Talk:Al Gore/Archive 9

message: Why nothing on this? Gore seem to be a fairly significant player in this? 1996 United States campaign finance controversy‎. Hempbilly 03:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's discussed here: Al Gore controversies. -Classicfilms 04:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ahh, thar she be. Hempbilly 04:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 1996 United States campaign finance controversy‎

message: Per this, it would appear that this is inaccurate. I've removed the paragraph. Chris Cunningham 12:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taipei Times article 

message: WHERE is the page for his son? why does it re-direct here? Why is there a link claiming to take you there, and then merely bring you back to this same page? With all of the whining on this site, could somebody do something constructive? I have no idea how to fix it or I would. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.78.227.105 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 5 July 2007
: It appears there used to be an article on Gore III.  He wasn't really notable, though, and it now redirects here. The essential question is whether a politician's son who gets busted a few times and is the associate publisher of a magazine is notable.  I say no. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 22:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Even if he doesn't get his own article, it should definitely be mentioned in here. Wikipediarules2221 23:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why?  Wikipedia is not a scandal sheet.  This was extremely minor news in responsible publications.  The Chicago Tribune had a short article buried deep in the paper.  ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's on the front page of CNN's website...  "Extremely minor" and "responsible publications"...I'm glad to see that you are using facts and not your personal qualifications to back your argument up... What is a "responsible publication" by the way?  Is it one with a heavy liberal slant? Wikipediarules2221 23:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Anna Nicole channel?  They've gone downhill.  You probably wouldn't be impressed by the short shrift being given the story in the New York Times and Washington Post.  However, I do note that the Washington Times doesn't seem to be giving it much coverage either.  Thanks for confirming my suspicions that much of the desire to see this published here stems from political motives. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, he has his own article now so I guess more people saw it my way.  Wikipediarules2221 00:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And since he now has his own article, and it's wikilinked from this one, I'm going to remove the information about the arrest from this one. Sperril 17:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Al Gore III 

message: The initial mention of "the popular vote" is likely to confuse people who don't know that the popular vote carries no legal significance and strikes me as trying the leader in to drawing the conclusion that it does or should.  Also, it would be more accurate and much less POV to state that the Supreme Court refused to block the certification of Florida's electors rather than the "handed" language used here. Wouldn't the results of the many independant post-election recounts be on topic here? 12.10.223.247 03:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm actually inclined to agree with this. I'll trim it. Cheers. Chris Cunningham 07:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy and NPOV status of 2000 Election description 

message: Could we possibly split off the section about his involvement with "Futurama" to be positioned in a new "Popular Culture" section? There seems to be many Al Gore parodies and other points of mention on television although I could only name a few outright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.31.193.50 (talk • contribs) 06:02, 8 July 2007
: Most aren't notable in any real sense. We should assign due weight, which really belongs elsewhere. If you want, you could risk an Al Gore in popular culture article. I think there used to be one, but it was deleted. Chris Cunningham 09:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perhaps a "Popular Culture" section? 

message: It seems a little inappropriate to have such an old image at the top when he doesn't really look like that anymore. Are there not any more up to date images we can use? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 01:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't imagine George Washington looks like that now, either :) It's an infobox vice president, and that's still what he's best known for. Chris Cunningham 08:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems a little ridiculous. Are we still going to have the same picture there when he is 80? I would also question that the first thing people think when they hear or see Al Gore is that he used to be Vice President. I'd say they think much more about his global warming activism and his film An Inconvenient Truth as well as the losing the 2000 election to Bush. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 10:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Completely off the top of my head, see the infoboxen of Jimmy Carter and Dan Quayle. (No significance to these particular examples.) As for "what people think of", we're not meant to be pandering to current popular events. Being Vice President is still more notable than winning an Oscar and being a notable campaigner. Chris Cunningham 10:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know other articles use old pictures- I think it is a bad idea and makes it look like Wikipedia is stuck in the past. I don't see a problem with an infobox in the article with the vice/presidential picture but I don't think it should be right at the top. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 12:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I really don't get this. Biographies almost always use prominent but non-current pictures. Tell you what though, when he does the right thing and jumps into the 2008 race I'll be the first to upload a new pic when I'm changing it to Infobox President ;) Chris Cunningham 13:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know where you get the "almost always" from. It might be the case with US presidents/vice-presidents but everywhere else the most recent image is the preferred one. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 15:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hrm. Again, these are random examples: see Nancy Sinatra, or Sean Connery, or John Cleese. Those pictures all predate Gore's despite the continued fame of the subjects. Not buying it. Chris Cunningham 19:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason the Cleese and Connery photos are used is that no newer image exists under a free license. The Nancy Sinatra one is actually not allowed as it a copyright image. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 23:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW upto date free images do exist of Al Gore- I'll upload them tomorrow. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 23:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The "Best" image available should be used. This means the highest quality and clearest image. If the best image was taken last week then we use that one. If the best image was taken 15 years ago then we use that one. Wikidudeman (talk) 22:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Based on what I'm seeing at [], The current image being used, the one taken in 1994 is the best one so far. Until someone uploads better photographs that are recent, we need to use the one that's currently being used simply due to it's quality. Wikidudeman (talk) 22:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: What did he study (in the University)?. --HybridBoy 13:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Study  

message: Hello,
I'm Nick Moreau, an accredited reporter for Wikinews. I'm co-ordinating our 2008 US Presidential election interviews. We will be interviewing as many candidates as possible, from the Democrats, Republicans, and other parties/independents.
I'll be sending out requests for interviews to the major candidates very soon, but I want your input, as people interested in American politics: what should I ask them?
Please go to any of these three pages, and add a question.
* n:Wikinews:Story preparation/US 2008/Democratic Party
* n:Wikinews:Story preparation/US 2008/Republican Party
* n:Wikinews:Story preparation/US 2008/Third Party or Independent
Questions? Don't ask them here, I'll never see them. Either ask them on the talk page of any of these three pages, or e-mail me.
Thanks,
Nick  --  Zanimum 19:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions? Ask them through Wikinews 

message: As one can easily see, I have extensively edited the succession box for Al Gore. More specifically:
*I have substituted all templates with those of the s-start series, including the templates for United States representatives and senators, which I have also simplified.
*I have added headers for all titles in the succession box and have categorised the succession lines under said headers and according to the guidelines of WikiProject Succession Box Standardization (SBS)
*I have removed the "win"/"lost" labels from the candidate succession lines' title fields due to their redundancy; one can easily see which bids were won and which ones were lost by looking at the "Political offices" section at the top of the succession box and seeing which offices were indeed held by Al Gore.
*I have removed the "as of 2007" label from the order of precedence succession line's title field due to redundancy; orders of precedence are always supposed to be valid at the time one sees the succession box. I have replaced it with a label giving the capacity in which Al Gore has a place in the order of precedence.
This succession box is intended to be used as a sample for the general re-organisation of the succession boxes for United States politicians. Please discuss any changes that you might want to perform on it before you proceed. I hope the result of my edit has been beneficial to both the box and to the article as a whole. Waltham, The Duke of 08:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Succession box