorial but in a news article which was appropriately linked as such.Mister Fax 22:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The link you provided in your edit was to a Cybercast News Service (CNS) story, not to CBS. The quotes you had utilized came directly from the CNS story. In my rewrite, I retained the same link you had used.--Hal Raglan 01:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Hal, I see now what you indicated earlier. When I attempted to locate a source on this story from a major news outlet from a search engine, my eyes apparently played tricks and CNS appeared CBS, more so from the similar graphic to CBS's on the page header than the "C" or the "S". I can understand why there would appear to be a deception, but I hope you see that it was in fact an error. Thank you for correcting the link and wording accordingly.Mister Fax 13:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I had in fact assumed your edit was done in good faith, and that the CBS/CNS confusion was simply an error.-Hal Raglan 17:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

What's the point of this article?

None of the info here seems very notable let alone relevant for controversies. What's the point of most of this info? Wikidudeman 04:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The point is, they don't want critisms to muck up Gore's mainpage. So they do a pov fork and move it here where thay can bury all legitimate critisims in Gory love and not have to worry about the article recieving a crappy "B Rating" because it's not the main Gore page anyway.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.61.124.28 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 30 July 2007.

Who are these "they"? Anyway, clearly there's another group of "they" who want to include every nonsensical criticism of Gore on Misplaced Pages, and there's no easy way to get rid of those (probably because the criticisms are quite noteworthy even though they're obviously baseless).

Actually, more power to this second group -- the article in its current form clearly shows how the so-called "critics" of Gore are just making up unpleasant "facts" about him from thin air. An example being Gore's energy "consumption" of 22,619 kWh, a figure which the Tennessee Center for Policy Research obviously just pulled out of nowhere. Bi 11:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

1. "Gore's Pollution Problem", Newsweek, 1997-11-24
2. http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/0042/impolitics-parrish.php
3. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200002/ai_n8885182
4. http://graphics.boston.com/news/politics/campaign2000/news/Gore_record_scrutinized_for_veracity+.shtml
5. 2000-03-01 San Jose Mercury News
6. http://www.nationalreview.com/gorelies/gorelies.html
7. http://www.reasonmag.com/news/show/34410.html
8. San Francisco Chronicle, 1996-08-30
9. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1859848036/
10. http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/1999/cyb19990615.asp#3
11. http://www.dailyhowler.com/h061699_1.shtml
12. http://www.dailyhowler.com/h061699_1.shtml

• Redirect-Class biography pages
• Redirect-Class biography (politics and government) pages
• Top-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles