This is an archive of past discussions about Al Gore and information technology. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Encryption issue

Now we have a problem with the encryption/privacy issue. It is part of Gore's technology past, so it mostly belongs here. But it is not a "contribution" (pretty much universally condemned as a bad thing) so it doesn't, belonging somewhat under Controversies. But the last paragraph isn't part of the encryption controversy, so doesn't need to be in Controversies. Maybe the title of this page should be the original suggestion "Al Gore: Internet and technology" and put a short stub in Controversies. QuilaBird 18:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi QuilaBird - good point, thanks for bringing it up. I'm hesitant to change the title of the article since it is based upon the suggestions made by a few editors on the main "Al Gore" page and because the current style matches other "Al Gore" pages. So here are some suggestions : a) we can make a "Criticism" section for this page and move the encryption section there or b) we can move the encryption section back to the main page and put it under the "Vice President" section or c) we can move it to the general Al Gore controversies page. Let me know what you think. -Classicfilms 18:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

For the moment, I'm going to move this section to a "Criticism" section on the same page - but feel free to move it elsewhere if one of the other suggestions sounds better. -Classicfilms 20:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest to just leave it how it was. Contributions doesn't necessarily mean positive contributions. I don't see the issue.Turtlescrubber 20:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Page move

The syntax of the current title doesn't really make sense. How about making it possessive, i.e. Al Gore's contributions to the internet and technology? Please comment.--DLand ^TALK 22:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter to me. I named the page based on a) the conversation here and b) I tried to follow the style of established subpages such as: Al Gore presidential campaign, 1988, Al Gore presidential campaign, 2000 and Al Gore controversies - which is why I did not create a title such as the one you mention. Your point, however, is valid - I'm wondering if all of the subpages need new titles? -Classicfilms 23:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the examples you gave are different. They can be read as nouns, as in "The Al Gore presidential campaign." Possessive wouldn't fit there. I don't think the same can be said for this article, though.--DLand ^TALK 00:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. -Classicfilms 01:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this a serious article?

Or is this some sort of troll about Al Gore inventing the internet? --PEAR (talk) 10:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I was suprised, too, because of course we've all heard those jokes on YTMND and Futurama about Al Gore "inventing" the Internet, but he's actually made some valuable contributions along those lines. Weird, huh? Sloverlord 18:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

"Invented the Internet"

This misquotation became a widely known urban legend, and therefore should be mentioned clearly in the article, with the proper context. John Hyams (talk) 08:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Tell me again, how did he "invent the internet"? Did it have something to do with destroying Manbearpig?Smaug99 (talk) 19:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

He did not invent the internet. It was a misquotation, if you'll read the article. John Hyams (talk) 07:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I feel that we should re-name the "internet misquotation" section something like "internet invention controversy". While he was mis-quoted in some media outlets, his actual quote is very aggressive depending on how you read it. I think the current title comes down too much on the Gore side.Sccampion (talk) 18:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The original subheader was "CNN interview" which was NPOV, but was later changed. I don't think "invented" should be in the subhead since that word does not appear in the quote. However, you raise a fair point so I'd like to suggest "CNN interview controversy" which is NPOV. -Classicfilms (talk) 19:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed it to "1999 CNN interview controversy" so that at least for now it is NPOV. However, this can be modified if other NPOV suggestions are offered. -Classicfilms (talk) 19:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)