The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Al Gore criticisms and misconceptions[edit]

Al Gore criticisms and misconceptions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Created yesterday as one of the most blatant WP:POV forks in history from Al Gore controversies. No recent talk by forker on the original page.[1] Derex 02:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The edit summary for the creation of the page is pretty much all you need to see. "Since media criticisms + explanations are removed from Gore controversies page(for the fact of not being a controversy) this page explains media misconceptions and criticisms of the public figure Gore". And as Derex alludes to, you have to go back to November 2006 to see the article creator even editing the source article he forked from -- and back to June 2006 to find him posting to the talk page of that article. Even as a last resort POV forking is not acceptable; as nowhere near a last resort it should be shut down hard. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV fork. I've seen discussion on how having the "controversies" article is a POV fork (a way to keep the negative stuff out of the main article). So why are we forking out content again? The large majority of the material is copied from the controversies article, so there is a lot of redundancy. This makes me think that we do not need a spinout article for this already spinout article. Also, the creation intentions (and some recent editing over at the controversies article) leads me to lead that this is nothing more than a POV fork. I'd like to hear a defense of this as a simple spinout article. -Andrew c 03:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All of the stuff here has at one time or another been inserted into the "Al Gore controversies" article and subsequently deleted because the info is either not notable or spurious. Some discussion on the controversies talk page indicates that particular article could be construed as a POV fork, and this ridiculous off-shoot is even worse.-Hal Raglan 03:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In my experience people are generally too eager to construe a spinout article as a POV fork. From what I have seen Al Gore controversies has discussed the controversies from both sides and so has avoided being a POV fork. This article, however, practically announces in its very title that it's going to take a side -- and it does. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of the information on here is sourced and documented. Actually any info on here that was on Al Gore controversies was removed because of people saying it was non notable or it did not generate a 'storm of controversy'. How is it not notable when it appears in major news outlets?? Not every story that makes the news generates a storm of controversy, yet is very important, especially political stories that do not get front page news for political reasons. All the stories on here are from major news sources, the Washington Post, Newsweek, the New York Times, etc. At least these stories should be merged on Al Gore Controversies and not wholly removed.--The great grape ape is straight out of the know 02:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As an editor on the controversy article I would be happy to have a chat on the discussion page about what should be included. You don't do that.In fact, you just added material to the article that I tagged as plagarized and ignored all previous talk page discussions on other controversies. Jiffypopmetaltop 02:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Incredibly blatant POV fork, no redeeming value. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 05:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing more than POV and original research --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 07:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. POV fork. Guettarda 07:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, textbook case. Gazpacho 12:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep the subject is useful and serious. I get the idea from comments about politically controversial articles that merely addressing a controversy is itself POV. If POV is a problem with something like this, then let other editors add the other point of view or edit out bias. Serious subjects deserve articles on Wikipedia. Noroton 18:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We already have one. In case you missed it, see Al Gore controversies. Derex 21:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "I get the idea from comments about politically controversial articles that merely addressing a controversy is itself POV." No, that's a fairly frequent misconception, but addressing a controversy is not POV. What is POV is addressing only one side of a controversy, or trying to arrange boundaries of discussion of a controversy that would limit discussion to one POV. That's what this article does, as it is titled "Al Gore criticisms and misconceptions". -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteIn my opinion, people should not have criticism articles. Huge pov fork.Jiffypopmetaltop 18:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment So why the Criticism of George W. Bush page?--The great grape ape is straight out of the know 02:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentI don't remember making that page. Jiffypopmetaltop 03:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge(parts) The article is actually a good read and theres a lot of references but its too much of a POV view, especially since hes a living person. I think that some of the content has merits and perhaps the most well written, notable and well reference of it could be merged into a critique on the actual Al Gore article. . In any case this is just far too much, mostly non notable, criticism for an encyclopedia, espcially the Al Gore quotations criticized by the media section. LordHarris 04:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Deltabeignet 20:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a rather POV rewrite of ionformation that could better be merged into other articles if it's not already there. Tony Fox (arf!) 00:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• MergeI apologize if my methods are in the wrong, but my thoughts were to show content that critiques with explanation of the media and Al Gore. I attempted to reference it all with sources and boths sides of view the best I could, and hope some of it can be merged without POV in a way that I have obviously failed to do. I believe the information is relevant to show all sides of a person, seeing that the 'good' side is shown with no mention of past actions that show a different story. I only hope such diligence and effort that is shown here also will be shown on the Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies, Criticism of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney hunting incident(does this really need a page?) CNN controversies and allegations of bias(allegations are allowed but not documented points against Al Gore?), Criticism of Bill O'Reilly, and other polictial controversies and criticism pages. Thank you --The great grape ape is straight out of the know 02:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Cheney hunting incident(does this really need a page?) Gosh no, why would we need a page on that, it got barely a mention in the media, why it's as if it never happened, almost. NPOV much? Gzuckier 21:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment: "Allegations" does not inherently contain a viewpoint that the allegations under discussion are valid or invalid. "Criticism" does not inherently contain a viewpoint on whether the criticism under discussion is well-founded and proportionate. "Misconceptions", however, inherently advocates the viewpoint that one side is the truth and the other is just "misconceptions". -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge I've said it before and I'll say it again...why is Al Gore not allowed to have a criticisms section, either as a separate article or (better) on his main Wikipedia bio page, when almost every other public figure from Presidents to stand up comedians on Wikipedia does? The "controversies" page is not a criticism page, it is an obnoxious fork intended to split off and then remove criticism of Al Gore from his Wikipedia biography. How can we justify treating him completely differently than any other public figure and still argue that the main article has a shred of neutrality? As it stands now, his Wikipedia biography reads like a press release for an upcoming election bid. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.38.150 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment You make a very good point. In order for Al Gore controversies to not be a POV fork of Al Gore, Al Gore must contain NPOV summaries of the major controversies ("major" meaning we don't really need to make room for something like the "Gore said that Love Story was based on him and Tipper" thing or something else that non-substantial). However, even though there is an Al Gore#Controversies header, there's nothing there but a link to Al Gore controversies, and the only one of the controversies I see touched on in the article is the "created the Internet" kerfuffle. This is not acceptable and must be addressed, either by creating the appropriate NPOV summaries in the main article or by merging back to the main article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I would suggest that both articles be returned to the original under the title "Controversies and Criticisms", as was suggested once before, and they can then be summarized and NPOV'ed by the usual editorial process. As it is, both articles basically exist outside of the Wikipedia process and represent dueling POVs. There is information in both articles that, unless it in some way represented in Al Gore's main biography, gives us an incomplete view of the man. If we continue to allow this kind of splitting off (even at the short term gain of some civility or stability in the editorial process) we'll lose the heart of the main article.
  • Comment No criticism pages. Really those are the worst things you can do to wikipedia. It's just my humble opinion but no living person should have a criticism page. They are nothing more than pov magnets. Controversy pages are fine (Al Gore does have one) because there has to be some sort of legitimacy behind accusations. This page has little or nothing to merge. Jiffypopmetaltop 04:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I understand your feelings about criticisms pages/sections, we are probably all sick of them. But the fact is virtually every article on Wikipedia on a major living public figure contains a criticism/controversy section. I'm not sure how we cannot have one on Al Gore and argue that we are being neutral. As you say, they are POV magnets but that doesn't remove our responsibility for addressing these issues in a NPOV way in the main Al Gore article. It sure makes it easier not to have them in the main page, but it doesn't make the article better, it makes it worse. I'm very leery of just having a section called "Controversies" without the term "Criticisms"; semantic debates on the definition of the term "Controversy" have been used in the past to delete large sections of biographical material on Gore, and it's become a sore point for some contributors. I'm not saying those sections shouldn't have been deleted or edited, I just would have liked a better argument for dumping them than that they don't fit a strict definition of the term controversy. I think our primary focus should be on making better articles, even if that sometimes makes things harder for us, having to deal with POV nuts and flamers. As things stand now, I'm worried we are copping out of our responsibilities. No doubt, the Al Gore page is a magnet for attack right now because of his visibility, but many pages go through these periods and still maintain a civil discussion process and ultimately a neutral POV. If we have problems with this article and the "Controversies" article, I think it is best to return them to the main page and deal with them there, fact by fact, issue by issue. Just deleting them or favoring one over another is going to cause a justifiable resentment to the whole process. We'll have avoided dealing with the issues and over time it will just get worse.
• Delete - POV pushing rewrite. Most inappropriate. The title itself is simply very awkward. Smee 08:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete as per op --Kim D. Petersen 18:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep or at minimum Merge Precedent has been set with George W. Bush. Wikipedia currently has pages named Criticism of George W. Bush, Public perception of George W. Bush, and Fictionalized portrayals of George W. Bush and within the Bush article itself there are George W. Bush Domestic perceptions and George W. Bush Foreign perceptions sections. As a matter of fact, even the Al Gore article contains a substantial Criticism of Bush Administration section! --Jayzel 18:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia also has articles titled Bushisms and a 115 kilobyte long joke called Movement to impeach George W. Bush. --Jayzel 18:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then there is the fabulous article entitled George W. Bush substance abuse controversy which accuses Bush of being a "Dry Drunk" on the word of some unknown hack from Iowa without a license to practice medicine adn without ever meeting the man. Seriously, people, Wikipedia is never going to be taken seriously when this blatant bias is allowed to run rampant here. Any and all negative information regarding certain select politicians is continuously segregated from main articles or censored altogether while other politicians are smeared repeatedly. This has got to stop --Jayzel 19:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jayzel, one reason the George W. Bush substance abuse controversy article was created was because a number of editors (myself in particular) spent 4 months arguing to keep it out of the GWB article. After a "vote" the majority of editors compromised to create the daughter article...so some of the articles you mention are actually cut from the main GWB article either due to a need to follow summary style or to have a place to expand on the precise issues. There is also the George Bush military service controversy...we can't forget that one!--MONGO 11:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not questioning those articles right to exist, I'm questioning the attempt to delete this article when precedence has already been set with the creation of the Bush articles. Many of the Bush criticism articles have survived AFD, therefore this one should as well. --Jayzel 13:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I must have missed a memo. I didn't realize our mission statement had been changed, so that we are now honor-bound to assist the public in determining what is significant and in forgetting the vast quantity of trivial dreck which they are fed each day. Because there are already a zillion sites devoted to "the 10 most important uncovered stories of 2006" etc. which we could follow. Gzuckier 14:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you want to smear all politicians equally. I don't think that any of the articles you mentioned should exist. Why create or sustain another article that shouldn't exist in the first place. Also, I hope that our past conflicts aren't playing into your decisions here. Jiffypopmetaltop 22:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't the slightest idea who you are and I'd appreciate it if you did not put words into my mouth (In addition to attempting to censor my comments on the Talk:Al Gore page. If there are valid criticisms of public officials they should be mentioned and articles should exist; If there are well-known and documented smears they should also exist. It is not up to us to determine if something is unfair. If the info can be validated by reliable sources that is all that matters. However, it is hypocritical and extremely damaging to this website to try to delete an article dealing with criticisms of an important public figure without a Wikipedia-wide purging of all criticism of everyone. --Jayzel 23:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Holy cow, I've read the main Al Gore article I don't know how many times and never connected the fact that, in an article where we don't allow a criticism section about its subject, there is a long criticism section of another public figure (Bush). I guess by logic, if we want to see public criticisms of Gore or his administration we need to go to the Bush page. In all seriousness, I think this illustrates the problem with not having a criticisms section. As it stands right now, the article allows Gore's criticisms of other public figures and topics, but doesn't allow any criticism of him or his actions. This policy just can't be regarded as fair or non biased and its a recipe for long term disaster. Ultimately it will make the article one sided and neuter the subject.
• Delete. One article per topic oughta do it. Gzuckier 21:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Warning to all concerned User Jayzel is drumming up support on other pages trying to influence the vote and also adding unsigned comments to this page in order to persuade the discussion. Check the history of this page and of Jayzel contributions. Jiffypopmetaltop 00:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean like this drumming up of support from the nominator?

Al Gore criticisms and misconceptions, created yesterday, is clearly a WP:POV fork of Al Gore controversies. It should be AFD'd. Derex 02:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That notice was left on Talk:Al Gore which is both standard and appropriate.Derex 02:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for your other charge, libel is not taken lightly. You'd better have a solid case. --Jayzel 00:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Case? Is court now in session. Anyway, I am cutting off contact here. I will stay away from you, you stay away from me. Just like our old unspoken agreement. Have fun. Jiffypopmetaltop 00:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legal threats are not taken lightly either. User has been blocked indefinitely by an ANI admin. Derex 07:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In your dreams. --Jayzel 13:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If we can get back to the discussion now, I see that the main Al Gore article has had the above discussed "Criticism of Bush Administration" section removed. I don't see how this helps things or the article; these are Gore's own words and personal beliefs, I can't think of much more essential to summing up a man. I think we are better suited by publishing Gore's criticisms of other people and the criticisms of him, just like every other public figure on Wikipedia. It is essential that we have both sides of the story if we are going to understand him as a man and try to give a clear view of his life. At this rate the article will have absolutely nothing left except that Al Gore owned a dog, and then that section will be removed by someone who owns a cat. BTW, so that everyone can clearly know my bias on these issues, I own a cat.

I think we should delete the dates of birth (and of death, where appropriate) of people. I mean, what possible use could that be to people? Gzuckier 15:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL Humorous, but please sign your comments. Regards, --Jayzel 01:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, POV fork. Andrew Levine 02:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I an going to be Henry Clay here. Everyone shouls come to an agreement on how this article should be worded. If you don't think an article on Al Gore's downsides should be included in Wikipedia, that's fine. But you should have a criticism section on his regular article. All politicians have their downsides and none of them, are perfect. George Bush isn't perfect and Hillary Clinton isn't perfect. Come to an agreement on what to do with this article.

Mrld 23:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Once again, POV fork. And redundant. Not to mention unprofessional and unencyclopedic.--Jackbirdsong 04:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The redundant argument carries no weight as the Talk:Al Gore controversies page shows, large portions of text have been deleted with the argument that the text was regarding criticisms of Gore and not regarding controversies of Gore. Therefore, a "Criticism of Al Gore" page is needed to cover the deleted information. --Jayzel 13:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.