Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.
// request.cf · coarse context
A page that knows where it met you.
Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.
This is an archive of past discussions about Al Gore. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
He is no longer a member of the Board of Directors of World Resources Institute. The article needs to state that he is a former member of the board because he served out his term there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.22.50 (talk) 11:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually Gore is no longer on the WRI board because he was not asked to return. He would still be on the board had he been asked/invited ... and surely he would not turn down the opportunity.Danleywolfe (talk) 20:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Global Climate Changes and a Rebuke
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Global Climate Change vs Global Warming
This is a hot topic. There’s no denying it. Yet most people are arguing about the wrong thing! Ever since former Vice President Al Gore established himself as the poster child for liberal environmentalists around the world with his book and movie, An Inconvenient Truth, the whole argument has been framed incorrectly.
In a previous article we examined some of Gore’s faulty claims and inaccurate predictions. Subsequently, the debate and discussions continue, picking up on our shift in terminology from “Global Warming” to “Global Climate Change,” but not losing the emphasis on shining the light into the dim areas of climate science. It’s easy to get sidetracked by Al Gore’s alarmist rhetoric so let me refer you to the previous article where that’s addressed and keep the focus here where it should be…examining the cause of climate change.
The Question of Causation
Many who participate in this debate jump so quickly into defending their positions that they fail to realize the underlying assumptions driving the very thing for which they’re fighting. For supporters of increased regulation, they assume that humans are the primary drivers of climate change and, therefore, by regulating human action, climate change can be stopped or reversed. Here’s the problem: Global Climate Change has happened in the past…before humans were driving cars, generating power from coal-fueled power plants, or paving roads.
Richard Lindzen points out in his piece Resisting Climate Hysteria, “Climate is always changing. We have had ice ages and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in a hundred thousand year cycle for the last 700 thousand years, and there have been previous periods that appear to have been warmer than the present despite CO2 levels being lower than they are now.” It’s the “susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth, and the exploitation of these weaknesses by politicians, environmental promoters, and, 20 years of media drum beating” that has led the scientifically illiterate masses to their incorrect assumptions.
Before we pass laws to reign in carbon emissions and regulate free trade completely to death, we ought to understand whether or not those actions will truly have the expected outcomes. The reality is that we find ourselves situated in the middle of a larger climate trend and it’s not the first time the Earth has experienced it (even though it is for each of us). Capping CO2 emissions, regulating the trade of carbon credits, and governing our economy to a standstill won’t do a thing to stop global climate conditions that have been occurring long before humans got involved. It’s a special kind of arrogance that we possess which assumes we are always the cause and, therefore, we are also the solution.
Shame on you Nobel Prize Committee
Now let’s circle back for a moment to that patron saint of man-made environmental doom, Al Gore. In 2007 Gore and the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) received the Nobel Peace Prize “for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.” The Nobel Prize and especially the Peace Prize is a highly respected honor and places it’s recipients among some of the most philanthropic, selfless, and impactful people in the world. “It’s simply not right,” says Florida business owner John Arwood, “Al Gore received the Nobel Peace Prize for spreading the word about the effects of man-made global warming and climate change. And now, after so many inaccurate predictions and misleading assumptions have come to light, I think the Nobel Committee should take it back. He was predicting a total melt of the ice caps by last year but it simply has not happened. I’m sure there were many other more humanitarians in 2007 that are actually deserving of this award.”
Arwood makes a good point. According to the Science and Public Policy Institute’s report 35 Inconvenient Truths and many other well documented sources, the validity of Gore’s and the IPCC’s information is no longer to be trusted. It is turning out to be fiction and should be reconsidered by the Nobel Prize Committee. Hopefully, a better understanding of the facts of global climate change will lead to a better informed public going forward. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.8.47.181 (talk) 14:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
What did Al Gore study in college?
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I see that he is from a tobacco-farming family and became a politician, thereby justly earning a reputation as a champion of objective truth and freedom from arbitrary or superstition-induced coercion. I'm certain he told his wife about being joined at the groin to massage girls and actually earned the Nobel prize because of his documented knowledge about a subject of scientific concern. Surely it is not asking a lot to know where he went to school, what he studied and when?
Back when nuclear energy was going to end all life on the planet, according to people unable to differentiate a constant, professional engineers and scientists published articles such as "The Disposal of Radioactive Wastes from Fission Reactors", only to be immediately dismissed as "in the pay of the nuclear industry" by the very people unable to define energy on a High School physics quiz.
So now we have on the one hand the 31,000+ signers of the Petition Project urging that no coercive actions be taken because of allegations of human-caused global warming and on the other a couple thousand bureaucrats and government nonscientists claiming the sky is falling--this time from the same sort of climate changes that happened for millions of years before Homo sapiens mastered fire. My Astronomy professor circulated the petition, along with hundred of other volunteers, and I could not sign it because I only have a B.A.
I am anxious to learn where Gore studied physics and calculus, chemistry and biology, and to read some of his peer-reviewed papers before taking the word of himself, politicians and bureaucrats over the overt written statement signed by 30,000 holders of science degrees. I have read Aaron Swartz account of how the Wikipedia is written, and the treatment here of the Petition Project with its 30,000 publicly listed signatories is not what I expect from honest people, but more like what I expect from they who take from others by force and enshrine that taking as a sort of revealed faith. www.hankphillips.com translator (talk) 13:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Kyoto Protocol wording
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
In the Vice Presidency section, we have the following:
“During the late 1990s, Gore strongly pushed for the passage of the Kyoto Protocol,”
“Strongly pushed”? This is rewriting history, because the Clinton-Gore administration never even submitted it to the Senate for ratification. How exactly did Gore “strongly push” for passage of the treaty? As references, we are given only a speech that Gore made at Kyoto, and a rather self-serving vice presidential web page, neither of which support the text.
Let’s see what Vice President Gore himself said at the time:
"As we have said from the very beginning, we will not submit this for ratification until there's meaningful participation by key developing nations,"
- Al Gore, 12 Dec. 1997, upon returning from Kyoto (John M. Broder, “The climate accord,” New York Times, 12 Dec. 1997)
Rather than “strongly push” for ratification, Gore recognized that Senate ratification in the 1990s was a lost cause. He certainly advocated for the treaty, but as vice president he appears to have never strongly pushed for its passage. Unless we can get a better source, this wording should go. Plazak (talk) 17:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
The Gore Effect
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
"The Gore Effect, an informal and satirical term alleging a causal relationship between unseasonable cold weather phenomena and global warming activism is named after Gore. CNN meteorologist Rob Marciano describes use of the effect as a mere running gag among weather forecasters.[225]"
Many folk who use this phrase use it only for occasions when he former Vice President is actually at a major CAGW conference - and there's four feet of snow - in August, in Death Valley [yeah - the last two phrases are /sarc]. Sorry. But some see the coincidence - or, perhaps, the Climate Gods' intent . . . . .
2113Z 09 April 2015 - 81.159.208.92 (talk) 21:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Military Service
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I find this an interesting statement in this section: Gore decided, "that he would have to go as an enlisted man because, he said, 'In Tennessee, that's what most people have to do.'"
In that 175 of the 1295 Tennesseans killed in Vietnam were officers, it seems Tennessee contributed its fair share of officers to the cause. If Gore had gone to OCS and become an officer, he would have served a full one year tour in Vietnam rather than the four (4) months he actually served. Also, because junior officers had a 60 percent greater chance of becoming a casualty than an enlisted man, he would have been in much greater danger. Hence, his reason for not becoming an officer rings a little hollow. The-Expose-inator (talk) 19:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Unless you are proposing an improvement to this or some other Wikipedia article (and if so, please explain), this discussion does not belong here. Please see WP:NOTFORUM. DwpaulTalk 19:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2015
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to Al Gore has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Under Categories, please add Portuguese Americans, see under Wikipedia's List of Portuguese Americans
Not done Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for itself. This change requires an independent, published, reliable source. If you can specify such a source, please reopen the request and specify it. DwpaulTalk 20:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Gore's Gun Problem
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I'm all for us Democrats using Wikipedia as a bully pulpit but a whole section about his criticism on the next President sets a bad precedence for inclusion into all Wikipedia entries. Dick Cheney has a more moderate titled Views on President Obama. I'm re-thinking my beloved democrats abuses on Wikipedia. Do we really care what the vanquished thought in the annals of time? --Ombase (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Update Main Image
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Forgive me if this is the standard practice for a politician, but the first picture of Gore in the article was taken during his vice-presidency and is more than 20 years old. Maybe a more recent photo would me better.
2601:646:C402:A9C0:91A5:CDE5:BB91:DEB9 (talk) 03:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Gore's relationship with the Oil Industry
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
In 1997, Al Gore championed the privatization of California's National Oil Reserve. Specifically, the Elk Hills Naval Petroleum Reserve, which contained three endangered species, and generations of Native American Culture. The subsequent drilling by Occidental resulted in serious environmental damage, destruction to the sacred Native American burial ground, and a windfall for his family trust's Occidental stocks. Occidental's very own wiki mentions it and PoliticalCompass does too in its "ichonochasm" section
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Al Gore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The text says that Gore "successfully" debated Vice President Quayle and Admiral Stockdale. Isn't this a subjective interpretation? What does "successful" mean? There are many who believe that Quayle won the debate due to his aggressive and combative approach while Gore sounded robot-like and seemed to be reciting a memorized script. Just because Gore won the election does not make his debate performance "successful" - there are many who claim that Quayle lost the 1988 VP debate (another subjective interpretation) yet he won the election. I think it is enough to say that Gore debated Quayle and Stockdale and respectively suggest that the word "successfully" be removed in order to come into alignment with NPOV. 108.38.35.162 (talk) 18:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to Al Gore has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I was wondering if somebody could add a caption (|caption = Gore in 1994) to Gore's infobox photo so that it says "Gore in 1994" underneath Gore's official Vice Presidential portrait. Since a April 15, 2016 edit (sourced below) removed it.
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
" A controversial election dispute over a vote recount in Florida was settled by the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled 5–4 in favor of Bush."
This is a bit dishonest. Their were two rulings by the supreme court in this case. The first was 7-2 in Bush's favor. The second 5-4 also in Bush's favor. The first ruling involved the question of whether the recount violated equal protection. That is whether the same standard was used at each table to decide how to count a given vote.
The second vote had to do with whether there was time for a constitutional remedy.
Mentioning the second vote alone suggests that this was somehow partisan. Further, you also have to factor in the rulings of the lower courts. Each of Gore's challenges to the eletion were thrown out by separate loewer courts. Thus in total we have 5 court rulings against Gore, 3 of them by Democrat appointees.
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Three things:
What is Gore's marital status? This only mentions "separation," as does a 2014 article. A blurb about, "As of [DATE], the Gores are still separated, but not divorced," would be nice if anyone can find a source.
Likewise, why isn't the end of Current TV and its sale to Al Jazeera America for $500 million (according to the NY Times) mentioned? We only get a side note that it's "now defunct." For that matter, why aren't other financial windfalls mentioned here (Apple, green energy investment)? The man is worth hundreds of millions of dollars, but reading the article, you'd think that he wasn't particular wealthy. See, for example, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-05-06/gore-is-romney-rich-with-200-million-after-bush-defeat . Wealth is relevant and these are reliable sources.
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Al Gore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Right. It is strange to have a photograph from 20 years ago as the lead picture of a living person who is still pretty much a public figure. Recently Ajw522 inserted a picture from 2009 and Spartan7W reverted to the 1994 official VP portrait. Is it really policy to keep the official portrait of elected persons even 20 years after the deed? Admittedly the selected 2009 picture was not particularly flattering, but surely we can find a decent and recent photograph? I think the official portrait is a better fit for the Vice-presidency section of the biography. Al Gore today is mostly known as a climate activist and his portrait should reflect his current activity and likeness. — JFGtalk22:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Why is Al Gore notable? His father was a U.S. Senator, he became a U.S. Senator, was elected Vice President and ran for president. Using his official Vice Presidential portrait is prudent because it depicts him as he appeared in the very high officer he held. Wikipedia isn't a TMZ profile, we aren't here to keep things up to date, especially as it relates to public figures. You can put new images in sections are articles related to his post-official activities, but his official portrait is higher quality than anything we'll find, and it depicts him as Vice President, the last office he held, and the source of his notability. Spartan7W§00:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 15 external links on Al Gore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Al Gore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
A protected redirect, Al Gore controversies,Al Gore controversies needs redirect category (rcat) templates added. Please modify it as follows:
from this:
#REDIRECT [[Al Gore]]
{{r fully protected}}
to this:
#REDIRECT [[Al Gore]]
{{Redirect category shell|
{{R from merge}}
{{R from subtopic}}
{{R unprintworthy}}
}}
WHEN YOU COPY & PASTE, PLEASE LEAVE THE SKIPPED LINE BLANK FOR READABILITY.
The {{Redirect category shell}} template is used to sort redirects into one or more categories. When {{pp-protected}} and/or {{pp-move}} suffice, the Redirect category shell template will detect the protection level(s) and categorize the redirect automatically. (Also, the categories will be automatically removed or changed when and if protection is lifted, raised or lowered.) Thank you in advance! PaineEllsworthput'rthere18:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Also, the protected redirect, Talk:Al Gore controversies, should be converted from a "hard" redirect to a "soft" redirect. It needs the #REDIRECT code removed and replaced with the Old AfD template, project banners and the Talk page of redirect template. Please modify it as follows:
from this:
#REDIRECT [[Talk:Al Gore]]
{{rcat shell}}
to this:
{{Talk page of redirect|merge=yes}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|blp=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Biography|living=yes|class=Redirect|politician-work-group=yes|listas=Gore, Albert Arnold Jr.|politician-priority=}}
{{WikiProject Early Web History|class=Redirect}}
{{WikiProject Politics|class=Redirect|importance=}}
{{WikiProject Environment|class=Redirect|importance=|climate change=yes|environmental record=yes}}
{{WikiProject U.S. Congress|class=Redirect|importance= |subject=person |version=1.0}}
{{WikiProject Google|class=Redirect|importance=}}
{{WikiProject United States|class=Redirect|importance=|USGov=yes|USGov-importance=|USPE=Yes|USPE-importance=|listas=Gore, Albert Arnold Jr.}}
{{WikiProject MTSU}}
{{WikiProject Private Equity}}
}}
{{Old AfD|Al Gore controversies|merge and redirect}}
Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
in August, 2017, it was reported that over the past year, Gore used enough electric energy to power the typical American household for over 21 years, as per a report issued by the National Center for Public Policy Research. Reportedly, Gore consumed 230,889 kilowatt hours (kWh) at his Nashville residence alone. Additionally, Gore owns two other residences – a penthouse in San Francisco and a farmhouse in Carthage, Tennessee – making his carbon footprint even larger than what was reported. Gore has claimed on the “TODAY Show” that his home uses 100 percent renewable energy, but that is actually an outright lie.[1][2][3][4][5][6] Gore’s Nashville home actually classifies as an ‘energy hog’ under standards developed by Energy Vanguard[7]
Allegations of responsibility for climate change denial
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Some people have alleged that Gore is responsible for the widespread climate change denial amongst conservative politicians. They point to the fact that he was already an established politician, and that they do so ideologically simply to disagree with him. When I Google search, I get mostly left-wing think-tanks and other biased stuff that's probably not reliable. Anybody else know anything about this?JUDAS MAIDEN (talk) 18:42, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2017
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to Al Gore has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Wouldn't it be more appropriate for Gore's main picture to be from 2017-18 instead of 1994? And move that '94 photo elsewhere on the page? AMWS (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
photograph
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I think it's actually appropriate to have an older photo. We wouldn't want every deceased historical figure on Wikipedia to have a picture of them as a senior, so why should it be any different for BLPs? What makes sense to me is to have their portrait be of them during the time they were most well known or at the height of their career, which for Gore is clearly the 1990s. - Sdkb (talk) 04:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree with an update on the photo. Mr. Gore is still active in public. There are many royalty-free photos that can serve. I am afraid of changing it because I see there is an editor using "we" as if...
Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2019
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to Al Gore has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Partly done: Changed it in the lead where it mentioned "current chair", but not in history section where it talked about Alliance for Climate Protection's founding. --Trialpears (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
On early life
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Not done: Not a defining characteristic of this politician's politics (the only mention of abortion as of him voting against it while he was in congress). Also no clue where I would put it ("somewhere" is too vague) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Nothing about the PMRC in this article? Al Gore was on the Senate committee at the infamous hearing, and his wife was leading the charge to censor records. Doesn't that factor into the article's assertion that he was a "moderate"? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 18:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
This edit request appears to constitute vandalism and has been marked as "answered". If you think we've made a mistake, reactivate this request and reply to this comment with a more specific description of your desired changes. TGHL ↗16:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2021
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to Al Gore has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
'the pair were re-elected' should be changed to 'the pair was re-elected' as the former is gramatically incorrect Xp3r123 (talk) 15:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Toward the end of this section, mention is made of the Clipper chip; however no claim is made that this device had anything to do with Al Gore. If there is a connection, please update the text; otherwise I will delete that statement. The Clipper chip has a very poor reputation, and associating it with Al Gore without substantiating that association is arguably potentially libelous. MrDemeanour (talk) 16:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Re Clipper Chip, this topic is reasonably well documented in a subsection of Vice Presidency of Al Gore and on Al Gore and information technology#Gore and the Information Superhighway. I find Gore’s role in Clipper of only marginal interest but given its prominence in public discussion at the time and coverage on his VP and IT page, it would probably be appropriate for a passing reference right after the mention of the first official White House website (with just a wikilink to the other subsection). Across the span of the last 40 years, there have been countless forays by national governments and legislators to devise a means to provide for criminal investigation and national security while still offering adequate individual and commercial security. (This issue isn’t going away any time soon, or maybe ever.) Just such an initiative (a key escrow scheme) was brought to the newly elected Clinton administration by the NSA and it is certainly no criticism of Clinton or Gore that they were convinced to support it. A cursory search of the national news and White House press releases etc., is sufficient to surface documentation that Al Gore was made the Administration’s point man on advocating Clipper, but that he and the administration quickly backed off in the face of political and technical opposition (e.g., Gore Shifts Stance on Chip Code NYT, 21 July 1994) I am old enough to have argued with an IBM Fellow back in the late 70s over the integrity of the Data Encryption Standard; I can attest that few elected officials even today have vaguest working grasp of something like a modern Public Key Infrastructure, and it would have been wildly unreasonable to expect Gore or Clinton back in the 1990s to have anticipated the problems with Clipper. Zatsugaku (talk) 04:07, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Early life section in wrong place
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
There is too much biography above the “Early life” section. This should be moved below it. Lots of biography above “Early Life” is out of line with common Wikipedia practices.
It is also confusing.
At the top of the article there is supposed to be a brief summary only.
We can and should add this content. There are sources. My question is, where? "Personal life"? It's own section? –Muboshgu(talk) 17:44, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
You can add information about his first guest star appearance in "Anthology of Interest I" in the Vice Presidency section, since the episode aired in May 21, 2000, when he was still the Vice President at the time. In the audio commentary of that episode, Matt Groening and David X. Cohen mentioned that all of Gore's dialogue in the third segment of "Anthology of Interest I" were recorded at his house. Also mention that he guest starred in the series a couple times because Futurama was one of his favorite shows. Then, add a section to the Post-vice presidency (2001–present) part of the page and title it "Appearances in Futurama" to mention that Gore played himself in three episodes throughout the series run. "Crimes of the Hot" (season 4, episode 8, 2002), "Bender's Big Score" (Futurama movie #1, 2007) and "The Futurama Holiday Spectacular" (season 6, episode 13, 2010). Also include that a clip of "Crimes of the Hot" was used on "An Inconvenient Truth" to humorously explain how global warming works. Here's the source: [2]69.255.225.138 (talk) 19:43, 22 June 2022 (UTC) One more thing to add: Al Gore's daughter Kristin Gore was a writer on Futurama. She wrote the episode "Leela's Homeworld" in season 4.
↑"YOU GO, GORE". The Irish Times. September 15, 2006. Retrieved June 22, 2022.
Bias re: inventing the internet
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The article suggests that "inventing the internet" is a mischaracterisation of his claim and says it doesn't reflect the same meaning as "creating the internet", without explaining how that is. In common parlance, "creating" and "inventing" are basically equivalent, so this claim needs justification. 89.19.88.49 (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Al Gore never claimed to have invented the Internet, he stated, "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives..." and indeed in 1986-1988 Gore advocated for the creation of a high-capacity national data network that he called the "information superhighway," likely a reference to his father's support for the interstate highway system. Bob Kahn and Vint Cerf later stated, "Bob and I believe that the vice president deserves significant credit for his early recognition of the importance of what has become the Internet... Al Gore was the first political leader to recognize the importance of the Internet and to promote and support its development." Snopes: Despite decades of media mirth-making about the supposed statement, former vice president Al Gore never claimed he "invented the Internet."Andre🚐17:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Lawyer
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
You list one of Al Gore’s occupation as a Lawyer. You are wrong as Al Gore attended law school but NEVER finished…he dropped out. So he never received a law degree and never took the bar exam so he is NOT A LAWYER and should NOT have Lawyer listed as an Occupation! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6010:7500:78:6500:9D4:B794:5C41 (talk) 00:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This content seems out of place in an article on the former Vice President. Any relationship is disputed and, even if the possible connection if of interest, it belongs in an article on the Mississippi politician. There are many people with the name Gore and the article should not attempt to imply or deny a connection with each. Nynative (talk) 15:11, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello,
I believe there is undue weight in this article given to "allegations of aggrandizement". An ENTIRE HEADING? Really? It particularly seems excessive because there are only three citations in this heading. I think it should be trimmed down to just a single paragraph and moved elsewhere in the article.
Support trimming Allegations of aggrandizement section
Agreed if you will not complain about an additional paragraph under Criticism, thus: Appearing at the Sundance Film Festival in 2006 during the premiere of "An Inconvenient Truth," Gore said unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are taken within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return, calling the situation "a true planetary emergency." It is not known if he has publicly updated that prediction nor detailed what drastic measures were taken to delay this so-called point of no return. 76.92.179.85 (talk) 06:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Note: given the GA status of the article, I already asked the IP to seek consensus for the removal, but since they reverted the reply and I don't feel like edit warring with them, I'll leave it to the next editor to decide. M.Bitton (talk) 14:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
As mentioned in my reply before, I restored the request back to unanswered due to an unsatisfactory response. That's completely ridiculous, and not a substantive response to anything I said. I am seeking consensus VIA the template. In what way is that problematic? (...) your answer is completely insufficient in every regard.92.40.212.153 (talk) 14:33, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Edit request templates are only for asking someone with the technical ability to do so to implement the request, not simply to draw attention to a discussion. Tollens (talk) 17:21, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
I am requesting that an editor with the ability to do so delete the paragraph about Gore's prior opposition to gay marriage. I have provided the reasonable clarification, which you may read at your leisure. 92.40.212.159 (talk) 17:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Ergo, we return back to the seeking consensus VIA the template quotation. Going round in circles isn't a beneficial use of either our time, or the encyclopædia's. 92.40.212.159 (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
None of these answers have provided sufficient clarification as to why the request is being declined. Please do not mark as answered without express permission from me. 92.40.212.159 (talk) 17:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
It's not answered because the discussion is still ongoing, and I don't believe anyone here has provided sufficient clarification as to why this paragraph needs to be kept. As I said, the reasoning as to why I want the paragraph about Gore's prior opposition to homosexual marriage deleted are there for you to read at your leisure. 92.40.212.156 (talk) 20:36, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Our point is that right now, the request has nothing to act on because consensus does not exist for the change. When you use the template, it gets added to a queue of requests, all of which, in theory, could be implemented right away. This one cannot, and so it being in the list of open requests doesn't do anything except waste people's time. The template is not for situations where one person thinks something should be changed, it is for situations where there is consensus for a change but nobody has the technical ability to make it, or for uncontroversial changes. Because this article is a Good Article, it has been reviewed by numerous people for quality, and so changes are likely to be inherently controversial because, clearly, none of those people thought that change needed to be made. Tollens (talk) 20:50, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
None of us have expressed any opinion whatsoever on the actual change itself – we are simply trying to tell you that you're using the wrong process, and that the process you're trying to use right now won't result in a change being made. Tollens (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
That's not true. The citation (number 44 for reference) was added in 2013, 5 years AFTER Gore's biography became a good article. I already provided two citations which explain that Gore had already reversed on that comment. 92.40.212.153 (talk) 20:54, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
GAs don't only get reviewed right before they get promoted. 986 people have this page on their watchlist, meaning that they are notified of changes to it, and they will likely review those changes. Tollens (talk) 20:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Just because people are watching the paragraph doesn't mean that they might not agree with the changes. The content of this article has altered significantly since Gore's biography became a good article. People not editing a flaw in the article isn't implicit consensus with what's in the article. 92.40.212.153 (talk) 21:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
I really don't know how to explain this any better than I already have, and quite frankly am not interested in continuing to try. I can nearly guarantee that this change will not be implemented without discussion, and the template will not facilitate that. If your preferred option is to waste other's time by leaving it in place, so be it – I'm not going to waste more of mine. Tollens (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
How about this? Since this clearly isn't going anywhere, I'll open a RfC about it, instead. If consensus is reached against the deletion of the paragraph, I pledge to abide by it. 92.40.212.153 (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
That would be great, though probably overkill. All that was needed was to do the exact same thing you did originally, but without the template. People will see it without an actual RFC – you don't need that level of consensus. Again, 986 people will be notified that there is a discussion here, and the only thing we were looking for was a couple people supporting the change. Literally all we are trying to say is that you are using the template wrong. Tollens (talk) 21:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
I just wanted to ensure that people actually saw it. Looking through some of the talk archives, it seems like some of the queries raised weren't answered, and I didn't want to take that risk of potentially not having any response to the request. 92.40.212.153 (talk) 21:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
I completely understand that, but there are loads of ways to appropriately draw attention to a discussion that has had minimal input, as described at WP:APPNOTE. Edit requests just aren't one of those ways, that's all. Tollens (talk) 21:46, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Request for comment: Al Gore
Latest comment: 2 years ago12 comments11 people in discussion
CLOSED
Saving the community some time. There's no support for this other than a blocked IP. The information is well sourced and WP:DUE. Even though I'm involved, this is a WP:SNOW close. If someone disagrees please feel free to reopen. Thanks Nemov (talk) 18:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
That's not helpful to the statement at all. You can't just say all of those things without explaining WHY you find it interesting and informative. 92.40.212.157 (talk) 09:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Oppose - (Brought here by WP:RFC/A) Being a notable politician his prior political positions held are worth keeping on the record. I do think that it does pass The 10 Year test.
Oppose - Being a notable politician his prior political positions held are worth keeping on the record per MaximusEditor, the content is WP:DUE and neither especially contentious nor harmful to his reputation - he has probably made the same 'moral' journey as millions of Americans and others. No reason for removal is offered. Pincrete (talk) 18:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Oppose: a politician's position on a major social topic in a time period when he was an elected politician is due weight. The content is also verifiable and neutrally presented. If anything it's his view today or in 2008 that is irrelevant from a historical perspective. — Bilorv (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Comment That Gore is still alive is also "irrelevant from a historical perspective". He is not doing or saying anything particularly notable. Dimadick (talk) 23:38, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Oppose Just wanted to reduce the snowball's chances even more. But really, it's relevant information for a politician, and the only way to make it more neutral would be to have Ben Stein read it. Kerdooskistalk23:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Someone make a page for his son Albert iii and his other daughter
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The text says that Gore won the popular election by "APPROXIMATELY 543,895 votes". Now, approximately means CLOSE TO a particular number or time although not exactly that number or time. 543,895 is a round and precise number. Either write "EXACTLY 543,895" or just quote the number, without an adverb preceding it. 2804:D84:2280:2400:6F91:F3D:19FB:6CA0 (talk) 00:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Do you have a reliable source for this? From a cursory Google, I can find plenty of news articles about their separation in 2010, but can't find anything reliable for either the divorce or her remarriage. (Her article does not mention it.) --B (talk) 12:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2025
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to Al Gore has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
confusing the way biden is framed in this paragraph: "then Senator, future Vice President and former President Joe Biden" maybe instead write "then-Senator Joe Biden (who would later become Vice President and President)" Chanmoss (talk) 20:18, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
Support – I'm fully in favor of replacing the ridiculously out of date official portrait with something more recent. I'd also like to suggest this picture from 2018 as another option if the 2024 one can not reach a consensus.
Oppose Per ZebulonMorn. Biden's in the background and it's a bit distracting. The current status quo is keeping all official presidential & vice presidential portraits on infoboxes. Unless an updated official portrait is released like John Kerry or Theresa May, then maybe, but for now, there's no reason especially since there's no suitable high quality portrait image replacement. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:49, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
No mention of Armand Hammer and Occidental Petroleum
Latest comment: 6 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This article doesn't mention the relationship between Gore and Armand Hammer and Occidental Petroleum. Both Hammer and Occidental are not even mentioned once. The Occidental Petroleum article, however, mentions Gore and Hammer numerous times. In the Criticism section there is no mention of Gore's involvement in the coal industry, and the criticism he received from environmentalists over that prospect. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:01, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Not done Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for itself. This change requires an independent, published, reliable source. If you can specify such a source, please reopen the request and specify it. Dwpaul Talk 20:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Partly done: Changed it in the lead where it mentioned "current chair", but not in history section where it talked about Alliance for Climate Protection's founding. --Trialpears (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Not done: Not a defining characteristic of this politician's politics (the only mention of abortion as of him voting against it while he was in congress). Also no clue where I would put it ("somewhere" is too vague) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect ThreeLawsOfAlGore. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 30#ThreeLawsOfAlGore until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. wbm1058 (talk) 01:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
This edit request appears to constitute vandalism and has been marked as "answered". If you think we've made a mistake, reactivate this request and reply to this comment with a more specific description of your desired changes. TGHL ↗ 16:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Done – Muboshgu (talk) 21:45, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Note: given the GA status of the article, I already asked the IP to seek consensus for the removal, but since they reverted the reply and I don't feel like edit warring with them, I'll leave it to the next editor to decide. M.Bitton (talk) 14:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 02:32, 16 February 2025 (UTC).jpg)
_(cropped).jpg)
