Talk:Gore effect

Template:Multidel

Speedy deletion attempt

{{hangon|The deletion of this user space page is being appealed so there is no point in deleting this talk page until that matter is resolved. Note this conversation wherein 3 other editors in good standing felt it was OK for Mark to work on this in his own user space.}}

To try to help you along, this was the article which was deleted:

The Gore Effect is a satirical expression which refers to occasions when unseasonably cold weather coincides with an Al Gore speech on global warming or with other climate change-related activism. The term has been used to sardonically suggest that that there is no anthropogenic global warming.

See also

• Global warming controversy-the political and media debate.

Feedback

You asked for feedback. It seems to be exceptionally poorly sourced for a BLP. The language is very slanted. I feel this exists solely to propagate negative views of its subject. If this subject merits coverage it can be written, in context, into the main bio. If it doesn't then this article doesn't need to exist in any form. --TS 14:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Tony it`s not a blp, were did you get that idea from? This article is about the phrase "The Gore Effect" noting more, it is no different to the article about bushisms in fact. --mark nutley (talk) 14:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

An article about Bushisms is also a BLP and would have to pass the same tests I apply here. --TS 14:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Well it don`t matter now does it, it`s been deleted. chris got his petty revenge did`nt he.

Everything in the article was well sourced, and i fail to see any issue other than spite to get it removed. --mark nutley (talk) 14:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

External links

• Blog entry: "The Gore Effect, Cont."Link

reply to bozmo

Thanks mate, i think mine has a tad more in the way of links and stuff, i`ll keep working on it as time allows :) --mark nutley (talk) 21:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Refocusing the perspective of the piece a bit?

I see that others have been adding to the list of references. I will try to do so as well and I see that some of the same ones I have found are already there!

I wonder if it would be beneficial to refocus the article a bit to somehow approach it from the pop-culture phenomenon that is associated with this term. It is widely used in the media, and some additional sources about the topic as opposed to simply using the term would be helpful.

Other possible angles include: use within political commentary and/or comics, see [2] for one example.

Thoughts? --GoRight (talk) 17:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I`d like to thank you guys for helping out, it`s real good of you :) --mark nutley (talk) 17:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

In the article lead we have "a mythical phenomenon" would this read better as "an amusing coincidence" ? --mark nutley (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

'Amusing' is a POV term; not everyone finds it amusing. To work as an article (the long-term goal), the material has to avoid projecting any particular POV, or attempting to actually be amusing. --RL0919 (talk) 18:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha, being new to this i am exceptionally grateful for all you are doing, i just hope it is not time wasted :) I`ll go look for more links for us to use, i am at least good at ferreting out information :) --mark nutley (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Photo.

I see that the photo has been deleted. If this thing survives I'll photoshop up a suitable replacement and upload it myself so that there are no copyright issues. I don't know why it was deleted. Was it a copyright issue or something else? --GoRight (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It was an attack image to accompany an attack article. Of course it was deleted, and any replacement is going to get CSD'd as soon as it gets uploaded for the same reason. Don't waste your time. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. You are claiming that an as of yet non-existent image is an attack image. Please review WP:AGF. --GoRight (talk) 18:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I do assume good faith, but not when the assumption has already been disproved. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Really? Please demonstrate that my non-existent image is an attack image. --GoRight (talk) 18:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I don't have to bother, actually. A photo similar to the one found in this article would be sufficient as long as fair use rules could be applied. I'll have to look into that. --GoRight (talk) 18:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The image wsa my own work, no copyright issues involved. If the article survives chriso`s attack i can reupload it. --mark nutley (talk) 18:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

If it's your own work why is this identical copy sourced to an unknown author on a blog? And why did you upload this image which is overprinted with "neoconnews.com"? Stealing images off other websites and passing them off as your own is very much not tolerated and will earn you a permanent block if you're not careful. I'm going to be looking very closely at any further image uploads you make. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, you are either incredibly stupid or are trying to muddy the waters, the image in the article was one i made myself i still have it on my desktop and can upload to image shack to prove it. The first i decided agaisnt as i was not to sure of the copyright the second was a mistake and if you check the diffs it says "uploaded wrong image by mistake" Call me a liar and plagiarist again and i will have to follow the procedures here to have you either warned or sanctioned. I recommend you check your facts before making wild accusations again. --mark nutley (talk) 18:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

In your upload, you stated the source was "chemicallygreen.com," that permission was "free to use," but that the image was CC-SA-3.0. Chemicallygreen.com states they are "Copyright © 2008 Chemically Green. All rights reserved." Which of these three statements, which are all directly contradictory, is true, and which are mistaken? Hipocrite (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The chemically green one was the one i uploaded by mistake, it is there in the diffs. When i uploaded the image i had made i wrote "uploaded wrong image by mistake" I did not know how t odelete it and forgot to ask anyone. If you look at the image which was in the article you will see it was not the one i uploaded by mistake. mark nutley (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand how you could not only upload the wrong image, but also attribute it to the wrong website, give it two different licencing statments statements (neither of which is on the website). I get how someone could click on the wrong funny Al Gore image in their directory of funny Al Gore images. I don't know why you would say that you got the image from chemicallygreen if you didn't. Go through the mistake you made, step by step, please. Hipocrite (talk) 19:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, i first uploaded a free to use image but discarded it. I then uploaded the chemicaly green one by mistake but could not see an undo button, so i put in chemicaly green as the source so no-one thought i was trying to steal anothers work, and then uploaded my own image with the explanation that i had uploaded the wrong one by mistake. Unfortunately i forgot to ask an admin to delete the chemicaly green image. But the one which was in the article before it got speedy deleted was one i made my self. If you want i can send you it via e-mail. --mark nutley (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Mark, just ignore them and get on with productive work. They are baiting you and fishing for things to use against you. You have explained your mistake so leave well enough alone. --GoRight (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

But that dosen't match what the logs say. See, what the logs say was that first you uploaded a "Source = chemicallygreen.com" image, but you called it "Permission = free to use." and CC-SA-3.0 ([3]). Could you try again to accurately go through the mistake you made, step by step? Right now, I don't see the "i first uploaded a free to use image but discarded it" part, and I don't understand why you labeled the chemicallygreen image that was your first upload as CC-SA-3.0 and "free to use." I get that after that you uploaded another image that you claim you made yourself - but it dosen't appear that you've credited the source images that you've montaged. Hipocrite (talk) 19:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Rather than trying to retrace his steps at this point, let's focus on getting the text to a state where having an image is even a concern. H, if you feel that there are problems with the existing images, how can Mark ask to have them speedily deleted? Once they have been deleted we can then proceed fresh on getting a suitable image in place. Agreed? --GoRight (talk) 20:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

[[4]]this is the free to use one. The chemical green one is no longer there [[5]] this is my one, i overwrote the chemical green one (i had not realized that) as i said i can send you the chemicaly green image and the one i made if you want. I`m off out to dinner now so i`ll check back in a few hours. If i put the wrong permissions on the chemicaly green one then i am sorry but it was an honest mistake. I hope this answers your questions. --mark nutley (talk) 19:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Why would one need photoshop to create an acceptable image for this article? Please reivew Wikipedia:IMAGE#Pertinence_and_encyclopedic_nature. A funny photoshopped picture of Al Gore is not of an Encyclopedic Nature. A picture of Al Gore in the winter does not illustrate this article - it's an invitation to WP:OR. Please try to be serious. Do not upload that image again. Hipocrite (talk) 18:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see my comment above which starts with "Maybe I don't have to bother ..." --GoRight (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

"Believers"

The article refers to "believers in" the Gore effect. Is there any reliable evidence that those who advocate this view do believe in it? Perhaps the article should say "Those who advocate the existence of"? MikeHobday (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I doubt there are actual believers lol, perhaps those who find the humor and irony in it would be closer i reckon :) --mark nutley (talk) 13:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys

Well as i still have no idea if my little article will survive i just wanted to thank everyone who has helped out before it might get rubbed. Truth be told though it is now so different i`d feel guilty having it down as mine :) Thanks guys. --mark nutley (talk) 13:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

This article still has severe problems, and they stem from the failure of the writers to take Wikipedia seriously. For instance the following sentence makes the piece look like a parody of a Wikipedia article:

Critics claim the "Gore Effect" is mere coincidence.

The sentence that follows is almost as bad: In the opinion of the Washington Times editorial staff, "If nothing else, the Gore Effect proves that God has a sense of humor."

Now this could conceivably be an article about a cultural phenomenon, and it's slightly better sourced that I recall before the MfD. However evidence of wide currency is absent, so I don't think the case for its retention (on the provisional basis that it must be drastically improved) has been made. The inability of the principal writers to address the subject in a serious way, as an aspect of pop culture rather than a scientific hypothesis, hampers the article's ability to be seen as a potentially viable stub. --TS 13:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

If there are bits which you think are wrong tony why not whip them out? I thought the bit from the washington times was kinda funny myself :) mark nutley (talk) 14:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The question is: what would I replace them with, and from what source? I suggest you search for sources that treat this as a cultural phenomenon. Save the jokes for your blog, and aim for an encyclopedic tone. --TS 14:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Given it is the urban dictionary then i think cultural phenomenon is covered :) I`ll look for more links though, it`s not hard to find referances though it is in widespread usage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marknutley (talk • contribs) 14:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The book is titled "Mo' Urban Dictionary: Ridonkulous Street Slang Defined" and is published by Andrews McMeel. That isn't a promising pedigree for a serious work on cultural phenomena--the book is obviously more along the lines of a "weird and whacky things people do and say" book. --TS 14:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Um, since this subject is an aspect of political humor within pop culture how, exactly, is a dictionary of urban street slang NOT an appropriate source? --GoRight (talk) 15:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry tony, not the boo (i did not know about that so thanks) i meant the website —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marknutley (talk • contribs) 15:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

With respect to my good friend Tony who asserts that "evidence of wide currency is absent", I disagree. The subject of this article is in wide circulation within the third party media sources, and we will certainly be adding additional sources over time to continue to flesh out the list of events claimed as evidence of the phenomenon. Regarding his assertion that the topic is being treated as "a scientific hypothesis", he might wish to consult his dictionary to refresh his memory on the definition of the word "mythical". Regarding his comment that "the following sentence makes the piece look like a parody of a Wikipedia article", that is the most that can be stated based on the sources analyzed thus far. As I noted on Mark's talk page we should seek to improve this aspect of the article ... assuming that it even continues in its current direction. And finally, regarding his statement that "The sentence that follows is almost as bad" the sentence in question is completely appropriate given the feedback this article has received thus far, including his comment above that this article was being treated as "a scientific hypothesis". The inclusion of this sentence is important to make it clear to the reader that this is NOT a serious scientific theory, but is instead a topic of political humor within pop culture. --GoRight (talk) 15:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Please provide the many third party media sources to establish wide currency. The absence is what is killing this article at MFD. --TS 15:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

In due time. --GoRight (talk) 15:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I just added a New York Daily News article. Also, since when did an even split at MFD become "killing"? --RL0919 (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Ever since we decided that deletion discussions weren't votes, of course! --TS 17:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I have this one which reports al in University of Toronto and two days later in the same paper February was coldest in 28 years however it does not use the term "the gore effect" so i dunno if it`s any good to use? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marknutley (talk • contribs) 16:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

If the term is not used, then including it would be synthesis at best. If the term is used in a source but without discussion, then it could be used for the examples list. The best sources are those that discuss the origins and usage of the term, since those are crucial to creating an acceptable mainspace article. --RL0919 (talk) 17:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. No synthesis allowed. There are lots of examples that could be identified as such, but unless someone in the media makes the connection to the gore effect it shouldn't be included, IMHO. --GoRight (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

A thought occurs, as we are trying to prove this as a pert of pop culture/cultural phenomena should we not use blogs? As they are pretty much the best indicator for such things. Or would that not be allowed? mark nutley (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It might depend on how this was approached. I sense that we would get resistance to such an approach, but a modest section which uses material from prominent blogs on both sides might be usable from that angle. The key here is to keep it crisp and not to let it become pointy. I would recommend proposing something on talk first to better lay out what you have in mind and to see what the reaction is. Just my $0.02. YMMV. Other than just giving us more material to work with do you think the blogs offer something the media doesn't? Do they have any kind of a unique angle on the issue? --GoRight (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

We need to stick to reliable sources. Most independent blogs don't qualify because there is no editorial oversight. Online sources that do qualify -- such as a blog by a reporter on the site of an established newspaper, or articles in online publications that have professional editorial staff vetting the submissions -- would be acceptable. --RL0919 (talk) 18:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I think we can still find more sources in the media. Lets see how things progress just on that front first. --GoRight (talk) 18:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Cool i`ll stick to looking in msm blogs, how about pajamas media ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marknutley (talk • contribs) 18:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Possible sources

I'm creating this talk section as a holding pen for sources that have potential for use in the article, but which may require further discussion or which I just don't have time to incorporate at the moment. Feel free to add to the list, or subtract if you use one of these sources in the article. --RL0919 (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Lovley, Erika (November 25, 2008). "Tracking 'The Gore Effect'". The Politico. Retrieved 2010-01-08. -- Politico is a multimedia journalism business and has been accepted as a reliable source, so this should be usable.
  • Benen, Steve (November 25, 2008). "Political Animal: 'The Gore Effect'". The Washington Monthly. Retrieved 2010-01-08. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) -- Magazine blog post that criticizes the item above. Now used
• Posts from American Thinker: [6], [7]. These are more examples of usage than discussion of the subject, and this is an explicitly ideological publication. But there is an editorial staff, so it may be usable as an example of the opinions of those who use the term.
• New York Daily News --mark nutley (talk) 19:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

We're already using that one, so I did a strikethrough (revert if you want it listed here for some other reason). --RL0919 (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Dufour, Jeff (January 27, 2009). "Yeas & Nays: If it's Al Gore, it's cold". The Washington Examiner. Retrieved 2010-01-08. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) -- Short opinion piece, but contains a quote from Senator James Inhofe. --RL0919 (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC) Now used
• Smith, Ron (January 8, 2010). "Temperatures drop, alarmism heats up". The Baltimore Sun. Retrieved 2010-01-08. -- Brand new newspaper op-ed.
• Search results for National Review Online -- A bunch of different blog posts, but from an established publication, so WP:RS should be satisfied. I haven't read through them to see what the content is, but there could be something usable there. All but one are from planet gore, no way will that be allowed :)--mark nutley (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
• Joyce, Joe (March 4, 2009). "Fun Stories That Make You Go... 'Hmmm.'". Weather New England. Retrieved 2010-01-08. -- Discusses one specific occasion. Some text currently on the page discussing that particular occasion appears to be plagiarized from this, so that needs to be corrected.
• Siegel, A. (March 2, 2009). "Fire and Ice..." The Huffington Post. Retrieved 2009-01-10. -- Criticism of the idea. Now used
• Morano, Marc (November 20, 2008). "Part TWO: 'Planet Has Cooled Since Bush Took Office' – Scientists Continue Dissenting – Gore Admits 'I've failed badly' - Global Sea Ice GROWS!". The Inhofe EPW Press Blog. Retrieved 2010-01-10. -- Posting to a blog for the Republican minority on the Environment and Public Works Committe of the US Senate. Senator James Inhofe is the ranking Republican, and he apparently has a thing for the Gore Effect (see reference above that quotes him).

Kgov radio station —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marknutley (talk • contribs) 10:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Washington timesI know we have a few papers from dc but do not think we have this one?

American Spectator mark nutley (talk) 10:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

israel newslettermark nutley (talk) 10:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC) The Spectator

Post-MFD

Now that the MFD closed, that shouldn't mean an end to the effort to improve this page. In particular, now that there isn't the concern of possible short-term deletion, I'm hoping that more and better sources can be located. To date I suspect most/all of the sources have come from Google searching, but that only works for sources that are indexed on Google. There are other searchable databases, such as LexisNexis that include news sources beyond what Google offers. If anyone working on the article has access to additional avenues for finding sources, it would be helpful if you could add more sources. Or if you do a search and find nothing additional, let us know where and how you searched. --RL0919 (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

During MFD #2, Mark offered to blank the page when it wasn't being actively worked on. That seems a reasonable compromise in hope of preventing more time-wasting MFDs. Does anyone object to me blanking the page (that is, User:Marknutley/The Gore Effect, not this talk page) for now, or does someone plan to work on it very soon? --RL0919 (talk) 21:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I am going to collapse the article when it is not being worked on, anyone who does some work on it can always remove and replace them when needed, is collapsing ok or should i delete and restore when i want to work on it?

I imagine that some will not be satisfied with anything short of complete deletion of the page, but I'm not sure what you mean by "collapsing". "Blanking" normally means that the content is removed from the page (leaving perhaps some brief notice about why the page is otherwise blank), but it can be easily recovered from the history by any editor, by reverting to an earlier version. "Deleting" would normally mean that the page is deleted so that only an admin could recover the historical versions. --RL0919 (talk) 22:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

When i said deleting i meant the text not the page :) I`ll do that now mark nutley (talk) 22:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest leaving a small amount of material (maybe just the "noindex" and "Userspace draft" templates, and perhaps a link to this discussion), because sometimes total blanking of a page is interpreted as a request to delete the page. In the circumstances, we wouldn't want anyone to get "confused". --RL0919 (talk) 22:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, that's what you did even as I was writing my comment. --RL0919 (talk) 22:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

lol, thanks mate :) mark nutley (talk) 22:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Article name

I think the article should be moved to "Gore Effect" because policy states that article titles should not include definite or indefinite articles at the beginning. Any disagreement? Cla68 (talk) 04:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Well it`s known as the gore effect, but that could always be redirected to Gore Effect? mark nutley (talk) 07:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a Wiki comparative to a similar construct provides the answer. One that immediately comes to mind is "The Peter Principle" which is designated "Peter Principle" in its Wiki treatment. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Query

What is an "anthropogenic global warming event"? It sounds like an occurrence of especially strong anthropogenic global warming, but I don't think it's what the author(s) mean. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 11:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

An event were people who want to protest or discuss AGW is what it means i guess mark nutley (talk) 11:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

You "guess" this is what it means? It's disconcerting that both of us are unclear on this. Let's try to find more precise wording. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Justify list

Can someone justify why a list of "Events described as instances of the Gore Effect," is appropriate for this article? Are there other similar articles about jokes with lists of events where the joke was used listed? Hipocrite (talk) 12:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

That it is a joke is hardly central. Your question is basically—in an article about a phenomenon (real or purported), is it appropriate to include a list of examples.

• Optical phenomenon See Optical_phenomenon#A_list_of_optical_phenomena
• Natural phenomenon See Natural_phenomenon#Gallery
• Internet phenomenon See Lead "This is a list of phenomena specific to the Internet"

--SPhilbrickT 13:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

---

addendum

• Sound effect See list of effects in Sound_effect#Techniques
• Special effect See list in Special_effect#Visual_special_effects_techniques
• Josephson effect See list following "The three main effects predicted by Josephson..."

This is an article about a joke, though, according to the authors and others. Is there a purported phenominon? If so, it would be addressed by the sources that typically adress phenominons - IE, scientific sources. Do those exist? Additionally, we already have articles about the phenominon which this is an example of - Confirmation bias and Availability heuristic. Hipocrite (talk) 13:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Further, those lists are links to types of the broader class of phenominon. In the article Alexander's band, there are not lists of rainbows that showed Alexander's band. Is there any article about an actual example phenominon, as opposed to an overall class thereof (in this case, that article would be weather phenomenon), that shows examples? Hipocrite (talk) 13:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

None of your addendum examples are remotely similar - a dated list of times that those effects happened, not what the effects do, or are used by. Actual dated examples of the effect in play, please. Hipocrite (talk) 13:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course this is about a purported phenomenon. Of course, it is scientifically bogus, but the article doesn't claim it is real.If it did, we would have a problem.If one had an article about a purported phenomenon, and failed to give examples, now that would be an example of a poor article. --SPhilbrickT 13:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

If this article is about a purported phenomenon, it appears to lacks any mention in reliable sources. Sources about weather phenominon are peer-reviewed scientific journals (see our articles on Hurricane El Niño-Southern Oscillation or Derecho for some quick examples of good articles about various weather phenominon, none of which give a list of press mentions. Has this purported phenominon been discussed in any reliable sources about weather phenominons? Hipocrite (talk) 13:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Your analogy is flawed. Alexander's band is a existential claim—all it take to support an existential claim is a single example, and they have one. It's a degenerate form of a list, only one item, because only one is needed. The Gore Effect is a statistical claim—with statistically significant probability p, observation of A and observation of B coincide in time. Such a claim requires multiple examples - a single example can never support such a statistical claim. And because the phenomenon definition depends on time (unlike Alexander's bad) it is more than appropriate, it is necessary to include dates. Again, it is a joke because it purports to be a statistical phenomenon, but the event space is not properly defined. It fails as a scientific statement, but the article doesn't claim it is a valid scientific statement, so we don't judge it on the science.--SPhilbrickT 13:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Examples can never support a statistical claim. If you are saying the list is there to support a statistical claim, are you arguing that the list is inherently OR (and bad OR, at that?). Hipocrite (talk) 13:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Notably, List of derecho events. Articles are not supposed to be lists. Hipocrite (talk) 13:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

No one claimed the article is a list. It contains a list. As do many other articles.--SPhilbrickT 13:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Please provide an article about either a weather statistical claim or a joke that contains a list of press mentions, and I'll go away. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 13:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Unacceptable narrowing of the criteria. Why don't you insist that the title have a four letter word? Because that's not relevant. Nor is the fact that it is weather related or a joke.--SPhilbrickT 13:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

That's fair. Show me any phenominon with a dated list of events. Hipocrite (talk) 13:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• Lightning#Notable_lightning_strikes As a bonus, it is weather-related.--SPhilbrickT 16:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this list notable? The key feature of that list is that it's notable lightning strikes, not lightning strikes in media. If these uses were somehow "notable," I'd get it. Hipocrite (talk) 16:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The following Google searches may or may not be useful "Peter Principle" - 179k ghits "Gore effect" 124k ghits. Hope that helps. No position on any issue is taken by providing these. ++Lar: t/c 13:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

For an article about a joke, sure. However, Peter Principal also has substantial mention in the scholarly press, [8], while the Gore Effect? Not so much (two articles about Gore Effect, having nothing to do with weather phenominon). Is this about a joke, or about a weather effect? Hipocrite (talk) 13:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Huh? Obviously, about the joke. Is that really in question? Does anyone seriously think there is a cause and effect relationship?--SPhilbrickT 13:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Above you argue the article is about a weather phenominon. Is the article about a joke, or about a weather phenominon? Hipocrite (talk) 14:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is that hard to follow. The joke is that there is a weather phenomenon, although of course it is anecdotal coincidence. Two men walked into a bar... Is that bar-related , or a joke? Answer, yes.--SPhilbrickT 15:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Um, Lar, you should really read WP:GOOGLE (specifically, this ref). Once you pass 1000, Google just makes up the numbers. Guettarda (talk) 14:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

What makes you think I haven't read it? Also, what part of "No position on any issue is taken by providing these" needs to be made clearer? ++Lar: t/c 14:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Er, I thought you haden't read it because you pulled out the "179k ghits" and "124k ghits," and the linked article contains a section Wikipedia:GOOGLE#Google_unique_page_count_issues which depreciates entirely the first-order estimates given on the first search page. Hipocrite (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I was assuming good faith. I mean, I would never assume that you would knowingly making misleading and deceptive arguments. Thanks for the clarification. In that case, I would recommend you cease engaging in tendentious editing. Guettarda (talk) 14:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

"I was assuming good faith" is not evident from the word choices you made. The numbers are estimates based on frequency counts. That does not mean they are "meaningless", merely that they are estimates. But that's irrelevant, really. What is it you guys are up to, exactly? Rather fast to hurl a TE charge wouldn't you say? Over giving a link to a couple of searches? Astonishing. ++Lar: t/c 14:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

That does not mean they are "meaningless", merely that they are estimates. Nope, that's not true. They are simply meaningless. So either you are intentionally misrepresenting them, or you are claiming familiarity with WP:GOOGLE when in fact you aren't. Neither of these are acceptable. Guettarda (talk) 14:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

False dichotomy. That section doesn't say what you think it does. I provide a couple of links and get attacked. THAT is what is unacceptable. What is your game here? ++Lar: t/c 14:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

what part of "No position on any issue is taken by providing these" needs to be made clearer? - You threw up statistics that you knew were meaningless? That's unacceptable monkey-wrenching. Guettarda (talk) 14:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite, notability does not apply to parts of articles, only to entire articles. Whether or not to include the list is a matter of editorial judgment. I'd prefer to recast that whole section and make it a list of prominent instances of usage rather than listing events that have been called examples, because the point should be to show the examples of usage as a way of illustrating usage and showing how widespread the usage is. Making the events the prime focus of the list doesn't accomplish that as directly as naming each source in each bullet point and then describing how the source used the term. A Daily News columnist and Washington Times editorial are certainly prominent sources to cite, and older sources at least show how early the term was used. I did that once for an article about the political phrase "flip flop" (goes back to the 19th century, at least -- here it is Flip-flop (politics)#History). -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

To me it is clearly just WP:LISTCRUFT- random list of events sans any contextual relation to give the reader an understanding of how they relate to the article topic. Active Banana (talk) 19:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The sources clearly tie the events to the term "Gore Effect" so no violations of WP:SYN are occurring. I support keeping the list, or changing it into paragraph/narrative format. Cla68 (talk) 23:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Narrative format would be good, along with trimming. All that's needed are a few examples of usage. Usually when I see a list like this it makes me think the authors are just dumping stuff in without much thought (the worst are those "X in popular culture" lists). Sometimes there are good reasons for a list, such as describing different versions or models of something, but this isn't one of them. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

RE: "The sources clearly tie the events to the term "Gore Effect", perhaps the sources do, I havent checked, but this LIST doesnt. Active Banana (talk) 03:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the list of alleged examples is unnecessary. I'd be fine with mentioning a few of them (that are referenced to more than one source) as part of the prose, but I don't think a list of every alleged example really adds anything to the article. Once you get the basic idea, you don't need nine examples; it would be one thing if there was some kind of scientific hypothesis being proposed here, but this is just a lighthearted joke - I don't think it's intended to make any kind of serious point beyond 'ha, Al Gore makes a fool of himself again'. Robofish (talk) 02:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Not really. If there are only three example, then the purported phenomenon could simply be written off as simple coincidence. It is the fact that it has happened so many times that causes the concept to be interesting. Just so there’s no confusion, the event space is not properly formed, so the statistical significance has not been test, or even examined, to the best of my knowledge. If there had only been three such incidents, I’d side with those who think there’s nothing of interest. Space is cheap, I see no reason to exclude six sourced items. We have far longer lists in many articles; what’s the legitimate rationale for limiting this list?SPhilbrickT 11:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

RE:"simply be written off as simple coincidence. " - so you are claiming that it is something OTHER than coincidence? Active Banana (talk) 12:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me see if I can illustrate with examples. Suppose you were in a room with thirty people, and someone checked the birthdays, and found that two people shared a birthday. If something thought that was quite a coincidence, and wanted to write a Wikipedia article about it, well, they could, as long as their point of emphasis is that this is perfectly unexceptional. See Birthday problem. On the other hand, if someone noted that there are some interesting similarities between the death of Lincoln and the death of Kennedy, it is interesting enough to be notable, not because it is causal, but because it is an interesting, as opposed to a simple coincidence. See Lincoln-Kennedy coincidences urban legend. Moreover, if someone said you don’t need to list all the points of comparison, just list a few, and readers will get the point, then they have missed the point. The interesting part of the Kennedy-Lincoln coincidence is that there are so many. Listing three doesn’t make the point. There are probably three points of coincidence between any two people.SPhilbrickT 14:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Using other crappy articles as evidence to support your point does not make a convincing statement. Active Banana (talk) 15:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't understand the point, as the quality of the links articles is orthogonal to my point. Do you have a relevant objection to my point? Do you understand my point?--SPhilbrickT 14:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The title is insulting. It should just read 'instances of the Gore Effect.' This whole article reads as being written by people with a grievance against those who use the term. That the Gore Effect is not a valid scientific detail should be sufficient. Compare the title of this section to the article on alien abductions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.249.210 (talk) 15:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

What WP:RS means and does not mean

Hipocrite posted the following at my talk page, and I replied there, but this discussion really should take place here. -- JohnWBarber

I'd ask you to review WP:RS. Neither blogs nor user created content are reliable sources - specifically, you have added content sourced to "instapundit" and other unreliable blogs, along with "urbandictonary." Please don't do this. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 23:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

We may use primary sources. These sources in the article are used to establish that the phrase was used at that time by those sources, no more. It's essentially using them the same way we'd use a commentator as a source of what the commentator's opinion is, which is allowed under WP:RS, and they're reliable for the same reason: We don't need to trust the commentator for anything but the fact that the commentator said a particular thing at a particular place and time. There is no sourcing problem here. I'm going to repost this at the talk page for the article, where this kind of discussion really belongs. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

This is the passage being referred to (all but the last sentence of which has been removed from the article [9] and should be restored):

One early example of usage of the term for cooler weather associated with Gore is in a November 15, 2006 posting at Urbandictionary.com. Blogger Tim Blair was using the term in this sense as early as January 16, 2007. The next day, Glenn Reynolds mentioned the Gore Effect on his "Instapundit" blog, with a link to Blair's post. As early as February 11, 2004, Blair was using the term in a different, broader sense of an action by Gore taking place just as fate reverses the situation to create the opposite effect of the one Gore desired. As late as March 26, 2007, Mark Steyn was using the term in the same, broader sense.

I think the explanation I gave above and the passage itself show how this meets any commonsense interpretation of WP:RS. What could be the problem with it? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Look here:

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves

That's WP:RS supporting use of this material in the article. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You really believe The Gore Effect is writing a blog about itself???? Active Banana (talk) 01:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course I do. But if you choose not to believe that, you can skip the part of the quote after the comma, wise guy. ;) -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the blogs can be used in this case. At this time, WP doesn't appear to allow the use of independent blogs as references unless the article is about the blog itself. Cla68 (talk) 11:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Please address my point that these are sources about themselves since I'm only proposing to use them to note that the phrase has been used at a particular time by particular people. (The passage gives us an idea about when the phrase began to be used in this sense and, apparently, moved away from being used in other senses.) WP:RS is there to guard against unreliable sources saying something about some other subject. There is no other subject here other than the individual writers themselves. The WP:RS passage I cite above specifically states that sources are considered reliable about themselves. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 12:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

He did. "WP doesn't appear to allow the use of independent blogs as references unless the article is about the blog itself." This article is not about a blog. You are alledging that we can use blogs as references for what the blog says - in other words, we can't use a blog to say "Relativity is false (ref totally unreliable blog)" on the relativity, but we can us a blog to say "Totally unreliable blog says relativity is false.(ref blog)" You are wrong. Hipocrite (talk) 12:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

but we can us a blog to say "Totally unreliable blog says relativity is false.(ref blog)" That's exactly what a citation for usage is: a statement saying a certain source said a certain thing at a certain time. Why don't you understand that that's exactly what the passage is about? What else did you think the passage was about? Using a source to source the fact that the source said something is what usage examples are all about. These examples are particularly pertinent because they appear to be the earliest or among the earliest examples. Why is this so difficult to understand? We are not sourcing for facts here, but for usage. For us to say that those sources used the term is inherently to use those sources to source facts about themselves. The section Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves specifically allows this. The proposed text meets all the requirements of that WP:RS passage. What is your reason for thinking that it doesn't? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 13:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's what you're alledging. Like I said, "You are wrong." We can't coatrack unreliable sources into articles by putting "x says" infront of the unreliable stuff they say, and then state that we aren't actually using them as sources for anything but themselves. But, I'll wait for yet another person to inform you about exactly how wrong you are about policy and practice before responding to you again. At what point are you going to realize that you don't get it? Why not take this to RSN? Hipocrite (talk) 13:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Citing a source to back up the fact that the source used a certain phrase at a certain time is as inherently reliable as citing a source to back up the fact that the source stated a certain opinion at a certain time. Do. You. Understand. That? It ... can't ... be ... wrong. As WP:RS says in the passage I've been repeatedly citing, 4.there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; To explain something else glaringly obvious: It can't be coatracking to cite early examples of usage when the subject of the article is a phrase. It. Is. Central. To. The. History. Of. The. Subject. History of usage of the term is central to the subject. If you leave out usage of the term on the Internet, you create a vast gap in the history and benefit the article's coverage not one bit. Because ... It ... Can't ... Be ... Wrong ... To ... Say ... That ... These ... Sources ... Used ... The ... Term. Can you or anyone else say whether or not using these sources for this purpose would introduce some possibly-wrong facts into the article somehow? Is there a better way of sourcing the early history of usage of the term other than by relying on these sources? I'm trying to get at just what you think you're protecting the encyclopedia from, and you're not getting that across. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 13:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

That's not how we do things here, sorry. You might want to review WP:NOR to see why doing unique research into who used a term first is inapropriate. Seek strong consensus before adding another unreliable blog to any article except an article that is titled with the blog or the author of the blogs name. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 13:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, progress! You've successfully established that I shouldn't have used the phrase "One early example of" at the start of the passage. I can change that by recasting the first sentence to something like "The term was used [...] as early as [...]" as I do in the rest of the passage. No OR. You do realize that WP:OR allows obvious statements like "at least as early as" because, well, they're obvious? What objection of yours has not been met? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 13:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Just to expand a bit: There is nothing in WP:RS demanding that the source we're citing is specifically, consciously addressing the subject of the source itself. Because we're only citing them for usage here, that is irrelevant. I don't see an alternative commonsense explanation for this. WP:RS must allow it because it's impossible for any harm to be done by citing or even quoting from these sources -- at least not in terms of WP:RS. It is impossible for the sources themselves to be incorrect on the fact that they used the phrase at that time, at that place on the Internet. Or are you suggesting someone went back and changed the timestamps at Instapundit and Tim Blair's blog? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 13:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm saying you are engaging in prohibited OR and violation V if you use primary sources that are unreliable as sources about anything except themselves. Hipocrite (talk) 13:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

if you use primary sources that are unreliable as sources about anything except themselves. How is that NOT what I'm doing? How would a usage citation about what the source itself said be anything but that? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 13:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

This is an article about "The Gore Effect". It is not about "instapundit." If you are inserting information that is not about "The Gore Effect", then you are at the wrong article. Hipocrite (talk) 13:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

But of course I'm inserting information about "The Gore Effect". A phrase has to be used in order to exist. An article about a phrase must cite the best sources available about usage of that phrase. We have no better sources at this time other than primary sources for that part of the article. Citiing Instapundit is inherently citing a source about itself because it's being cited for its own usage. It is inherently about the subject of the article because it's being cited for its own usage. This is just how we use sources as sources for themselves in any articles that are not about those sources. Note that the WP:RS passage I quote near the top of this thread ends with especially in articles about themselves, so obviously the source doesn't have to be used only in an article about itself. Perhaps you'd like to take a break and think about this, because this discussion is beginning to go around in circles. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 13:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You are using blog sources as sources for information that is not about the blog itself. If the blog owner is an otherwise respected expert in the appropriate field - in this case political satire and humor, perhaps their opinions on their blog are appropriate for inclusion, otherwise NO. Active Banana (talk) 14:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You're supposed to interpret policies using common sense, as the box at the top of the WP:RS page states. As the relevant part of WP:RS states: Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field and to cite the blog for the fact that the blog said something in the blog is, in any commonsense way you look at it, within the policy. But I've already said that. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You seem to keep missing about themselves. Active Banana (talk) 16:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You seem to keep missing the fact that I've addressed this. Most recently at 13:48, 10 June, not that far above. To repeat: When we cite them using the term, we're citing them for information about themselves. It's obviously reliable. At the same time, we're citing them for something central to the subject of the article: usage of a term in an article about that term. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

At this point, it appears that WP:YOUDIDNTHEARTHAT. Unless someone who is not you shows up to support your understanding of our reliable source policies, it's time for everyone to let this lie. There appears to be strong consensus that you are wrong. Hipocrite (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Well i support what he is saying, he is most certainly citing the policys corrextly, methinks it is you who WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT so you can remove reliably sourced content from an article during an AFD mark nutley (talk) 18:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm waiting to hear from Cla68 and SPhilbrick. Let's give them and others time to reconsider. It's been less than 24 hours, so you shouldn't be so quick to try to hustle away arguments that you haven't addressed. Since I appear to be the only one actually addressing the other person's comments, citing policy specifically and showing how my reading meets the commonsense meanings that anyone can understand, perhaps you might try to address arguments rather than skip around them. Your comments appear to fit the description "refusing to acknowledge others' input or their own error". Perhaps you should more closely attend to the actual intent of WP:RS policy. Specifically, you might actually try to answer the point I made at 13:48, 10 June. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

No it does not in any way come close to common sense reading. You are not citing Gore Effects Blog for non-contorversial information about Gore Effect or his blog. Active Banana (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

As I've said to you at 17:51, 10 June and as I've said to Hipocrite repeatedly, most recently at 13:48, I don't have to under WP:RS. How is citing a blog for using a statement not citing the blog for information about the blog itself? How is that possibly unreliable? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

If the mere fact that it appears in the blog is sufficient for content from a blog to be used as a source then your "logic" allows all content in all blogs to be used as sources. COMMONSENSE interpretation of our policies clearly does not work that way. Active Banana (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

No, read WP:SELFPUB. It allows us to cite them for information that doesn't apply to anybody else but the source. The fact that they used a term is the reason they're being used as a source, to establish that the term was used in that way at that time by that source itself. This falls within WP:SELFPUB. How could this not fall within it? Have you followed the link and read WP:SELFPUB? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Adding: WP:SELFPUB says you can't use the sources for other purposes, but this isn't a prohibited purpose. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Lesen WP:SYN - wikipedia editors lining up a series of primary sources "to establish" anything is original research. Active Banana (talk) 18:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Not responsive to my question. I addressed this adequately at 13:39, 10 June. The page you cite contradicts you. A little above, at WP:PRIMARY it states A primary source can be used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge. Note: can be used. WP:SYN talks about to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. No conclusion would be drawn in my passage. I'm noting the times in the blogs' timestamps and what the blogs are saying in those posts. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

AB, you appear to still be responding. I'm of every hope that Cla68 and SPhilbrick will show up, look at the redonculous argument (which, you are correct, allows you to insert blog sourced content across any article, as long as you preface it with "BLOG SAYS,") and say "wow, that's just wrong." In fact, Cla68 already did just that - apparently he needs to do it again before it'll be accepted. Stop responding. Hipocrite (talk) 18:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You are right. I was hoping against hope, but its not happening.. Active Banana (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

(which, you are correct, allows you to insert blog sourced content across any article, as long as you preface it with "BLOG SAYS,") Permit me to spoon feed you a helping of WP:SELFPUB. Open wide:

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves [...] so long as:

1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;

Now please digest that. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Humour / malice

Who says this term is "humourous"? It is used exclusively by Gore opponents, as far as I can see, for obviously malicious reasons William M. Connolley (talk) 08:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• I've changed it to satirical, as "malice" generally means a "desire to cause pain, injury, or distress to another" or an "intent to commit an unlawful act or cause harm without legal justification or excuse." The term is pretty obviously satire, sorry.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 08:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I think your defn perfectly fits the use. But since we can agree, and there is no source at all, I've added the obvious cn tag William M. Connolley (talk) 08:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Changed back to Humour per ref 2 “As amusing as this little study sounds, we don’t think it should distract us from the reality,” said his spokeswoman, Kalee Kreider. mark nutley (talk) 11:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Several of the references use the word "humour" to describe the term. The references that label the term insulting or offensive are already clearly attributed in the article. In other words, the article is fine describing the term as amusing or humorous. Cla68 (talk) 11:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Your references are junk. [10] says a climatological phenomenon known by the scientific community as the Gore Effect. which is twaddle. Is http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15931.html supposed to be reliable? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Your references are junk. I believe the Washington Times editorial (or at least passages of it) was a species of literature we English majors were taught to call "satire". This would place the Times statement in a category other than "twaddle". I believe your expertise in the subject is, ah, misplaced, given your Who says this term is "humourous"? ejaculation at the top of this thread. I don't think you actually need to "get" the humor in order to understand the article. I would not use satirical statements in the article, since there are always people who don't get a satirical statement, and I would not use that editorial as a source for statements of fact other than the fact that the Times said what it said. I think if you simply accept the fact that some other people find the thing humorous you'll be able (theoretically) to help us improve this part of the encyclopedia just fine. Yes, the Politico article is supposed to be reliable. In fact, it does appear to be reliable. Do you have reason to doubt its reliability? And please try to remain calm at all times amid satire. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 12:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the two descriptions are contradictory. Something like Barack the Magic Negro is arguably both humorous and malicious. The same could be said of this, though I would prefer a lighter term than 'malicious' - 'mocking' or 'satirical', perhaps. Robofish (talk) 12:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The term is being described here as "humorous" yet Cla68 repeatedly has attempted to add it as a see-also to Global warming controversy, a decidedly non-humor oriented article. You can't have it both ways. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Why not? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The term's used to satirize an aspect of the global warming controversy; what's so hard to understand?  Glenfarclas  (talk) 19:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. The term is reflective of (and this is explained in the article) of the social/political debate over climate change. I guess I need to go start a discussion on the Controversy talk page. Global warming is, as far as I can remember, the first topic I've ever encountered where editors will make such effort to remove links from a "see also" section. Cla68 (talk) 23:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Introduction Needs Work

The second sentence appears to be underdeveloped content as well as an incomplete sentence...

Because "local weather and global climate are not the same things ... [and] focusing on a single anecdotal data point in this way is a really, really bad way to do science." [11]

I would attempt an edit but I'm somewhat unsure as to the original editor's intent in introducing this content. It is somewhat of an odd entry as it is rather preposterous to suggest (as did, apparently, Salon's author) that there is some pretense to doing "science" as opposed to simply doing "satire". This needs some work...perhaps developed better to NPOV/balance the first sentence? JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The whole "article" needs work. I dont know that you will find many people willing to put a whole lot of effort into it until the AfD is complete. Active Banana (talk) 04:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the article is going to be kept, judging by the comments so far in the AfD. How do you propose changing the lede? Cla68 (talk) 04:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

How do you propose changing the lede?

Perhaps even more curious, how does one go about "balancing" an article referencing a satirical concept? With anti-satire satire?

Wouldn't "balance" be essentially limited to expressions of "it's not funny" and "I don't like it" disdain? JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the article is balanced because it includes criticism of the term by several observers. The lede, IMO, should contain three sentences: A definition of the term, how it is used by those who use it, and not everyone thinks it is funny. Cla68 (talk) 06:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Some concerns

Is the definition correct? Supposedly the phenomenon is linked to "unseasonable, extreme and/or unusually cold weather" but several of the examples are simply cold weather that is normal for the time and place of occurrence (e.g., snow in the Colorado mountains in early May). How about just "cold weather"? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 06:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Is the definition correct? Supposedly the phenomenon is linked to "unseasonable, extreme and/or unusually cold weather" but...

There really is no "definition" to be cited...I just gave it my best shot. The nature of the satire really has little use for factual accuracy and, like most satire, can probably be counted on to over-emphasize or exaggerate actuality in suggesting occurences of the "effect"...but you raise a fair point. Perhaps a direct quote from an article that suggests a definition might be better. JakeInJoisey (talk) 07:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You can't really call it a satire - it's more an outgrowth of the wingnut obsession with Gore. Facts are strictly optional. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Satire always takes liberty with factual reality, regardless of the ideology which might inspire and promote it. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It never snows in London

I am removing the following: "October 2008 – London saw the first snow since 1922 while the House of Commons debated the Climate Change Bill". Obviously this is misinformation - it snows in London, as this article proves.[12] Could User:Marknutley who obviously lives in or near London (my guess is Essex or N. Kent) please explain why he inserted this text when he has seen snow almost every year? TFD (talk) 06:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Believe it or not that's what the cited source actually says. Given that almost all of the sources for this article are of partisan nature (op-eds and the like) rather than factual reporting, it's likely we'll find yet more, um, "highly creative and imaginative" content if we check. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 06:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Instead of deleting it, just leave out the "since 1922" bit. It will still be true with the source that way. Cla68 (talk) 06:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

That makes no sense - saw its first snow? TFD (talk) 07:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that there is some confusion here over what is being said. Looking at the article there seem to be two references for this item. The one available on-line states:

"In October 2008 London saw the first snow since 1922 while the House of Commons debated the Climate Change Bill."

which appears to be incorrect based on the discussion above. I was not able to find an on-line version of the second reference but I did find a couple of references to what it must have said.

The first is http://www.junkscience.com/nov08.html which contains the following:

"Save us, please, from those who would save the earth - Snow fell on London this last week, a beautiful blanket of snow -- the first to fall in the month of October since the year of grace 1922 -- while the Mother of Parliaments gave third reading to an extraordinary piece of legislation, which will put a huge new bureaucracy in place to monitor and fight global warming, sucking taxes from a shrinking British economy.

This is an example of what is now called, in urban parlance, the "Gore effect," after the Nobel-prize-winner and former U.S. vice-president. It is defined as, "The phenomenon that leads to record cold temperatures wherever Al Gore goes to deliver an important statement on global warming, or by extension, to sharp temperature drops wherever a major discussion of global warming takes place." (David Warren, The Ottawa Citizen)"

So in this case it is clear that the claim was the first to fall in October since 1922, not ever since 1922.

The other I found was http://www.topix.com/forum/ca/montreal-qc/TEOVRRSUEONHJ48RD which seems to contain the text above as well as the remainder of the original article from the Ottawa Citizen by David Warren on 2 November 2008. Note that the dates of the posts match up with the date of the publication pretty well.

I think we should re-add the sentence but make it clear that it means the first time to snow in October since 1922, not the first time to snow at all since 1922.

--Rush's Algore (talk) 08:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's another interesting reference that appears to corroborate the claim, although perhaps not for London proper, it is hard to tell just what it is saying but it does reference 1922:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/interesting/28_30october2008/

--Rush's Algore (talk) 08:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The original reference was inartfully worded, but based upon other references, it is clear that the intention is to say the first snowfall in October since 1922. (I'm not opining on whether that statment is factual, just noting that those rebutting it with with exmaple of January snow are not providing proof the claim is flawed.--SPhilbrickT 11:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Which is also incorrect - 1934 is the correct date (see above section). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Note that while an editor above has identified a reference to clarify the issue, there already is a reference in the article, one that has been in there for days, and has been the subject of discussion. The clarifying citation is the Lovely article, currently the # 2 footnote. Link Quote: "And less than a week later, on Oct. 28, the British House of Commons held a marathon debate on global warming during London’s first October snowfall since 1922." (emphasis added)--SPhilbrickT 11:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and as i've pointed out - its incorrect, even bolded. 1922 should've been 1934 - Using sources that are only reliable to quote the writers opinion - is here used to reference factual information (in direct disagreement with WP:V) - and with demonstrative factual errors, showing us why such sources shouldn't be used as refs for facts! [ironic isn't it?] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I haven't check your links, but assuming you are correct, you've identified a nit. A technical error that doesn't change the conclusion. Do you have substantive objections?--SPhilbrickT 13:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Off by twelve years is a nit? It emphasizes that these sources are opinion pieces and cannot be relied upon for statements of fact. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Depends on the context. If it was a birth date, it would be a major error. In the context of implying that something is unusual, something that has happened for the first time in seventy some years is qualitatively no different than saying something hasn't occurred for eighty some years.--SPhilbrickT 15:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It is a major error in weather information as well. But that isn't the actual problem here: We are sourcing factual information to sources that aren't reliable to factual information. This error shows us exactly why such sources aren't reliable to such information. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

This is not a "technical error" - as i demonstrated, the source is copying information from a non-reliable source (Orrloff in the Register) without checking basic factual information (1922 vs. 1934) [something which i was able to do within seconds]. That shows a clear lack of editorial control => non-reliable. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Since this subject is an Internet meme, among other things, wouldn't it be useful to readers who want to know more about this subject to mention that the error has been made repeatedly? It would help readers understand an aspect of this -- that not everything said about it is accurate. Rhetorical devices used in public controversies (something else that this is) are supposed to be accurate (at least when they're not exaggerating for humorous effect). This may even help readers think about the weather/climate difference that's part of the joke (a third thing that this is). -- JohnWBarber (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Proposed wording? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Ugh! Sorry, that's going to take more time than I have right now. In the next 30 hours or so, I've got 7 hours of driving to do and some preparation before that. If anybody else doesn't want to wait and wants to write it, please do. Tomorrow, if I'm not too tired and if nobody else has, I'll try it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I think, perhaps, what might normally be considered laudable and proper consideration for NPOV "balance" may easily be overdone, overstressed or overemphasized here to the detriment of the article itself. This is a subject about a humourous, satirical, albeit ideologically inspired, concept (not a scientific hypothesis) and its contemporary use in public discourse. Anything more than a simple acknowledgement that proponents of "climate change" might bridle at its use owing to, perhaps, some arguable or even demonstrable factual inaccuracy in each iteration seems an odd approach to the presentation of satire. Care should be taken here. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is that this is not simply satire: it's active misinformation, deliberately confusing weather and climate to get across a (completely false) message that "if it's snowing global warming can't be real". The factual inaccuracy is not incidental to the "satire", it's the central point of it. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Moved From Duplicate section

I am removing the following: "October 2008 – London saw the first snow since 1922 while the House of Commons debated the Climate Change Bill". Obviously this is misinformation - it snows in London, as this article proves.[13] Could User:Marknutley who obviously lives in or near London (my guess is Essex or N. Kent) please explain why he inserted this text when he has seen snow almost every year? TFD (talk) 06:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Because he has a disregard for factual accuracy? If he was concerned with factual accuracy he wouldn't have created this article...^{[Inappropriate under WP:TPG - per AE/CC/RE request (on talkpage)]} -- ChrisO (talk) 07:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Chris, quite out of bounds. Not only is it a cheap personal attack, it isn't even factually based. As noted before, and as obvious if you read the references, the claim was the first October snow, not the first snow. Admittedly, the primary reference was inartfully worded, but it's wrong to claim someone has "a disregard for factual accuracy" because the Washington Times copywriter did an inexpert job, and you fail to read all the references. Please consider refactoring your comment, and I'll be happy to remove mine.--SPhilbrickT 11:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I live in neither Essex or Kent, Chris remove your PA please. And i see Sphilbrick has beaten me to giving you the obvious explanation mark nutley (talk) 11:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to make sure there's no confusion, the clarifying citation is the Lovely article, currently the # 2 footnote. Link Quote: "And less than a week later, on Oct. 28, the British House of Commons held a marathon debate on global warming during London’s first October snowfall since 1922." (emphasis added)--SPhilbrickT 11:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Well the 1922 date is incorrect as well. It was the first October snow in London since 1934 (not 1922)[14][15][16] - it also was also not a unique debate in the House of Commons - it was the 3rd reading of the bill.

This is the reason that references such as this one aren't reliable - they have very little (if any) editorial control - and thus are prone to repeat errors (from other just as unreliable sources[17]) and lack simple fact-checking. Why are we using such references? (and what does it have to do with Gore?) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Why are we using such references? Because if we restricted ourselves to references which never make an error, we'd have no sources. This is so obviously self-evident, I wonder if you meant something other than you asked.--SPhilbrickT 13:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Why are we using references that aren't generally reliable? Opinion pieces are only reliable to the authors opinion - there is a reason for that. But here we apparently, blow that lark, and use such references to actually source factual information - doesn't that strike you as a bit odd? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Major removal of material in the midst of an AfD

I'm not happy to see major removal of material in the midst of an AfD. Is there a policy, guideline of or essay on point?--SPhilbrickT 15:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. It's WP:BOLD. Hipocrite (talk) 15:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It's common for an article to be improved during an AfD such that the article ends up being kept. This is in fact one of the benefits of the AfD process. And yes, deleting unnecessary material can be one way to improve an article. 15:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec)The material I thought was removed was merely moved. Nevertheless, I'm unclear whether our policies on editing articles are precisely the same as or different during the course of an AfD. It's my view they should be different, and if I can clearly understand the current policies, I'll see if I can articulate my proposal, and find the right venue for it. --SPhilbrickT 15:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite aware of WP:Bold, but thank-you very much. I may not have phrased my question clearly - I'm looking for examples of policies, guidelines or essay that may override the normal policies, essays, and guidelines in case an AfD is in progress. I'm aware of three such examples (blanking during AfD, removal of edit notice during AfD, and the overarching WP:IAR), wondering if there are others.--SPhilbrickT 15:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

My bad for not using clearer edit summaries during a quickly evolving article and AfD debate. Active Banana (talk) 15:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I now see Guide_to_deletion and see there are a few more restrictions than I mentioned, but fewer than I think are appropriate. That page looks like a good place to discuss this further.--SPhilbrickT 16:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

All poorly sourced material should be removed from articles. Unfortunately in this article everything is poorly sourced. TFD (talk) 17:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Unreliable refs used as sources on temperature

In this revert, Marknutley writes "coldest days in the citys history per ref." The refs used are a Washington Times editorial, which makes an error about snowfall in the paragraph following, writing "In October 2008 London saw the first snow since 1922." Disregarding the pathetically bad phrasing, it was actually the first October snow since 1934. There is no reason to use this questionable source for a statement about temperature

The second source used was an Ottawa Citizen column, which, shocker of shockers, leads with "Snow fell on London this last week, a beautiful blanket of snow -- the first to fall in the month of October since the year of grace 1922." This leads me to be even more certain that we need to be very, very careful about using these columns and editorials for historical weather facts. Hipocrite (talk) 15:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

And you are of course wrong, the ref says The Gore Effect was first noticed during a January 2004 global warming rally in New York City, held during one of the coldest days in the city's history. How exactly is that inaccurate for this? January 15, 2004 – A global warming rally was held in New York City on a cold day.[13][17] please self revert mark nutley (talk) 16:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Those sources are not reliable sources on temperature records. They lack a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, given that the self-same articles failed to fact check and be accurate. Hipocrite (talk) 16:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

That`s a load of bollocks, they are not giving any tempertures the yare saying it was one of the coldest days in the city`s history. Do you have a source saying it was not one of the coldest days in the city`s history? mark nutley (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source saying it was? Looking at the temperature measurements and what not, it appears that the temperature min that day in central park was 1 degree above 0 F, which wasn't even the coldest temperature over the preceding 10 years. Seems cold, but not even close to "coldest." The coldest day on record appears to be Feb 9, 1934, at -15 F, which is over an two Std. Dev more irregular than the purported "one of the coldest days in the city`s history." By the way? The proposed "one of the coldest days in the city`s history," doesn't even appear on the list of "coldest days in the city`s history," at [18]. So no, your sources are not reliable. Hipocrite (talk) 17:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Dunno were your looking but the temps for jan 15 04 in NYC 15 -11.2 -8 -14 1010.4 62 3.81 9.5 15.9 29.4 48.2 so the minimum temp on that day was -15. Which matchs the record you posted mark nutley (talk) 17:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Celcius is very different than Farenheight. Hipocrite (talk) 17:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

That is not an answer now is it, also the site you linked to is not reliable as it is not updated regularly Updated March 12, 2009 mark nutley (talk) 17:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Also At Syracuse Airport in New York State the wind chill fell to -22C and here the wind was particularly punchy

First, it is an answer. -15d farenheight = -26 degrees celcius. Using your page, how could the third coldest day of the month be one of the coldest days ever? It's just not true. Further, what leads you to believe that a relaible site about temperature records (which the NOAA is) needs to be updated? It's about historical records. Finally, Syracuse is 200 miles from new york city. Stop digging, Mark. Hipocrite (talk) 17:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

PS: The temperature in NYC didn't go below 0 F in the winter of 2009-2010. No need to update the list of days the temperature went below 0 F. Hipocrite (talk) 17:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

New York City, Syracuse, N.Y., Binghamton, N.Y., and Worcester, Mass., each had the second-coldest January in the past 50 years I believe Cornell is a reliable source mark nutley (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

January is a month. January 15th is a day. You do see the difference there, right? Hipocrite (talk) 17:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes because of course the temps shot up on the 15 while the rest of the month remained the second-coldest January in the past 50 years try again. This source backs the article source so just admit your wrong and self revert mark nutley (talk) 17:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

And of course "The frigid temperatures of January have tied it for the seventh coldest January in the weather history of Central Park. Now just give it up admit your wrong and selfrevert mark nutley (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Mark, you're a piece of work. So far, your evidence for Jan 15, 2004 having been among the coldest days on record is: 1. Some op-eds that got other facts totally wrong. 2. A mis-read temperature chart (celsisus vs farenheight) 3. Your allegation that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration page listing the days below 0f isn't reliable because it hasn't been updated since the last day that was below 0f. 5. The temperature of something 200 miles away from what we're discussing, and 6. The fact that the month that the day in question was in had an average temperature that was very low. My evidence that Jan 15, 2004 was not among the coldest days on record is a reliable list of the coldest days on record that lists only days colder than Jan 15, 2004, and the fact that one of your sources lists 2 other days in the same month that were colder than Jan 15, 2004. Let's make a friendly wager - how many days would need to be colder than Jan 15, 2004 for it not to be the among the coldest days on record, in your opinion? Hipocrite (talk) 17:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Marknutley do you have any reliable sources that discuss the use of the term? (By reliable I mean newspaper articles or academic papers, not editorials in the Washington Times.) TFD (talk) 17:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Mark, this is simply solved. Stop using opinion pieces for statements of fact. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

AQFK it is not solved at all, Hipocrite your a piece of work, you totally ignore Cornell [19] saying New York City, had the second-coldest January in the past 50 years and NOAA saying this January has been 24.7 degrees—tying it for seventh place on the list for the coldest January in 27 years Now both of these are reliable refs, and they back the article ref now self revert as you are plainly wrong mark nutley (talk) 18:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Mark, what leads you to believe that since the average temperature in January was cold, the temperature on January 15 was very, very, very cold? Is it somehow obvious? I refer to the temperature on Jan 4, 2004. Do you believe Jan 4 was warm? cold? Very, very, cold? Colder or warmer than Jan 15? How about Jan 10? Was Jan 10, 2004 "one of the coldest days in the city's history?" Why or why not? How about Jan 16, 2004? How about 1/19/94, 1/21/85, 1/25/80, 1/17/77, 1/23/76, 1/9/68, 2/8/63, 2/2/61, 2/15/43? How many "one of the coldest days in the city's history" are there, exactly? How many of them are warmer than Jan 15, 2004? Hipocrite (talk) 18:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You still need a reliable source connecting the weather to Al Gore. Do you have a source for example that says whenever Al Gore speaks about global warming the weather is colder than normal. Since he has spoken hundreds of times, how significant is it that on two or three occassions when he spoke during the winter it was cold outside? What we need is a paper by anti-global warming scientists who use linear regression analysis to find the relation between Al Gore speaking and the relative weather, and develop a confidence level. Do you know if any such studies have been conducted? TFD (talk) 18:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Unless I missed something, the Cornell article doesn't mention the temperature in New York City for January 15, 2004. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You didn't. Mark's current line of reasoning is A. Jan 2004 was really cold in NYC, therefore B. Jan 15, 2004 was one of the coldest days ever in NYC. Hipocrite (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Mark, it doesn't matter if what you're saying is true. All that matters is whether it's verifiable. Your first source is an opinion piece and you can't use opinion piece for statements of fact, and you can't use your second source because it doesn't say anything about January 15, 2004. In short, you have no sources to support your change. Either find a bona fide reliable source to support your change or just drop it already. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Get real, two sources saying it is the coldest january in years and you guys think the temps managed to shoot up for one day? @TFD what are you on about i need a RS linking the weather to al gore? It`s a joke for gods sake based on the coincidence of bad weather during global warming events mark nutley (talk) 19:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Either find a source the explicitly states what you want it to say or drop it. You're wasting everyone's time. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Like your not wasting mine with this pathetic charade? Drudge Report New York Times the weekend also experienced record cold New York Times Then came the wind and hyper-chill that sent nighttime temperatures plunging toward record lows. New York Times mark nutley (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Marknutley, the term "was... used... suggesting a relationship between severe cold weather phenomena and Gore's appearances at global warming associated events". Obviously it does not make any sense if there is no connection, and if there is a connection could you please provide a reliable source for it. TFD (talk) 19:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, now was that so hard? I'm not sure about the Drudge Report, but the NYT articles are reliable for the temperature. I'm not sure they support "which suffered one of the city's coldest days in the city's history" but you can probably say, "A global warming rally was held in New York City at a time where it was so cold, the National Weather Service issued a wind chill warning and schools were forced to close" or something like that. That said, TFD has raised the issue of WP:SYN (I think) so you'll have to address that. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The above specifically is a classic synthesis (combining elements from references - where no reference is stating it):

• source A which is about Gore effect says that C (date) had record cold [which is false]
• source B which is not about Gore effect says C (date) had record wind chill [which is probably correct]
• =(synthesis)=> C had record windchill which is the Gore effect.

About as classic a synthesis as is possible --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm...you may be right. Let me digest that for a bit. Thanks, Kim. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't that there's an issue with WP:SYN since we have sources which have connected Gore to the weather. In fact, this article wouldn't exist if there weren't already sources connecting Gore to the weather. Of course, you probably need a source to connect Gore to the weather on this articular day, but I think the opinion piece should suffice since you're not using it as a statement of fact, only to show that someone else has made the connection.

Assuming my analysis about WP:SYN is correct, the next objection that I would anticipate is WP:WEIGHT. The argument would go something like this: if no independent, third-party reliable sources have covered the Gore Effect for this particular instance, you are giving WP:UNDUE by mentioning it here.

Before I add any content to Wikipedia, particularly to a contentious topic area such as this, I try to anticipate in advance what objections I am likely to encounter and make sure that I am fully abiding by WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP and WP:RS. If I'm not sure I'm correctly following those policies, I won't even think about adding the content. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no syn here, the refs used above are there only to prove that it was indeed one of the coldest days in new york city per the article ref which hipocrite has changed, and heres another

Central New York's coldest day in eight years brought life to a frozen halt in parts of the region Wednesday as schools closed, cars jammed up on slick highways and others never made it out of their driveway. Why i have to go to all this trouble just to show it was unusally cold on the 15/01/04 is fucking stupid. The ref was fine for what was written and this is just plain disruptive behaviour mark nutley (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

"Central New York" is hundreds of miles from New York City. Hipocrite (talk) 22:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

New York City matched an 1893 record low for the day at minus 1 degree, according to the National Weather Service. The temperature was expected to rise to 18, but with a wind chill still below zeroCBS News

I think that Hipocrite is objecting to the claim that it was a "record" cold day and I can't say that I blame him. "Unusually" cold day might be acceptable. Hipocrite, do you have any objections if Mark change was "A global warming rally was held in New York City on an unusually cold day."? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I don`t care what he is objecting to he is wrong and needs to self revert. In New York, the record low temperature for Central Park was 1 above zero, tying the record set in 1893, the National Weather Service reported [20] mark nutley (talk) 22:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Which is a day after the event. (Friday was the 16th 2004) - the event was held on WednesdayThursday (according to your own ref below[21]). You are getting deeper and deeper into nonsense. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)corrected Wed => Thur, apparently the columnist was writing this on the 15th but for an audience on the 16th (thus the "yesterday") --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

And another from The Washington Times Former Vice President Al Gore delivered a speech on the theory of global warming yesterday, the coldest day in New York City in decades[22] full article mark nutley (talk) 22:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Another Opinion article - which is what you should avoid for factual information (btw. isn't this the same person). We know this information is wrong - since we know that there are at least 1 date within a decade that was colder, at least 2 within 2 decades, and at least 5 dates within 3 decades that were colder.[23] (since they were below 0°F) - we also know that the 1°F information is wrong[24]. Doh! --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Nb. according to the station data (station 305801) it was 9°F on Wednesday, 2°F on Thursday and 1°F on Friday (the above record) [25] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

This is an article about political satyre in form of a repeated urban legend. Its no use at all to do any sort of measurements or god beware ask for peer reveiewed material. Just not that the "coldest day on record was an alleged one, thats all need here. --Polentario (talk) 00:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

For christs sake, all the refs i have posted here say much the same thing, and that is it was one of the coldest days in NYC for ages. This proves the content in the article was correct and as hipocrite is not going to admit he was wrong and self revert then i`ll have to do it for him, absolutely pathetic mark nutley (talk) 07:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Housekeeping

If I might interject some housekeeping, why are these 2 identical talk sections not combined? The genesis of identical sections with identical OP's was apparently an error. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

True. But this area is so contentious that editing others' comments in any way potentially exposes one to sanctions, even to correct obvious errors such as this. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

(refactor)JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Misrepresenting the sources.

I have noticed that there have been a lot of edits that seem to be misrepresenting what the sources actually say on the basis that some element of the statement is not up to the standard of scientific fact. This is misguided in my opinion. These are examples of satirical humor not statements of scientific fact.

I have put the article back to a place which appears much better to me and clarified that these are examples of satirical humor.

Are there any rules here about misrepresenting what the sources actually say? --Rush's Algore (talk) 20:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

"Misrepresenting what the sources actually say" Please provide examples. Active Banana (talk) 20:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite seems to be addressing my concern by attributing the statements to who made them which seems fair enough to me. I was concerned that by treating these satirical examples as statements of scientific fact they were being changed to the point where the humor was being lost in my opinion. I think that this then misrepresents the sources both in terms of the actual text that is used (e.g. changing something like "one of the coldest days in history" to "a cold day") but also the emphasis that the source was making as part of the satirical humor. --Rush's Algore (talk) 21:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Its not really our job to make wanna-be commedians look more funny than they actually are. Active Banana (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

No but it is our job to use what the ref`s say, not what we want them to say mark nutley (talk) 22:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

At this point it's clear that "New User" Rush's Algore is just going to distort this article using cherry picked facts ("It was the coldest day ever.. wait, it was tied with the coldest January 16th ever!"). I've tagged the article based on this persistant problem and am now walking away. Hipocrite (talk) 00:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Um, I'm not sure what to say to this. You seemed to be adding unrelated material in an attempt to discredit the claims being made. All I did was find comparable unrelated material in an attempt to balance your material and demonstrate that the claims weren't merely a bunch of hot air. As I said below, all this unrelated material should probably just be left out which brings things back to where they began. I don't like the way the article has progressed much at this point. I think the examples should go back to the former list structure so as to highlight the individual instances. --Rush's Algore (talk) 03:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have thought about this and I owe Hipocrite a bit of an apology for this edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Gore_Effect&diff=367516709&oldid=367509887

In retrospect they make a valid point about the difference between being tied for the coldest January 15 ever and being one of the coldest days in the cities history ever. A more balanced version of the edit above would have left Hipocrite's point as well, so something to the effect of "While January 15 was tied with the record low for that day, even that does not technically qualify as being one of the coldest days in the city's history." while leaving both references in tact would have been better.

The point is now moot, however, as all of these additions have been removed as "SYN" and apparently properly so now that I have been made aware of that policy. Either way I wanted to publicly acknowledge my faux pas. --Rush's Algore (talk) 02:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Gore effect

There are at least four distinct uses of the phrase "Gore effect" - five if you count special effects.

• The effect that Gore had on Clinton's candidacy, both in terms of balancing the "character" issue, and as a source of cred with environmentalists. Largely pre-internet, poorly documented by Google searches; largely 1992 vintage
• The effect Gore had on Democrats by speaking up against Bush's wars.
• The effect the An Inconvenient Truth had
• This slur/joke/fallacious argument

If you look at coverage by reliable sources, this is probably the least notable. The only real third-party coverage of it is coverage calling the Lovely post horrible journalism.

We don't write articles about multiple topics. At the very least, we need some way of distinguishing which of these we're talking about, and then stick to that one. Guettarda (talk) 20:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

"this is probably the least notable." Second this motion. (and there are six uses - "gore effect" is some type of descriptor applied to women's fashions in the early-mid 1900's [26]) Active Banana (talk) 20:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that this article does a good job of distinguishing between them and picking one. Can you find citations for the other uses?--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. If there are other uses of the term they should be covered as well. --Rush's Algore (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The term the "gore effect" has also been applied to computer gaming, where "objects that have been shot down... change into flying body parts, blood and other gore". This tecnique was pioneered in Wolfenstein 3D.[27] TFD (talk) 21:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

[28] At least 4 or 5 of these sources from the 90's are talking about Al "Gore Effect"s having nothing to do with either of the "Gore Effect"s currently mentioned in the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Active Banana (talk • contribs) 12 June 2010

Off topic facts?

I see that Hipocrite is not only addressing my concern about misrepresenting the actual source content, but he seems to be trying to somehow rebut these satirical statements by introducing extraneous material that is not directly related to the topic of this article. I think that this material distracts from the existing presentation of the topic.

Are there any rules about going out and finding material that is unrelated to the article topic and adding it in for no direct purpose?

I have been reading through the tutorial that Guettarda quite helpfully placed on my talk page. On the tab covering citing sources there is a hyperlink to the policy on verifiability which has a see also section that points to this essay:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Core_content_policies

There is a section in there about not doing any original research. Would this apply to the type of thing Hipocrite is doing to the examples in the section "Events described as instances of the Gore Effect"? --Rush's Algore (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above seems to indicate that there is some controversy on this point. Until the matter is resolved I will simply follow Hipocrite's lead and correct things as necessary using additional sources. If this type of editing is determined to be inappropriate we can remove my edits of this nature at that time along with Hipocrite's. --Rush's Algore (talk) 22:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

October 2009:

One of the facts introduced by Hipocrite relies on this source:

http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KMSN/2009/10/9/DailyHistory.html?req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA

which assumes both Madison, Wisconsin and October 9, 2009 as the appropriate place and date. Since the supplied source does not appear to be available on-line (or my Googling skills are sub-par which is definitely a possibility) I would like to know how Hipocrite determined that these were the appropriate parameters. Can you please provide an explanation? --Rush's Algore (talk) 23:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Seriously?

This is a silly article about a silly topic. Are we seriously disputing the POV? Anyway, Hipocrite, I don't believe you're supposed to tag and article and then walk away. You're supposed to stick around work out the POV issues. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what the dispute is about, but I did a quick skim of the article and toned down the language a bit. Hopefully, this helps. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

What is an appropriate NPOV approach to an article on what is essentially a satirical, POV motivated concept that has a demonstrable foothold in pop culture? I'd venture that most offerings thus far sound very much like carping or barking at the moon. JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Same thing as every other article. We're supposed to report back what reliable sources are saying about a topic without introducing our own bias into the mix. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Removed apparent OR

I've removed the following sentence from the article: "Published opinion on the "Gore Effect" concept has been predictably split." because it was unsourced. If there's a source for this statement, then by all means add it back in the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I was going to add a {fact} tag at first, but then it seemed to me to be unlikely that anyone's done that type of analysis on this silly topic. Of course, I could be wrong. This is a new article. There's no excuse for items not being sourced. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Random quote that has nothing to do with article's topic?

While I agree that this quote is sourced and is in the cited article, I have no idea what it has to do with this topic:[29]

D’Aleo. "We used to kid in forecasting that whenever we were very certain about a major forecast, it would wind up being so dead wrong that we’d be embarrassed. It certainly makes you think." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Removed and Grinch inserted instead. --Polentario (talk) 01:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

ClimateAudit is not a reliable source and I'm not sure what it has to do with this article's topic. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm are we talking about a blosphere phenomenom or not? Just try to read the sentence before. Same applies for the Tweed - a tweed itself neither a blog is a reliable source, however a tweed leading to several newspaper articles is a different story --Polentario (talk) 01:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I prefer to use third-party reliable sources and avoid opinion pieces unless that particular opinion has been referenced a third-party reliable source, in which case, I still reference the third~party source. I won't revert you but I wouldn't have added that edit either. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm a blog starting a controversy is mentionable - try Carrie Prejean for a start. --Polentario (talk) 02:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course blogs start controversies all the time but we are not here to be part of the echo chamber. Active Banana (talk) 02:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Nope. If such a gossip makes it into the Echo chamber without us or has an international echo in reliable sources, it can be mentioned. Thats the case. --Polentario (talk) 02:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

So what reliable source is talking about that comment? Active Banana (talk) 02:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I checked again your allegations. William the Conqueror might have ruled out to mention Climateaudit and to insert Realclimate as reliable source (ooough!) however National_Review#National_Review_Online got an entry as a reasonable conservative voice. PS I cut down on two thirds of the list items and inserted "Some alleged coincidences are either vague or plain hoaxes", waht you want - protect Al Gores right to hide his twitter blunders? Please ... --Polentario (talk) 03:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPA please. I want solid reliable third party sources about the topic of the article.Active Banana (talk) 04:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

"Coincidental"

Just a thought: To say any of this is "coincidental" implies that any of it was in some way unlikely. But at a basic level, how easy would it be to pick out one environmentalist who speaks at a lot of events who will have spoken on a lot of days when it was cold? We go by the reliable sources, of course, if this article is kept, but I think for this reason it is very unlikely that anyone but proponents of the phrase will call any of this "coincidental," and for the same reason that we would not ourselves use that term. Something at least to be aware of. Mackan79 (talk) 03:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Btw Wolfgang Pauli was quite into Jungs Synchronicity. Since were talking about an omnipresent millionaire, the coincidences with his speeches are rather likely. Its getting more intersting, when Gore is away :) --Polentario (talk) 03:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Media Matters

I would like to better understand why information unrelated to the article's topic in Media Matters is being allowed to remain in the article while other unrelated information has been deleted as "SYN" which for all the world appears to be just as relevant to the topic at hand? Why are two standards being applied? --Rush's Algore (talk) 04:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Some are gone because they jumped out at me as being the worst of the bad. I will take a look at Media Matters. Active Banana (talk) 04:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I assume this is the correct link http://mediamatters.org/research/200912180013 for that source. --Rush's Algore (talk) 04:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

If that was the source, it does not directly address the Gore Effect, nor any of the sources that are currently in the article, so it does also appear to be WP:SYN. Although if Hannity or Limbaugh or any of the others specifically identified used "Gore Effect" in those broadcasts, then it would be appropriate- IF Media Matters is taken to be a reliable source. But considering what low bar has been set for this article, it appears to be no worse than many of the others.Active Banana (talk) 04:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Lima

So, Cla68 added "May 2008 - Gore delivers a speech at a climate change conference in Lima, Peru" - Not in source given. He also adds "unseasonable." Also, not in source given. I guess fabricating things is not a problem? Hipocrite (talk) 04:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Not sure why you call it fabrication, but that aside, it's hard to find good information on this. I see a "Joint Communique" for a May 2008 conference in Lima involving the Council of the European Union.[30] It seems to address environmental issues, but probably could not accurately be described as a "climate change conference." I don't yet see if Gore participated to any extent, though that seems to be implied by the source Cla68 provided. I also see a report of a cold snap in Peru killing 70 children in July 2007, though of course not being in May that wouldn't seem to be the right one. I will say that much with these claims strikes me as lacking basic credibility for use in an encyclopedia article. Mackan79 (talk) 05:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess fabricating things is not a problem?

It can happen (and probably often does) when paraphrasing content. The provision of the citation is there for that reason and suggests a good-faith edit. Your ad hominem is both unwarranted and inciteful.

I substituted the original text with a quote that is representative of the source. JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

To clarify my bit of research, this source seems to suggest the 2008 summit focused on environmental issues including climate change, but I can't find anything about Al Gore being there. For my part I strongly suspect the majority of this is nonsense made up by people who did not intend to be taken seriously on their facts. Mackan79 (talk) 06:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

...this is nonsense made up by people who did not intend to be taken seriously on their facts.

Perhaps the understatement of the day...as they do not intend to be taken seriously on their premise. JakeInJoisey (talk) 06:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, maybe. If this were all to satirize people who claim every unusual weather event is proof or a result of global warming, then sure, touche. When people say it's evidence of God's sense of humor, though, it doesn't quite fit that joke. Are there reliable sources for the first idea? All the same, my thoughts are 1.) I'm not seeing how that kind of joke justifies an article where it isn't even explained, and 2.) in that case all statements of fact at least need to be carefully attributed and not presented as if we accept them at face value. The problem with our presentation (a lot of "background," not much else) is that is looks a lot like we're telling the joke rather than reporting on it. Mackan79 (talk) 07:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I am confused about the use of the term "effect", which implies causality, the theory that there is a relationship between an event (the cause) and a second event (the effect). Are they implying that Gore's speaking has an effect on the weather and if so is there any theory to explain it? Is it a physical or supernatural cause, or is the implication that causation is a myth? Could someone please provide a source where this is explained. TFD (talk) 07:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess you may need to read other similar cases like Murphy's law . --BozMo talk 07:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I concur that "causality" is appropriate and have added it. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Have you read the Wikipedia articles on the rhetorical techniques known as satire and irony? If not those would be a good place to start. If so then you simply seem to be incapable of getting "it" and I doubt that we will be able to explain "it" to you any better. --Rush's Algore (talk) 08:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Martenstein can be used as source for aligning Climatic corpses in Peru and the Gore effect. --Polentario (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

You guys know that gore does not actually have to be in a place right? Any climate change rally were the weather turns bad is attributed to the gore effect that`s kinda part of the joke mark nutley (talk) 14:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you cite specific sources that might broaden the definition? JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Broaden it how? As in gore does not need to be there for an unusal weather effect to be dubbed the gore effect? Look at the england ref, parliment debating a bill for global warming and london gets wacked by snow. Gore was not there, the whole joke is that bad weather happens at global warming events, look at the SA ref below gore was not there but the bad weather happened during a GW event so it naturally was blamed on the gore effect mark nutley (talk) 14:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The German community allowed me to use as well blogs and grey sources, since they accepted a general (including serious media) accepted character of a web phenomenen, comparably to Lolcat. We have e.g. as well [Salt lake City included, which doesnt talk at all about Gore. I assume we dont have so much problems, since a) the german WP funding is based partially on renewable resources subsidies, not on climate change nutters and b) the political divide is not so strong - Chancellor Merkel was responsible for Kyoto, not the greens and c) since we already have Pope and Margot Kässmann together, we dont need another religion. Back to your question - I mean is a superb source for the remote Gore effect you been requesting. As well the line about the dangereous "Tipper" point is very revealing. --Polentario (talk) 14:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Look at the england ref, parliment debating a bill for global warming and london gets wacked by snow. Gore was not there...

Thanks. I'm focusing on the introductory, defining text and your observation appears to be a valid one. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I did a smaller change to have a more generic view being possible. Try http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1869/Climate-Depot-Factsheet-on-the-Gore-Effect-Phenomenon as the clssical blog and http://www.cnsnews.com/PUBLIC/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=44320 as a real Gore effect (not mentioning the AL) effecting Pelosi. While something like http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3625277/Nine-months-after-the-Roswell-Incident-Al-Gore-was-born.-It-might-not-be-a-coincidence.html is accepted content in the de:Al Gore, we probably come into muddy waters here. :) Polentario (talk) 15:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Live Earth Litany

Would someone be so kind as to add this to the article.

Attendance at the the Live Earth concert in Johannesburg was low due to unseasonably cold weather and the first snowfall in 25 years, Les Jones of Rock Stars Against Live Earth said "The most likely cause of the cold weather? The Gore Effect, in which a visit by Al Gore to raise awareness of global warming causes cold." When Gore was going to testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on global climate change a Winter Weather Advisory was issued

I like the advertisements for cheap ammunition on Les Jones's blog site. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Reasonably priced ammo is always good. However the ref is from the new york times mark nutley (talk) 13:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Just for clarification (and being unfamiliar with the CC issue or its personalities), is Tobin Harshaw deemed to be in either CC camp or is he an independent observer? JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

No idea is he is warmist or sceptic. Looking at his column i reckon he likes to have a pop at everything :) But the sources are reliable right? mark nutley (talk) 14:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I was asking because of the recently added text citing Lovely's attribution of use as being restricted to "global warming skeptics".

As to their RS status, IMHO they are...but I'm not sure that editing by "talk proxy" is Wikipedia kosher. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

For me it is, i am under a restriction from adding content to an article unless the ref`s have been looked over by anther editor :) mark nutley (talk) 15:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

...unless the ref`s have been looked over by anther editor...

Then perhaps I'll yield the floor on that point for any further observations. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Na you say they are RS that`s good enough, i mean i know the yare but still need someone to give me the nod :) Thanks mark nutley (talk) 15:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

My edits above have again been removed from the article, would someone please explain why these two reliable sources keep getting removed? mark nutley (talk) 17:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Access to paid archive sources?

Does anyone have access to the following two sources to verify how "Gore Effect" is used? They came up in my google news search but the term is not in the free portion. Thanks! Active Banana (talk) 17:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• Hotels hop on the 'green' bandwagon Chicago Tribune Jul 22, 2007
• S.A. drivers could save cash by sharing cars and shaving costs San Antonio News Express August 16, 2008

I believe Cla68 has access to infotrac, ask him and i`m sure he will help you out mark nutley (talk) 17:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

It is important that every single source be meticulously verified, as I have found numerous misused sources so far. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Misused in what way Boris? I am fairly certain all the edits i have done were accurate quotes of the sources mark nutley (talk) 18:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say the edits were yours, but examples of references that don't support the attached text include [31][32][33] Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• Free version: "Hotels hop on the green bandwagon

--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!Active Banana (talk) 16:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The article seems to be a reprint (or the original) of the same content already referenced to the St Paul Pioneer Press. Active Banana (talk) 16:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Timeline

As ealry as 2004, Gore was critized as talking hot air in cold weather due to the 2004 ralley. I wonder wether the Gore effects of 2006 are to be seen as two sides of one medal. I doubt the positive effect is elder. --Polentario (talk) 17:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I had not looked at the dates of the sources, you are indeed correct. Active Banana (talk) 18:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

A little beside the point - the "positive" effect has been covered in the scholarly literature. It's pretty clearly the dominant use outside the righting echo chamber. Guettarda (talk) 19:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

This article is starting to become incoherent/poorly written

Since last night, this article has taken a rather unfortunate turn. Several sentences are garbled and don't make sense. I have the nagging urge to revert the last 20 hours of changes so at least the article is readable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

"starting to"? Active Banana (talk) 20:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, this article has never been a model of clarity. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Is it in the scope of procedure or WP:IAR to stubify, lock it down, and then build back up only by consensus? Active Banana (talk) 20:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

If you try it, I suspect the results will be comparable to sticking your face in a blender and pressing "liquefy." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. I restored the last coherent version by Short Brigade Harvester Boris. No one panic. Everyone's changes are stored in the page history. Just re-integrate them back into the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Twitter.....??

Why on Earth was this reinserted?

* In April 2010 Al Gore posted a Twitter message quoting a NOAA source which stated that April 2010 had the lowest snow cover on record; a National Review Blog mentioned 2 to 5 inch snowfalls in Colorado and Wyoming shortly afterward.

It is referenced to a blog notice (and a Gore twitter) - its just about as unnotable as (well - words really fail). There is not a shred of reliable sourcing in this. I fail to see even a glimmer of rationale for having this in the article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

It works well as an example and shows that mistaking weather for climate happens of either side of the barricade. I recommand Strange bedfellows: how late-night comedy turns democracy into a joke from Russell Leslie Peterson as explanation of the background. Peterson sees singled out events like the Dean scream being used to decide about personal fates and political issues. The book refers to another Gore-effect - the notorious repetition of the Al-Gore-I-invented-the-Internet misquote by late night had contributed to a narrative about Gore-the-exaggerator. Polentario (talk) 22:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Since its not reliably sourced - and it hasn't been picked up in any reliable sources - its simply clutter. You are dipping into the deep end of WP:OR by doing examples that aren't given by reliable 2ndry sources. This is not an Essay where you can simply pick and choose whatever you want - its an encyclopedia. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Since when is the National Review Online not a reliable source? Especially to serve as an example of the use of the Gore Effect as satire. We have already determined that the claim is accurate: that Gore actually did tweet this and that the next day Colorado and Wyoming were hit with heavy snowfall. Reliable publisher plus confirmation of the claim seems sufficient to me. --Rush's Algore (talk) 01:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be forgetting that there is actually living persons involved in this "satire" - which means that the standard of reliability is rather extremely much higher than regularly (BLP) (btw. a blog note such as that one - is never reliable). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you mean to say that there is not a shred of third-party reliable sourcing in this. Both of those sources are absolutely reliable as sources about themselves per WP:SPS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

In fact, we even have a WP:TWITTER shortcut. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

A. its non-notable (no 2nrdry sourcing). B. This is a BLP subject. C. The combination of sources to show what editors want instead of what 2ndry sources tell - is WP:OR. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The blog post in the NRO specifically mentions Gore Effect, Gore's twitter, and the snowfall so I dont think that OR is involved here. However, the fact that we are relying on the primary source of the NRO blog post making thinly veiled attacks about the credibility of a living person is a very valid concern. We are in no way using the blog as a source for information about itself. Active Banana (talk) 05:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

OH WAIT - it doesnt mention snow, it mentions the PREDICTION of snow. Wow, just wow the suggested content for this article is just getting worse and worse. Active Banana (talk) 05:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Original research and questionable relevance...

This paragraph:

Roy Blunt and James Inhofe then started to use the coincidence to criticize Gore and his efforts against Global Warming. Michael Daly criticized this as a mere delight in noting coincidences between events relating to his favorite subject and severe winter weather."

Could someone explain to me:

• what the relevance of the text about Gore saying Bush is a "moral coward" is to "Gore effect"?
• where the Inhofe thing comes from (ie where is it referenced? And what is the relevance to "Gore effect")?
• And finally where the Daly part connects to the previous?

I'm cutting it for now, as WP:SYN and as unsourced WP:BLP material. (seem to be an attack of some kind). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, sorry for this - seems to have been looking at an old revision - but strangely enough it still exists in a somewhat cut down version - so all the questions are still relevant for the existing paragraph.... So please explain - because to my eyes this is still unsourced and with questionable relevance (WP:SYN) ... --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I've created this section so we can discuss what the POV dispute is about. If you have a POV complaint, please explain it here. Do NOT add a POV tag to the article and refuse to discuss it on the article talk page. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

It's discussed throughout the talk page. The main page uses unreliable sources for facts. The facts are actually not true. Any attempt to insert sourced, reliable information about the weather on the relevant days is whitewashed out. This is a PoV violation - this article is slanted to make it appear that the Gore Effect exists. I note this above about 10 times, after pretty much every factual statement about the weather (they are all untrue). Hipocrite (talk) 01:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but to the best of my knowledge, all unreliable sources have been addressed. Can you please list specific items that you are objecting to? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

This article currently states items about weather in NYC on a specific day - it presents only the opinion of some opinion columns about the weather on that day. Actual reliable sources about the weather on that day are constantly whitewashed out of the article. There are other examples, of course, but I'll start with that one. Hipocrite (talk) 01:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I strongly agree. It sickens me that policy is being put to perverse ends such that we lie to our readers. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, fine. Then tell me which specific day(s) or which specific temperature(s) you think are wrong. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

This article currently states "Several name the global warming rally held in New York City on January 15, 2004. Newspaper opinion columns described this as one of the coldest days in the city's history." The average temperature on the day was -11.2c (+11.8f), with a mintemp of -14c (+6.8f) - source [34] and trivial math. If you look at the page I mentioned, the day in question isn't even the coldest day in Jan, 2004, or the second coldest day in Jan, 2004. Additionally, there is a reliable list of the coldest days in the cities history [35]. This day was warmer than all of them. I've repeated this work for all of the temperature data in this article - it's actually all false. However, the notable opinion of the NOAA and other weather archives is consistently whitewashed off the page, so there's a PoV problem, as the only PoV permitted on this page is that of random political columnists. Hipocrite (talk) 02:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

If any factual discrepancies are worthy of note, you can cite the reliable sources that have found those discrepancies noteworthy. That's how it works. That those citations may be difficult to find demonstrates, perhaps, the folly of trying to "criticize" satire on a "factual" basis. JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

So if no one else has commented on the obvious lies, we have to repeat those lies unquestioningly to our readers? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes! This is Wikipedia. I'll tell you the same thing I tell the 9/11 "troofers" and Apollo hoax conspiracy theorists. We don't care about The Truth. All we care about is verifiability. Provide reliable sources which state what you want this article to state and we'll take a look at it. But if you are going to argue The Truth, it has no bearing on Wikipedia. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:29, 13 June 2010

So if no one else has commented on the obvious lies, we have to repeat those lies unquestioningly to our readers?

You call them lies. Most everyone else recognizes them as satirical excesses or exaggerations. When Saturday Night Live, for example, satirizes a political figure, the journalistic world doesn't give a hoot that elements may not be factually accurate. It simply goes with the satirical territory. JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Really? Stating that temperatures approached record lows when in fact the temperature was near normal is just a "satirical exaggeration"? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Apparently so. Nobody citable apparently cared enough to notice. Would it help to go through the most recent transcript of a Saturday Night Live satirization of, say, Sarah Palin... striking out every word attributed to her that she never uttered? There would be a LOT of dead air. JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Curiously, in other venues you have strenuously objected to inclusion of "error based commentary" (the underlining was in your original).[36] But now it's fine to include error-based commentary? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

As this is a bit tangential, I'll reply on your talk page. JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me? I'm not arguing about the truth - feel free to leave in the statements by your opinion columnists about the weather on Jan 15, 2004. Why can't we also insert the statement by the NOAA about the weather on Jan 15, 2004? Of course, you could remove the opinion of your side about the temperature on Jan 15, 2004, but right now only one PoV regarding the temperature on Jan 15, 2004 is included. Hipocrite (talk) 02:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a third-party reliable source which connects this temperature to this article's topic? If not, it sounds like it might be a WP:SYN issue to me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I get it. You can continue to quote whatever initials you want at me - it's clear you want our articles to reflect the world as you wish it was, as opposed to reflecting all notable opinions on the temperature of Jan 15, 2004. Hipocrite (talk) 02:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Who cares aboput the exact temperature measured on that day? All what is of interest is that is was rather cold during the rally and Gores speech and you can find various sources riduculing or critizing Gore for that. Polentario (talk) 03:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Why not just say "it was cold" instead of giving the specific temperature? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Winters in the American northeast are in fact cold, which is why people go south on vacation. TFD (talk) 04:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Why not just say "it was cold" instead of giving the specific temperature?

You cite what a source said, not what you think it should have said...whether you believe it is factually accurate or not. JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

"it's clear you want our articles to reflect the world as you wish it was" Really? You know what's going through my mind? How long have you had these mind reading capabilities? In any case, I will tell you the same thing I tell the 9/11 conspiracy and Apollo hoax nutcases: I don't give a fuck about The Truth.® All I care about is what I can verify. So again, I ask: Do you have a third-party reliable source which connects this temperature to this article's topic? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

NPOV as of 15 June 2010

Hipocrite (talk · contribs) readded the {{npov}} tag. Is it possible to get a list below of what the rationale for adding this tag again? Just adding it without explanation is not constructive. Nsaa (talk) 18:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Why do Hipocrite again re-adds the tag? No explanation given. Yes please restate the problem. I can't see anything in the current article. Maybe I'm just stupid. Nsaa (talk) 18:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a BLP subject

People seem to have forgotten. I've cut swaths of the article that were either completely unsourced - or unreliably sourced. Blogs are not acceptable unless they are covered under the BLP exceptions (expert clause) - and none of these are!

The worst example i cut is covered above in #Original research and questionable relevance.... As well as the this - which is completely inexcusable under BLP. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Is it really? Please explain how? After quickly reviewing the policy you point to I don't understand how it is applicable here, and especially for the twitter content you keep removing. As I asked on my talk page, please explain how an accurate statement that Gore sent a specific tweet (which we know is true) violates BLP in any way. Please also explain how an accurate statement referencing an act of mother nature the following day (which we know is true) violates BLP in any way.

All this back and forth removal and restoring is getting no where so I suggest we just stop until we resolve the issue here. --Rush's Algore (talk) 03:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Blogs are not reliable sources to WP:BLP material - except in very limited circumstances (for instance blogs by experts, or blogs with a firm editorial control). I'm imploring that you actually sit down and read WP:BLP instead of skim it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand what the policy states. I disagree that it applies in this case. It has become evident that further discussion with you on this point will be fruitless. Is there some way that we can ask someone else who's correct? --Rush's Algore (talk) 03:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:DR.   — Jeff G. ツ 03:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Rush's Algore (talk) 03:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You may take it to the BLP noticeboard, but statements of fact cannot be sourced to editorials, particularly when for articles about living persons. TFD (talk) 03:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

This is not an article about a living person it is an article about an expression. BLP is not an issue here mark nutley (talk) 12:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

BLP is not an issue here.

"BLP" can, as I understand both the policy and spirit, be an issue in any article. However, I concur that it is mis-applied inre this article subject. Perhaps an RfC would be fruitful here.

I also question the Wikipedia propriety of titleing "talk" sections with contentious, arguable and conclusionary declarations of fact. Shall we, for balance, start another "talk" sub-section with "This is Not a BLP subject"? JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

How is a satirical joke based entirely on questioning the credibility of a living person NOT a BLP issue? Active Banana (talk) 12:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Reserving further comment on your premise (with which I take issue), lampooning the "credibility", via obvious satire, of a very public advocate for one side of a very public debate falls far short of transgressing both the letter and the spirit of BLP. It is simply a Wikipedia "bridge too far". Perhaps WP:THINSKINNED is in the offing. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I would say that the misunderstanding here is yours.... Its not the topic itself that is the problem - but the sourcing. BLP does not rule out criticism or humor or any other contentious material - it just demands that it is referenced more reliably than for non-BLP topics. Does that clear it up? (ie. its not about thinskinned'ness - find references that are acceptable by BLP standards, instead of using sub-par references that would have a hard time being considered reliable even on a regular non-BLP topic). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Its not the topic itself that is the problem - but the sourcing.

What is more problematical is your interjection of a personal non-sequitur into an ongoing colloquy on a particular point. While I have no qualms about addressing either Active Banana's comment or your own, please consider outdenting your comment for the sake of discussion continuity and, while you're at it, please consider amending this section title to reflect a less-conclusionary title. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Since i was addressing your comment - the indentation and continuity was entirely correct. If you find my comment confusing then i'd be happy to explain it... As for the section title - please see the template at the top of the talk-page (people seem to overlook it). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

If you find my comment confusing then i'd be happy to explain it

Hardly confusing. More like inconsiderate.

...please see the template at the top of the talk-page (people seem to overlook it).

The legitimacy of that undiscussed (that I can see) tag placement is currently under discussion. I'll defer further comment for the moment. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

If you do not think that BLP is an issue here, then remove all references to Al Gore and the issue disappears. TFD (talk) 12:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I am curious as to why you guys are not over at Bushism`s arguing about this? Or demanding it be deleted. All the sources there are op-eds and much the same as this article, yet not a peep from anyone. Banana, mate get a sense of humour, there is no questioning of credibility (not that gore actually has any) this is just an obvious name to have been given to bad weather at GW events. Again, this is an article about a phrase, an expression, it`s just a piece of satire! There is no blp issues as none of the sources actually are critical of Gore, at all, they just make a joke about the bloody weather mark nutley (talk) 13:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Because "Bushism's" are uninteresting to us? If the article is as asinine and badly sourced as this one - then it should go as well. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)And strangely enough, after taking a peep, i see at least 3 books covering the subject of "Bushism" - so your assertion that the sourcing is as bad as here is invented. At least that topic is notable. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I havent wondered over to the Bushisms article yet, 3million plus articles and you cant be everywhere. But I would be willing to bet that that article uses third party sources rather than basing all its content on primary uses in blog posts.Active Banana (talk) 13:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes kim, of course this article only has the one book ref after all. Do you not think this is what i meant? Both articles have the same kind of refs. AB Are all the sources in this article blogs then? methinks you are badly wrong mate mark nutley (talk) 13:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Try focusing on this article Mark - i don't care about what other stuff that might be bad elsewhere - one evil does not make another good. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Show me the third party sources talking about the topic - the phrase "Gore Effect" - rather than primary usage in blogs and opinion pieces. The only one I see is one passing mention in the Columbia Journalism Review calling the original usage "asinine". Active Banana (talk) 14:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

return of sourced content

Is there any objection to returning the following sourced content to replace the final paragraph of the lead section? Active Banana (talk) 04:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Other uses of the term "Gore Effect" or "Al Gore Effect" relate to describe the impact of Gore's 2006 film, An Inconvenient Truth, on the climate change debate, and related topics such as socially responsible investing, organizations making themselves appear more "green", and individuals selecting jobs in sustainable fields.

No objections from me. Because strangely enough (as i also pointed out in the AfD) - this actually is reliably sourced - to real articles. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't go that far, but I would say the material here is at least as well sourced as the rest, and indeed that more on this usage could easily be written. Here we have a long series of projects attributed to the positive "Gore effect." The article here uses it to say Gore is the single individual to have most changed the tone of the global warming debate. The New York Times has this usage in September 2006 here, which predates any of the "joke" usages that I can see (one isolated use by Tim Howard in 2004 refers to the negative effect of Gore's endorsement of Howard Dean). If we do keep this article, it may suggest that the article should really start with discussion of this first usage, which for that matter seems to offer significantly more to discuss. (I hope we don't keep the article, and actually I agree with the comment that the lack of any codified usage should weigh against retaining an article.) Mackan79 (talk) 09:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Statements should not be sourced to eleven unreliable sources, but should be sourced to one reliable source. TFD (talk) 11:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Time line wise one has to assume that the "serious Gore effect" since 2006 is a reaction to the "climate gore effect" in the blogosphere and grassroot media where Gore and weather puns exist since 2004. The urban dictionary has the right version on top since 2007. Now if we explain a slang expression by only accepting the sunday school book sources you end like explaining Jelly Roll Morton nickname with a preference for "Cherry Rolls" and not with regard to the use or size of his dick.Polentario (talk) 11:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not at all sure how one could "assume" that the use of the phrase by nut jobs in the blog-o-sphere attempting to attack Gore's credibility could have in any way "inspired" a reaction by real journalists around the world to use that same phrase in a completely different manner. It is a case of parallel evolution at best. Active Banana (talk) 12:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Any sourcing for that.? Polentario (talk) 14:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I had no intention of putting my statement into the article. I am simply pointing out that looking at the facts, logically I see no basis for your assumption.Active Banana (talk) 15:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You're assuming that the blogosphere discussed your meaning first, without any evidence? Please find something about this meaning before September 2006 if you believe it was being discussed. This isn't a pun, but besides that it seems odd to assume a satirical meaning would have predated a non-satirical meaning. Mackan79 (talk) 21:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Martenstein

A Gloss of Harald Martenstein in the German weekly Die Zeit describes the effect as Gores personal climate disaster. According Martenstein, the effect is either based on a scientifically proven local cooling occuring in Gores neighborhood or as well based on Good having humour.[27] The general use of the expression is, according Martenstein only half ironic, since the purported coincidences happen to often to be left out.

Keeping in touch

At least Martenstein should be sourced correctly. A Glosse (compare Gloss) is (in german) a sort of op ed dedicated to explain a word or occurrence in a satirical way. Polentario (talk) 14:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Where/how does Martenstein fit in / relate? Active Banana (talk) 14:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

a) This article b) this topic c) its a clear proof of international feedback on the climatic gore effect. The format of Martensteins text is as said a Gloss. Its trying to explain the climate expression in a respected newspaper. Questions? Polentario (talk) 14:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Text: A Gloss of Harald Martenstein in the German weekly Die Zeit describes the effect as Gores personal climate disaster. According Martenstein, the effect is either based on a scientifically proven local cooling occuring in Gores neighborhood or as well based on Good having humour. The general use of the expression is, according Martenstein only half ironic, since the purported coincidences happen to often to be left out.Polentario (talk) 14:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyone making a claim of "scientifically proven local cooling occuring in Gores neighborhood " is WP:FRINGE [edit self per BLP] whose claims should not be allowed anywhere near a Wikipedia article. Active Banana (talk) 15:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

As said its a Gloss. Ever heard of Hyperbole or Rhetorical device? Second I introduced Links to Syncronicity and the Pauli effect with some reasoning behind. Al fine about the acronym bashing about sourcing here, but neither Schopenhauer (The World as Will and Representation) nor Fichte not Carl Gustav Jung would agree with the positivism of the most narrow minded kind as put forward here. Polentario (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The Baltimore Sun Article

Please note that this article:

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2010-01-08/news/bal-op.smith08jan08_1_climatic-research-unit-global-warming-climategate

is listed as a news article here:

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/keyword/climate-change/featured/5

--Rush's Algore (talk) 05:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Its clearly an opinion piece with a bad archiving tag. Although if you want to claim that that type of content is what passes for "news" in The Baltimore Sun, we can put that on the whole newspaper on the list of un-reliable sources. Active Banana (talk) 05:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not clear to me that it is an opinion piece since it is listed as a news item. You can't just ignore the facts in front of you. Provide some substantive proof and perhaps we will get somewhere. As it stands now the available evidence seems to be decidedly against you. --Rush's Algore (talk) 06:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

If the first line "This is a strange time for the promoters of apocalyptic global warming - oops, they now prefer "climate change" doesnt immediately signal to you that it is an opinion piece and not news, you should probably stop editing Wikipedia articles immediately. Active Banana (talk) 06:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually this statement of yours immediately signals to me that this is only your opinion. This is not substantive proof of anything. The item is directly listed as news. Come up with something that trumps that (no your personal interpretations of the source don't count) or accept the source as reliable ... especially for a quote from the author. --Rush's Algore (talk) 06:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

aparently this thing isnt working again. Active Banana (talk) 06:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

That's rather rude considering you are the one objecting based on no substantive evidence. I have provided mine. Where's yours? Also, please answer the question below. Another case of you making claims but not providing substantive support for them. --Rush's Algore (talk) 07:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Look at the very last lines of the article, where you will note that it is written by a columnist (not a journalist). Columnists write about news - but they are still opinion articles. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Active Banana seems to have deleted the Baltimore Sun piece which I believe is reliably sourced. He asserts that the source is demonstrably wrong but provides no evidence to substantiate his claim. Are people allowed to simply delete properly sourced material based on nothing but bald assertions? --Rush's Algore (talk) 06:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is a second source that connects Al Gore, the Gore Effect, and makes reference to "the record cold spell that had gripped the northern hemisphere": http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/terry-mccranns-column/copenfloppen-should-kill-ets/story-e6frfig6-1225812597087

and here is a handy Google news archive search which lists a number of source all discussing how the Northern Hemisphere was gripped by arctic chill in January, 2010: http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=the+record+cold+spell+that+had+gripped+the+northern+hemisphere&as_ldate=2010/01&as_hdate=2010/02

There's my evidence that the claim has not been made up. Where's you evidence that it is "demonstrably false"? --Rush's Algore (talk) 07:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference between a column and a news article, and the first is not acceptable as a source. Maybe someone will write an article about the use of the term but until that happens we have no reliable sources. TFD (talk) 08:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

All the sources i have inserted are reliable per wp:rs to say otherwise is pointless mark nutley (talk) 12:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Did you read this part "How reliable a source is, and the basis of its reliability, depends on the context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication" or "Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context" and this part "However, it is understood that even the most reputable news outlets occasionally contain errors. Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article is something that must be assessed on a case by case basis. When using news sources, care should be taken to distinguish opinion columns from news reporting." (emph added) or this part "Questionable sources are ... expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions" (emph added) or this "Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons" and this "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. These are reliable sources, depending on context, but when using them, it is better to attribute the material in the text to the author." (emph added))Active Banana (talk) 14:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

RfC - Is "The Gore Effect" an article subject to the more restrictive sourcing requirements of "WP:BLP"?

Closed - WP:BLP "policies do not apply directly to the subject of this article" per uninvolved admin determination - see diff JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• ALL content about living people is subject to the stringent WP:BLP policies, per the policy. The "humor" / "satire" of the "Gore Effect" in relation to weather phenomena is clearly commenting/attacking his credibility. Yes clearly BLP applies to content in this article. Active Banana (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • • May I suggest a SPEEDY close? Active Banana (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course, all biographical material about a living person is subject to WP:BLP. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep - BLP is not subject to local consensus. As long as we're talking about living people, the policy applies. Guettarda (talk) 15:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:WELLKNOWN. That's the policy. And isn't it just downright disruptive to be wasting the community's time with an AfD still ongoing? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC) -- Also worth noting: Category:Political satire. That's the practice. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

RE:WELLKNOWN " If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out" - I think we have one instance that is covered by a third party. Active Banana (talk) 16:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I've added back the reliable source from Politico that had been removed from the article in the past 24 hours. (Way to go, my fine fellow editors, way to go.) And added another. These sources have been prominently displayed either in the article in the past or at the AfD. I find it hard to assume good faith that you didn't already know this. Very, very hard. But just in case it happens to disappear on the article page again, here's the current second paragraph of the article:

The Toronto Globe & Mail defined the term with a quotation from the online Urban Dictionary website as "the phenomenon that leads to unseasonably cold temperatures, driving rain, hail, or snow whenever Al Gore visits an area to discuss global warming."<FOOTNOTE>Scowen, Peter, "AL GORE EFFECT, THE", definition in "The New Climate Almanac", February 17, 2007, Toronto Globe & Mail, quoting from Calvin, Bill, "The Gore Effect", entry, "Urban Dictionary" website, both retrieved June 13, 2010</FOOTNOTE> According to an article at the "Politico" website: "The so-called Gore Effect happens when a global warming-related event, or appearance by the former vice president and climate change crusader, Al Gore, is marked by exceedingly cold weather or unseasonably winter weather." The "Politico" article notes that skeptics of global warming use the term "half seriously".<FOOTNOTE>Lovely, Erika, "Tracking the 'Gore Effect'", November 25, 2008, Politico, retrieved June 9, 2010</FOOTNOTE>

-- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, your comment isn't RfC related and will probably generate additional non-related content. Please consider placing this elsewhere (and deleting my suggestion as well after your consideration) JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, here is the exact language of WP:WELLKNOWN which clinches the argument that this RfC is a complete waste of time since there's only one way to read this passage (boldface added):

In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out.

I have every reason to be irked that within 24 hours, the crucial passage that sourced this subject to a reliable source in the article was removed, then an RfC was mounted in which lack of reliable sources was the only crutch holding it up. As I say, this is a complete waste of time. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

While Politico in general may be a reliable source, we have a reliable source taking that particular article by Lovely and tearing its" journalistic reliablity" to shreds. Hence it is not a reliable source. CORRECTION: calling it vacuous and asisnine.Active Banana (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

As has been pointed out to you at the AfD, the reliability of that article was not questioned in the CJR article. You confused that with the CJR article's questioning of a separate article. This article was a sidebar to that. The writer had the opportunity to say this sidebar was unreliable and did not. I should not have to repeat points to you only to see you ignore them later. Reliability is the issue here, so other kinds of criticism are irrelevant. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Somehow in the terrabits of comments in this discussion, if you made that point in the AfD I missed it and will review my comments on basis of your information. Active Banana (talk) 17:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

So you want to hold vacuaous and asinine "journalism" as your basis... not seein much difference. Active Banana (talk) 17:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Then look up the definitions of "asinine" and "vacuous". -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• NO Jake Active Banana is wrong here, attacking his credibility is completely false. This is an article about a phrase. There is no attack on any person whatsoever. The fact that there is no biographical information in the article should be a clue. Plus of course the fact that the phrase is also used about bad weather at any AGW event, Gore does not actually have to be there mark nutley (talk) 15:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Um...surely you're confusing my position on the RfC with someone or something else. Nor have/had I even commented yet in this RfC. A very confusing observation. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry jake, fixed it :) mark nutley (talk) 16:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

It is a phrase attacking Gore (a person)'s credibility by making an incredibly lame claim to a connection between AG's appearacnes and weather phenomena that supposedly shows that his position about climate change is baseless. Active Banana (talk) 17:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• What mark nutley said. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to remember the fact that if somebody described in a BLP e.g. Helmut Kohl is being described as being a Birne doesnt mean hes a fruit (Banana seems actively to ignore the difference) nor does it rule out mentioning the nickname or satire in a WP article. Polentario (talk) 16:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You keep forgetting - "if covered by third parties in reliable sources" Active Banana (talk) 16:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You keep forgetting. Reliable sources have been repeatedly brought forward and displayed prominently. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You keep keep missing "third party reliable sources" Active Banana (talk) 16:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• NO - This article subject is not "biographical material". It addresses an overtly satirical construct, well-documented as existing in the public sphere, suggesting an absurd causal relationship between either an individual advocate's presence or a cause-associated event and unusual or unseasonal weather phenomena. A Wikipedia treatment of non-factual satire should not be impeded by mis-applied WP:BLP considerations simply because it may have some perceived consequence to either an individual advocate's credibility or the credibility of a cause or idea he might espouse. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

from WP:BLP: "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" (emph added) - the titilating claim that Al Gore is somehow able to control the weather. "This policy applies to BLPs, including any living person mentioned in a BLP even if not the subject of the article, and to material about living persons on other pages" (emph added)Active Banana (talk) 16:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you be reaching any further? the titilating claim that Al Gore is somehow able to control the weather Dear sweet god in heaven, nobody actually thinks gore can control the weather, try again mark nutley (talk) 16:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

This guy Talk:The_Gore_Effect#Martenstein aparently does. Active Banana (talk) 16:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

That would appear to be an example of Satire it is obviously a joke, try again mark nutley (talk) 17:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

...the titilating claim that Al Gore is somehow able to control the weather.

Strawman argument. It is a satirical construct and neither it nor its numerous chronicleers suggest otherwise. Perchance, should anyone do so, they are certifiably one donut short of a dozen and uncitable.

You also presume the question. Whether WP:BLP sourcing considerations are applicable to this article is the subject in contention. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• NO - Gore is a prominent public figure and as such he is not immunized against people making jokes regarding him or his beliefs. A joke, especially one based on such an obviously false premise as this, cannot be legitimately construed to constitute criticism of the man or to call his credibility into question. The only material in this article that directly relates to Al Gore are assertions that he was present at a certain place on a certain date. Such statements of fact cannot possibly be considered prejudicial against the man. He was either there, or he wasn't, and in neither case does that fact say anything about the man's credibility. Simply taking note of the weather that coincided with his visits, again, says nothing about the credibility of the man's beliefs. It is surprising to see so many apparently well educated people who fail to grasp this concept. --Rush's Algore (talk) 17:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
• Yes of course it is. And no amount of consensus here can change that. This RfC is thus rather silly. We are talking about a term that is made to make fun of a living person (Al Gore) - thus we of course are talking about BLP-content. We seem to be at the point where people have realized that there aren't any real reliable references for this term .... But that doesn't mean that you can cut off BLP requirements. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Huh? There are plenty of reliable sources about this term. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Reliable from a BLP RS perspective. I still haven't seen a non-opinion article that discusses the term. (as the Gore => Cold usage (there are plenty of real reliable sources for the Gore advocacy impact usage though.)) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

There's the Politco article, for starters. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, Kim. The Politico article. The one you pulled from the article yesterday. The one I put back today. Then there's the New England Cable Channel. Then there's the Toronto Globe & Mail, sources I'd mentioned in the AfD discussion. And CNN's own weatherman commenting on weather forecasters, also mentioned in the AfD. All reliable sources. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Kim you seem to be on four reverts on this article today, could you please be more careful mark nutley (talk) 19:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually all (except one) are marked "per BLP" (thus specifically marking that i'm invoking the BLP exception clause of 3RR) - do please invoke enforcement if you think it is incorrect - perhaps we may find out if the article is under BLP or not. And this is not the forum for such - try addressing content not editors. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The one you pulled from the article yesterdaÿ́ - diff please - or correct your sentence, i can't find that i should have done so. As for the rest NECC (is new) but as far as i can tell its opinion - its certainly not journalism.... Toronto Globe&Mail is a strange fish but its not journalism (and one that wasn't in the article at any point where i've been watching it - i don't follow the AfD, i've given my 2cents). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

My mistake: It's the "New England News Channel". The person who wrote it is a weather forecaster and an environmental news reporter. Looks like Polentario removed the footnote, thinking it only applied to another passage, [37] then you removed the other sentences from the Politico article that the (then-missing) footnote had supported. [38] You did this without, it appears, checking the history, as I just did, to see whether past versions of the article had the footnote for that sentence, which would be the rational, good-faith assumption to make about a passage with such specificity. And you did this to an article you want to see deleted. When editors at the AfD are complaining about sourcing. That kind of behavior on your part helps create an atmosphere of distrust on these pages. Please try to avoid similar behavior in the future. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Its possible that the Politico article is a WP:RS - i'm not particularly familiar with that site/whatever(?) is it highly regarded? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Actually looking again it`s five reverts :) Calm yourself down mate. [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] mark nutley (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Politico is a reliable source.[44] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

If Politico isn't a reliable source, we have some major problems here at Wikipedia.[45] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You are making a wrong assumption: That reliability is general and not context based. There is no such thing as a completely reliable source, which is why we do not have a "white-list" of sources that are considered reliable. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You are correct, reliability depends on context. If you honestly believe that this particular article is not reliable in the manner that it's being used, then you're free to bring it up at WP:RSN. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Kim, Politico is a reliable source. And The Toronto Globe and Mail is a reliable source. And CNN is a reliable source. And the New England News Channel is a reliable source. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - but this is an incorrect statement - reliability is never general - but instead contextual. As noted in the RS/N discussion on a particular context of Politico - it is somewhat alike to the Huffington Post - a site that certainly can be reliable but isn't always. (in fact i'd think at least twice before using it). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but as you know, unless you've got a specific reason to doubt an otherwise reliable source, you've got nothing substantial to object to. As has been pointed out to you in a discussion on another article page. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• YES but only the parts of the article that refer to Al Gore or to the "Gore effect". TFD (talk) 20:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Brought up on the BLP notice board [46] mark nutley (talk) 21:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• This article is not a Biography of a living person at all, the template whoever put it on should remove it. As with any article any content that is about living people is subject to compliance with WP:BLP policy. Off2riorob (talk) 22:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • The template is there for a purpose - at various stages the article has included poorly-sources attacks on living people. This article has attracted one entirely new editor who was unfamiliar with the policy. Not to mention that the fact that someone felt the need to add an RFC to ask the question of whether BLP is reason enough to suggest that the template is needed. BLP is, after all, a policy that applies to biographical content about living people, not simply to biographies. It's an important distinction that new editors tend to miss. Guettarda (talk) 22:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't know about your reasons for adding the template but it is not because the article is a wikipedia biography of a living person because it is not, and the template should be removed. You could easily direct the new editor to whatever policy and comments you want to. Off2riorob (talk) 22:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
• No. This article is not about Al Gore. It's about the use of humor by other people to mock a cause that Al Gore is involved with. Thus, this article is about Global Warming, not Gore. Cla68 (talk) 00:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Some of it may certainly be to indirectly mock Al Gore's cause - but it directly mocks Al Gore - who is (as far as i know) a living person. Thus BLP applies and careful sourcing is necessary. Humour is not excempt from WP:BLP or any other policy.--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

No it mocks the weather and AGW, not al gore BLP does not apply to this article and the tag will be removed as it has no place in an article which is not a BLP mark nutley (talk) 00:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

If the article isn't at all about Gore, why does it discuss his activities repeatedly and mention him by name 11 times? Perhaps those are errors, and they should be removed from the article. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Uh, lemme just make a wild, wild stab at that and guess that those who repeat the satirical point want to make a point about climate change. How's that? What insight into Al Gore do you believe the tellers of the joke are trying to convey? I can't think of anything. This is far, far, far from the criticism or even mocking that Al Gore must've received from even his first few years in office. Honestly -- what does it even really mock about Al Gore himself? The idea that there is a BLP problem here is utterly bizarre. What is the justification for thinking so? What? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it's mainly to mock Gore, personally. It's saying "haha look at you trying so hard and, whoops, better luck next time." It's specifically trying to turn his efforts into a PR liability rather than an asset. I don't see how BLP could not apply, though I'm only perusing this discussion. Mackan79 (talk) 07:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I hope the removal of so much reliably sourced content doesn't continue as it will get in the way of nominating this article for Good Article once the AfD is closed. Cla68 (talk) 01:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You said that the article is not about Al Gore, so the repeated mention of him presumably would constitute off-topic rambling that may prevent the article from becoming a Good Article. Admittedly content-oriented factors are only incidental to the Good Article evaluation process, but it still could hurt. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• Yes clearly. It is a spin-off from a BLP and the subject refers to a man, who is alive. Verbal chat 09:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

In fact, this subject is very clearly not a "spin-off from a BLP" and is about how some people simply use the fact of Gore's advocacy to repeat a joke. The possibility of actually attacking Gore through edits to this article is no riskier than in any other article in which Gore is mentioned. No one has explained how this article is any more sensitive -- liable to be used to hurt Gore -- than any other article mentioning him. That's because that case can't be made. Therefore the BLP idea is spurious. Therefore drop the box. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you could do one better, John: just by showing up, Gore helps decrease global warming. So really they're trying to build him up. Mackan79 (talk) 20:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

As this issue appears to have been resolved via administrator replacement of the disputed Template:BLP with the more generic Template:BLP others tag, without further comments I will shortly terminate this RfC JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

RS Tags

Hipocrite has tagged [[47]] as Unreliable the Daily News (New York) Is this a joke? mark nutley (talk) 16:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You've got the wrong diff there. Guettarda (talk) 16:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks mate fixed mark nutley (talk) 16:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe the reliability of the particular claims made in those articles is called into question based on information easily obtainable from other reliable sources. But because of WP:SYN (unless we WP:IAR for the sake of clarity for our readers), those other reliable sources cannot be placed within the article to give actual context. Active Banana (talk) 16:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You are incorrect, do i have to post a hundred sources again as i did above the prove the point? mark nutley (talk) 17:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

using someone quoting the Urban dictionary -- really?

Are we really stooping so low that we are willing to quote someone quoting a definition from the user generated Urban Dictionary? [48] Yes, yes verifiability and not truth and all, but come on...... Active Banana (talk) 17:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe this was explained to you above in the RFC? mark nutley (talk) 17:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Where is urban dictionary mentioned in the RFC? Active Banana (talk) 17:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The Toronto Globe & Mail source is mentioned in the RfC. In boldface. Active Banana, when a reliable source quotes a source that Wikipedia normally doesn't rely on for facts, it makes the quoted material reliable. Do you have some actual reason to doubt that the Urban Dictionary definition is the one that is the subject of the article? The Toronto Globe & Mail use of that definition means the information fits the technical requirements of WP:RS just as it answers the real-life concern that something may be wrong. You know, reliability is actually what the spirit of WP:RS is all about. What is the reason for your actual concern here? I don't see any justifiable basis for it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Italics, not boldface. And the statement in the RFC is not giving any reason why we would want to stoop to using sources quoting user generated online content as the main source for our definition. Active Banana (talk) 17:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

And the issue is, if we are only going to with the minimum threshold of WP:V then our lead sentence should be "The "Gore Effect" is a phrase used in a satirical way by global warming skeptics[1][2] and scientists [49] suggesting a relationship between cold weather and appearances of former U.S. Vice President and Nobel Peace Prize recipient Al Gore..." Active Banana (talk) 17:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Boldface, not italics. [50] I gave you "the reason why" in my 17:46 comment. Please reread it. Using a Washington Times editorial for facts is not optimal. I'd prefer to have a better source if we're going to say that. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Not optimal yet you are willing to essentially use Urban dictionary. I have no more use for this article until the AfD is done. Active Banana (talk) 18:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

No, essentially I'm relying on the Toronto Globe & Mail. Newspapers quote sources all the time who would be unacceptable if Wikipedia quoted them directly. We're not supposed to quote directly from trial transcripts, for instance, but we can quote a reliable source quoting them. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Lima, Peru, again

In this dif, Cla68 again readds "Gore delivered a speech at a climate change/environmental conference in Lima, Peru at the same time the city was experiencing an unseasonable cold spell." Again, the source does not state Gore was in Lima (he wasn't), and the source does not use the word "unreasonable." I complained about this above. Apparently reinserting false statements is ok. Hipocrite (talk) 04:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I changed the wording of the statement as a compromise. I have a personal issue with your action here, but I'll take it up on your talk page, per dispute resolution procedures. Cla68 (talk) 06:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Introductory, again

In an attempt to tighten and (hopefully) stabilize the introductory, here's the current text, a few observations and suggested text...

The "Gore Effect" is a phrase used in a humorous way^[1] by global warming skeptics^[2] suggesting a relationship between cold weather and appearances^[3] of former U.S. Vice President and Nobel Peace Prize recipient Al Gore at global warming associated events.

[1] It is unnecessary, rather gratuitous, somewhat condescending and perhaps, even moreso, imprecise, to qualify this patently-obvious satire as being used "in a humorous way". The comic-absurdity of the concept itself and the contextual acknowledgement of humor in most, if not all, of the sources should suffice.

[2] The allegation of propagation being limited to "global warming skeptics" is attributable, as I see it thus far, to a single RS and it is rather doubtful that some detailed survey of use was conducted in making that assessment or assertion. Nor does the list of sources appear to support that assessment. However, it is a legitimate observation from a reliable source and can be included, with proper qualified attribution, in subsequent text.

[3] As has been amply demonstrated, the assertion of a "Gore Effect" occurence is not limited to only those global warming-associated events at which Mr. Gore appeared.

I propose the following text as a suggested introductory sentence and solicit comments on suggested edits. I believe every word or concept is adequately sourceable...

The "Gore Effect" is a satirical (concept?, construct?, term?, phrase?) suggesting an absurd causal relationship between coincidental and/or unseasonable cold weather phenomena and global warming associated events, with particular emphasis on those associated with appearances of former U.S. Vice President and Nobel Peace Prize recipient Al Gore.

JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that the introductions is verifiably untrue (the "gore effect" is actually the effect Al Gore's documentary An Inconvienent Truth has on public perception of global warming), what leads you to discount the sourced statement that "Gore Effect (satire)" is used by anyone but denialists? Hipocrite (talk) 13:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with identifying or including additional uses of the term nor its evolution and various usages, but those are incidental to the subject of the article and can be subsequently and adequately addressed.

...what leads you to discount the sourced statement that "Gore Effect (satire)" is used by anyone but denialists?

I don't "discount" it, but it is an "opinion" unaccompanied by any additional qualifying comment. You simply can't assume that her assertion is based on some in-depth survey of all uses of the term. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The use of "gore effect" to mean the effect Al Gore's documentary An Inconvienent Truth had on public perception of global warming is far more prevalant, both in academic and popular sources. While right-wing polemics heavily favor the satirical use, we provide undue weight to that one opinion by listing it as the only opinion. Finally, the majority of this article is "opinion" unaccompanied by any additional qualifying comment, and in most cases, that opinion is counterfactual (for instacnce, that perfectly average weather in Cambridge, MA was near 125 year record lows.) Why is the opinion of one source discounted while the others trumpted to the sky? Hipocrite (talk) 13:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Point/Counterpoint already addressed, at length, elsewhere...and I'm not about to re-debate it here. I'm working to refine/improve the current introductory which is, assumedly, the product of deliberations thus far. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Further, what are "global warming" associated events? Ice calving? storm surge? Coastal erosion? Famine? Hipocrite (talk) 13:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

They are the events specified in the cited sources. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Those events are political rallies and conferences. Perhaps the words you were looking for were "political rallies and conferences supporting stronger action to combat global warming." Hipocrite (talk) 13:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe the subject of the article and the citations provide ample identification of the reference to "global warming associated events"...but I'm not married to any suggested text. Perhaps there may be other opinions. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Gore does not have to be there, it just has to be an event about AGW mark nutley (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

As is noted in my suggested text. Is that an adequate representation? JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry jake i only read the top text, which is of course the current lede :) My excuse is i am unwell :) I believe your suggested text is fine mate, bang it in mark nutley (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• Hipocrite's comments don't even seem to be made in order to get a consensus. The better response is to ignore Hipocrite until that changes. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Jake, the one problem I have with your suggested lead paragraph is that it seems to imply that the people using the comment might actually believe Gore has something to do with the weather. Readers shouldn't think that's what's being said even for a moment. I don't see why "satirical" isn't a better word there than "humorous". Just replacing the one word with the other would clear it up pretty efficiently, it seems to me. That would be one way to do it, and I'm open to any other ideas about that. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Oops. See my comment with this timestamp below. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Assuming you meant "is" a better word, it seems to me that the text shouldn't be "dumbed down" to accomodate someone who might not initially comprehend that this "satire" is (as is at least a good deal or most satire) utilized as tongue-in-cheek humor to bring home a point, particularly after reading the subsequent content.

Another problem arises with describing it as "humorous"...which can be a decidedly different subjective assessment inre the author's intent and an individual reader's perception. Nor is satire rarely ever presented as pure humor without some underlying purpose...as I believe is the case here. However, to perhaps make the case more strongly, I'll add "absurd" to the text. Does that mitigate your concern any?JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's dumbing down to replace "humorous" with "satirical", just clearer, and I don't see any downside to removing any implication that someone actually thinks that the weather is affected by a political event. I have to admit that I'm not quite sure what political point the people who use this meme are trying to make, but there seems to be a point to it other than simply mocking Gore and AGW supporters. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll assume you mean vice-versa as "satirical" is my suggestion. Problem is that "humor" and "satire" are not synonyms. They are birds of a decidedly different feather. As to...

...but there seems to be a point to it other than simply mocking Gore and AGW supporters.

I'm not quite sure what you're alluding to here. Can you be more specific?JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Why not just add "satirically" before "suggesting a relationship between cold weather and appearances"? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

While I'll lay no claim to compositional expertise, "satirically" is not a commonly employed descriptive and is rather awkward, IMHO. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll lay aside my objection to the lede if the word absurd persists. Hipocrite (talk) 17:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Someone should alert the media ;-) JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

As there has been a wide variety of words utilized to characterize this article subject in its editing history, the following have been offered and all appear to fit the bill...

concept?, construct?, term?, phrase?

My personal preference is "concept". Anyone else? JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I like "phrase". -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

OK...fine by me. "Phrase" it is. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Jake. I got distracted and didn't read through your proposal well at all. I see your proposed language was at the bottom of your comment which opened this thread. I dislike the word "absurd" in the lead. Perhaps we could recast the sentence to get across the idea that no one seriously believes it. I have no problem with your points 1-3. I still think "satirically" is a very useful word for the lead. I don't think it should cause too much confusion, and we can link to Satire, I suppose. Again, sorry for being so dense before. I was just distracted by something here, offline. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

No prob. We're getting there (I think)

First let me repost my suggestion here for easier reference...

The "Gore Effect" is a satirical phrase suggesting an absurd causal relationship between coincidental and/or unseasonable cold weather phenomena and global warming associated events, with particular emphasis on those associated with appearances of former U.S. Vice President and Nobel Peace Prize recipient Al Gore.

I still think "satirically" is a very useful word for the lead.

It's already there to be linked to John...

The "Gore Effect" is a satirical..

(and I applied the Wikilink)

I dislike the word "absurd" in the lead. Perhaps we could recast the sentence to get across the idea that no one seriously believes it.

That was inserted, as a proposed response to your earlier concern, to better emphasize the "humorous" aspect of the satire. It is, I think, self-evident that none but the truly delusional would "seriously believe it" and "spelling it out" any further strikes me as tresspassing into "insult the reader's intelligence" territory. Anyone else?

Secondly (and as a rather unanticipated and welcome development), it appears to satisfy Hipocrite's misgivings enough to evoke his concurrence with the proposed edit (and that ain't hay). Two birds with one stone suggests we better go with it. Anyone else? JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I have to say no to using the word "Absurd" it is just playing to one editors pov to use it. We have sources describing it as "Humorous" and that is what we should use. I would alos point out some editors have put in content refering to "The Al Gore Effect" which refers to his impact on the enviromentel movement, is this also to be described as absurd? mark nutley (talk) 18:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Mark, have you read absurd, specifically Absurd or surreal humour, at Surreal humour, which this is? When someone said absurd I quickly realized that that word summed up the humor in toto. The effect Al Gore's film had on public perceptions of global warming isn't absurdist at all. Could you please try not to just reflexivly choose up sides? Hipocrite (talk) 19:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

...it is just playing to one editors pov to use it.

Perhaps so, but that strikes me as being an integral part of consensus building.

We have sources describing it as "Humorous" and that is what we should use.

We also have a source that attributes its use solely to "global warming skeptics" and others that can (as I recall) support a similar attribution.

We're only dealing with the opening line here and particulars such as you've mentioned can easily be addressed in subsequent content. Let's not get locked into some interminable debate trying to cast the opening line into anything other than an agreed upon, consensus-supportable, NPOV statement.

...is this also to be described as absurd?

Please Mark. I haven't even looked at it but I'm rather confident it isn't satire. Let's see if we can get beyond the first sentence first. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Have you seen what mackan wrote? It looks ok to me, how about everyone else?mark nutley (talk) 22:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Jake why did you revert macks changes? They were spot on man mark nutley (talk) 22:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Assumedly they were the last several times they were incorporated. I believe I've seen that format/content at least once before. Please correct me if I'm wrong. More in a moment. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess we're back to editing by fiat. Oh well. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Were editing in a crappy car? :) Well what do you think is wrong with macks edits? It looks ok to me, and more importantly it looks NPOV mark nutley (talk) 22:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall liking it too much last time...but I really don't recall having too much time to dwell on it either before it disappeared. The edit we were working on didn't get there by Tooth Fairy insertion. Nonetheless, if that's going to be the starting point, so be it. For now though, I'm putting my feet up and popping some corn for awhile. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Quick read: quite good. Long term survivability? I dunno. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I've removed Mackan78's new section and I'm adding his comment below and responding to it. We're already discussing the lead section here and we don't need different new sections splattered all over the talk page to discuss the same lead. Here's Mackan79's removed comment:

I can't quite follow everything on this talk page, but I just tried to revise the lead so that it would address the fact that this term has at least two major meanings, neither of which appears to have significantly more coverage in reliable sources (I accidentally hit enter once while cleaning up, sorry about that). I placed the two in what I believe is their chronological order, as the earliest use for Gore's impact on public consciousness is from 2006 while all the sources on the joke definition come from 2007. My changes seem to have been reverted back and forth, but can be seen and compared here. Mackan79 (talk) 22:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted to an old version. You must not have realized that we're discussing the lead in this section. I know you would not have done so otherwise, Mackan. Let's keep the discussion here. I've also reverted Ncaa's radical changes by fiat, which have been mentioned just above. I invite other editors to keep reverting, up to the 3RR limit while this discussion continues. We will change the lead as per discussion if we change it at all. Since this is a disputed matter it must be decided by consensus. If other editors continue to try to edit war, I will file a complaint at WP:GSCC. Fair warning. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It now appears Ncaa's reversion of the lead was unintentional, based on what he's told me on his talk page, and I've self-reverted to keep all his technical changes. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Do-over Break

Ladies, Gents...I draw a line on my golf card to start fresh. maybe it will work here.

I think both openers and Mackan's edit have merit. Perhaps if I post the 2 offerings here, we can integrate what's good? JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Fine by me. The other uses of "Gore Effect" or "Gore effect" are common cliches that writers use to try to spark up their copy, as I've mentioned in the AfD. Google has loads of hits for "Clinton Effect" and there's even a book called "The Blair Effect". These uses almost always simply mean the political (or even societal -- as in influencing public behavior) influence of the politician that the "Effect" is being named after (they don't always capitalize the first "E" in "Effect", either). This is unexceptional and could never stand on its own as an encyclopedia article. It isn't remarkable in any way and no one that I know of has ever written about this meaning of the "Gore Effect". I repeat: no one. That means it isn't important enough to even mention in the first paragraph. I have no problem with having it mentioned in the third or fourth paragraph, after we fully explain what the humorous phrase is about. I think any mention of the non-humorous phrase any higher in the article is very clearly WP:UNDUE. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I concur that the initial entry(s) should reflect the primary focus of the article which is, I don't think arguably, the contemporary identification of the satirical concept in popular culture. I also found the chronological listing of prior concepts to be rather odd as would, I imagine, anyone looking to this article for information on its contemporary use.

I also understand the interesting point you raise inre prior iterations. However, I'd need to look at the sourcing provided to come to some determination in that regard and I'm about too fried by now to tackle it tonite. JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I removed Nsaa's addition of "some" to the existing prior text as unsupported by the cite. I believe we are back at (or near) the existing lede from several hours ago. JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I may be out on my own here, but the obvious question is who has written in detail about any meaning of this term? This distinction that the "Gore effect" isn't really significant if it's just about his effect on something, rather than some non-intuitive meaning, seems incorrect to me, besides being irrelevant. It's incorrect in that the Gore Effect as his influence on public perception has clearly been used in a non-intuitive sense, particularly to mean his impact on investment in green technology. Irrelevant in that nobody would be writing about either of these meanings except that the one is seen as scoring political points mainly on some blogs. I'm not sure what JohnWBarber means in saying nobody has written about the apparently earlier meaning. This detailed article is from November 2009. If we were here to cover the latest political chatter in blogs, then sure, the joke meaning is more fun. If we're trying to write a responsible article, it seems bizarre not to mention what appears to be the earlier meaning of this term, when it has been discussed in several reputable sources. Mackan79 (talk) 05:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It appears to me that your thoughts on this, though well-motivated, may be drifting into creative territory. I'm, also, somewhat doubtful that earlier iterations were anything more than, as JohnWBarber has suggested, conceptual expressions that might quite naturally spring from any writer's treatment of any personality associated consideration. Nor do I suspect that the expression ever ventured anywhere near the public lexicon as a concept independent of its namesake until the subject of this article. I've not yet looked at the sourcing, but I suspect it will take a considerable stretch to suggest documentable parity. Nor can I discount the fact (and, perhaps, some personal bias) that, as one who has had his ear to the political ground for longer than I care to remember, I've never heard of this "expression" before its current appearance in the contemporary vernacular. Has anyone?

...the obvious question is who has written in detail about any meaning of this term?

Perhaps a consideration but, for the purposes of this article and WP:UNDUE, a more obvious question might be did the concept pre-exist the current iteration as an entity both familiar and independent of its namesake in the popular culture? I'm quite doubtful, and I believe it will, and should, take some rather strong sourcing to make that case. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I feel it is completely inappropriate that our lead suggests that there is one "standard usage" of the phrase when our sourcing shows that something close to a third of the reliable sources use the term in alternate forms. The lead needs to present in roughly proportionate use. While one usage may be more widespread amongst global warming skeptics, other forms are more widely used by mainstream journalists. WP:UNDUE. WP:LEAD. Active Banana (talk) 14:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The lead needs to present in roughly proportionate use.

Were this an article attempting to address every occurence or use of the "phrase" attributable to or associated with Al Gore's public life, you would, perhaps, be quite correct. However, besides the fact that there has not yet been any demonstrable interest (or need for that matter) in the composition of such a Wikipedia treatment (perhaps there may soon be), the "Gore Effect", as an independent entity, is quite, quite unique and, IMHO, easily rises to a level warranting treatment independent of other, earlier iterations of the phrase.

In fact, I'm not sure that any legitimate encyclopedic treatment of this subject might even footnote your suggested parity. We don't have to be quite so exclusive here. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any third party evidence that any particular usage has become "quite unique"? The primary source usages by reliable sources show something quite different. Active Banana (talk) 15:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Nothing but the already provided sourcing documenting the rather well-defined nature of the satirical phrase as apparently recognized in the popular culture. I have no problem in recognizing the existence of some alternative, legitimate use of the phrase (in what universe(s) or to what degree I don't really care) outside popular culture, but THIS article addresses the former. In fact (as I saw suggested somewhere), Gore Effect (Satire) is neither objectionable nor beyond plausibility. Of course, someone would need to get busy writing that other treatment. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Active Banana, this usage of the words is notable, with extensive information on it in sources. If you can find similar coverage of the other uses, including comment on them, history of those usages, etc., then please add them to the article and you'd have a great case for more prominent treatment of those usages. Otherwise, not. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

We have more than similiar coverage of other uses - in fact the most reliable sources are on that usage (refs 9-20 plus others). (ie. non-opinion articles, and real journalistic pieces). As for the "history of those usages" of the humour term, it seems that the history in the current article is based mostly on a single source, and the rest is piecemeal gathered from various opinion articles. To get back to the other usage - it is the only one that i can find which has actually been mentioned in scholarly research...Here is one (and there are more):

So once more it is the "other usages" that actually hold the WP:WEIGHT of the phrase. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Answered previously and answer copied below, just for your benefit, Kim. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

We have more than similiar coverage of other uses - in fact the most reliable sources are on that usage.

Then perhaps you have the makings of an article unto itself to document and present them all. As for THIS article, it references the satirical concept currently under review in the AfD. Your suggested alternate use(s) are, however, IMHO footnoteable. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The Gore Effect is undergoing AfD review. The particular content and focus of the article at any particular time of the review has varied significantly. Active Banana (talk) 20:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The article is obviously going to survive the AFD, i believe Jack has a good idea here, move this to Gore Effect (Satire) and then you guys can create The Al Gore Effect about his global warming campaigning, i have a lot of stuff for such an article in fact :) mark nutley (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

AfD's are never "obvious" as it is not a case of vote-counting, but one of the reasons that the article has survived the AfD (imho) is that a significant number of the reliable sources in the ref-list actually belong to quite another usage of the term. And do keep in mind that during most of the AfD there has been information about the "other usages". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Kim, the most reliable sources are not making the satirical usage, and the assertions that the "satirical" meaning is clearly notable seems to be mostly bluster. Where is the coverage? Nobody discusses this term in any depth at all. A few sources, none of them very impressive, mention this joke use of the term. Under that standard we would have independent articles on every partisan claim that gets mentioned, every slur about a living person, and so on, which may be fine, except that such articles will be of extremely low quality since there is nothing to support any sort of in depth NPOV coverage. All the same, the current lead is plainly false in suggesting that this "satirical" meaning is the only significant usage in reliable sources, and I have not seen any sort of analysis which even begins to suggest that the "satirical" meaning has greater coverage in reliable sources. The best source for the joke use seems to be this very brief piece in Politico, which presents a couple of claims, and no independent discussion. Mackan79 (talk) 00:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Nobody discusses this term in any depth at all. I guess that's a judgment call on whether or not there is sufficient depth of detail here. Many editors at the AfD disagree with your view, as I do. Since the article is about the joke, the usage that happens to be notable, the article properly concentrates on that. The other uses of the term can only be sourced to examples of usage, nothing else. It would be a kind of coatracking to make them very prominent in the article, although I wouldn't mind noting in the lead that there are other uses of the words, also widespread, but we shouldn't make it look like they are also the focus of the article. You are simultaneously saying that the humorous meaning doesn't have deep enough sources to make it notable but then you want to emphasize the meanngs that have no sources at all covering them as the subject. That's inconsistent. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Please see below where I've asked you to explain your evaluation of these sources. I would delete this article, but if it's kept then clearly it should be based on the reliable sources available and not restricted to a derogatory meaning that for unclear reasons people are saying is not derogatory at all. Mackan79 (talk) 00:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I and others at the AfD discussion and here disagree with you that the meaning is derogatory. Derogatory implies that there is something Gore could have done about it. [51] No one could come away from reading this article or any reference to this meaning of "Gore effect" and think that Al Gore could have done something differently to avoid this joke. If the meetings of skeptics had to be canceled because of power blackouts due to heat waves creating overuse of air conditioners, the joke would be just as good. Even when you're the butt of a joke, it may, at bottom, be all in good fun. I haven't yet seen an explanation, in any of the reading I've done on this, that shows there's n actual criticism, even in some climate skeptic's theory, in the kernel of this. (I have seen where Glenn Reynolds equates the joke to claims made by some on Gore's side about various weather events being due to global warming [52], but that doesn't seem to be an integral part of the joke because I've only seen that once or twice.) It seems to have arisen out of coincidences. Stop trying to read too much seriousness into it. Toward the bottom of the AfD, somebody quoted the CNN weatherman in full, someone who said it's simply a joke and who agreed with Gore that the earth is warming. Clearly, the humor does not depend on antagonism toward Gore. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

"Derogatory implies that there is something Gore could have done about it" - Erh? Say what? Something can most certainly be derogatory, without the target being able to do something about it. (just think of a bad word that was once used commonly in the South of the US, that is by now extremely derogatory - but which is a consequence of being born - something i doubt anyone can do something about.). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 05:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

This has all already been addressed in a comment made to Kim D. Petersen at the AfD, days ago. What's obvious here is that WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is in full force with Kim and Active Banana, who have not responded to counterarguments already made. Instead, they simply repeat their arguments. "The Gore effect" is the kind of phrase writers tend to use to try to make their writing snappier ("the Clinton effect" [53] "the Obama effect" [54] "The Blair Effect" [a book title] [55]). The subject of the article is the meaning as a satirical joke. [...] the article covers an encyclopedic subject, not a dictionary subject, so alternate meanings are peripheral. Any further discussion about this should be on the article talk page. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC) That writers commonly use the phrase "[name of politician] effect" is not, by itself, notable or terribly important, no matter how many times they use it. For purposes of avoiding confusion among the readers, it's worth mentioning in this article the other ways the phrase has been used. That is all. Until there are sources that discuss the term the way we have been able to provide sources that discuss this meaning of the term, the WP:WEIGHT we give it in the article should be very little. First we would need to have some evidence that, like the humorous meaning, other meanings of the words have been regarded by third parties as something to write about. Until Kim and Banana can address rather than ignore this very obvious point, which has now been made repeatedly, I suggest further discussion with them on this topic is a waste of time. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

John, can you explain a little better how this applies to the sources we have? From what I can see the best source we have for the joke meaning is this article in Politico. The best article we have on the non-satirical meaning is probably this source. Are you saying that one discusses the term and the other does not? I'm not sure what anyone has said about the term, as if it offers something important to analyze, or as if there is controversy over using these terms with any particular meaning. I think you are seeing a distinction that doesn't exist. Mackan79 (talk) 00:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Your source sticks the "[politician name] effect" template on yet another phenomenon thought to be actually influenced by Al Gore. Where is the slew of sources connected with that particular meaning? Where is the bald statement, "The Gore Effect is [...]"? The only time Gore is mentioned in that source is in the headline and the first two sentences, for instance: "Some call it the Al Gore effect, others say it just makes good business sense." If you have several more sources giving the same definition, and if that's the name that most sources use for that phenomenon of green-oriented investing (I see someone just wrote Eco investing), then you have a case, but when I Google "Gore effect" and "investing" or "investor" I get mostly references to the humorous meaning. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

You are aware that your "template" idea is your personal opinion, and not something authoritative - right? It might have some basis in reality - but it is very rare that you get that homogeneous and amount of coverage for a specific template. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

John we are hearing you - we are just not buying it (no matter how authoritarian you attempt to write it). Could you try to tone down on your personalizations here? People can disagree without being deaf and dumb you know.... --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

You mean "authoritatively". Repeatedly not addressing the points made to you while continuing to repeat discredited points is disruptive. About what I've called the "template" -- it's more than my opinion: see "the Clinton effect" [56] "the Obama effect" [57] "The Blair Effect" (a book title) [58]. But I repeat myself. There does seem to be that homogeneous and amount of coverage for a specific template for the satirical meme meaning that is what this article is about. If you're hearing me, Kim (I already know that Mackan79 is), then please respond to my points as I'm giving you the respect of attending to and responding to yours. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

A few things: Repeating arguments doesn't make them correct. Silence doesn't mean that people have conceded an argument - it may mean that they left you beating the dead horse (since your arguments have been addressed). Your claim that arguments have been "discredited" is opinion - not fact. Your links do not show what you want them to: All it shows is that templates can be used as such, not that they always are. (think about it - it would invalidate the "joke" as well - if that was the case). Your claim that there is a satirical "meme" is your opinion - some of us feel that it barely touches "meme"-status (ie. notability, and only a few sources). Do keep in mind: Repeatedly going for editors instead of arguments or trying to "discredit" is a sign of battle-mentality. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 05:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

@Kim, the only arguments for it`s deletion thus far is WP:IDONTLIKEIT, that will not wash you might want to try some actual policy based arguments mark nutley (talk) 22:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

That's just false, Mark. I've personally discussed the facts that none of these sources provide "significant coverage" under WP:Notability, and that under WP:NPOV this material should be included in Al Gore and the environment ("The accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a given subject are treated in one article except in the case of an article spinout.") This is a joke that nobody has explained other than in extremely cursory fashion; I don't believe there's any encyclopedic basis for calling this a topic for an encyclopedia article. Mackan79 (talk) 00:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Nope Mark, that isn't the only argument. The trouble here (and what i've been saying the whole time), is that the coverage is quite frankly dismal. Opinion articles mostly (primary sources of usage - not of describing it). As said elsewhere the only real reference is the Politico article (i'm not counting the leisure item in The Globe and Mail "almanac", since ... well ... its a leisure item which takes its definition from urbandictionary - which isn't a reliable source). There is no real notable coverage outside of opinion articles (and not even there, since the demographical distribution of those opinion articles is extremely small). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Post-AfD Break

As the AfD resolution offers an opportunity to re-focus on the introductory text, I thought it might be productive to pick up here where we left off.

Here is a suggested text with some additional minor edits now better supported by the RfD resolution and my subsequent comments...

The "Gore Effect" is a satirical concept suggesting an absurd causal relationship between observed or unseasonably cold weather phenomena and global warming associated events, with particular emphasis on those associated with appearances of former U.S. Vice President and Nobel Peace Prize recipient Al Gore.

I substituted "observed" for "unusual" as not all of the supporting citations suggest "unusual" or non-routine cold-weather phenomena as part of the equation.

I re-entered "concept" as opposed to "phrase" to better differentiate between the article subject and the suggested but incidental alternative uses that have been cited.

I still support the use of the qualifying word "absurd" both to satisfy POV objections and to emphasize the satirical nature of the article subject. I also agree with Hipocrite's observation that use of the word is highly appropriate as a descriptive for satire and am somewhat surprised at the objections raised to its suggested use.

N.B. This is the FIRST sentence only. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I have seen the sources describe it as "humorous" and "ironic" and "only half ironic", but not "satire". The source that we are using for the definition does not use any qualifiers. Active Banana (talk) 18:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Please clarify your observation. I believe I have seen it referred to as "satire", but I'm not sure where. Nor am I clear that the obvious nature of the concept as satire (political if you will) necessarily mandates sourcing. If you want to make that a sticking point on some basis, then please state your basis and/or a suggested text you might consider more appropriate. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Characterisations within an article should be made and supported by reliable sources. Active Banana (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Very well, so you raise, I'll assume, a WP:OR objection. Assuming the word "satire" is not supportable, your suggested text would be...what? JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Because things that (at least so far) have been deemed acceptable reliable sources have used those descriptors. In following the lead of the sources, we are not stumbling into OR territory.Active Banana (talk) 21:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• "humorous" "half-seriously"
• "only half ironic"
• "asinine" - If we go by the highest quality source, it would be this one.

Since an RS utilizing "satire" as a characterization is not yet identified, replacing "satirical" with "humorous" in the proposed text; also removing "absurd" as a now unnecessary (and also non-sourced) qualifier.

The "Gore Effect" is a humorous concept suggesting a causal relationship between observed or unseasonably cold weather phenomena and global warming associated events, with particular emphasis on those associated with appearances of former U.S. Vice President and Nobel Peace Prize recipient Al Gore.

JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

closing this as it`s getting ugly mark nutley (talk) 22:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Gore effect is a reference to the apparently and anecdotal relationship of sudden cold weather and appearances of former U.S. Vice President and Nobel Peace Prize recipient Al Gore at global warming associated events. Its rather funny how close Hipocrite is to slang and abusive mud slinging used in the Urban dictionary, e.g. The phenomenon whereby right-wing climate change denialists grasp onto any weather event not involving wildfire occurring in the same hemisphere that Al Gore is visiting and use it to "prove" that climate change is a myth. How come ? Polentario (talk) 18:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Please cease your personal attacks. Hipocrite (talk) 18:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Polentario, are you aware of the climate change sanctions? (WP:GSCC.) You're liable to have a complaint filed against you at WP:GSCCRE, if it hasn't happened already. Please limit your comments to something constructive. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Hmm Hypocite is calling sceptics "denialists" and "rightwing". Art least for a German, thats a sort of libel. Polentario (talk) 19:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Sorry, are you accusing me of breaking a law? Hipocrite (talk) 19:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC) No he is not, he is just making a passing remark, i think it`s time to drop this thread mark nutley (talk) 19:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC) "The Gore effect is a reference..." is a rather poor start for an encyclopaedia article. It's a phenomenon, a slur, a joke, a phrase that refers to...but it's not a reference. A reference is not a noun (except, of course, when it's used as shorthand for "a cited reference"). Guettarda (talk) 19:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Compare Pauli effect. It seems to work there. Polentario (talk) 19:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Nope, doesn't work there either. Guettarda (talk) 19:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Appearance and background {{primary}}?

In the section The Gore Effect#Appearance and background a tag {{primary}} was added. Can anyone explain this tagging? As far as I see theres no rationale for it. Nsaa (talk) 22:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Becasue some editors here think the sources are unreliable mark nutley (talk) 22:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

No, that would be tagged with {{rs}}. Guettarda (talk) 22:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Because the section has been synthesised from primary sources, for the most part. The tag explains the rationale pretty well. Guettarda (talk) 22:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

NPOV the third

This article fails to be written from an NPOV. There are multiple POVs on the temperature at Harvard University during Gore's lecture in October 2008. One POV is that it was near 125 year lows - this is the POV held by a Washington Times editor. Another POV is that the temperature was perfectly normal - this is the POV held by the NOAA and other weather data maintainers. There are the same multiple POVs about the temperature at global warming rally held in New York City - some think it was "one of the coldest days in the city`s history," while others believe it was "not one of the coldest days in the city`s history." Only one is expressed. Further, there are multiple POVs about the meaning of the term. Some think it refers to a relationship between cold weather and appearances of former U.S. Vice President and Nobel Peace Prize recipient Al Gore at global warming associated events, while yet others believe it describes Gore's impact in raising global warming as a public issue, particularly following his 2006 documentary An Inconvenient Truth. One of these is granted the privlidged position of being first, while the other is arguably far more prominent. Thus, I have inserted the POV tag, as I've done before, outside of NSAA's constant reverts. Hipocrite (talk) 18:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

How 'bout inserting the referenced information? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite, in consideration of the AfD decision, is your POV objection as to "the meaning of the term" now moot? JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

No. Why would it be? Untill the page is moved to "The Gore Effect (something)" and this page replaced with either the more common use of the term or alternatively a disambiguation page, that objection will last, and I repeat that only one POV with respect to the temperature at various locations at various days ignores the reliable PoV expressed by the NOAA and other temperature archives, relying soley on the opinion of far-right opinion columns. Both attempts to remove the one pov, and attempts to insert the other PoV have been reverted - you suggest I try again - I instead suggest that someone who is typically seen as a denialist instead write for the enemy. Hipocrite (talk) 15:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

On The Toronto Globe and Mail as a reliable source

Kim D. Petersen has added a "reliable sources" tag to the information sourced to the Toronto Globe and Mail. [59] I'm reverting that edit, and the revert should not be reverted until it gets consensus here. When a newspaper publishes information under the newspapers name, we should assume it is reliably sourced unless there is a clear reason to doubt it. The Toronto paper quotes the Urban Dictionary because the Toronto newspaper believes the information is reliable. By citing the Toronto paper, we cite a reliable source for the information. The information cited is consistent with everything else we know about that phrase (although it doesn't mean there aren't other meanings, as we point out elsewhere in the article). Ther is no need for a "reliable sources" tag.

This point has been brought up repeatedly in the AfD, as Kim should know. Here's one comment about it:

Keep per many above. Sourcing is plenty adequate for notability. Synthesis by others reported elsewhere is fine. Urban Dictionary origin is fine, since it's now clear that usage is RS'ed to mainstream. [...] Jclemens (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I commented on it here, responding to Active Banana: Cut-and-paste is just fine for Wikipedia as long as the cutter-and-paster's organization is a reliable source. It's the source's judgment we're relying on, not the source's originality. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC) And I commented on this again at 19:12, 10 June

On matters that an editor knows have been contentious, the proper place to start objecting is on the talk page, not with edits directly to the article. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe that editors involved with the climate change article have objected to the use of newspapers as sources before, including the New York Times. The regulars at the RS Noticeboard were non-plussed, to say the least, by that attitude. Perhaps I should make that another question for examination in the ongoing case. Cla68 (talk) 23:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with using a newspaper as a source, and everything to do with what the newspaper article is. As we all know not everything in a newspaper is reliable in general or in context. This particular "article" seems to be a leisure item, or a "filler", where you tell something amusing, which may or may not be correct. The true reference is the urbandictionary - which as far as i know - isn't a reliable source. (self-published, and not particularly known for its editorial control). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)btw. your description of the RS/N discussion on a particular NYT item - is quite POV (or in other words, there are more than your opinion about what conclusions to draw from it). And it has exactly no relevance here - unless you really think that everything written in a newspaper is per default reliable (which is false). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Any claim that any source should always be considered a reliable source is nonsense. In this instance, the relevent content is 101 words about this topic. 23 are direct quote from a user generated content site, 31 are a summary of events also dependant upon that user generated content. Of the remaining: "AL GORE EFFECT, THE" the title "According to urbandictionary.com, this is" the attribution to the user generated content "It happened in Canada this year, sort of," sort of???? "Peter Scowen" the author of this segment. Active Banana (talk) 23:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a reason to believe the newspaper was not careful about what it published? Newspapers quote people all the time, including quoting sources they believe are correct. What's different about this? Do you have reason to believe that the newspaper didn't check the accuracy of what "Urban Dictionary" said? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe that most editors (at least I am) would be very hesitant about using content in an article that is simply a reliable source quoting an unnamed sourced. That is exactly the equivilent of the content that we are using in this article - a generally reliable source quoting from an unnamed source.* So yes, I think it is below wikipedia's standards to use this as a reference even though it might technically fit within our definitions. *In this case it is not completely unnamed source they are quoting since we can go to urbandictionary.com- it is aparently Bill Calvin (William Calvin?) not someone that we have any reason to believe has any particular standing to provide a valid definition. Active Banana (talk) 00:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I asked you Do you have reason to believe that the newspaper didn't check the accuracy of what "Urban Dictionary" said? because I thought you were assuming that the writer did no further checking. I assume the writer had reason to believe the term went well beyond a simple "Urban Dictionary" definition. I assume that because I did it myself when researching sources for the article. Google is very easy for a writer to use. Wikipedia assumes that when something appears in a newspaper that otherwise appears to be a reliable source, that the information is reliable for reasons not explicitly stated in the report. You should have a reason before declaring the report is unreliable. Simply that the newspaper happened to quote an Internet 2.0 source is not enough. Anything a journalist writes for a newspaper, particularly under that journalist's own by-line, is supposed to be accurate, or at least not misleading. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

See answer just below (something which btw. has been raised before). Nb: Things that are in a in a newspaper are not by default reliable - it depends on the amount of editorial control - the pure news journalism is considered the most reliable, articles/focus items less, leisure section less, editorials less, opinion articles less, down to the letters somewhere along the way which are not considered reliable at all. To make it even more complicated the author of a particular column/article may also be an item (ie. is he/she generally considered accurate, highly regarded journalist etc etc.) [doesn't count in regular news btw]. A political columnist writing about science is considerably less reliable than a science columnist writing on the subject and vice versa. Reliability is not black/white. And as said - this particular piece seems to be a leisure item. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

A specific "Reason to doubt" is required to question reputable sources which would be otherwise beyond doubt. It is not needed for sources which are not really considered reputable to begin with, such as a self published book without editorial control or a similar website (urban dictionary).--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

There are several "reasons to doubt" about that piece - one of the very first is the title "almanac", almanacs are not usually reliable. The second is on the same lines: This is most likely a leisure/culture/entertainment item in the newspaper - which are generally also not reliable (not regular journalism => less editorial control => lower RS level). And the final one i will give, is that the "almanac" piece is comprised of piecemeal gathered from various other sources (notice the stub-like sections, and the many different authors). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood my comment. I wasn't asking for any reasons. I just said that for non-reputable sources no specific reason of doubt are needed. non-reputable sources are simply not good enough to establish anything (contested) on their own in WP.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes. I see what you mean. Guess i have to slow down on commenting in the middle of (my) night, when i'm really focusing on programming :) Sorry for that. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 04:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

If you don't agree with what a newspaper is saying, all you need to do is attribute it: "The Toronto Globe and Mail stated that..." and then move on. The reader can then check the source and decide on their own how much credibility to give it. Cla68 (talk) 01:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the material should stay more or less as-is except that the Urban Dictionary also should be linked as it is important to the sourcing. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. I don't think anyone will disagree with that. Done. [60] The footnote has Web links to both the newspaper and Urban Dictionary, by the way. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Please see: WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary: Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a slang, jargon or usage guide. The goal of this project is to create an encyclopedia." What one needs is an article about the topic. TFD (talk) 01:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

In some cases in the past in articles which successfully passed FA or GA, I have linked to a primary source along with the secondary source that is referencing it within the footnote. I think SBHB's suggestion is fine. Cla68 (talk) 02:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

RE: "Do you have a reason to believe the newspaper was not careful about what it published? " Yes, I do. See this note on the top of the Urban dictionary page for "Gore Effect." "The Gore Effect isn't defined yet, but these are close:" Do you still say that we automatically should be trusting this source that is basing a claim on a source that specifically identifies the material in question as unreliable ? Active Banana (talk) 02:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Phrase "Gore Effect" - Dubious source(s)?

This is troublesome. Here is one of the sources purporting to support an alternative use of the phrase "The Gore Effect"...

Title:carbon, climate change and A1 Gore's movie effect on choices for future electric power generation

Body:But it's clear that for now, carbon, climate change and A1 Gore's movie are having a major effect [61]

"Gore" and "effect" in close proximity are decidedly not alternative uses of the phrase, "Gore Effect". Mackan, anyone. Do you find this source to be legitimate? JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a Google combiner harvest. To be dismissed. Polentario (talk) 05:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

"Gore effect" doesnt appear in the free preview portion, but that doesnt mean that it isnt used later in the article. Do you have access to the whole article to know that it doesnt? Active Banana (talk) 11:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It should be cut. The full "article" is here[62]. First of all because it doesn't use Gore effect in any way - and secondly because its a leisure/opinion item, and not really reliable for anything. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I commend your forthrightness in this deletion.

As the AfD resolution appears to support this article subject as identifiably unique and quite independent of other suggested uses, might those who supported the case for "parity" consider paring the lengthy list of citations to a few that might best support that content? JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

See the section below.Active Banana (talk) 16:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

In however or in whatever place this content gets incorporated, the citation list is needlessly lengthy...and rather odd-looking. It appears to have been assembled to make a point made all but moot by the AfD resolution and no longer really serves any purpose. IMHO, nothing is lost by paring it down to a few of the most representative citations. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Split Article?

Given the bickering over which is the most common usage of the term with one being the humorous version regarding AGW meets which is what this article is actually about, and the not so well known The Al Gore Effect (On Climate Change Perception) I propose the following, An article is created The Al Gore Effect for usage of the term regarding his effect on raising awareness on AGW, with a link to that in the see also section here, thoughts? mark nutley (talk) 16:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

No. You cannot grant your prefered use of the term privlidged status - there are far, far more uses of the term to mean the effect Al Gore had on public perceptions of global warming. Turning this page into a disambig of the two terms is fine, but putting the more widely used phrase in the ghetto is not acceptable. Hipocrite (talk) 16:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Fully support Hipocrite. Active Banana (talk) 16:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

You are incorrect hipocrite, the gore effect about the weather, The other is usually called The Al Gore Effect to do with his raising awareness, any other objections? mark nutley (talk) 16:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Mark, your unvarnished assertion is belied by the reference count. Hipocrite (talk) 16:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps even more salient (and as has been commented upon, I believe, several times already), I have yet to see any (and I mean even ONE) source suggesting that some alternative reference or use of "The Gore Effect" isn't simply an incidental and/or convenient turn of phrase as opposed to a concept that has made its way into the public lexicon. This repetition of an apparently unsupportable contention is beginning to approach obduracy level. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

As compared to that ultra reliable source Urban dictionary? Active Banana (talk) 17:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

You have recourse to pursue any RS objection you might have within WP:RS/N. I'd suggest you take your observation there to, perhaps, elevate your observation to something more than your opinion. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's be clear - I have no problem with using the globe and mail to refer to UD. I do, however, have a problem with placing the definition you don't like into a ghetto because... well, there's a reason, but I haven't seen it yet. I made it clear I was fine with disambiguating this page into Gore Effect (satire or whatever) and Gore Effect (public policy or whatever). It seems that if editors were playing fair, that would be seen as a fair compromise from my preferred position of merge and redirect to Al Gore and the Environment, or rewrite this article with public policy as the main topic. However, I realize that accepting a compromise up front is weakness, and so I'll be forced to defend from a position of reasonablness against unrelenting hordes of less-than-willing-to-play-fair individuals, per my talk page essay User:Hipocrite#Why_encyclopedic_editors_lose_to_POV_pushers. Please demonstrate that you're trying to encyclopedia by accepting my compromise position. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 17:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Hipocrite you are wrong now just as you were above about the cold weather in NYC. Look at the refs about his campaigning, the Al Gore effect the Al Gore Effect the Al Gore effect this Al Gore Effect the Al Gore effect the Al Gore effect All your refs call the campaigning crap The Al Gore Effect, not The Gore Effect mark nutley (talk) 17:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

But, Mark, everyone except you realizes I was right about the weather in NYC. Hipocrite (talk) 17:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

No you were not, look at all the links i provided. But never mind that for now, comment on the fact that the refs you say support the gore effect`s most common meaning is about his campaigning when those refs actually say "The Al Gore effect" this appears to be misrepresenting sources mark nutley (talk) 17:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

So you alledge that all of the refs from 8-20 in the current article say "Al Gore Effect," and none of them say "Gore Effect?" Is that your position statement? Hipocrite (talk) 17:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Lets See shall we?

• 8 the Al Gore effect

• 9 the Al Gore Effect

• 10 the Al Gore effect

• 11 this Al Gore Effect

• 12 the Al Gore effect

• 13 the Al Gore effect

• 14 Does not mention any gore effect, this needs to be removed

• 15 the Al Gore

• 8the Gore Effect this is one calling political stuff the gore effect

• 16 This is in dutch

• 17 the Al Gore effect

• 11the Al Gore effect

• 18 the Al Gore effect

So there you go, of all those refs only one equate the gore effect to campaigning mark nutley (talk) 17:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. How about [63], The Australian Green Consumer Guide: Choosing Products for a Healthier Home? Hipocrite (talk) 17:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Further, doesn't the key source used in this article - [64], define what you think is the "Gore Effect" as the "Al Gore Effect?" It seems the phrases are interchangable, no? Hipocrite (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The CNN transcript also uses "Al Gore Effect." Is there any evidence that "Gore Effect" exists at all? Hipocrite (talk) 17:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

actually *14 the Al Gore Effect Active Banana (talk) 17:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Interesting, proved wrong again and you move the goalposts. No the phrases are not interchangeable as the majority of refs with the phrase "the gore effect" are about the joke and not his campaigning so either another article is created for [[The Al Gore Effect {climate change campaigning)]] or a lot of sources will be misrepresented here mark nutley (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Which refs use "Gore Effect?" Hipocrite (talk) 17:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Go take a look yourself, you can always assume good faith on my part that the majority of refs refering to bad weather are called the gore effect. But as you are once again proved wrong shall we begin to remove the misrepresented refs? and move them to The Al Gore Effect (Climate Change Campaigning)

Mark, are you suggesting we remove all references that state "Al Gore effect" as opposed to "Gore effect?" I guess I could get on board with that if it's what you're arguing we do... Hipocrite (talk) 18:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't create two articles, just because, well, this is not significant enough. I would have the article focus on the dumb joke Gore Effect, and include a subsection noting the usage of the phrase "al gore effect" with a different meaning within the article.--Milowent (talk) 18:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Milowent`s suggestion is reasonable, a subsection titled Other uses of the phrase might be a good way to go mark nutley (talk) 18:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The sources used for the claim "Gore Effect On Climate Change Perception" are useless as a reliable source. All of them are +- primary sources. No article has mentioned the expression more than one time or talks about a specific use or other sources. Two articles use the same sentence "Some call it the Al Gore effect, others say it´s just makes good business sense",so just copyand paste but give no indication who uses the AG effect in the mentioned sense. There is NO further indication about the use of Gore effect AG On Climate Change Perception anywhere or by anybody more specific then "some". Polentario (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose the proposal. I mentioned in the AfD that half the sources in this article show a different usage than our purported definition, and yet that no sources discuss the various meanings together. Along with the fact that this is basically a joke which no sources have discussed in any detail, this strongly suggests to me that we do not have a topic here for an encyclopedia article, but rather several non-articles. The idea of creating multiple articles on each usage is not an improvement. The distinction between "Gore effect" and "Al gore effect" also seems meaningless, given that there is no more or less meaning for any of the usages regardless of which is used. In any case, to the extent we have an article, we need to figure out how to cover the various uses in due weight. Mackan79 (talk) 20:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Numerous sources for ignored definition

I'm not sure how people are disputing that there is an equally notable use of this term to refer to Al Gore's efforts and impact in galvanizing a public response to climate change. There are many sources that use and describe the term with this meaning.

• "In doing so, he was only responding to rising concern in the US about global warming, a disquiet brought about as much by Hurricane Katrina and other climatic aberrations as the Al Gore effect — the relentless campaign to alert the world to the issue by the man Bush did not win against. .... Gore's shadow, and the possibility that he may be a last-minute stealth candidate, has alerted a plethora of presidential aspirants on both sides to a potent issue. ... Next only to Gore, the man who has changed the tone of the debate is California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger who has moved to reduce state greenhouse gas emissions by 11% by 2010, 25% by 2020 and 80% by 2050." Global Warning, by Chidanand Rajghatta. The Times of India. June 5, 2007.
• "Some call it the Al Gore effect, others say it just makes good business sense. Concern about climate change, popularized by the former U.S. vice-president, has helped to accelerate interest in green and socially responsible investing, say industry experts. In six years, the assets of socially responsible investment (SRI) funds have grown nearly 10-fold to $609 billion from $65.5 billion, according to the Social Investment Organization, a non-profit association that is the voice for the socially responsible investment industry in Canada." Gore Effect Spawns Green Investing, By Ross Marowits. New Brunswick Business Journal. November 2, 2009. (This entire article is directly on the subject.)
• "But with “sustainability” now a buzzword in nearly every industry, green is becoming the new normal in luxury hotels. According to the International Ecotourism Society, the eco-tourism category grew three times faster than the industry as a whole in 2004. Marketers attribute the growth to a group they call “metrospirituals” — hybrid-driving, yoga-practicing baby- and echo-boomers for whom social responsibility and seeking out new adventures are a way of life. ... No doubt surging energy costs and media attention to climate change are powering this Al Gore effect." Easy Being Green, by Heidi Mitchell. The New York Times. September 4, 2006.
• "Whether it's the Al Gore effect or just the new reality, the school of thought on Canadian business campuses these days is that there's potentially a lot of green in being green. Call it economics meets the environment if you will, and with corporate Canada jumping on board, academia is along for the ride." Learning to make money from going green, by Lisa Wright. The Toronto Star. December 17, 2007.
• "As Al Gore and the panel have told us with great authority, there is no longer any serious scientific debate about the catastrophic consequences we will face if we continue our unsustainable burning of fossil fuels." Letter to the editor by Eric Chivain, M.D. The New York Times. October 16, 2007. (Editor's heading: "On the Gore Effect: The Nobel and the Politics")
• "Jack Freele, who co-founded the New England Rain Barrel Company with his wife Joan, said Acton was one of the first towns to partner with his company to offer the barrels at a discounted rate. ... Freele said interest in rain barrels has definitely grown in recent years, but isn’t quite sure why. 'Demand seems to really be a lot more intense this year,” he said. “I’m not sure if it’s water bills going up or the Al Gore effect or what. … But something’s going on.'" Barrels offered to save water, by Christian Schiavone. GateHouse News Service. April 23, 2008.
• "Ook zou het Al-Gore effect zijn uitgewerkt. Door de film 'An Inconvenient Truth' nam vorig jaar de aandacht voor milieuproblemen sterk toe." Rough translation "Also the Al Gore effect may have been developed. Last year, the film "An Inconvenient Truth" strongly increased the attention to environment problems." Ledental milieuorganisaties daalt. Nederlandse Omroep Stichting. 21 dec 2008.
• "Career suicide? Not on the West Coast, which has become a destination for a growing number of professionals in their 30s who are abandoning well-paying jobs to work in the sustainability field - a phenomenon one might call the Al Gore Effect." Trading Wall Street's greenbacks for B.C.'s green conscience, by Adriana Barton. The Globe and Mail. May 14, 2007.

I would think that the above sources show a consistent usage of this term, at least on par with any other usage that is currently discussed in the article. Note that a couple of sources which I have not included do use this term in a general sense, perhaps including this article in CNN (and the 2004 use by Tim Howard relating to Gore's endorsement of Howard Dean). However, all of the above seem to be consistent. I welcome anyone else to provide their own review (in detail and with direct comparisons to other sources, please, so that we can remain focused). Mackan79 (talk) 20:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

None (NOT ANY) of those sources shows a use of the purported effect besides the article. There is not much of a definition, here is no perspective on use by a specified person or group (neither sceptics nor weathermen nor speakers of comittees). Something like " I’m not sure if it’s water bills going up or the Al Gore effect or what" is not too helpful either. No need to split up, just ignore. I would assume its just a deviation from the one and real Gore efect we know and have now in WP. Polentario (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I would think that the above sources show a consistent usage of this term, at least on par with any other usage that is currently discussed in the article.

Mackan, please. They are all over the map, with only 2 even utilizing the format of a familiar, identifiable, definable concept, capitalizing the "E"...and both of those "defining" it differently. Here's your list again...further digested...

• the AL Gore effect: rising concern in the US about global warming

• the Al Gore effect: accelerate(d) interest in green and socially responsible investing

• ...this Al Gore effect: eco-tourism (metrospirituals) category grew three times faster than the industry as a whole in 2004

• the Al Gore effect...:the school of thought...that there's potentially a lot of green in being green.

• the Gore Effect: The Nobel and the Politics

• the Al Gore effect: interest in rain barrels has definitely grown in recent years

• the Al Gore effect: strongly increased the attention to environment problems

• the Al Gore Effect: abandoning well-paying jobs to work in the sustainability field

NONE of these possess a common understanding in popular culture as does the subject of this article, and its uniqueness and independence have now been resolved by the RfD. Isn't it time to WP:JUSTGIVEITUP? JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Our sourcing policy gives clear priority to scholarly sources: Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources where available. If you take a look at the scholarly literature, this strongly supports the notability of this usage. On the other hand, I cannot find any scholarly sources that support the "magic effect on weather" meaning. For example:

• Attitudes towards CO2 taxation - is there an Al Gore effect?
• Poverty alleviation as big business
• The Al Gore Effect: An Inconvenient Truth and Voluntary Carbon Offsets
• Is Green the New Black? Reflections on a Green Commodity Discourse
• The Australian Green Consumer Guide: Choosing Products for a Healthier Home (Published by an academic press)

Guettarda (talk) 21:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Please get back to content. the expression "Gore effect" is mentioned once per entry, always in a sort of passing by style, never explained nor attributed to anything or anyone of any importance. Insofar not useable as a source. Polentario (talk) 21:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

No, not really. While I don't have access to the first article, its abstract makes it pretty clear that it actually is an analysis of the "Gore effect". And if it's the title of the paper, it's pretty safe to say that it's more than "passing mention". The third paper is also explicitly about a 'Gore effect'. The fourth paper first explains what it means by the 'Gore effect', and then uses the phrase later on when it refers to what it discussed earlier. The other two only use the term, but it's pretty clear from the context how they are using it. The article is, of course, based on examples of usage. Here we actually have articles - scholarly discussion, not op-eds - that analyse the term and what it means. Guettarda (talk) 00:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Our sourcing policy gives clear priority to scholarly sources...

Unfortunately "scholarly sources" are probably not likely to be found referencing the "Gore Effect" subject of this article though I'd surmise they may eventually appear within some not-too-distant future poli-sci treatment of the subject. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

LOVELY reasoning by both Polentario and JakeInJoisey /cough cough urbandictionary cough cough/Active Banana (talk) 21:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Guettarda's sources seem to be extremely persuasive. Polentario, are you really claiming that the sources, such as this one, only use the term once while passing by? I would like to work for consensus here, but it will be hard to work with that kind of position. Mackan79 (talk) 23:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Polentario or JakeInJoisey, but frankly neither of their comments seem attentive or serious. This article, as annotated above, is entirely about the "Gore effect," offering numerous examples of the sudden increase in attention to climate change. Detailed statistics are offered in several to show this sudden increase (particularly in investment). Jake says, "NONE of these possess a common understanding in popular culture as does the subject of this article, and its uniqueness and independence have now been resolved by the RfD." This is nonsensical: a.) uniqueness and independence could not be established by any AfD, b.) uniqueness and independence are not any sort of relevant standard, c.) nor is "a common understanding in popular culture" any sort of standard, and d.) nothing Jake says makes any attempt to compare the sources for the two different usages. Polentario says the phrase is only used once, passingly, in each of these sources, which is simply false: I believe every one is about the upsurge in interest relating to climate change, which is exactly what the term is used to denote. I need to look at the sources added by Guettarda, but please also consider that we are here to carefully consider sources, not to engage in advocacy. Being confrontational, writing in all caps, and harping on AfDs damages the editing environment, and please note that I will request administrative intervention if it continues. Mackan79 (talk) 23:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I haven't had time to look over all these sources, but there seems to be an impressive number of them. Is there a single alternative, specific definition that a good number of sources can be found to support? Do we have sourcing that covers the concept in depth for that definition? For each definition that has sourcing at least as detailed and reliable as the joke definition, we should have coverage in the encyclopedia. Please see WP:DICDEF and the first table there, lower right-hand box. I'm not very familiar with that policy, but my impression is that it indicates separate articles are in order. Am I wrong? Please keep in mind that we just got a consensus from, what? 40 or so editors for an article on this particular subject attached to the humorous definition. No matter how many other sources you have, that simply isn't going to be enough to remove this definition from having essentially it's own article. I'd also like to know what the relationship would be between one of these alternate devinitions and the "Eco-finance" article I mentioned somewhere above on this page. updated -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The article here, titled "The Al Gore Effect: An Inconvenient Truth and Voluntary Carbon Offsets," is an in depth treatment of the effectiveness of An Inconvenient Truth as an "awareness campaign" to motivate public action, in which the author tests whether communities in which the film was shown had an increase in purchases of carbon offsets. The article here, titled "Attitudes towards CO2 taxation - is there an Al Gore effect?", seems to present similar testing and analysis. Those are two of the articles Guettarda presented, and of course you can see relevant quotes from several business and general interest pieces above. For instance, the article "Gore effect spawns green investing," in the New Bunswick Business Journal, notes "In six years, the assets of socially responsible investment (SRI) funds have grown nearly 10-fold to $609 billion from $65.5 billion, according to the Social Investment Organization, a non-profit association that is the voice for the socially responsible investment industry in Canada." The general theme is that there has been a very dramatic increase in public response to climate change over the last few years, which is attributed to Gore. Personally I have not seen anything like this treatment of the "joke" meaning; I keep asking, but I can't get anyone to present the sources that show the significant coverage of that use. Proper treatment here is something to discuss; my view is that two articles on the "Gore Effect" would make us look even sillier than this article does by itself, since clearly both could be discussed in an article like Al Gore and the environment. But of course I'm open to ideas. Mackan79 (talk) 03:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Mackan...contrary to your assertions, the AfD determination indicates that sourcing requirements and notability criteria as presented by contributors to the AfD and examined (with some rather laudatory compliments to the examiner) were sufficient to satisfy Wikipedia requirements for the existence and continuing development of an article addressing the satirical use of the term "Gore Effect" independent of any other use considerations. While I understand your desire to re-debate the question, that time has come and gone...at least for now. Let's get on with writing the article as currently identified and see how it develops. JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

"independent of any other use considerations" ... erh? No. First of all that is something that cannot be determined at an AfD, and secondly it is an incorrect description of the AfD. The AfD participants were evaluating an article where this alternate use was mentioned - and afaicr there was no statement that other uses shouldn't be here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 05:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

As I read the AfD determination, reference is made specifically to the satirical use of the term "Gore Effect" and no reference is made to any other purported use of the term. I believe "independent of any other use consideration" legitimately represents the AfD position. You, of course, are free to interpret it in any manner of your choosing.

...afaicr there was no statement that other uses shouldn't be here.

That is not my position. The AfD addressed the Wikipedia propriety of presenting an article focusing on the satirical use of the term as is, I'd suggest, rather clear in the examiner's closing comments. That affords, IMHO, WP:WEIGHT to the subject as political satire and that other suggested uses do not have WP:WEIGHT parity in this article. As has already been suggested, an "Other Uses" section appears to be an appropriate and workable approach barring, of course, the treatment of suggested "other uses" in an article independent of this one. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

See the closers comment: [65] Active Banana (talk) 15:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

And? What? JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Any claim that the closer intended the article to be only addressing the unusual cold weather at Gores appearances is false. Active Banana (talk) 16:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm unsure why you raise the issue, apparently directed at my comment(s). I make no such claim. But, as long as we're discussing it (again), the examiner's comment (about which I was previously unaware or, perhaps, failed to take adequate note of) is worthy of note here...

Yes---The_Gore_Effect#Other_use_of_the_phrase, and that would be a place wherein I would expect those who have a differing view on the term to step forward and ensure that those different usages are covered.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

That pretty much echoes my observations on the WP:WEIGHT issue. I suggest you re-read my comments above. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Jake, your claim that an AfD can establish the respective weight that should be given to different meanings of this term is plainly incorrect as a matter of any Wikipedia policy or practice. I would like to ask that anyone who opposes discussing the different meanings of this term prominently in the lead explain their opposition with specific regard to the sources available. Note again that at the top of this section we have some dozen articles discussing the use of this term to refer to Al Gore's effect on the public response to climate change. If these do not create "due weight" to be discussed prominently in the lead of this article, there needs to be a specific explanation of how another use has received much more discussion among reliable sources. Mackan79 (talk) 21:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Last time for me on this Mackan...and only because I respect the depth of your belief (albeit what is increasingly appearing to me to be approaching obduracy) in your position...(which, I should have hastened to add, is probably mutual).

...your claim that an AfD can establish the respective weight that should be given to different meanings of this term...

Let's be precise here. My "statement" asserts that the AfD close (and, subsequently, the examiner's more specific response) DID establish A respective weight. That is QUITE clear (esp. see the response to Active Banana's query). Can we agree on that? JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

What is quite clear isL "ensure that those different usages are covered." with no statement at all of how much weight to give to any usage. That would be covered by WP:UNDUE which says that the article covers the perspectives of the topic in approximate weight by which they are covered by reliable sources. Active Banana (talk) 03:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

See also again

I removed Cherry picking and Confirmation bias as requiring explanation. It would make sense to include them in the body, if sources could be obtained, but not as unadorned "See also" links. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Why do you feel that those see-also links require explanation? Have you reviewed WP:SEEALSO, which states "Links included in the "See also" section may be useful for readers seeking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question." But, of course, I'll find sources. However, I'll be trimming some other stuff out of See Also. Hipocrite (talk) 14:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

IIRC, the peripheral relationship must be clear (and not violate NPOV and BLP). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

So it would be acceptable, in your mind, to demonstrate the relationship by the use of unreliable sources - IE, that multiple people when discussing the Gore Effect note Confirmation Bias (I don't consider Cherry Picking to be relevent.) Not for inclusion of such sources in the article, but rather to note the relationship, or are you insisting only reliable sources for such be used? Hipocrite (talk) 14:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

If you don`t consider cherry picking to be relevant then why did you revert it back in and then demand i self revert it back in? mark nutley (talk) 15:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

That's what I get for giving an inch. Sorry, mark, you've made me reconsider. I REALLY REALLY NEED Cherry Picking in the document - I'm not going to attempt to compromise on anything. If you can pry Cherry Picking out of my hands, you should consider it a MASSIVE WIN. Hipocrite (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

What the hell are you on about? mark nutley (talk) 16:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Mark, as usual, when I attempted to find middle ground - accepting the removal of "Cherry Picking," with the hopes you would allow reinsertion of "Confirmation Bias," you took my capitulation and used it to try to pry more out of me. Basically, I gave you an inch, again, and you took a mile. It's your standard practice, and it needs to stop. Hipocrite (talk) 16:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

And again "What the hell are you on about?" Yesterday i removed cherry picking and you reverted it back in, above i ask you why and now you think i`m trying to take a mile? I have no idea what your on about mark nutley (talk) 16:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Forget it, mark. Hipocrite (talk) 16:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

(Ignoring bickering between Hipocrite and Marknutley)

(ec)Hmmm. If people note confirmation bias in regard their own use of the term "The Gore Effect", then it's probably reliable, per WP:SELFPUB. Otherwise, I'll have to think about it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Removed again, but I restored the {{content}} tag, at your request. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't consider your removal a revert, as I stated I would do so myself.

My question to you is very clear - are you requiring reliable sources for every "see also" or are you merely requesting that others have discussed the link between the phrases. Please respond to that, not to any other question. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 16:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

For a controversial #Seealso, I think we would need a (nearly) reliable source making the connection, not just evidence of the connection. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• [66]? It's not an open-blogging platform, rather it's limited only to their housebloggers. I consider it on the cusp - possibly reliable for electronic media type things, which this is. Hipocrite (talk) 16:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
• I wonder how many "skeptics" know that on average, half the places you or I or Al Gore go too will be below average (for a climate with no secular temperature trend, assuming a symmetric temperature distribution, and that we travel at random, yadayadayada...). But I agree. Google spits out some Skeptic (as in James Randy, not Jim Inhofe) websites, but nothing obviously highly reliable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

the scientific community

Re "the scientific community" - while I don't believe a WT puff-piece editorial is an appropriate source for hte opinions of "The scientific community," I'm pretty confident it dosent fail verification - first paragraph -

"...the latest victims of a climatological phenomenon known by the scientific community as the Gore Effect." Hipocrite (talk) 16:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Concur. It's an editorial, and not reliable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

template farm

Over templating and extended insertions of templates spoil the readability quality of the article. We are keeping the article so lets get rid of the issues that people want to sit templates on the article so...Lets get them removed what is the actual problem? Off2riorob (talk) 17:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Contrary to your assertion, it is considered improper to remove tags which have been discussed, while the discussion is still active, and there is no consensus for the tag removal. In particular, your removal of the {{content}} tag was based on a lack of objection for less than 10 minutes. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

NPOV template on the whole article

The whole article is disputed as not neutral, what is the content that is the actual issue? Who added this template? Off2riorob (talk) 17:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• The core problem is that there are nearly no reliable secondary sources to the term. Most sources are primary, i.e. they use the term, they don't report on it. If they report on it, they often report on it tongue-in-cheek. Some even run with the joke. There is very little serious and useful material out there. As a result, an unduly long part of the article is a simple list of sightings. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

So the issue is not actual neutrality at all and does not warrant the NPOV sitting on the whole article. You mention primary citations , the citations are not primary are they? You seem to be asserting that the phrase is only mentioned in passing in the citations, which is more actually about notability and the article has just been kept as notable. What is the actual content that is in the article that is not neutral? Templates are not supposed to sit on articles for long periods, we are here to remove and correct the specific issues that the templates were added to help correct, who added this NPOV template? Please present here the actual content it has been placed to correct. Off2riorob (talk) 17:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure they are. This is essentially primary. This is, too (picked the first two from the list, but it applies to most). These are sources that use the term, they do not do substantial reporting on it. As such, they are primary sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

No, the issue is that a notable PoV is excluded. We include the PoV of a Washington Times editorial and an Ottawa Citizen columnist with respect to the status of a specific day being "one of the coldest days in the city`s history." We exclude the PoV of the NOAA that that day was "not one of the coldest days in the city`s history."

We include the PoV expressed by a Washington Times editorial that on a specific day there were "low temperatures that challenged 125-year records." We exclude the PoV expressed by the NOAA that on a specific day there were "not low temperatures that challenged 125-year records." Attempts to remove the PoV of the Times/Ottawa Citizen were reverted. Attempts to include the PoV of the NOAA were reverted. Thus, the tag was included. Hipocrite (talk) 17:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

To Stephen, those issues do not warrant a NPOV template. The term is only an expression and reports will only mention it in the context of a bigger picture, that is not actualy a NPOV issue and does not warrant a NPOV template.Off2riorob (talk) 17:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

To Hipocrite..So add the balance and the other opinion, please present the content here for acceptance and inclusion. Off2riorob (talk) 17:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Done previously and reverted. Feel free to re-do [67]. Hipocrite (talk) 17:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

That edit is impossible to replace the article has been pretty much rewritten since then. If you think you have an addition that is needed to balance the article then present it here or the template has no value and should be removed. Off2riorob (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that edit could pretty much be redone without effort. I've done so and removed the NPOV tag. Hipocrite (talk) 18:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The question of Hipocrite's suggested edits in that regard have been addressed at several intervals in prior discussions of the prosposed edits. They are WP:OR and WP:SYN. If it would be helpful to repeat the rationale again here, I'll have a go at it but it will be yet another re-iteration of the same point/counterpoint. P.S. Can we slow down here a little and allow some reasonable time for involved editors to comment? JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll self revert back to the version with the NPOV tag, or we can remove both the false claims (regarding the coldest day and the 125 year low) and the balancing info. Which would you prefer? Hipocrite (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Which would you prefer?

I'd prefer a consensus resolution on the question of the WP:OR and WP:SYN nature of your edits...already discussed at length and, I believe, not favorably for your position. Speaking only for myself (and pending input from other editor's), I'd suggest that you revert and replace the tag. Your edits are clearly WP:OR and WP:SYN. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. It is not synthesis to use a source about temperature to rebutt claims about temperature. It is, however, a violation of V to use editorials to insert claims about temperature, especially when those claims are demonstrably false. Hipocrite (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

However, in the interest of not-edit-warring, I've self-reverted to your preferred version with tags. Hipocrite (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.

And every time you do, you will again be asked to cite reliable sources that have seen fit to echo your assertion. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what's transpiring here, but the article still contains content and citations that have been previously rejected under WP:OR and WP:SYN objections. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, well done. Off2riorob (talk) 18:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Also at issue is the repeated slanting of the article to only cover the "cold weather comes with Gore" use of the term by climate change skeptics/bloggers when such a large percentage of the much more reliable sources in the general media are using the term in a different way - the impact of Gore and the film 'IT' to change the cultural viewpoint about climate change. Active Banana (talk) 18:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Can someone explain how the number of citations went from 34 [68] to 29 [69] under the description "all cites are in the article in other locations"? Active Banana (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob removed all statements and sources to which the NPOV template might have applied, either because of questionable reliability, or because they were objectively false, but the source for the contrary information didn't refer to that specific comment, and so could not be included, per WP:SYN. He seems to be of the opinion that tags should be removed at the expense of article content. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Appearance and background

Templated as needing independent third party references, which content is this template actually related to? Off2riorob (talk) 17:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

list format

Is there an editor that that would be prepared to re write this list into a paragraph? Off2riorob (talk) 17:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps an observation first? While I may be quite wrong, I believe both the length and format of this tagged "list" and the rather ridiculously excessive number of citations currently supporting an "other uses" entry are most probably vestiges of posturing for a convincing argument on the AfD question. As the "list" objection might be characterized as "cosmetic", I'd suggest that the "onus" of a re-write is upon he/she who placed the tag. I wouldn't mind doing it eventually, but right now getting beyond some consensus on the first sentence may be problematical. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, we are likely left with a fluffing up to support keep and it could be trimmed, you are welcome along those lines to do a write and present it here for acceptance, that is what it needs. Off2riorob (talk) 18:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

See also

The relevance of particular information in this or section is disputed.

Which are the exact disputed see also links? Off2riorob (talk) 17:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

That's recent, so I can answer. Confirmation bias is disputed; Cherry picking was recently added, but I'd say consensus is clearly against inclusion at this time. We're discussing it at #See also again, above. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

So only confirmation bias is disputed? Off2riorob (talk) 17:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

But confirmation bias is not in the article, so what is the template required for? If I don't get a decent explanation for the placing of these templates I am going to remove them one by one. Off2riorob (talk) 17:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I believe so. Marknutley and I are opposed to inclusion, Hipocrite is in favor, and others seem not to have weighed in yet. Some are looking for reliable sources to include it in the body, thereby solving the problem. I don't think a tag for a discussion which opened about 24 hours ago, and is still being discussed, is really excessive, though.

The {{content}} tag reads:

Note the emphasis: "The information may have been removed or included by an editor as a result."

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not this specific template but the template farm in general. If there is no content right now that is under dispute then remove the template, the templates are destructive to the readability. If no editors object, imo it is better for the article to forget the disputed internal and remove the template, job done...no one clicks on any see also anyway, remove the template at least allows the reader to read the article, any objections to accepting the removal of confirmation bias and thus allowing the removal of the valueless template? Off2riorob (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I object. Are there any objections to inserting confirmation bias and thus allowing the removal of the valueless template? Hipocrite (talk) 17:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

What are you objecting to ? You want to insert comfirmation bias? Off2riorob (talk) 17:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

That is correct. Hipocrite (talk) 17:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

So is anyone bothered if it is inserted? No one clicks on them anyway and allowing the addition will allow the removal of the template which is detrimental to the general readability of the article. Off2riorob (talk) 17:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Replaced internal link and removed the template. Off2riorob (talk) 18:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Revert edit against clear consensus; I would be willing to both being absent, but not the link without the tag. As I noted above, two editors (including me) were opposed to the link, and only one in favor. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a "clear consensus," except clear consensus that we currently disagree. Please answer my question above, AR. Hipocrite (talk) 18:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a clear consensus that the {{content}} tag is appropriate, ignoring Off2riorob who states (in violation of guidelines) that tags are never appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm willing to replace it with an inline tag, if you prefer. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

That last removal of clearly relevant #Seealso links is absurd. {{content}} tag must now remain until the matter is resolved by consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

template addition

Author Rubin has added yet another template when the article was jusrt about readable. What is Aurhur Rubins actual issues with the content in the article now? Off2riorob (talk) 19:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

As per discussion immediately above, he believes that the section titled See also should [EDIT:should not] include 'confirmation bias' and 'cherry picking'. There is currently no section titled See also. It seems to me that a tag is overkill and serves to confuse more than to explain.--Heyitspeter (talk) 19:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Nope. I believe there should be a #Seealso section, and it should not include "confirmation bias" and "cherry picking". Also, the removal, without attempt to repair or WP:BALANCE, the material which led to the {{NPOV}} and {{primarysources}} tags being in the article, seems inappropriate. I don't see the new version as an improvement over what was there yesterday. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I hesitate to restore the {{NPOV}} tag, but it seems appropriate; sources which individually were biased were removed, rather than an attempt being made to balance the various views. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS says that where two reliable sources contradict each other, both should be covered in a balanced and unbiased way, but here you seem to be saying that unreliable sources can be included where they cancel each other out. I'm phrasing this in a way that makes it seem obviously ridiculous to make a point, and I imagine your reasoning is more subtle than this, but do you see how the conclusions you appear to reach might seem faulty to me? Answers in the form of rexplanation of your already made point would be fine. :) --Heyitspeter (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't fix the article, now; I've used 3 reverts repairing damage (perhaps indirectly) caused by Off2riorob's WP:BOLD edits, and most of what I want to do is restoring deletions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't consider any reversions of my edits to this article to be reverts for the purpose of 3rr, as I would have self reverted on request. Hipocrite (talk) 19:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:3rr is a bright line rule. No one has that prerogative.--Heyitspeter (talk) 19:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

We could have a straw poll to see how is consensus. At least we only have one template now and the content is readable to passers by that may want to get an overview. This article is a little silly comedy expression about a climate change weather conference issue that it is sometimes cold when they have conferences, it is that simple. Lets just keep it simple and move along. The reader is our ultimate consideration. The repeated addition of silly wiki templates ad nausea without a direct desire to resolve the alleged issues is detrimental to the readability of the article and therefore detrimental to the person the article is created for...the reader. Off2riorob (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) We could have a straw poll. It would be appropriate to restore most of the deletions, or to copy them to this talk page, so that the changes can be seen. I now consider the article clearly an WP:NPOV violation, in that notable points of view are omitted because they are (individually) biased.

The repeated deletion of templates while the matter is being discussed, and while there is no consensus for deletion, is generally considered improper. If the #See also section were restored without the disputed material (confirmation bias is now in the article, so need not be in #See also), and the other sections prior to the edits were copied here (with an embedded < references > tag, so that they can be seen), then, and only then, would a straw poll be appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Stability is also something that editors should hold in mind as beneficial to readers, this Gore effect phrase is a simple issue that does not need continual disruption and constant reversions, to strengthen readers trust and reliability in wikipedia a degree of stability is required, just sort the issue out and move along. Off2riorob (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Are there any editors that support Authur Rubins position? Off2riorob (talk) 19:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Stability is needed, and was present (except for the See also section) before you came here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

If I wasn't at 3RR, I would consider it an improvement to revert to yesterday's version, and add the additional material supplied by Hipocrite. As for discussion, WP:BRD suggests that Off2riorob should self-revert until consensus can be determined. "No objections for 15 minutes" does not establish consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

As there has been no objections to my proposal, .... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for "readability", but not at the expense of the product of no small amount of already heavily-discussed issue resolutions. There now exists content in this article that had been previously rejected by multiple deliberations as to its inadmissability under WP:OR and WP:SYN consideration. It needs to be removed by Hypocrite (as was his stated intent - see above) and the tag restored if that is his continuing position. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I countence anyone removing it if they reinsert the big fat "NPOV" tag at the top, or also remove the false claims (125 year low, record low temperatures), and won't complain about 3rr about them doing so. I removed the disputed statements as requested in this self-revert. The content was readded by Off2riorob - thus, it would not be a self-revert if I were to remove it again, and I am well aware that there are lurking malcontents. Hipocrite (talk) 20:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It is my intent to remove the content in dispute in an attempt to reflect the result of previous deliberations. You are welcome to tag anything you wish at your discretion. Perhaps this maelstrom of editing will precipitate a final (and more considered) resolution to this dispute. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Failing to reinsert the NPOV tag at the top of the article when you remove one side of a dispute will be seen by me as an intentention provication - a failure to edit in good faith. Please don't do that. Hipocrite (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I played no part in this round of editing and will edit out previously discussed WP:OR and WP:SYN material with considerable good faith, TYVM. I'm unclear just why you're claiming some inability to re-tag, but that's really not my concern. If it's some 3RR consideration (which I wouldn't think precludes the placement of a tag), you'll just have bide your time. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

In what way is your intended edit going to benefit the reader of the article? Off2riorob (talk) 20:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I see JIJ's point: the material added violates WP:SYN, and so cannot be used in Wikipedia. "Benefiting the reader" is secondary. I'm not sure I agree, but if there is consensus, it shouldn't be added until that consensus is changed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any SYNTH at all. What I have found is if you create a balanced article both sides become happy with it, if an article is weighted one way then disruption occurs and continues, I think hypocrites small addition is simply a bit of balance that may help to stabilize the article which will give it at least a value to the reader which previously it has not had. Off2riorob (talk) 20:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind telling you Off2 that I find your rationale almost bewildering. You are countenancing sacrificing WP policy at the altar of peace in the valley. Have you read the prior discussions on this subject? JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I will say that if the endless disruption and squabbling at this silly little comedy article is not settled I will renominate it myself and add my support for its deletion. Off2riorob (talk) 20:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm having trouble following this. What is the disputed content at the moment? (no explanations req, just the diffs) Thanks, Verbal chat 20:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

[70] and the removal of the entirety of the see-also section. Hipocrite (talk) 20:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

And I think ..Tobias Ziegler, blogging on Crikey opined that the Gore Effect can be described by the availability heuristic and confirmation bias.http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/2009/03/03/gore-effect-explained Off2riorob (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

And Off2riorob's rewrite of the article. Sources were removed, (as noted above by the Banana), for no apparent reason. (At least no reason apparent to me, except that they may have been biased, and removing them would help remove the WP:NPOV tag.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

To H's diff, the info should be restored but in a more factual manner, without the "actually". These are basic facts, don't contradict WP:OR, and we are an encyclopaedia. The see also should be restored, but not with duplicate links. If Rob could explain his edits, and then we might find out. Verbal chat 21:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Verbal, I have reverted your edit. Please conduct a careful review of the numerous discussions on this content before reverting again. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

you reverted good copyedits as well, and I have added the NPOV tag as the article is now clearly misleading, which is a detriment to the reader. Verbal chat 21:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to plead ignorance on the nature of "copyedits" and what that implies and I'll await your POV dispute resolution section in talk. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

There was a template requesting a rewrite of the section. I rewrote it in good faith and removed the template, as in please rewrite this section. There were excessive unnecessary supporting external citations that added nothing of value to the article and I removed some of the weaker looking ones, we are not a link station to other peoples articles. The see also section was imo of little value to the reader and was disruptive to the article.Off2riorob (talk) 21:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

That is incorrect. {{NPOV}} requests changes, and {{primarysources}} requests addition of secondary sources, not removal of primary sources. Neither really requests a rewrite. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I beleive he is refering to {{Prose}} Hipocrite (talk) 21:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It is correct. The list template requested a write and I did it. Me, an independent neutral editor attempting to improve the article so the reader can actually read it. Off2riorob (talk) 21:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Article Protection Needed

I haven't gone down this road before as I've never witnessed a need for this type of intervention. I believe it's fair to say I have now. The pace and volume of edits, edits attached with pledges to revert-on-call, counter-edits, reverts, tag placements, tag removals, threats, PA's and on and on associated with this article today has been, and is continuing to be, staggering. It defies anyone's capacity to absorb it all in some deliberative manner.

I don't know the process for requesting article protection but, IMHO, this article needs to be restored to some point earlier today...then protected. And we should have seen this coming. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the climate change articles (and see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change). I'm honestly sorry. You can request page protection at WP:RFP, though note that as a rule administrators restore whatever page happens to be around when they apply the full protect. At that point you can request changes on the talkpage. You can also request assistance from administrators, who have the power to block users, including from specific pages, at WP:ANI. And you can request comments at WP:RFC, though that is usually a long process and the results are never stronger than strong suggestions.--Heyitspeter (talk) 01:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the information but already read up on the protection process and submitted a request...which was politely declined with wait-and-see. While the current activity appears to have subsided to a level where one might commence digestion, I'm thinking the dormancy may be tenuous at best. Perhaps Verbal offered the understatement of the day..."I'm having trouble following this." JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You might also request a 1rr restriction on this article for a week or two. I think WP:GS/CC/RE would be an appropriate venue for that, though if you do open a request there, make it clear that you also requested a full protect at WP:RFP that was declined, and that this was suggested as an alternative. I don't think 1RR is ever a bad idea.--Heyitspeter (talk) 02:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Other than the continuing lack of a see-also section, which no one likes, where exactly haven't you gotten everything you wanted, today? This appears to be creative destruction to me, not edit warring. Hipocrite (talk) 22:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

...where exactly haven't you gotten everything you wanted, today?

You could start with a deliberative process allowing adequate time for principal contributors to weigh-in. I'll await the dust settling before commencing digestion. It's hard to see my keyboard. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The pace and volume of editing,? articles are sometimes in need of improvement, an article swimming in templates that have sat for lengthy periods of time are good examples of that, what are the templates for if the article didn't require editing and improving. The extended templating actually required the article to be improved...we are very experienced editors working to improve the article, there has not even been a 3RR warning given, there is no reason for protection and no reason to go backwards and revert to a version that was clearly worse that what exists now. Off2riorob (talk) 22:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Source requested

For this partial sentence:

in 2007 quoting Bill Calvin's submission to the online Urban Dictionary website

Specifically - how has it been determined that William H. Calvin should be the author of this? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

His name is on the 2006 insertion here. Off2riorob (talk) 22:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Erm? How do you verify that "Bill Calvin" is William H. Calvin? How many Bill Calvins are there? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have been unable to verify it is the same Bill, perhaps it is not? any editors interested in the subject know if he has commented or are there any reliable citations, if not the internal link should go, in fact if it is disputed I inserted it after a simple wiki search to see who the name refereed to and if he was notable and 'assumed it was him. Off2riorob (talk) 22:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Removed internal as dubious. Off2riorob (talk) 22:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Then it goes (per BLP) - its a handle, every bit as anonymous as WP's. This most certainly isn't written by the person who's name is signed. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

More than dubious - its an open submission system, where you chose your own handle, and can write (just about) what you want. I just registered as "dabelstein" to check if there was information hidden below the surface, which could cast light on who this is. This is not a reliable source (for anything) - the only reason that people have argued that information from this site could be here, is because it is quoted in the Globe and Mail's "almanac". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Removed the name completely. Off2riorob (talk) 22:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Bolt

Is an opinion by Andrew Bolt a reliable source to this factual information?

The use of the term Gore effect in mainstream publications began around 2006.

--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The comment should be attributed. Off2riorob (talk) 22:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• He does not appear to be a published expert in Internet History or anything similar. I would say no. Active Banana (talk) 22:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

He does not need to be any kind of expert, he used the expression in 2006 simple fact. Off2riorob (talk) 22:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

He is good for his opinon, and his opinion is that it began around 2006, that`s not factual information it`s an opinion mark nutley (talk) 23:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, he is citable in 2006 in a reliable citation using the expression, that is a simple fact. Off2riorob (talk) 23:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes he is (it confused me that the ref name was 2008) - but it was WP:OR to state it like the above. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

That he used the term in the general media on a certain year is fine. However, he is not "suggesting" -he is making a statement of fact in an opinion piece for which we have no reason to believe that he is an authority. Active Banana (talk) 23:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Read the following "began around 2006" see the around bit? That`s called taking a guess and giving an opinon, a guesstimate if you will mark nutley (talk) 23:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, you are still talking about the version above which was modified to the version below to be a little more accurate representation. Active Banana (talk) 23:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Rep to KDP, yes as it was it was not correct, thanks for pointing those issues out and and for helping refine the content. Off2riorob (talk) 23:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

original source: It was first noticed in Boston in 2004, when Gore was due to give a big speech in Boston on the imminent danger of the world frying.

our "summary" "The term Gore effect was used in a mainstream publication in 2006 by Andrew Bolt , he suggested the effect was first noticed when Gore was speaking in Boston in 2004"

[71] The original is not "suggesting" it is making a flat out declaration. Active Banana (talk) 23:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles must be based on facts not opinions. TFD (talk) 05:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Reading his bio, I'd say "no", he's not the most reliable source for factual information. So the question really is why we'd insert his opinion prominently into this article. Guettarda (talk) 06:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Take a Break

I read the article, simply as a reader, then went to talk because of the neutrality and AfD templates. At about that point I became lost. I understand commitment and a desire to see something through but I do not understand a few things.

• 1)- Is there a time-line I am unaware of for this article to be complete and to all editor's approval in a couple of days?
• 2)- Why ask for a consensus and make changes before some poor working stiff can get off work or back on the PC? I could not keep up with the article because of sudden changes, reverts, re-reverts, new changes that was unacceptable, reverts, templates removed, templates added, more reverts(not sure of the counts just that there were lots), amid all this the bantering, and all the time I was trying to determine which part was considered NPOV so I could help out.
• 3)- Why have a template hang on a page for no apparent reason. Thanks to the person that added the new template. It more correctly, in my opinion, reflects what is actually on-going.

I became involved in Wikipedia because of a desire to read and learn and that, as I understand, is what Wikipedia is about.

I would say, if it matters, that when a problem or discussion becomes heated to the point of flying keystrokes, that will not benefit anyone, that all take a breather or break.

I am a neutral party because I do not have a vested interest either way. I have heard of the subject a long time ago and thought it appropriate to be in Wikipedia.

The occurrences did happen, it was notable, and I find interesting to be able to explore.

I would be hesitant to jump on a sinking ship or try (and I am probably one of a larger number than you might imagine) to add anything, when there is clearly a war going on.

As far as I knew Gore Effect, The Gore Effect, or The Al Gore Effect (also including the Al Gore Effect if it matters) all were suppose to be a humoristic fun poking about a man named Al Gore(obviously notable), specifically at certain noted times being related to some aspect of global warming at speeches or meetings, and the correlation to those times, global warming, and sudden cooler (colder or freezing) changes in temperatures.

There are some (no one notable or reliable as source) around my neck of the woods that will make a "Gore Effect" joke, if the temperature suddenly and unexpectedly drops, that Al Gore must be in town. While looking up a reply might be, "I think he is flying over".

The bottom line was that it was ironic that "this" particular man would be in an area at the time of cooler or extremely cooler temperature changes, at times that was more than a couple, when there was to be some function concerning global warming. Simple satire listed as political satire.

• It would be great if a few could get together, make it simple, of course follow the rules that can apparently make funny not funny, and reach a resolution. Otr500 (talk) 07:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)