Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Carcharoth (talk | contribs) at 01:39, 9 July 2007 (→Request for Comment: fix shortcut name). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Biography 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.

WikiProjects and templates

Template:Multidel

Archives

• Talk:Al Gore III/Archive 1 - posts from December 2003 through December 2006.

My hopes and prayers are with Al Gore, III and his family during this difficult time.

Strange

I find it strange that the lead of the article mentions his father's speach, but no further mention is made in the rest of the article. Per WP:LEAD, new topics should not be introduced in the lead if they are not covered in the body of the article. I request that this article be expanded to include more information about the speech. The portion of the speech dealing with Al Gore III should be included here, if it is not too long. News reports that mention Al Gore III being included in the speech should also be listed here. Johntex\ 07:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

External Links

What criteria should be used for external links on this page? The only current item, "Bush's Kids versus Gore's Kids" is part reference and part opinion, and its focus is on the media's coverage of the topic of this page (Al Gore III) rather than the topic itself. I will add more relevant material, without distinction of the nature of the external content. Mike wiki 07:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Turque claims

Getaway reverted this edit of mine with the edit summary, "Previous removal of info was based upon that there was not a reliable source. Please leave in all reliable sources." I should have explained my edit better; let me try now. These are the changes I made:

• I corrected the factual error that Jill Lawrence reported any of the claims made in this paragraph. According to the reference given, she did not. Rather, she makes it clear that she is reporting a claim made in Bill Turque's book Inventing Al Gore. In fact, this reference is redundant; all claims in this paragraph stem from Bill Turque's book.
• The original wording of this paragraph calls Turque a Washington Post reporter (true), and then says that he "reported" these things about Gore. I think this implies that Turque made these claims in his capacity as a Washington Post reporter, which is not true. Though any reader can figure this out by checking the reference, I think it's still better to avoid giving any impression that these claims were vetted by the Washington Post editorial system.
• I removed these two references: , . Neither mention Gore, and both are completely irrelevant to this article. The latter does establish that the Washington Post does employ someone named Bill Turque as a local reporter, which might bestow some credibility on the claims he makes in his book. Now I don't have a citation for this, but citing a source in an article about someone else to establish the credentials of someone making a claim about the subject is not normal Misplaced Pages practice.
• Finally, I removed Turque's claim about Gore's father contacting news agencies to ask them not to report the incident. I find this tangential to Gore's biography. I think it would be better suited to his father's biography, except that it would be trivial in that context. This final point, however, is the most subjective of my four points. If other editors think someone looking for information about Al Gore III would want to know about these alleged interactions between Al Gore Jr. and the media, so be it.

--Allen 00:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Protecting article for 24 hours

Before you edit this article, please read Misplaced Pages's BLP policy and the Coatrack essay. Specifically, please understand that making this article primarily about Al Gore III's run-ins with the law is not compatible with Misplaced Pages's policies about what a neutral biographical article about a living person should look like (especially someone of borderline notability). Thank you for your cooperation. Kaldari 06:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

As I posted on your talk page: your edits, and subsequent protected, of the article Al Gore III amount to nothing short of censorship. It is no more unweighed to add Gore's run-ins with the law to his article than Lewis Libby's run-ins with the law, or a more appropriate comparison of Noelle Bush, Jeb Bush's daughter who has had numerous legal problems. Censoring negative things, well sourced and cited, and leaving only positive things is hardly NPOV. Further I also have to note, that your removal of the said information, and protection for 24 hours, the same 24 hour that Gore's name will be in the news and people will be searching for more information, is shameful. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 11:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is a clear case of censorship. Kaldari, restore your deletions and unprotect this article at once. Robert K S 12:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Al Gore III's recent arrest on drug possession charges

Can some update the page about the news of his recent arrest (July 2007). Police found pot, along with Valium, Xanax, Vicodin and Adderall in his car, TMZ reports.

Someone's gotta include his DUI's.Spartytime 12:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Question about balance, policy and page protection

I've looked over the BLP policy and coatrack essay, and I still have a question about how they apply to this article. Most major media coverage of Al Gore III has been in regard to legal problems, so it would seem these are notable, and that including a bit about them does not constitute biased editing or a malicious agenda. That makes the page protection seem a bit draconian to me... can someone explain? — Eye of Sauron 15:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I can see an argument in favour of coatracking because the book that many of the stories about him misbehaving at St. Alban's and such are *actually* more about Al Gore than they are about a kid who didn't get involved in something *completely* atypical for a teenage boy. His adult arrests are reported on the news, and should be here, the stuff sourced from Inventing Al Gore probably should not be. --Thespian 15:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. So why did Nick remove the references to the specific drugs? They were referenced in the cited NY Times article, so taking them out immediately before protecting seems like it blurs the line between an editing disagreement and enforcement of the Biographies of Living Persons policy. That's what worries me here. -- Eye of Sauron 15:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Mentioning specific drugs could be used to infer a specific drug dependency, which is one of the things I am keen to avoid. Nick 16:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

What they "could be used for," and whether they are sourced and relevant facts, are two different questions. The point you raise is debatable—after all, the NY Times mentioned the drugs and their article doesn't seem to me to have biased implications. But my concern is not so much whether you're right or not, but also whether the BLP policy empowers you to lock the page to enforce your view on a debatable point. I understand that it allows this in the case of clear efforts to introduce bias, but this one isn't clear. — Eye of Sauron 16:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: It's worth noting that he had received treatment at a rehab and had undergone substance abuse counseling back in 2003. That to me is pretty indicative that he has a drug addiction. Moreover, his father has said that he's getting treatment now. Alcarillo 16:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Removing "and prescription drugs Xanax, Valium, Vicodin and Adderall" and replacing the description with the euphemism "pharmicuticals" strikes me as a bias towards Gore and away from clarity and accuracy. Euphemisms are to be avoided under wiki guidlines. Mytwocents 16:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Information about Gore III being suspended from school for smoking weed at a school dance when he was 13 is only notable for being embarrassing to his father (as are most of the minor law infractions that everyone seem so keen on listing in this article). Ask yourself this question: Would those facts be notable if Al Gore III was not related to Al Gore? If the answer is no, they do not belong here. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Kaldari 17:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

If Al Gore III was not related to Al Gore Jr. he would not even have an article. As there have been five past attempts to delete this article on an otherwise unnotable, by Misplaced Pages's standards, person, it seems clear that it will remain on Misplaced Pages for the foreseeable future. Hence, if the artile is going to remain here, it should contain information is is notable. Removing any negative information from an article, that is to say to pretend as if they didn't happen or that the news did not cover such items, is NPOV. You are censoring wikipedia. Just as the article on Noelle Bush should include coverage of her drug problems, as that is what she is know for, and Paris Hilton should include information on her stint in jail, this article should cover Gore's multiple transgressions with the law and substance abuse. Your comment that "this is not a newspaper" is a non sequitur, — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 17:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The above by Miller is correct. Justifications for the whitewashing of this article are all over the map. Balance, notability, BLP/libel. Let's refute them one at a time. This may be an encyclopedia, but it's not paper, so what is the reason fornot providing a short, concise summary of the various legal entanglements of the subject, which are indeed notable and the criterion for notability? Robert K S 17:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no interest in removing all negative information about Al Gore III. Some editors are crossing the line, here, however. Do you or do you not believe it is appropriate for us to discuss Gore III being suspended from school for smoking weed at a school dance when he was 13 in this article? Can we at least come to an agreement on that? On the other end of the argument, I believe it is appropriate to mention any crimes for which Gore III was convicted in this article, i.e. not simply arrested. I also think it is notable to mention his drug rehab sentence. Let's try to figure out what we can agree on first. Kaldari 17:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely with Kaldari - there's nothing at all wrong with reporting genuinely notable incidents, but this article has, at various times during the past day or so, read like a criminal record rather than an encyclopedia entry. We're not here to stop you adding notable content to an article, it just needs to be notable, accurate, balanced and sourced content which some of the content we've removed simply wasn't. Nick 18:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

How about the two of you not decide what's notable (i.e., limiting to convictions, leaving out published references when properly attributed) and instead leave it to what can be validly sourced? If major news media report on something, how can its notability be challenged? Editors of newspapers and television sources all across the country have vetted the material's notability, and what you're saying is that you're going to veto them? Robert K S 20:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeap - It's a moot point anyway. Nick 20:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Nick, respectfully, you still have not been able to cite what in BLP this article violated. Why is the point moot? Robert K S 20:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I've cited everything, you have chosen not to listen to a word that I have said. You chose not to follow the advice I placed at WP:AN and you chose to edit war. I expect this to go right over your head too though. Nick 20:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Noelle Bush. First section is about her arrest on drug charges, wherein the specific prescription drug is mentioned. Explain the discrepancy.Alcarillo 21:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

This is an absurd situation.

There should be an article on Albert Gore III (an independently notable person), not a redirect to his famous father. Where is the discussion where concensus was reached to take this action? bd2412 T 19:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The admin was overly bold, and I believe, incorrect, as the news coverage yesterday attested. I'm all in favour of the artlce being locked to Nick's last edit, but this was not a good choice of resolution. It also overrides the many AfDs at the top of the talk page, some of which suggested this, and it was not chosen as the correct option for this page. --Thespian 19:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the redirect was inappropriate, and should be undone. --Elonka 20:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the article (for now). I'm not about to edit war over it, but until there is a consensus to delete it, the article should remain. bd2412 T 21:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.  :) --Elonka 21:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

What the hell

I'm trying to follow links to the Al Gore III article and it keeps redirecting me. Even when I click the "For his son, see Al Gore III" link in the article it redirects me to!

This is shameful and I will cite this incident as evidence that Misplaced Pages is not neutral.

It's really difficult not to chalk this up to simple, outright, power-mad, bias.

Shame!

Pusher robot 19:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Redirect

I don't believe it's a good idea to unilaterally redirect the page because "Wow! Politician's kid busted! Like that's ever happened before... Come on, poeple, this person has only one claim to notability: his father. Anyone else's kid, it would be completely ignored." as according to JzG.

The page was created back in Dec. 20, 2003, so it's not the result of some recent controversy. Also, it's never been redirected before (after a brief check with the history). I don't believe the redirect was made in good-faith and the page should be restored. It's already been placed up for deletion 5 times and the page survived them all. Some sort of community discussion should always take place before making such an extra bold move. Jumping cheese 21:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It was a completely bogus move on the admin's part, especially since there is an ongoing discussion about specific content. Having a protected page is one thing, but this revisionism is absolutely ridiculous, and further confirms my rather low opinion of most WP admins. Alcarillo 21:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

But the system works. User:BD2412 removed the redirect in under 3 hours. Not very impressive, but could have been worse. Jumping cheese 21:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

What kills me is that this admin didn't even weigh in on the Talk page, just put his/her $.02 in the edit summary. That's a cop-out. Alcarillo 21:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes admins act irrationally too...they are human after all (I hope). ;) Jumping cheese 21:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to give the admin who made the move in the first place an opportunity to undo it. bd2412 T 21:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I asked him a few times, for the same reason, before deciding I would need to escalate it..at which point I saw that you had fixed it. Thank you. --Thespian 21:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't see the reason for the redirect, unless all famous-by-extension people are supposed to be grouped into the most famous person's page. But where is that going to leave Sunny when Cher puts out another hit record? What is the reason why AGIII should not have a separate stub? Mike wiki 21:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, technically, it will leave him as a dead congressman. --Thespian 21:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

CNN Update

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/05/gore.son.arrest/index.html http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1640169,00.html?xid=feed-cnn-topics

He is out on bail, and "is getting treatment."

I don't think this was on the page. Crenel 22:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews is more suited for this. We've got all the information we need on the arrest at the moment, Wikinews exists for people to collate news reports and build an up to date news report on the story. I'll be happy to add a link to Wikinews on this, though. Nick 22:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

When are you going to permit other people besides yourself to edit this article Nick As an admin you don't have the privilege of protecting an article in which you are curently in a content dispute. Nobody wants to libel Gore, we just want a page that reflects reality, not a whitewash. Let's unprotect this article. Mytwocents 02:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review

The page has been redirected again. Since this effectively constitutes a deletion of the article, I've opened a discussion in Deletion Review. While it is unfortunate that this episode is likely to expose Misplaced Pages to some ridicule, I have confidence that it will eventually reach the correct resolution. Comments welcome. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• (sigh) The deletion review was deleted on the grounds that the article has not been deleted. So, we'll have an RfC instead. Either way, the result will be the same. bd2412 T 23:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • You could just list it for AfD, even though you are not supporting deletion or redirection. I've seen that done before. -- Ned Scott 23:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
    • The appropriate process in this case is an RfC; I've opened one below. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, back to the discussion at hand (so we can unprotect this article)

First let me state 1 thing off the bat: Just because something is a fact and verifiable and even notable does not mean it is necessarily included in Misplaced Pages. If you have read the NPOV and BLP policies you understand why this is the case. The argument that "X newspaper published it, so we have to too" is not going to fly. Even though I've already been over this a thousand times on a dozen different articles, let me explain a bit about why Misplaced Pages has a BLP policy... Right or wrong, Misplaced Pages is regarded as an authority. If you do a search on Google for "Al Gore III", Misplaced Pages is the #1 match, and it probably will be for the rest of Al Gore III's life. Al Gore III doesn't have his own website or TV show or press agent. He's just a guy who happens to be the son of Al Gore and doesn't particularly advertise his life to the rest of the world. His reputation to the outside world is basically at our mercy. When Al Gore III applies for a job or meets a new love interest, his potential employer/girlfriend/etc is going to do a Google search for "Al Gore III" and the first thing they are going to read is our assessment of Al Gore III's life, which we are advertising as an "encyclopedia article". Encyclopedia articles aren't like newspaper articles. They are meant to be a definitive assessment of the subject, free of bias, and comprehensive in scope. If you've ever read an Encyclopedia Britannica article, you should know what I'm talking about. While Misplaced Pages is not Encyclopedia Britannica, our content is often regarded in the same way, and we as editors are striving to reach a similar level of quality. When you are thinking about what type of material to include in an article you should not be asking yourself "Would they publish this in XYZ Newspaper?" but "Would they publish this in Encyclopedia Britannica?" (if Encyclopedia Britannica could be infinitely long). In my opinion, there is not enough verifiable information available about Al Gore III to create a comprehensive, balanced assessment of his life. No matter how much we dig we are only going to get a skewed perception dominated by whatever incidents happen to be embarrassing to his father (notice how many news articles refer to Gore III as "Al Gore's son" rather than "Al Gore III"--at least people know who Jenna Bush is). Nothing else about his life is really notable. Thus the correct course of action would be to redirect the article to Al Gore (as has been done before). However, this solution doesn't seem to work for two reasons: there is no concensus to do it; the existing policies are not specific that this is what should be done (rather it relies on an interpretation of the policies). So let's for the moment assume we are keeping the article.

The question then becomes, what do we include in this article? Well, since this is an article about a living person, we don't just list facts willy-nilly. As the BLP policy states: "BLPs must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy." This is not the policy that newspapers use. Newspapers do not care about people's privacy (for the most part). We do. How much do we care about people's privacy? Well, it depends. It depends on how notable the person is, how notable the incident is, how well known the incident is already, how much coverage of other aspects of their life we have in the article, how potentially damaging the incident is to their reputation, how substantiated it is as a fact, etc. As I have stated before, I believe strongly that discussing Gore III's suspension from school when he was 13 is an undue violation of Gore's privacy and raises problems when considering many of the factors above (it is probably the least well-substantiated, it is not often mentioned in press coverage, it occurred when Gore was a minor, it is exceedingly trivial--especially given Gore III's lack of notability in general, and it is obviously embarrassing). Unless the BLP policy is significantly changed (or Gore III becomes a politician or public figure), I regard the inclusion of that incident as a definite violation of policy and I would greatly appreciate it if the rest of you would strive towards at least such a minimal standard. Are we in agreement here? If not, let's hash this out before we move on to the trickier incidents. Kaldari 23:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to observe proper process, I've listed this as an RfC and opened one under that header below. Please feel free to move your comment there (and erase this one) if you wish. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I think your essay here goes beyond what Misplaced Pages policy says. I invite you to point me to the line that says we "protect peoples' privacy" in regard to statements that have already been published in reputable national newspapers. Not crappy websites, but actual newspaper articles. We should be collecting the commonly-known (and easily, verifiably sourced) information on subjects, not deciding what that information should be. -- Eye of Sauron 14:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

We absolutely should be deciding what information to include, not simply "collecting information" as you say. We are encyclopedia editors, not fact-collectors. There is a world of difference. Kaldari 15:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, obviously we're editing the articles. But what makes a subject notable depends on the primary sources, not on us. It makes no sense to declare a person who has been extensively covered in the mainstream media insufficiently notable, or that the focus of that coverage is somehow wrong. Al Gore III is well known to people because of these incidents; I don't see why recording them in a neutral way is somehow beneath Misplaced Pages or a violation of its policies. -- Eye of Sauron 16:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not mainly about notability (except for the fact that the subject's notability derives from a relative's notabilty). My point (and that of several other editors here I think) is that the available sources are not sufficient to write a biography. The same sources may well be sufficient for inclusion in other articles/another context though, where it does not lead to bias. The first problem to be solved here is the article's title. Sometimes such articles may be saved by simply renaming them (but I think you can see why this is not likely to succeed with the currently disputed content - just try to think up a new title). A neutral, encyclopedic biography is not defined as "the things the subject did as reported in reliable sources". If all the info we have is one-sided in the context of a person's life, the result is not a bio. It's a collection of news stories focusing on the subject's need for health care and law enforcement. Recording it in a neutral way does not make a neutral biography. Avb 10:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Linked from Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies; existing article has been turned into a redirect to Al Gore, dispute exists over whether the article should exist at all in light of the tabloid quality of news regarding Al Gore III's recent arrest for drug possession. bd2412 T 23:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, there is also a dispute about if the article is going to exist, what incidents should be included, i.e. how "tabloidish" do we get. If we're only going to discuss whether or not the article should exist, that should be handled in a AfD nomination, should it not? Kaldari 23:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It's already been handled in five AfD nominations, and I think that bringing another one at this point would confuse the issue. However, if anyone genuinely feels the article should be deleted, they should bring such an action. bd2412 T 23:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if it should stay or go, but an article that's been around for this long should have a community discussion. And the fact that the article, without the recent news, has survived AfDs tells us it should be a community decision. I'd support protecting an old version of the article and having that in place of the redirect, pending discussion specific to the recent news, and if it should be mentioned or not. -- Ned Scott 23:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The ultimate dispute is over whether this article should exist at all, or whether there should merely be a redirect to Al Gore, with it's one line on the subject. Everything else is an internal editorial dispute. I have no problem tackling all issues at once if we can do it expediently, but we our first priority must be to determine whether an article should exist at all in this space. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, but during that discussion I don't think the article should be a redirect. You could take my previous suggestion, protecting an older version, and have that version contain an AfD notice. Or if we are doing this just by RfC, then replace "AfD notice" with "RfC notice" for my last sentence. -- Ned Scott 23:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, let's have the existing content while discussion is ongoing. Kaldari 23:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree as well, but I don't want to get caught up in an edit war. How about creating a temp page with the original content for reference during the discussion? bd2412 T 23:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It's possible to look at versions of the page by looking at the history. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be preferable to have another AfD? Consensus can change, after all, and the deletion discussions revolving around Daniel Brandt, Seth Finkelstein and "Little Fatty," as well as the development of WP:BLP1E suggest a different outcome may pertain this time. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I think another AfD is a good suggestion. This article has sort of survived six AfDs, but only sort of. The first two (and I've just corrected the record at the top of the page to reflect this) were no consensus, with a majority favoring deletion. The fourth and fifth were speedily closed for administrative reasons; these were not consensus-keeps. The third was a consensus keep, although I feel that the botched nomination may have skewed these results (as I explained here). In my opinion, only the sixth was a clear consensus to keep, and that was, as ObiterDicta points out, a long time ago in terms of BLP policy. --Allen 03:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no strong feelings one way or another. bd2412 T 03:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

This article should either contain all of the sourced information, or should be deleted. Being mentioned in a speech does not make one notable. Al Gore III is ONLY notable because of his run-ins with the law, and that he is the son of someone famous. If you are not going to include the information that makes him notable, then removed the article and leave it to a blurb on Al Gore's article. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 00:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Is there anything to say about this person beyond the tabloid events? Doesn't look like it to me. Anyone else and it would maybe make the inner pages of the local paper, much of the reason this is noised about is politically motivated and the rest of it is just because it's Gore's son. He does not seem to have done anything that renders him notable or a public person. Guy (Help!) 06:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• There is nothing notable about this guy except some tabloidy stuff, so we should not have an article about him (barring major future developments). I think we should delete this article, then replace it with a redirect to Al Gore. CWC 10:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• I don't know all that much about the BLP policy, obviously, but it seems to me that it is primarily designed to protect against false statements and blatantly biased articles, not against factual but embarrassing ones. The notable incidents in Al Gore III's life may be only be noteworthy because of who his father is, but they have been reported in articles in the most reputable of news sources. It seems like hubris to say that the New York Times and other such papers are being "tabloid-ish" simply because some editors don't think such things should've been published. They were published, so they're notable and verifiable. In light of that, I think invoking BLP to shut the community out of deciding the content of the article by the usual means was inappropriate. Clearly the article can't overly focus on Mr. Gore's personal problems, but where to draw the line is a difficult question which the community can judge better than a few administrators. -- Eye of Sauron 13:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Then why not delete Noelle Bush while you're at it? I believe the attempts at protecting or deleting this article are politically motivated. Just because the man happens to get more ink for his behavior than his accomplishments is no reason to purge it. Moreover, the fact that he is involved in an online publishing venture that has gotten some media attention is notable. If anything, that involvement should be explored and form the core of the article.Alcarillo 15:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• If Al Gore III is NOT a notable person then why are newspapers and magazines asking for his opinion on various issues? If he wants his privacy then why is he doing the interviews? Couldn't he just turn them down? Couldn't he just ask his father not to refer to him in movies, magazine articles, newspaper articles and books? Of course he could, but he has not. The desire to delete this article is just purely politically motivated. It has been through several attempts to have it deleted and it has survived them all. Why is the desire to have deleted right now at its highest? Because Al Gore III has probably engaged in his most embarassing act so far. Why are Bush daughters and the Bush nieces and nephews treated with such contempt on Misplaced Pages and attempts to clean up their articles overturned in an on-going basis?? Al Gore III is a public person simply because he chooses to engage himself in the public marketplace with interviews and his father chooses to refer to him constantly in movies, books, newspaper and magazine articles.--Getaway 16:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Interviews, plural? I'm only aware of one. Do you have references for others? --Allen 17:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Alcarillo, Eye of Sauron and Getaway are right: this type of reporting (without the context of the subject's life) rubs off on the subject's notable relative. If that's a function of "reputable" news media, so be it. It is, however, not a function of an encyclopedia. Also, this article is not a neutral biography in the context of the subject's life. He may well be notable enough, and the sources may be reliable enough, but the biography is based on extremely one-sided reporting. My preference right now would be to redirect. Unless/until reliable sources have provided sufficiently diverse information to allow us to write a neutral biography -- i.e. without violating NPOV (and undue weight, WP:BLP, and so much more). Is this really all there is to the subject? Misplaced Pages is not a tabloid. It is not there to criticize celebrities via their relatives. Any celebrity. My opinion on the Noelle Bush article is exactly the same: both are typical Misplaced Pages:coatrack articles whose main effect is to criticize someone else. Let's do no harm. Avb ÷ talk 20:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Good comment, AVB, but reading over WP:HARM, it seems to come a conclusion opposite yours. A section in the guideline, WP:HARM#TEST (inappropriate shortcut name fixed. Carcharoth 01:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)), refers to something called the "Jenna Bush test". AGIII (both post- and pre-pruning versions) seems to "pass the Jenna Bush test", as that section would put it, on all three counts. Any disagreements there? Robert K S 22:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I'll try to explain; this point is not all that easy to convey, but it's self-evident once the penny/quarter/euro has dropped - at least that's my experience. The Jenna Bush test is intended to assess specific pieces of information that may or may not be acceptable in an otherwise acceptable bio. It applies to the article at hand in the sense that the marijuana/speeding etc. items do not pass the test at all since there is no background. This is covered by Jenna Bush test item #3: Is the information given undue weight in relation to the subject's notability? Biographies should not be dominated by a single event in the subject's life. In Ms. Bush's case, she is notable as the daughter of a serving head of state, and has received extensive media coverage not related to the underage drinking incident; as such, this incident should not dominate the article, and other events in her life should be appropriately covered. In cases where a person is only notable for their participation in a single event or phenomenon (such as the Bus uncle), it may be inappropriate to write a biography on them at all, as this may develop into a pseudo-biography or "coatrack" article. Instead, such content may be merged into a main article on the event.. I should add that WP:HARM is not a policy or guideline (it's an essay). It is supported by an (I think growing) number of WP editors. Avb ÷ talk 22:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Right, essay, sorry. I can't find the "no background" bit in WP:JENNA, can you explain what you meant by that? "Undue weight" is a bit of a tricky concept. In the public realm, people are known for what they're known for. Few would argue that undue weight means that as much space should be devoted to Ali Hassan al-Majid's philanthropy work as items about him that do get press, and yet he is a living individual for whom BLP should apply. Robert K S 23:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
        • I'm referring to the lack of context. The subject of this article is not known for the speeding etc; the single thing that makes him notable is that his father is well-known. This article portrays him as someone who is speeding and doing drugs all of the time. That is not a biography. Undue weight here means that most of the article is devoted to transgressions that have only made the news because he's Al Gore II's son, while the other aspects of his life that would have taken up most of the space in a neutral biography are not reported at all. This is is, at best, an article about someone being caught doing drugs twice and speeding once. The general idea is that reliable sources will offer us sufficiently diverse information about a truly notable person to allow us to write a balanced biography from a neutral point of view. Avb 23:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
          • • The traffic infractions count is 4 (twice for speeding), though some of the material reporting on that has been removed from the article. Robert K S 00:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Regardless of how many people feel about WP:HARM, I wouldn't have thought it's appropriate to lock up this article based on an essay. There are legitimate disagreements here, but they're debatable, so I still don't see a reason that the article is locked. -- Eye of Sauron 12:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
        • • • • IMO it passes the "Jenna Bush test" --Theblog 16:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
                • Just a note regarding the idea that the article was protected based on an essay -- No, it's the other way around. WP:BLP, probably our strongest policy, prescribes: In case of doubt, do not include. Any editor can remove first, talk later. You're quite right that such deletions need to be discussed. If an admin deletes an article per WP:BLP, the article can be undeleted if a consensus between admins is reached to do so. In all other cases, after a deletion of material per WP:BLP, the material can be reinserted once the community has reached a consensusto reinsert. If editors are keeping the disputed material in the article, I think they're violating WP:BLP. Regarding the function of the WP:HARM essay: it is not a reason to delete/redirect and protect. It explains the reasons for doing so. I think it may become a guideline after more work has been done on it. See also the relevant discussion at WT:BLP. Avb 23:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Minor question

I'm not inclined to do this unless others agree, because the page is protected, but shouldn't the part about the car accident say "after a Baltimore Orioles game" instead of "while attending a Baltimore Orioles game"? To me, the latter implies that it happened in the park, and not afterward in the parking lot. Ral315 » 05:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it should be more clear. To me it implies that it could have happened on the way to the game as well as after the game, and possibly even during a run to the local Dunkin' Donuts or something during the game itself. It could also mean that he just happened to get into an accident while a baseball game was being played. 67.167.55.69 00:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Criminal Record

The current version of the article (Id 142779487, dated 2007-07-05 23:40) makes false statements about the 2003 Maryland charges and fails to mention the 2002 Virginia conviction:

• Maryland 2003: The article says "A plea deal was reached in February 2004 and he was sentenced to a substance abuse program", but I don't believe there was any plea, nor conviction, nor sentence. The cited source, a 2004-02-02 AP story on cnn.com, specifically says "Gore did not have to enter a plea". It also says "The agreement approved by a judge Monday calls for the misdemeanor charge to be dropped after a year if ". Presumably the charge was indeed subsequently dropped (there's no source indicating otherwise).

• Virginia 2002: This incident was mentioned in previous article versions, but somehow got dropped while the Maryland incident was retained. Gore pled guilty to one charge of driving while intoxicated, and he was sentenced to one year of probation. This is Gore's most serious criminal record (he doesn't appear to have any other misdemeanor or felony convictions).

Here's a proposed paragraph for the article:

On October 21, 2002, Gore pled guilty to one misdemeanor count of driving while intoxicated, and he was sentenced to one year of probation. The incident had occurred on September 5 at Fort Myer, a U.S. army base in Virginia. Accordingly, the case was handled by the federal court system (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia).

1. ^ Sewell, U.S. Magistrate Judge Welton C. (2002-10-21). "USA vs. Gore, Case No. 1:02-mj-01096". U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division. Retrieved 2007-07-06.
2. Associated Press (2002-09-15). "Gore's son, 19, ticketed". Looksmart, LTD (findarticles.com). Retrieved 2007-07-07.

That court link requires registration and a $0.16 fee. For ease of reference, I'll put a copy of the docket sheet at Talk:Al_Gore_III/USA_vs_Gore_2002_docket. Birdfern 18:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a relevant question

I'm asking this because I actually don't have enough information to fairly comment and would like to know more: How many pedia biographical articles of living persons have traffic citations and other misdemeanors listed? I'm not trying to be judgmental here in posing my question. How many BLPs (or what percentage of BLPs) have this sort of information included? Any ideas? BusterD 02:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Jenna Bush ] George Bush ]There I found 2 in 30 seconds, how many do you want? --Theblog 03:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer a statistical list or a calculated percentage. You left out Barbara Pierce Bush and Laura Bush That's four. Oh, and Mel Gibson. Are there no more? None? Just five? Six if we include the information in this pedia article. BusterD 11:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It is possible I've asked a question which cannot be answered easily. I propose the more narrow question which I can use to survey like data sets: How many BLP articles for American subjects born in 1982 contain information about traffic citations and misdemeanors? Only 3879 total 1982 BLPs. I'll start clicking through them and make a tally. BusterD 11:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, in your initial comment you wrote "traffic citations and other misdemeanors" (emphasis added), implying that you thought "traffic citations" are in the category of misdemeanors. In fact, typical traffic offenses, like speeding or red-light-running, are only infractions. Misdemeanors are more serious. Moreover, the misdemeanor of which Gore was convicted, drunk driving, has been considered a particularly serious misdemeanor since the Mothers Against Drunk Driving campaign in the 1980s. In Virginia (where the crime was committed), it is a Class 1 Misdemeanor, the most serious of Virginia's four misdemeanor classes. (See Virginia Code sections 18.2-11, 18.2-266, and 18.2-270.)

As to your question, I'm sure the great majority of biographies do not mention any misdemeanor convictions for the simple reason that most people are never convicted of any misdemeanors. I think the question you want to ask is, "Of the articles about living misdemeanants, what proportion of them mention the misdemeanors?". Of course, that question is harder to answer. You can count up the number of articles that mention the subject's misdemeanors, but the hard part would be counting how many misdemeanants have articles about them that do not mention their crimes.

As for your off-the-cuff list of articles mentioning misdemeanors, I can't believe you forgot the person who is clearly the Most Famous Misdemeanant Of Our Time (if you define "Our Time" as the last 90 days). Birdfern 19:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

BusterD, Just read WP:JENNA and decide from there if you think it should be included, the section was written specifically for occasions such as this. --Theblog 22:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I am well-aware of the Jenna essay, and I agree with it. I also agree with the Coatrack essay referenced therein. Neither is policy, but since both have exactly equal weight as essays, I'll keep tallying my sample. BusterD 23:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Off-track tangent

Here's another couple of questions. What is the purpose of an encyclopedia? Why not take this kind of article off of WP and move them to Wikipoliticalbattlegroundia? Steve Dufour 05:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW. I forgot to mention: Al Gore is not going to be elected President. And his son's behavior has nothing to do with the reality (or not) of global-warming. So why waste your time on this article? If you want to attack a Democrat I recommend Hillary. And attack her directly. Don't waste your time on her family. Have a good day. Steve Dufour 05:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not attacking anyone, you asked a question, I answered it. I can't help it if you don't like the answer. --Theblog 05:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You haven't answered any of my questions yet. Steve Dufour 05:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, thought you were BusterD. --Theblog 16:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. But I still think WP would be better off without this article. Steve Dufour 16:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect-Class biography pages