Talk:Al Gore's views
Archive: Talk:Al Gore's views/subpage discussion
copyvio[edit]
Can you give the full list of pages so we can begin to fix any copyright problems? --AaronSw 21:24, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- How would a full list of pages help you fix copyright problems? If you want to fix the copyright problems, it's best you never look at the copyrighted material in the first place. Anthony DiPierro 21:26, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Well, I was going to see what was salvagable. Anyway, it's practically impossible to figure out what Al Gore's views are without being exposed to some copyrighted material -- if we already have a list of good ones, it'd save me the trouble of finding others. --AaronSw 21:28, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- If you want, I'll put the list of topics on the temp page. That's probably not copyrightable. Taking the list from issues2002 will surely save a lot of trouble, but it would also be a copyright infringement. Since the vast majority of the list is from there, it would be best to start from scratch.
- Well, I was going to see what was salvagable. Anyway, it's practically impossible to figure out what Al Gore's views are without being exposed to some copyrighted material -- if we already have a list of good ones, it'd save me the trouble of finding others. --AaronSw 21:28, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- In fact, if you'll agree, I'll start transferring over topics to the temp page and you can start phrasing them in your own words. You can ask me questions if you want about the specifics. This way I think we'll get around this being a copyright infringment. Let me know if you agree to this. Anthony DiPierro 21:35, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
While we're at it, might as well get some references to back up the claims that Gore held these positions. Anthony DiPierro 21:44, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The page, if it survives the copyright debate, it seems to me it should be retitled to Al Gore's political views or some other title that expresses the narrow scope of this content. Qaz 21:41, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
We really should be putting all this work into someone whose views matter, like for instance John Kerry. Oh well... Anthony DiPierro 23:44, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
You all should take a look at how many "views of" pages that wikipedia has, and ask yourself if you think it would be encyclopedic that each article for a person with "views" has a separate and full article. In the case of "Kerry's views," they are not material for an article, rather come in the context of his campaign. If you guys want to belatedly add Al Gore's views (and GWB's in paralell) to the 2000 campaign articles, knock yourselves out. Dont follow leaders, and watch your parking meters.-SV(talk) 03:16, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC) PS. If there are enough K in "views" text to warrant a split of the Kerry campaign article, then there very well ought be the same in the Bush article. Not for sake of paralellism, but because a representative imbalance can be a form of implied POV. -sv
- Gore once received an 84% approval rating from the National Right to Life League
- Gore now says that he supports a "woman's right to choose" abortion
- Gore has been accused of flip-flopping on the issue of abortion
- He claims that his views on abortion have "never changed"
I added this, for the sake of neutrality, and can't see any reason to remove them. Anthony DiPierro 03:35, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
For the sake of neutrality you added a myth to the page which contains actual facts? That makes no sense. Go look at any issues page, they do not list myths such as "FLIP FLOPPING". Remove. ChrisDJackson 03:38, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Which part are you claiming is a myth? Flip-flopping were not my words, however I've changed them to "being inconsistent" anyway. If that was your only problem, why did you delete all of it, rather than that one thing? Anthony DiPierro 03:40, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Because you should not include opinions and such in a issues and views page. That would be like adding lies George Bush said in the lead up to war under a Foriegn Policy section. What would you put there? George Bush has been accussed of being inconsistent on foriegn policy? NO! Politicans are always going to be labeled flip floppers on about every issue. To single one out is stupid and to add all is just insane. Just add their stated views, that is it.ChrisDJackson 03:43, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Chris, it is a fact that Gore was accused of flip-flopping. It is not an opinion. Anthony DiPierro 03:46, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
No it is not, it is just what he said: Gore was attacked for having said as a congressman in 1987 that abortion was ?the taking of a human life.? Gore insisted that he is strongly in favor of abortion rights. He said that his position on federal funding of abortions, which he initially opposed in Congress, has ?evolved.? Gore retracted his 13-year-old statement equating abortion with the taking of a human life. He said: ?Yes, my position has changed. I strongly support a woman?s right to choose.?
Opinions change and evolve with new technology and inovations. You can not simply put he flip flopped and it be NPOV. You may put his exact words. But I disagree adding any of this because on no one elses views page is the accusations of flip flopping and such. Also, why are you so into Al Gore? ChrisDJackson 03:48, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Your latest edits are fine. As for "no one elses views page" having accusations of flip-flopping, perhaps, but the Dennis Kucinich page does say "Kucinich has been criticized for flip-flopping on the issue of abortion."