Talk:Al Gore

This is a Rah-Rah piece

This article is a cheerleader piece for Al Gore that could benefit by some objective editing. The whole piece looks like it was written up by Gore's PR staff.

Statements such as "Some have cited" are given without detail, then the undetailed accusations are refuted by statements such as "Gore has denied" without any details as well, as though Gore's denial is proof enough that the accusations are baseless.

Example:

Gore's involvement in environmental issues has also been the subject of criticism. Some have cited "conflict of interest," labeling him a "carbon billionaire." [189] Gore has denied that he is a "carbon billionaire." [190] Others have questioned the validity of his data, such as the High Court of Justice which argued that there were "nine significant errors" in the film, An Inconvenient Truth.[191] Gore responded by suggesting that the ruling was in his favor.[192]

I'm not even sure what the last sentence in that example (taken from the Wiki page) is supposed to imply. Is it denial? Counterpoint? Is it even accurate?

The entire article is laden with praise and positive points from top to bottom, with no acknowledgment of the potential for legitimate criticisms.

Example:

"...some have criticized Gore for his personal use of electricity, stating that he has large electricity bills.[193][194] Gore's spokesperson responded by stating that the Gores use renewable energy which is more expensive than regular energy."

First of all, again, I was under the impression that it was discouraged in Wikipedia entries to use such identifiers such as "Some have" as opposed to actually naming who "Some" refers to specifically. But the main point of this quoted text is to say an objective text should not only say that "some" criticize his personal use of electricity and then defend it, but should also acknowledge that it is excessive to own three homes, one of which is over 10,000 square feet, while gathering accolades as a proponent for the individual sacrifices that must be made in the name of fighting global warming and the coming doom he has predicted. Renewable energy or not, environmentally retrofitted or not, a 10,000 square foot house and two additional homes consume much more energy than the needs of the average American citizen he is calling upon to take up the fight against global warming.

Bottom line: This article is a spin piece.

My suggestion is to remove the criticisms and praise altogether and just leave the actual facts minus the interpretations (opinions) of praise or critique. Don't include undetailed criticisms and it's not necessary to provide undetailed counterpoints. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.196.104.150 (talk) 17:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done I have removed some of the "somes" and added a few specifics on the criticisms and Gore's denials, per this discussion and WP:wta KeptSouth (talk) 08:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. In an effort to bring relevant facts to this article, I have edited the Vice Presidential section to describe the $100's of millions in US federal budget cuts made by Clinton & Gore, reducing environmental enforcement and reducing environmental cleanups. For example, the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) site had some of the worst radioactivity and High Explosives contamination in the USA from WW2 and the Cold War. Clinton and Gore cut LANL's Environmental Restoration (ER) Program's budget from it's high of $100 under the first Bush Administration, cut down to a level ($27 million)that supported only govt employee salaries, leaving no money for clean-ups & sampling of contaminated sites across LANL. Clinton-Gore cut federal environmental clean-up spending across the US, as evidenced by the dramatic reduction in sampling at contaminated DOD & DOE sites, causing 2/3 of the US environmental lab community to go out of business between 1993-1998, due to the dramatic drop in federal environmental clean-ups. I was an official at a large environmental lab that did work at all but 2 of the major US DOE sites, and the local and regional DOE officials and scientists were muzzled by their Washington management at the time. While I was working on a multi-million $ drinking water clean-up project in Kiev, Ukraine, Oct 1993, Al Gore personally negotiated visited Kiev and negotiated a deal eliminating the funding local USAID environmental projects, to pay for an agreement for the US to pay $60 million in Ukraine's previous year's unpaid fuel bills in return for "privatization" efforts by Kuchma & the Ukrainian Govt. Our USAID office manager made it very clear that Mr. Gore had to immediately take all of our Ukrainian environmental funding and other Newly Independent State's environmental project's funding to pay for his agreement with Kuchma. For the person who keeps deleting this information, look up the LANL ER budget from 1990 - 2000 and you can read the results for yourself. I currently do not have access to Govt. records, but a simple review of DOE and DOD environmental spending budgets during the Clinton Gore administration will prove the veracity of the facts that Clinton-Gore slashed federal spending on environmental clean-ups at contaminated DOD & DOE sites in an effort to reduce the deficits and balance the budget.The Good Doctor Fry (talk) 23:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Removed as unsourced. Please provide reliable sources for additions you make. Vsmith (talk) 23:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

NY Times December 20, 1994 reported "...senior Clinton Administration officials explained the broad details of proposed budget cuts in energy, transportation and housing programs, ... Of the $10.6 billion the Energy Department has proposed to cut, $4.4 billion is in its environmental budget. " http://www.nytimes.com/1994/12/20/us/president-s-suggested-reductions-face-many-obstacles.html?scp=2&sq=+President+Clinton++%244.4+billion+environmental&st=nyt

Does a $4.4 billion dollar planned cut by Clinton Gore, a cut in DOE environmental spending merit mention? I currently am outside the United States and do not have access to Federal Govt. Budget and Los Alamos official records, but I was working there during that period, and the Environmental Restoration budget at LANL was definitely cut from $100 million under the first Bush president, and LANL's environmental clean-ups ground to a halt under Clinton-Gore. A lack of sources does not change the facts. Gore's secret deal with Kuchma that cut US environmental spending in Eastern Europe will be more difficult to document, but no less true. Our company had $1 million and $5 million dollars cut from promised contractual funding on projects that I personally managed.189.148.112.120 (talk) 02:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Another description of Gore-Clinton's ongoing plans slashing environmental clean-up funding: Jan 21, 1996 "Deep in the fine print of President Clinton's seven-year balanced-budget plan is a little zinger that might surprise supporters impressed by his vow to protect education and environmental programs. In the seventh year, Clinton proposes even deeper cuts in domestic programs than Republicans are proposing in their balanced-budget plan. By that time, he would be out of office, even if he were elected to a second term. The $110 billion in cuts in programs subject to annual spending bills, such as education, environment and defense, is the critical element that tips Clinton's plan into balance in 2002. " http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19960121&slug=2309836

It is clear the Clinton-Gore had motive, intent, ability, and authority to cut environmental clean-up spending. Still looking for the written proof with only crummy internet access. Anyone out there interested in something more factual than the current politically-correct but less-than-factual portrayal of Gore's record on environmental spending? I've pointed to the places where Gore actually cut clean-up budgets - who wants to dig (since I have no good shovel)? The Good Doctor Fry (talk) 13:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Recent edit

Sorry about that, I was doing a little sandbox test and accidentally saved. --Simfan34 (talk) 15:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Separation

I'm very sceptical to having this as a separate section. First of all because it's bound to remain a very short section, and makes for bad layout. Secondly because it's out of place, squeezed in between potential presidential runs and environmental activism. I think it would be better to simply add it after the marriage info in the bio. Lampman (talk) 17:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Seconded.

John 19:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It is too small for a full section but fine for a subhead. I tweaked the headers a bit to make it work. The article is arranged chronologically so it makes sense where it is but if you can think of a better way to convey the information, then go ahead and tweak some more. -Classicfilms (talk) 21:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

After reading a lot of biographies and seeing Al Gore's page, why doesn't he have a Family and personal life section? Obama has one, Bush has a Marriage and family section, Cheney has a Personal life section and Reagan has a Marriages and children section. If Gore had such a section, this could be wrapped in.--NortyNort (talk) 22:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Great idea - I think it was never made because there really wasn't a need for it. Go ahead and make the section. -Classicfilms (talk) 00:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I moved sentences and made a new section without disturbing the flow of the article and purpose of other sections.--NortyNort (talk) 03:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks for making the section. -Classicfilms (talk) 05:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The alleged sexual assault seems independently relevant here. Gore, through his attorney, cited the strength of his 35-year relationship with his wife to an Oregon newspaper in an effort to halt their publication of an article concerning the alleged assault. With the separation, the credibility of his statement (through his attorney) concerning the assault weakens. The fact that the denial contained a false assertion as its core support is important, and well-supported. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.91.12.76 (talk) 22:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Supreme Court

Why does the mention of the Supreme Court up top only cite the 5-4 decision? There was a 7-2 decision finding fault with the Florida Supremes and a 5-4 decision on the remedy; the article clearly omits the readily-available additional info, and suggests that the Supremes decided the election when all the recounts gave the (ultimately way too close for definitive resolution) Florida vote to the Smirker. Why would it do that? Oh yeah, I forgot, everybody gets NPOV, but some get it more equally than others. This site is an elaborate fraud, sadly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.253.24.229 (talk) 04:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The introduction says "the only time in history the Court may have determined the outcome of a presidential election.[5]"

This is very inappropriate to be in the introduction because it is an opinion. Other opinions exists, like it was the Florida Secretary of State that determined the election. This opinion should be removed. If it is explained in the text of the article along with other major opinions, it is possibly ok. But to state one opinion in the intro is bad. Otherwise, one could get a reference for many opinions, just read the editorial page of any newspaper. RIP Gary Coleman (talk) 03:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, with RIP Gary Coleman. That sentence does not belong in the intro, especially that of a bio. The purpose of the intro, after all, is to summarize the subject. Also agree that multiple sources, rather than a single editorial, is needed if it is to be included in the article at all.--JayJasper (talk) 16:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The Gore Effect AfD

The Gore Effect, an article related to this one, has been proposed for deletion. Comments are invited at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gore Effect‎. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The result of the AfD was "keep". I don't think that the other article warrants a mention in the text of this one but since we seem to agree that they are related I have added a See also section with a wiki link to the other. --Rush's Algore (talk) 07:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Alleged affair

New information will probably be fast and furious, but the fact that it is now being discussed by news organizations and talk radio make it important to note, regardless of how things shake out.grifterlake (talk) 19:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but no, this would be in violation of a few WP policies. At the present stage, Star Magazine has made an allegation without evidence as noted by U.S.A. Today:

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/entertainment/post/2010/06/star-mag-al-gore-affair-broke-up-marriage/1

which amounts at this stage to rumor or speculation. The WP has strict policies prohibiting either - see WP:NOTGOSSIP. In addition, this is a BLP, or Biography of Living Person. According to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons:

Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

Unless this changes, the information does not belong here.-Classicfilms (talk) 20:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Another reason to avoid speculation here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/15/laurie-david-al-gore-affa_n_613211.html

-Classicfilms (talk) 20:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. PhilKnight (talk) 01:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. This is a biography, not a news article. Once the sensationalism of the accusation dies down and we learn whether or not there is actually anything to them, the issue could be revisited. --B (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Recent allegations

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/06/prosecutor_al_gore_was_focus_o.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.193.8.90 (talk) 23:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Added information regarding alleged sexual assualt in Portland, Oregon by Al Gore. While the story WAS indeed broken by the National Enquirer, The National Enquirer is only credited for breaking the story, not as the source of confirmation. This news story in which investigation by the Oregonian (the cited source for the story) and a public press release by the Portland Police Bureau regarding the incident has shown such a report was truly made. Additionally, it is noted that the investigation stalled for lack of evidence and that the story as reported in the Oregonian is accurate in its reporting of the matter. Don't blame me for Al's human side peeking out...BGinOC (talk) 10:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it again for BLP. (as well as the fact that this is an encyclopedia, not a news-aggregator or a gossip magazine (WP:NOT)). The Oregonian article states clearly that they haven't been able to interview the lady in question. The police are not investigating. No civil charges have been made. The Tribune at the time was unwilling to print the story etc. etc. All we have is the National Enquirer, and a speculative piece.

If charges are filed, or there is a new investigation - then it may be worthy of mention. But at the moment it is unsubstantiated allegations. [and pretty heavy ones]--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It didn't just stall for lack of evidence, the case was closed for lack of evidence. There is a difference. KeptSouth (talk) 09:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The is not an encyclopedia. It's a LIBERAL propaganda sheet. Since when do you not

report ACTUAL police reports in Wikipedia. You guys already got burned trying to stonewall any mention of the John Edwards story which also started with the Enquirer. Listen liberals...I know you WEALLY WEALLY don't want this story to be true, but it is. And it's going in. Quit VANDALIZING this article with your own personal bias.

Demanding dispute resolution as the fact remains that an allegation is indeed on file and on public record regarding the man's possible actions. It is neither libelous nor inaccurate and reported accurately. Even if nothing more comes of it, it is still a historical discovery regarding our environmentalist white knight as his name is on public record regarding a sexual assualt. A simple search shows the story is now in the Boston Globe, Seattle Post Intelligencer and the Washington Post. I believe this has reached a critical mass point where the event in itself is worthy of mention and no where does the text state Gore committed such acts, it is written that it is ALLEGED that he did!!! BGinOC (talk) 11:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

As long as no charges have been filed, they are in fact unsubstantiated allegations. If charges are filed - then it is a different matter entirely. This is currently on the same headline/news level as: "I have a baby with X" where X is any prominent person. Please read our policy on breaking news as well (WP:BREAKING) - this may have lasting effects - but at the moment it is not encyclopedic. Once more: We are not a news-aggregator but an encyclopedia, Wikinews may be a place for this. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

You don't apply the same standard to Conservatives. What charges were filed against Larry Craig? Ted Haggard? Hmmmm.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.55.171 (talk • contribs)

Though it's pretty unquestionable that plenty of conservative biographies on Wikipedia have problems, that's no reason to introduce problems into liberal articles, too. --B (talk) 15:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Another difference. Larry Craig admitted guilt at the time the ticket for disorderly conduct in a restroom was issued, and he paid a fine. Ted Haggard publicly admitted meth use with the male prostitute right after the story broke.KeptSouth (talk) 09:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Kim, by that standard, the WP article on Clarence Thomas shouldn't report the Anita Hill allegations as "no charges have been filed." Drrll (talk) 16:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Anita Hill made the sexual harassment allegations during Thomas' confirmation hearings. Right or wrong, this became a very important issue that almost derailed his confirmation. Thomas would not have been able to say he was undergoing a "high tech lynching" if it wasn't for Anita Hill. KeptSouth (talk) 09:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Copy of redacted police report here http://www.flashalertnewswire.net/images/news/2010-06/3056/36280/Gore_reports.pdf. If nothing else, then it should be stated and included within the article that Al Gore was a person of interest in a 2006 Sexual Assualt case in Portland Oregon with the police report cited as the source which then negates said WP:NOT as it is an official and historically significant government record and indisputable as a source document. Furthermore, said document is nearly 4 years old and hardly constitutes as breaking news as it has been available in public records if one merely wished to search. So what it was brought to our attention by the media, here are the facts of the case from the victim's POV as taken by the police regarding the matter showing that an allegation was made against Al Gore. Why is it no on would argue over this type of discovery if it regarded Washington, Lincoln or Reagan or even Dan Quayle? Is Al an untouchable as the hoorah content of the article seems to spew. Here is an opportunity to actually show he is human and susceptable to accusations like any of us.BGinOC (talk) 11:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Washington, Lincoln and Reagan are dead and no longer covered by our WP:BLP policy. I don't know if anything like this has been brought up about Dan Quayle - I would object there, too. And no, a police report about a case that was dismissed is only very rarely a "historically significant government record". At best it's a primary source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

here is a secondary source about it.[1] Truthsort (talk) 17:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

All this stonewalling, under ABSURD pretenses - it's old news, it's new news, it's just the National Enquirer...it's not just the National Enquirer is being DOCUMENTED to prove just how BIASED liberal wikipedia is. Do not remove my edits! 15:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.55.171 (talk • contribs)

It seems like this is a fairly significant event, as google news is showing many outlets reporting it now. Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 15:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. --B (talk) 15:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there a particular threshold this would have to reach in order to become appropriate for the article? Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 15:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It would have to be relevant to the overall life of Al Gore. This is a biography of a living person on an encyclopedia. Do people really want to have a section on this, put it right next to Vice Presidency or Environmental Activism? Read through the story, there is nothing there. If something develops from the story, then sure. What we have here is, accusations with no evidence from an unnamed source from years ago. BrendanFrye (talk) 15:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Right now, everyone is simply reporting the National Enquirer story. A possible threshold would be when there is something to report other than that the Enquirer story itself. My preference/suggestion would be to simply hold off for a few days before doing anything. Let the story develop, then make a decision. There is no deadline nor is there an emergency to have it added right now. --B (talk) 15:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I'm still trying to get a handle on the BLP stuff, which is quite a bit trickier than general article editing. Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 15:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Even the NYT reported on this: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/24/us/politics/24gore.html?scp=2&sq=gore&st=cse Drrll (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

So what? BrendanFrye (talk) 17:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually the NYT didn't report on the allegations - it was the AP.KeptSouth (talk) 23:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I get the strong impression that there are those here who wish to protect their beloved white knight and keep him perched above the unworthy masses while at the same time there are those of us who believe that the privilege of serving in public office comes with the added responsibility that even an innocuous picture of one picking one's nose becomes news.

Fact: A police report was filed in early 2009 with the Portland Police Bureau alleging that Gore became sexually aggressive towards the masseuse. Obviously, in protection of the alleged victim, her name has been redacted from the report as the PDF version shows.

In my opinion he was a bit too horny for a masseuse and perhaps should have checked Craigslist for an escort service. Opinion aside however, while the media "leak" regarding said police report was indeed the National Enquirer, we aren't talking alien two-headed babies here. We are talking a major political figure in the United States who has been accused of sexual assault. While the Portland Police Bureau chose not to pursue the case, the fact remains that there is a public record of said allegation that has been verified thanks to the PPB releasing said reports and therefor should be worthy of mention in a NPOV. Others have cited examples such as Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill, Larry Craig and Terry Haggard in which allegations were made but no charges were ever filed. Even in Portland Oregon, the mayor Sam Adams (Oregon politician)biography mentions allegations of his sexual affairs and that he was cleared of wrongdoing.

StephenShultz responded to my Dan Qualye reference - in which his 'POTATOE' incident is mentioned as a blunder. So if we are not concerned about showing how stupid American politicians can be, why is it included?

Regardless of whether this goes anywhere or becomes the red herring of the century, its coverage by the NYT, the Oregonian, and now even People Magazine show that this event whether four years old or forty years old is a significant event regarding Gore's public record. If nothing else, the fact that the report was made is what is historical. Political sex scandals are of historical value and relevant content should be included as it has been for several other living person biographies - example Arnold Schwarzenegger which the last section is called Sexual Allegations.

So defenders of the faith, why dost thou defend thee knight so naively when others with similar incidents in their past are widely covered in a fair and just manner? The reports are showing that they are mere mortals and susceptible to errors in judgment and accusations of misconduct just like everyone else on the planet.BGinOC (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I stopped reading after your first sentence. How about a little civility or are you just here to troll? BrendanFrye (talk) 19:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I detect nothing uncivil about what was written above. There is a double standard being applied here in that Al Gore is seemingly above reproach regarding such matters while other articles regarding famous politicians and celebrities are not held to the same standard.BGinOC (talk) 19:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Obvious troll is obvious. BrendanFrye (talk) 21:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

As a long-time Wikipedia editor, I think the allegations are worth mentioning briefly in a fair, objective manner (allegations have been made, but nothing proven yet) because it is indeed a notable event in Sen. Gore's life. Whether it is worth more than a minor mention in his lifetime of service remains to be seen -- perhaps yes, perhaps no. So mention it briefly, I suggest, and leave it at that until something (if anything) more revealing or definitive occurs, such as a civil suit. However, and this is important, the article should not cite the National Enquirer or some other tabloid as a source; rather, the source must be a fair and objective news source. --Skb8721 (talk) 21:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I just can't help but think if this same story came out about Bush, Palin, Romney, ect... it would have been added to their page.--Brian Earl Haines (talk) 00:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Any politician in American politics is a potential target. For that matter so are our celebrities and the wealthy - Just ask Lindsey Lohan or Britney Spears whose unmentionable parts were broadcast across the internet. Distasteful as it may be to those in other cultures, it is a part of American process and somehow, we seem to keep it going and make it work despite all of our other problems - in fact perhaps that is the very reason why we sensationalize everything - to forget about how messed up things really are all over the world and in our own personal lives.BGinOC (talk) 04:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

BG - there have been allegations about Bush and Palin having affairs, written up in the tabloids and the RS's. These charges are not in wiki bios, and properly so. 23:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what happens elsewhere - but i'd certainly remove it for the exact same reasons on those bios. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Kim, I am not certain how political history is studied or reported in your country of Denmark, nor do I claim to know how the political system in Denmark works in regards to public debate between candidates. However in the United States, mudslinging is a common political practice and the smallest of transgressions in one's life can and do become blown completely out of proportion in relation to the actual facts of the event. I still remember the Clinton campaigns when his opponents blasted the airwaves with his anti-war protests during the Vietnam War and his claims that he "didn't inhale." Today, our first African-American president admitted early on inhis campaign that yes he participated in the drug culture as a youth. It is a sign of change in America. Before President John F. Kennedy almost no one cared about the personal lives of politicians so long as they weren't crooks or corrupt (or at least openly so). In modern times, Portland Mayor Sam Adams has been the subject of ongoing debate and accusations of wrongful conduct between himself and a young male assistant with whom he had homosexual relationship with that began with kissing the assistant was before he was 18. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger was all over the news in 2006 for allegedly touching the breast of an English reporter and his pot use in 1977 became an issue again in 2007. Love it or hate it, this is an example our "freedom of the press" at its best in America. American media can make history out of the smallest of personal events in the lives of our politicians because we are a country that still likes to believe that our leadership is made up of "We the people, for the people" and firmly believe that the personal lives of our politicians are open to scrutiny and review.

Anyway, per Skb8721's recommendation, I rewrote as gently as possible the allegations and focused on the media storm surrounding said event. I could add much more but Skb8721 suggested to keep it minimal. And so I have done so.BGinOC (talk) 04:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

And I removed it. There is no consensus to put this in the article especially as it's own section. BrendanFrye (talk) 11:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I lean toward including information about this, but I agree that at this point it doesn't need its own section or that much length. Drrll (talk) 12:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment:Here is Gore's response:

"According to a source friendly with the Gores, Al Gore confirmed he received a therapeutic massage in his hotel room that night, and likely from the therapist making the accusation. But, the source said, Gore remembers getting a massage without incident and the therapist leaving on good terms. "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/25/AR2010062501709.html

-Classicfilms (talk) 19:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Could we get consensus on adding the allegations briefly in a fair, objective manner? The consensus could be to agree on the comment that Skb8721 (21:30 24 June 2010) added above. --Orangwiki (talk) 20:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

see next section - I do not see that we have consensus at all. Tvoz/talk 21:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

← As a point of fact, we were not "burned" by the Edwards National Enquirer allegations being proven true, as alleged above. The argument that was made then and I would make again is that the National Enquirer on its own is not a reliable source, and we were right to wait to include the Edwards story until there was legitimate media reportage on it and it was clear that it was a notable matter in his life story. We are not a news agency and it is not appropriate for us to include things that are reported in unreliable sources - even if they sometimes turn out to be accurate. There is no deadline, there is no rush. Let the story play out, let there be some objective third party reporting and analysis of its role in his life, then post a well-sourced summary - if this is deemed of significance to his life story. This is a bio of a man's life, not, as someone upstream said, a news aggregator. I'm not convinced that this is a significant matter in his life, so I'm not inclined to agree to include it - yet. Tvoz/talk 21:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Need for consensus

Furthermore, in what universe is it reasonable to include these allegations in a section called "Marriage and family"? I strongly object to this - this is a BLP, and it has not been demonstrated how these allegations, for which the accuser asked payment, has had any impact on his life story, let alone a significant impact. This could change, of course, but as of now, I don't see that there is consensus for including this material at all, nor do I think it is BLP appropriate, and certainly not in this section. Tvoz/talk 21:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Include. I haven't read everyone's arguments here, but I will include my 2 cents. I am a long time reader of Wikipedia and a major fan of it. There have only been two times when Wikipedia has let me down. This is one of those two times. (This other is the fact that Wikipedia defines libertarianism as including anarchism, which is simply wrong and makes no sense.) The fact that Gore's Wikipedia bio makes no mention of this Portland allegation is a major credibility loss for Wikipedia. It exudes a sense that pro-Gore watchdogs are hovering over his entry to exclude anything potentially damaging. Clearly, this is a major event in this guy's life, even if the allegations are 100% false. If the allegations are unsubstantiated, denied, and unproven, then just say all of that. I don't think anyone would argue that Wikipedia should act as a jury to the case ... but to not mention the case at all — c'mon! 72.79.130.164 (talk) 12:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

How exactly is it "clear" that this has had =any= impact on his life, let alone a "major" one? Do you have sources that say this has had a major impact on his life or is this just your opinion? And give it up about the so-called "pro-Gore watchdogs". It's old, boring, untrue and insulting to boot. Tvoz/talk 07:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It's funny you mention that, because it's interesting to see other public figures who have unproven allegations against them (such as Lance Armstrong), and yet the Wikipedia page on them sees fit to discuss those allegations in detail. Hanxu9 (talk) 14:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Hanxu, surely you don't think that just because one group of editors made that choice (which I might disagree with but I haven't read that page and don't edit there so can't say) means other editors have to follow suit? Our standard for bios, especially those that are already long because they are about a person with a complex life story that needs to be told, is that we make many decisions about what to include and what not to include, and it is based on the impact that matter has on the person's whole life story. We don't or shouldn't report on every news story that crops up unless it is of great significance, and then only when there is adequate reliable sourcing that justifies its inclusion. Show us sources that demonstrate how these allegations have had any impact on his life and we can consider it. But just because a few editors think that this story is significant, and just because it is sourced, does not mean that it must be included. Tvoz/talk 07:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It does seem a bit unencyclopedic to not allow ANY mention of it as a mere allegation at the very least. Just saying... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.176.235 (talk) 03:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Include. I have already stated my reasons previously on this page.BGinOC (talk) 20:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Pizza. Because it is delicious. Wikipedia is not a democracy, this vote is meaningless. I think the arguments to not include far exceed the arguments to include. I let it go when it was an addition to a section but this absolutely should not go in as its own section with two paragraphs. This is a biography of Al Gore's entire life and not a RSS Feed. BrendanFrye (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep out unless and until the Portland PD decides to ask the prosecutor for an indictment. Up to this point, the police have never contacted the prosecutor. Right now, the PD has reopened the case, but the police chief is saying it is for "procedural" reasons - because the case was closed the second time without a review by a supervisor. In other words, they need to cross their t's and dot their i's before closing the case again. As reported in the conservative WSJ! [2] KeptSouth (talk) 23:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It's important to keep a sense of perspective

There's been a lot of editing of this article recently in relation to the National Enquirer story, but I think it's important that we don't become too obsessed with what's in the media at the moment, and keep a sense of long-term perspective. Is this a significant enough event in Gore's life that it deserves mention in our biography? Bear in mind that Wikipedia articles are written to endure: if this was being read ten years from now, would anyone expect to see this story there? (Obviously, it's impossible to know, but we have to exercise our best judgement.)

I'm not saying it should be removed right away - as a current news event, it will be drawing people to this article, who want to see what it says. But we should wait and see if this story develops into something bigger (as, for example, the story of Tiger Woods' and John Edwards' extramarital affairs did) or if it fades away. If the latter is the case, and nothing further happens - no further revelations, no charges are brought - then we should consider removing it.

User:BGinOC mentioned several other politicians' articles which also contain mention of alleged sex scandals. While every case is different and should be considered in its own light, I think in general we do devote too much coverage to such things (for example, the Arnold Schwarzenegger article is another one that seems to put too much emphasis on similar allegations). Like I said above, Wikipedia articles are for the long term, and only the most noteworthy aspects of a person's life belong in their biography. If a news story about a politician leads to their resignation or criminal conviction, or is significant enough books have been written about it (like the Anita Hill case), then it is definitely notable and should be included; but if it is just a brief controversy that interests the news media for a few days before they move onto something else, then it shouldn't (or should only be mentioned very briefly). Bear in mind that pretty much every famous politician gets negative stories written about them, and from time to time becomes the target of people who think they've uncovered a 'scandal' about them. If no long-term consequences arise from it, it shouldn't necessarily be mentioned in their Wikipedia biography. Robofish (talk) 11:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

(As an aside - this isn't strictly a matter of WP:BLP, as in these cases the allegations are usually reliably sourced; but it is related to that policy, as it's about how we write articles about living people, and how much weight should be given to 'scandal' stories in a fair biography.) Robofish (talk) 12:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you say here, except I am saying it should be removed now, and certainly should not be in the section it was placed in. Tvoz/talk 21:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we should have a short but fairly written paragraph on the masseuse's allegations because if we don't, agenda charged cherry pickers will compose the worst possible rendition -- one that makes Gore look extremely guilty of numerous felonies. If Wikipedia worked the way it should, then I would completely agree with you that none of it should be in his Wiki bio. So what if Gore had a $500 massage 4 years ago? The assault charges were dropped for lack of evidence, the woman wanted $1 million from the National Enquirer, and she changed her story at least 5 times.KeptSouth (talk) 01:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

You're probably right that they will try to do that, but the article I'm sure is heavily watchlisted and if that starts we should request semi-protection or the like, and remain vigilant about keeping this stuff out, until such a time as there's more to the story and it has more impact on his life, if ever. I just don't think that the best approach is to put something into the article that people have problems with - and that there is no consensus for - just because we fear that worse renditions will appear. Tvoz/talk 02:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Tvoz is correct; there are a great many eyes on this page, and out-of-consensus changes are promptly reverted. Unless something appears to make this matter more notable, it should be given the same shrift as the alleged affair a section or two above. PhGustaf (talk) 03:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Well this issue is a little different from the affair rumor b/c there was a police report. There was a very slanted paragraph in the article on the massage that made Gore look guilty as charged, except of course that he was never charged. It stayed in the article for a while - so I tried to balance it by putting in RS facts that showed why the case was closed. I think we should either establish a strong consensus to keep all references to the massage out as non notable, contentious or else we should allow in short balanced paragraph about it.KeptSouth (talk) 06:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Perspective is that the police found the allegations insufficient to proceed. A newspaper which spent thousands of dollars and over a year tracking down the facts so that they could get an exclusive felt the story was not newsworthy and the source had serious questions about credibility. Technically, anyone can file an allegation with a police department as long as you say you think a crime occurred. The department will document it and sort out the truth afterward. This doesn't make the basic report accurate, newsworthy, or noteworthy for a living person's biography. Her prepared statement accused Gore of being a "crazed sex poodle": are we going to include that as well to help the reader reach a conclusion? Wikipedia is not The Smoking Gun. Heywood J2 (talk) 04:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Prior the would-be litigant's having made the matter public through shopping the tale around, the Portland Tribune did not publish any story. Afterward, with the PD's having also come to release a recording of the unnamed party's allegations, this newspaper did publish an article about the same. In any case, at this point, the subject of this article's interest would probably best be served, I think, by WPdia's making some brief mention, after some time goes by, to the effect that in 2010 a woman massage practitioner made public a previous criminal complaint involving Gore she had filed with Portland Police; the Dept. thereafter made the woman's statement public, stating that its investigation was closed pending new evidence, with no charges filed.--68.196.153.114 (talk) 07:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Making such a statement - that allegations were made, but that no charges were filed due to lack of evidence, is a violation of BLP policies. Allegations have been made against other politicians such as Palin, G.W. Bush, and Hillary Clinton, and at some point these charges were repeated in RS. However, nothing came of these allegations, and they are not repeated in the articles. In other words, I think we have to wait a while and see if Gore is charged. As of the present time, it is looking like the case is going to be closed for the third time. [3] KeptSouth (talk) 23:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Trib editor says no-publish decision "based on evidence, responsibility"

Portland Trib ed. Mark Garber said, "The idea that we were protecting Gore is ludicrous[...]. Our job isn’t simply to report that someone has been accused of an illicit act--months after the police had dismissed the case. Our job is to try to verify that such an accusation contains truth."--72.76.35.108 (talk) 00:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The editor's attitude is also why the Portland Tribune is a dying leaf upon the vine of Northwest Journalism - more often than not the Tribune tends to gloss over the news unless it directly affects North Portland.

The Washington Post is reporting that the Portland police is REOPENING the case, link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/30/AR2010063005127.html?hpid=topnews —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.103.31 (talk) 02:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

True, but it is likely being re-opened temporarily for technical and procedural reasons, and not because there is a credible case that will proceed to an indictment. IOW, it's about to be closed again. Consider the fact that the complainant sold her story to the Enquirer, perhaps for as much as $1 million, and she billed more the $500 for the massage.KeptSouth (talk) 23:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Back in?

Now that the story is on The Today Show, and in the New York Times and USA Today, and Gore had to respond to it (through a spokesperson), it is impossible to avoid. Victor Victoria (talk) 15:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

This is just hand waving conspiracy nonsense by the Right. Keep it out unless there is an indictment. Truth And Relative Dissention In Space (talk) 16:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Even if it "is just hand waving conspiracy nonsense by the Right", it must stay. Once this is shown to be "just hand waving conspiracy nonsense by the Right", then that can be added to the story. Victor Victoria (talk) 16:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Once again, this is a bio of his whole life - not a place to report every allegation made against him. Show the significance to his whole life - right now this reads like a nuisance publicity-seeker, and no one has shown any evidence of its impact on his life to the level of inclusion in an encyclopedia bio. And there is still no consensus here. Tvoz/talk 16:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Correct. This is a minor section within a big long article about his life. No, it's not pleasant, but it's not up to Wikipedia editors to determine that it's insignificant. The fact that it is covered in Reliable Sources is the determination that it's significant. Victor Victoria (talk) 16:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Except of course that it is up to editors to determine whether it is significant - we have a whole policy about that called WP:NPOV. The relevant section is WP:DUE. (see also WP:IINFO bullet point 4) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:UNDUE: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject.". So how does a single paragraph (that is consistent with WP:NPOV) about the topic violate WP:UNDUE? Supressing this information could be perceived as Whitewashing. Such allegations are very serious if proven true, and the fact that Portland Police decided to reopen the case is certainly noteworthy. Victor Victoria (talk) 16:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone here wants to "whitewash". The thing is: We have no idea (see WP:CRYSTALBALL) as to whether this is an important issue in Gore's life. But we are not a news-aggregator, and we have no deadline that we should meet. This is an encyclopedia, we by default are always describing things after the fact. As said Wikinews seems to be the place for this at the moment. If this turns out to be important, we will document it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you are correctly referencing the WP policies. Nothing in the paragraph in question makes any assertions about the future; hence WP:CRYSTALBALL does not apply. As for WP:NODEADLINE, nothing in that page (which is an essay, by the way, not a policy) says that information should be withheld until more information comes in. This is what the {{current}} template is for. Victor Victoria (talk) 17:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I think that KDP has nailed down the policy pretty tightly. It is hard to fathom why someone would think that this material belongs in a biography of a living person on Wikipedia. As KDP has pointed out this is NOT appropriate for an encyclopedia. To include it here would clearly give it undue weight. High profile public figures are constantly subject to scurrilous accusations that are the fare of tabloids. We are not a tab, nor a news medium. If a charge is laid, it might be notable enough to include. Certainly if he were convicted it would be included. Right now, it does not belong here IMO. Sunray (talk) 18:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think WP policies are correctly cited, and you seem to be going down the wrong path by saying "We are not a tab, nor a news medium". At the time that the allegations first surfaced (2006) or first investigated (2009) this was just tabloid journalism. The fact that the police took the unusual step of re-opening a closed investigation, and the fact that he made a public statement through his spokesperson means it's notable, and that is why The Today show devoted over 6 minutes to the story. If anybody can quote a specific sentence from WP:UNDUE I'll let the matter go. So far, I haven't seen anything there that warrants suppression of this story. Victor Victoria (talk) 18:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

side discussion on Right vs. Left led by user:Drrll
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It would entertaining to see reliable sources that claim that the NYT, Today Show, WashPo, USAT, etc. are all part of the "Right." Drrll (talk) 16:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC) What does this have to do with anything? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Kim, user TaRDIS claimed that this was some conspiracy by the "Right." This story is everywhere, including the left-leaning NYT, WP, Today Show, etc. Because of the major development of the police reopening the investigation, Gore had to respond publicly about this. I assume that you will now be working on BLPs of conservatives to remove unproven allegations about them, or is it different for them since they are evil conservatives? Drrll (talk) 16:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Quite frankly Drrll - i don't care one bit or another about the "left" or "right" in US politics, since i don't live in the US. This is the article i am commenting on. Not any other. If there are wrongs in other articles - then take it up there. Focus on the article at hand. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC) So what would be your threshold for inclusion of this material? Imprisonment of Gore? You may not be in the US, but I imagine that you do care about "left" or "right" in general. Drrll (talk) 17:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC) I've already commented on that. As for "left"/"right" those are quite different beasts from country to country, and extremely hard to compare - and in this particular instance i couldn't care less. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC) A red herring, for sure. Sunray (talk) 17:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC) So Sunray, would you support removing material about Anita Hill in Clarence Thomas' BLP? No formal charges were made against Thomas. He wasn't convicted by a court of law. Drrll (talk) 17:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC) What differences do you see between the two situations? Don't answer that here. Just think about it. Then re-read the policies. Sunray (talk) 17:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Differences? In the case of Anita Hill, special Senate hearings happened because of the airing of Hill's charges via ideologically/politically motivated reporters, Senate staffers, and interest groups. In the case of Gore, there is no indication that the airing of charges occurred because of ideological/political motivations. Drrll (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC) This is completely off-topic - i btw. had no idea what you both where talking about - but i see several major differences, here is one: Several books written about the controversy. This is not the place to air your grievances over what you may feel is wrong about other articles (see: WP:TALK and WP:SOAP)--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Anita Hill's accusation was televised Congressional testimony under oath which was referenced by the nominess and several Senators explaining how they voted on the nomination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.220.11.82 (talk) 19:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Michael Crowley of TIME's Swampland blog expressed the belief that--"A police investigation into your private life is almost never good news. But in this case, it might be what Al Gore needs. [...T]he investigation was dropped after the accuser stopped cooperating. Which seems to be a strike in Gore's favor, but still hasn't satisfied many of the people debating the case now, which is a problem for him.) Perhaps the media could play this role, but this one seems to call for legal powers; and the media's institutions bias is generally toward proving, not debunking, scandal." I agree. And I also concur with those above who believe it would be reasonable for WPdia's BLP of Gore to do no more than to mention that as of July 2010 the Porland Police were investigating a four-year-old criminal claim against Gore by a local massage therapist of alleged sexual abuse.--173.63.107.126 (talk) 20:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC) W/regard to a groping charge under Oregon law: "[PD spokesperson Mary] Wheat said the woman [Molly Hagerty]’s allegations, if true, would possibly be considered a charge of sex abuse in the third degree, a Class A misdemeanor that carries a maximum sentence of a year in jail upon conviction."[4]--173.63.107.126 (talk) 21:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)I wish to move my comment to the bottom of the page.--71.187.173.34 (talk) 12:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC) ← Oh please, Drrll. If you were compos mentis in 1991 you know that Anita Hill's testimony came close to derailing Thomas' Supreme Court nomination. Her testimony is a major part of his life story and would be absurd to not include in his bio. And before someone accuses me of left-wing bias, I'd say the same thing about Monica Lewinsky. But this story at present is nowhere near that threshold. If it gets there, we'll include it. Tvoz/talk 22:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Came close because of the complicity of the major media (and spinelessness of Senators). You know that if these accusations were against Dick Cheney or Dan Quayle, the news media would be making a much bigger deal about the charges. Because of their partisan nature, the amount of news coverage (which has been substantial the past two days, btw) can't be the sole determinant for inclusion. So what would be your threshold for inclusion of this material? Imprisonment of Gore? Drrll (talk) 23:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm kinda surprised that nobody has created an article about it at this point. I think it's gone beyond the tabloid phase and clearly needs to be covered somewhere somehow. My suggestion at this point would be that it's worth 1-2 sentences here, which link to Al Gore unwanted sexual contact allegations or some such thing. For a similar situation, consider Michael Vick. When the dogfighting thing broke, within a day, it was added to his article and within three days, there was decent subsection on it [5], even though nothing had happened actually linking Vick to the dogs. (At the time, he claimed he never went to the house and just let his cousins live there and as far as we knew, that was true.) I think this case is similar - it's certainly more than just a tabloid news item now and should be covered somewhere, though it does not need to be given undue weight in his biography. --B (talk) 23:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Re the last two comments - No one remembers Dan Quayle, and if Dick Cheney had a massage, he'd die. Sadly, that would be noteworthy in his bio. Vick was charged with a crime, and that is quite different from merely bineg accused of one and having the case closed two or three times. And it is beginning to appear that this case is going to be closed again. It was re-opened temporarily for procedural reasons so that a police supervisor could rubber stamp the closing of the case - read the recent statement by the Portland police chief. And, nNo prosecutor is going to put this woman on the stand - she was paid as much as $1 mil for her story by the Natl Enquirer. I say we should not put in the unsupported accusations in Gore's bio. There is no mention of two baseless cases about GWB in his bio, by the way.KeptSouth (talk) 00:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate comment by user:Drrll
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
At least Cheney, as a human, can be massaged, unlike the wooden Gore. Don't pretend that the story has not been independently reported by many news organizations, not just by the Enquirer. Drrll (talk) 01:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC) That's inappropriate. --B (talk) 01:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a close call whether to include or exclude. But I think Victor Victoria makes a very strong point about the appearance of whitewashing to Wikipedia readers. Also, I don't think Wikipedia is supposed to serve as a judge and jury, and then exclude information if we don't find the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. For example, if OJ Simpson was found not guilty in both his criminal and civil trials, would we try to exclude that he was ever accused of murdering that white couple? No, Wikipedia would mention (a) that OJ was accused, and (b) that the allegations were never proven. Maybe that is what we should do here (i.e., briefly mention both sides of the story). Maybe we can even Wiki link this Gore-sex-allegation section to a Wikipedia entry about famous people being the target of unsubstantiated accusations. Does such an entry exist? PS- I love y'all. 72.70.216.48 (talk) 05:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

This is not a close call. Your argument and comparison to the OJ Simpson double murder case would make some sense if there was an ongoing case in the courts against Gore. There isn't. There is no judge, there is no jury. Gore has not been charged with anything. The prosecutor has not even been contacted by the police. The police found the evidence insufficent to proceed and closed the file - twice. It has been opened a third time to take care of procedural issues - namely a case review by a high ranking police officer at the Portland PD. For the allegations to be notable now, we would have to speculate that he is going to be charged. Because speculation about future events is not allowed, (especially in a BLP where all the policies are more strict), including the masseuse's claims in Gore's Wiki bio is premature, per WP:Crystal. Right now, it is just a 'he said, she said' -contentious assertions - which are not allowed in a BLP.KeptSouth (talk) 06:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Good points. Although, the appearance of whitewashing might make him look guilty, even though he might not be. It's not like people wont independently find out about the Portland incident. Who knows, in any event, this is an awful incident, whether it's true, false, or somewhere in the middle. 72.70.216.48 (talk) 06:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Including unsubstantiated allegations in a WP article about a living person can make a completely innocent person look guilty. It's funny that you seem to miss that point. KeptSouth (talk) 06:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. I think it looks worse for him that it says nothing about the incident, compared to if it explained the ways in which the allegations are likely bogus. I guess Gore is damned either way. At this point, I am more concerned about not doing damage to Wikipedia's credibility. I think including the info would do the least damage, but I suppose it's a close call. 72.70.216.48 (talk) 07:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, on second thought, I don't think this is a close call. I think this exclusion makes Wikipedia look bad, because it looks like a blatant politically motivated cover up. I'm not saying that it is a cover up, but that is what it probably looks like to most readers. Hell, isn't this story on the front page of every major newspaper? It's not like this is a rumor one of us overheard while in the changing room at Nordstrom's. Gore's influence is done regardless. Let's save Wikipedia. 72.70.216.48 (talk) 07:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Cf. Calif. Gov. Schwarzenegger's former affair w/payoff to underage actress

1. Political career of Arnold Schwarzenegger#Accusation of conflict of interest:

   In August 2005, the Washington Post reported that American Media had paid former TV actress Gigi Goyette, $20,000 (USD) to keep silent about a seven-year affair Schwarzenegger had with her beginning in 1975, when Goyette was 16 years old.[6] Because the age of consent in California is 18 years, Schwarzenegger may have committed statutory rape. In addition, American Media's knowledge of the Goyette affair put it in a position of being able to blackmail Schwarzenegger, providing further reason for Schwarzenegger to align his interests with theirs.

   --Gropegate
2. Arnold Schwarzenegger#Allegations of sexual and personal misconduct:

   [...N]ews reports appeared in the Los Angeles Times recounting allegations of sexual misconduct from several individual women, six of whom eventually came forward with their personal stories.[7] Three of the women claimed he had grabbed their breasts, a fourth said he placed his hand under her skirt on her buttock. A fifth woman claimed Schwarzenegger tried to take off her bathing suit in a hotel elevator, and the last says he pulled her onto his lap and asked her about a particular sex act. Schwarzenegger admitted that he has "behaved badly sometimes" and apologized, but also stated that "a lot of [what] you see in the stories is not true".[8]

   --71.187.173.34 (talk) 08:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Michael Crowley of TIME that it is likely in Gore's interest to have the case examined again by police.[9]. Portland PD, btw, have preliminarily stated that the behavior complained of, if the evidence were to be considered sufficient enough to bring actual charges against Gore, would likely constitute "sex abuse in the third degree, a Class A misdemeanor that carries a maximum sentence of a year in jail."[10]--71.187.173.34 (talk) 12:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

So are you people still trying to keep this out? [11] Wow, that takes quite some chutzpah. You should all get a barnstar of 'shameless and breathtaking bias'. Way to go! Sumbuddi (talk) 10:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of Inclusion of Accusation

In regard to the masseuse's accusation of sexual misbehavior against Gore, I think it should be briefly covered, accompanied by Gore's defense that he didn't do it. As well the police's back-and-forth investigating-dropping-investigating and the masseuse's seeking of the $1,000,000 pay-off from National Enquirer. We should keep it short but with those key points. I looked at WP:BLP and some Wikipedia tutorial that referenced accusations. They don't appear to rule it out, as long as we provide his defense and relevant contextual information. I am concerned about the practice of including naked accusations esp. ones the police had looked at and discarded but now they picked it again. Perhaps if they drop it again and it comes to nothing the text should be deleted, but as it is now I'd say include the alleged incident. I'd be cautious about the appearance of whitewashing, and I don't think undue weight WP:WEIGHT is a reason to keep it out altogether. DanielM (talk) 10:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Notice of Administrators Noticeboard /Incident - filed on allegations problem

Please see this site if you would like to give your opinion on whether the masseuse allegations should be included in the article now. KeptSouth (talk) 10:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Dispute over allegations of sexual abuse

The Al Gore article is in dire need of attention by those in higher authority than the editors and writers who try to add content only to find it deleted 5 minutes later by another editor or writer. On one side we have those saying with the Portland police Department officially reopening the investigation of the case. Relevance has been met, it is a matter of public record, the name of the accuser has been released and it has been the subject of newspapers and magazines across the nation. This event, even if it falls flat on its face and is found to be completely groundless, will remain a significant historical highlight of the political history of 2010. At stake is Wikipedia's reputation for being unbiased. This matter has gone far beyond a flash in the pan event, yet those that wish for it not to be included refute every attempt at logical and precedent setting examples of other living person biography articles that do include similar allegations of sexual wrongdoings. Now that the case has been re-opened by the Portland Police Bureau, it is only logical to include a section with a paragraph or two recording the case for future reference. After reading his letter, I must ask - what would Jimmy Wales do? I think he said to BE BOLD! With that we are trying, but as the discussion is turning into a war room full of too many little chiefs arguing the point incessantly and not allowing edits to be posted. BGinOC (talk) 11:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Think this should be excluded for the time being, per WP:NOTNEWS. There does not seem to be any reason to suppose that this will have any enduring notability. The same allegation has surfaced before and been investigated by prosecutors, but in the four years since then, it does not seem to have been deemed worthy of inclusion in the article. If there's a proescution or other consuence worthy of note, then maybe it should be included. Wikipedia does not lose anything by waiting at least short while to see if the story fizzles out or whether it grows in significance.--FormerIP (talk) 12:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

This hasn't surfaced before. The Portland paper had information on it a few years ago, but decided not to publish. It was recently broken by the Enquirer. To quote from the notability policy, this is hardly "routine news reporting" as far as Gore is concerned, and to say that it is misrepresents the gravity of an allegation of sexual assault. The fact that there is an allegation that's not obviously false and is garnering so much national attention is itself noteworthy. Mforg (talk) 14:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Wait for notability to be established. The Enquirer is not known for establishing notability, after all...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The Enquirer may have been the first, but it is hardly the only source, e.g. The Washington Post. Drrll (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Leave the "tabloid trash" out and wait to see if it mounts to a "historical notable incident" in his life. Until then it has no place here.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 14:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Problem Solved -- There Are Now Countless Stand-Alone Wikipedia Articles on the Alleged Sexual Assault!

This discussion is pretty much moot. Wikipedia now has dozens upon dozens of other articles about the incident, including article about the victim, articles about the Oregon hotel, articles about the Oregon police department, articles about the massage agency etc. etc. all of which provide the relevant links to the innumerable New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Time Magazine articles about the alleged assault. It looks like the attempt to censor mention of it in this article has merely led to it proliferating all over Wikipedia like a virus! Consider it a lesson learned, boys! —Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthfulPerson (talk • contribs) 14:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)