Talk:Al Gore/Archive 4

message: This may just be my opinion, but it seems to me that much of this page is in the format of defending Al Gore against political attacks made on him in the past.  Now, I don't consider myself to be a conservative, and I'm not really that concerned about it, but it seems to have a large bias, which I don't believe is in the spirit of an encyclopedia.  As random example that sort of stuck out:
"Gore left Vanderbilt Law School because he decided to run for Congress instead. It was therefore unfair to accuse Gore of being an academic failure for not completing his law degree.
Therefore, Gore advocates claimed, it was reasonable to assume that Gore was intelligent and academically successful, although perhaps not exceptionally so. "
The "unfairness" is a rather subjective term, and using, "therefore" implies the conclusion was based on pure logic.  While it certainly seems as if his critics were overreacting, it is far from an airtight conclusion.  In the next paragraph, at least the opinions given attributed to "Gore advocates" but it still smacks of bias, since much of the page contains opinions or accusations by opponents of Gore, but very few which are not followed up by twice as much reasoning (by Gore proponents) as to why those opinions and accusations are false or misleading.  The most balanced section seems to be the Military Service section, which appears rather objective.  By that I mean relating to controversy, not sections like biographical data etc..
I actually like Gore, so I agree with most everything said about him, its just that I think political leanings should be put aside for an article like this.
*No article here is ever finished. No article here belongs to an individual. Please make the changes you feel are necessary. But also please anticipate that some of your changes will be changed by others in the future. Kingturtle 17:32, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Political Slantings...

message: Chris added this item as a Clinton/Gore economic accomplishment: "Paid off $360 billion of the national debt."  I think the whole list is tangential to the Al Gore article; even a President has only limited scope for influencing macroeconomic performance, let alone a VP.  As to this specific item, though, it would suggest to me that the total accumulated national debt was $360 billion less in January 2001 than it had been eight years earlier.  Is there support for that assertion?  Clinton/Gore inherited a huge annual deficit from 12 years of Reagan/Bush.  The federal budget can't be turned around on a dime; the 1993 tax increase began the process of bringing the budget into balance, and the annual deficit declined each year thereafter, but it was still a deficit until the last year (maybe last two years) of the administration.  I find it hard to believe that the tail-end surpluses equaled the total of six or seven years of deficits plus $360 billion.  If the statement means, for example, that a FY 1992 deficit of $280 billion became a FY 2000 surplus of $80 billion, it would be more credible, but that's covered in the next item and wouldn't constitute paying off $360 billion of the national debt. JamesMLane 06:21, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Query re national debt

message: Although I think we can all agree that ChrisDJackson has done a lot of good work on this article, I believe the most recent change (on why Gore lost) is a bad idea. I think what was there before is more NPOV. Here's why:
* "Some contend that. . . he actually won". It would be better to say who contends this. Although I know of many celebrities who claim this, I don't know of any media outlet, think tank, or other responsible, rational group that claims Gore actually won. Gore doesn't contend this, for example. (My own POV is that Gore should have won, but didn't actually.)
* The use of the word "technicality" is NPOV in my opinion. It's the way voting in America works. I would think a technicality would be more akin to "Massachusetts submitted its vote without signing" or somesuch. The fact that Gore received a minority of the electoral vote doesn't seem like a technicality to me.
* "Some call this fact irrelevant". The Constitution calls this fact irrelevant. Who doesn't call this fact irrelevant?
* "and that Al Gore should not be faulted for 'losing'". I don't like this phrase. It assumes someone else is claiming that it was his fault, and it seems a tad defensive.
Because of this, I'm reverting. I don't mean to be rude; I just think the previous version told the facts and showed multiple opinions without overstating or restating bits. Quadell (talk) 13:35, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)
* FYI, I have nothing to do with this section.  If it needs fixing, please do so.  ChrisDJackson 01:32, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  On why Gore lost the 2000 election. 

message: Lately there's been a string of edits in which anon users delete each other's external links and aubstitute their own.  I gather it's a turf war among different groups of Gore supporters.
Wikipedia is not a collection of links, but each of these sites seems to me to be an inclusion I can live with, although not with any peacock language (as in the latest addition, describing that anon's favorite site as "the largest grassroots site of it's kind on the net").
I suggest listing each of these sites in "External links" without puffery.  As for the listing of speeches, perhaps the title of the speech (unlinked, but while you're at it add the date), followed by footnote-type links (number only) to each site on which it's found.  That's an ugly solution but it gives readers the option and stops the incessant back-and-forthing. JamesMLane 14:40, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Dylan, thanks for responding.  You're right that anon edits are generally OK.  On the specific point of adding external links, though, we often have anons show up to insert what are basically advertisements, so an anon who does nothing but insert a link raises an automatic red flag.  In this case, though, your site is noncommercial, which makes a difference.  In terms of a description, I think that what you've written ("AlGoreDemocrats- Organize, Discuss, Act") pretty much does the job.  This article is about Al Gore, not about any of the sites.  An encyclopedia article about Gore doesn't need to report the number of hits or VIP visits of various supporters' sites.  As for Chris Jackson, I don't always agree with him, but he's made significant contributions to this article, so I think it's reasonable for his site to be listed ahead of a similar site that doesn't have that factor going for it.  In my capacity as self-appointed arbiter, having no tie to either site, I'm putting yours below his, but I think both should stay in the list. (While I was writing the above, Chris switched the order himself, but I'm leaving my comment in to provide a neutral imprimatur to that action.) JamesMLane 22:05, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: External links competition among anons

message: There was a separate article on Al Gore's views, with a cross-reference in the main Al Gore article under "Views and controversies".  On August 26, Poccil edited the other article by inserting the "merge" template ("This article should be merged with Al Gore").  On August 27, Jiang turned Al Gore's views into a redirect here, without merging any of the content.  CDN99 then edited this article to remove the cross-reference, which had become a self-reference.
I hope this link will show the Al Gore's views article as it was immediately before it was converted to a redirect.
There are three main alternatives here:
:1. Restore the separate article on Al Gore's views, with a link to it from Al Gore.
:2. Leave Al Gore's views as a redirect but incorporate much of its content into this article.
:3. Status quo -- all the material that was in Al Gore's views is essentially gone.
These three are listed in my order of preference.  I favor the general approach described in Wikipedia:Summary style of having a "top-level" article (like Al Gore) with general summary information, and more detailed treatment of subtopics included in daughter articles (like Al Gore's views).  I don't see a good rationale for the change that's been made here.  Before reverting it, though, I'd like to hear others' comments. JamesMLane 11:14, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Al Gore's views is just a bullet point list and not an article. Unless someone can immensely improve it, it doesnt deserve to stand alone. That said, I didnt do my job and failed to merge the content (not the bullet point list). The views section should be at least a couple paragraphs long. Ill try to get to it... --Jiang 11:24, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Readers of an encyclopedia are interested in the summary, not every single fact on a subject. The political views should be probably integrated into the various time periods (mention what policies Gore helped enact or advocated for). Gore is no longer running for public office. Politicians tend to flip-flop over time so a bullet point list like the one in the article is not helpful. Compare: http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761553525/Gore_Al.html --Jiang 19:56, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Al Gore's views