Talk:Gore effect

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 [1] 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 [2]. 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).[3] 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)

RS Tags

Hipocrite has tagged [[4]] 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? [5] 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 [6] 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. [7] 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. [8] 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 [9], 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" [10] "the Obama effect" [11] "The Blair Effect" [a book title] [12]). 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" [13] "the Obama effect" [14] "The Blair Effect" (a book title) [15]. 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"<ref name="Lovely_2008-11-25_Politico" />
• "only half ironic"<ref Name="Martenstein_2009-09-13_DieZeit" />
• "asinine" <ref name="Brainard" /> - 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. [16] 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. [17] 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 [18]

"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[19]. 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 [20], 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 - [21], 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: [22] 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)

• [23]? 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 [24]. 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 [25] to 29 [26] 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)

[27] 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)

I think WP:GS/CC/RE would be an appropriate venue for that...

While I appreciate the thought, I've managed to avoid that mess thus far (my interest here is Wikipedia integrity not CC, though even this article is too close for comfort) and would like to keep it that way. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:26, 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"

[28] 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)

Simply not a supportable assertion per WP:NPOV...

When we want to present an opinion, we do so factually by attributing the opinion in the text to a person, organization, group of persons, or percentage of persons, and state as a fact that they have this opinion, citing a reliable source for the fact that the person, organization, group or percentage of persons holds the particular opinion. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:14, 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)

His opinion was published in a reliable source. He, himself, is a reliable source for his own opinion and, in his opinion, a demonstration of the "Gore Effect" occurred in Boston in 2004. As ANY assertion as to an occurence of the conceptual "Gore Effect" must, by definition, be non-factual, this objection might be leveled as a rationale against noting ANY assertion of such an occurrence and, as I see it, is simply not sustainable.

Nor does an assertion that he is not an "authority" on the subject have any credible basis in fact. There can be no "authority" on an assertion that "Gore Effect" occurred save for the individual making the assertion.

Please don't revert again until this question is resolved. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I support your (re)inclusion of this content and don't see the claim in the edit summary as correct at all, the nature of this article is that opinion comments are relevant and to remove this comment that is one of the earliest examples of the usage in a mainstream report seems incorrect, the writer is at least wikipedia notable and has his own article, unlike this comment which we have in the article which is by a not wkikpedia notable person blogging on what looks like a not mainstream web based publication..Tobias Ziegler, blogging on Crikey opined that... as was discussed yesterday, balance is required and simply removing one side and leaving the other is disruptive to the article. Off2riorob (talk) 14:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Inre Ziegler, I'm not really familiar with either the cite or the "disruptive" issue you raise (perhaps stemming from an aversion to examining it due to language considerations), nor am I familiar with what "was discussed yesterday"...but I'll take a look and, perhaps, comment then. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Who is Ziegler and what is a criky blog? mark nutley (talk) 15:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, it isn't what I thought it was (a Polentario-related cite) and is most certainly in English [29]...reading. P.S. Anyone object to sectionalizing this thread? JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• balance is required
  • On the contrary, WP:NPOV says to work for balance when reputable sources contradict one another; Ziegler isn't being used to contradict Bolt and talking about "balance" is specious.
• the nature of this article is that opinion comments are relevant
  • Not every opinion is relevant. Why is Bolt's opinion notable? You can't declare yourself right by fiat. Why do you think you're right?
• don't see the claim in the edit summary as correct at all
  • You still have not addressed the question of why we should consider Bolt reliable. After all, according to his bio he has been repeatedly questioned on his factualy honesty, and has been successfully sued for libel over claims he has made in his position as a columnist.

Article ownership like this is not acceptable. Stop edit-warring and try to make your case logically. Guettarda (talk) 15:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Unsure who you are commenting about, but your edit summary of dubious source for factual information, not a notable authority on the subject, so we're not really interested in displaying his opinion prominently doesn't hold water. I will trade you one Andrew Bolt for one Tobias Ziegler. We have this.. The term Gore effect was utilized in a 2006 commentary by Andrew Bolt where he opined that the effect was first noticed in 2004 when Gore was speaking in Boston .. The expression was used in his article by him in 2006, that is clear and gives a time that the expression has been used in mainstream reporting, and we know that the expression had been around previous and his claim that the phrase had been around since 2004 is attributed and totally fine. Off2riorob (talk) 15:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

...the question of why we should consider Bolt reliable.

First, he is most certainly reliable for his own opinion, is he not? Do you take issue with that assertion? JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I am reliable for what my opinion is, too- but we dont quote me on implications of astrophysics on human culture or my analysis of tonal music or my interpretation of the longstanding cricket rivaly between Sri Lanka and Uganda. Why is Bolt's opinion on this topic something that we/a reader should be paying attention to? Active Banana (talk) 18:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Why is Bolt's opinion on this topic something that we/a reader should be paying attention to?

He is cited both to document a use of the term and for his opinion on its first appearance. It is not unlikely that a reader interested enough to view the article might find that to be of interest as well. JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, why is Bolt's opinon about this something that bears mentioning? Active Banana (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Because he is a notable person? Because is opinion has weight given he is a columnist and associate editor of the Melbourne-based Herald Sun. He also writes for Brisbane's Sunday Mail and makes regular appearances on the Nine Network, Melbourne Talk Radio, ABC Television, and local radio. People find what he says interesting, mark nutley (talk) 14:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

As a noted global warming skeptic, it is very clear that his opinion about the FACT of when a term began to be used is suspect, and if used in the article any claims made need to be placed in proper context. WP:NPOV particularly WP:PSCI Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Statements_of_opinion etc.Active Banana (talk) 14:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I don`t actually care what your opinion on bolt is, nor do i care that you consider his opinion suspect, we use what the sources say. Bolt is a notable person and as such his opinion carries weight, more than enough to include his opinions in this article that is all that matters here mark nutley (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry you are incorrect. Just being notable does not make your opinion about anything worth including in Wikipedaia only those whose backgrounds and knowledge inform their opinions in a way that helps readers understand the topic about which they are opining. In this instance Bolt is opining about the history of a particular phrase. His background and qualifications are not as far as I have seen anything in the realm of Linguistics or Cultural Studies or History of the internet or anything else that would give him special insight into this topic other than the fact that he is a partisan in the global climate change debate thus rendering his opinion about factual history suspect. Active Banana (talk) 15:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

You are so far out it stuns me, you do not need to be an expert on Linguistics or Cultural Studies or History of the internet to give an opinion on a phrase which is in common usage, the opinion of a notable person is always of note. You can give it up or try the reliable sources notice board and ask there if this reference is reliable mark nutley (talk) 15:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

He is certainly free to give his opinions. But as an encyclopedia, we only include the opinions of people who have particular insight into the topic, particularly when providing his opinions about facts. Active Banana (talk) 16:04, 20 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)

As most involved editors appear to be taking the breather you suggested or their attention now focused elsewhere, your considered observations do warrant both recognition and response. Just my opinions but...

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?

Quite simply, no...at least that I'm aware of. Nor are, as far as I know, any articles in Wikipedia deemed to be "complete" if by that you mean no longer open to further improvement. Articles, however, CAN be submitted for peer review process and those afforded a "good article" rating will generally be more stable from an "improvement" perspective.

Why ask for a consensus and make changes before some poor working stiff can get off work or back on the PC?

I assume this question is rhetorical and your point is well taken.

Why have a template hang on a page for no apparent reason.

That's not, as I understand it, the way it's designed to work. An editor placing a dispute template is supposed to concurrently establish a talk section clearly identifying the specific issue in contention (with "Dispute" or some variant thereof incorporated in the section title)and the rationale for the tag placement. In fact, a template can be linked directly to the respective talk section to facilitate resolution (I've forgotten the Wiki mechanics of just how to do that). If a reader is unable to discern either the nature of the dispute or a talk section designated to resolve that dispute, inquiries should be made, IMHO, to the editor who placed the tag. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Introduction - cont'd

As we now have a source [30] that refers to the article subject as "satire" (which, I'd suggest, should be consensus-stipulated anyway), I am amending the suggested introductory text and re-inserting the 2 previously deleted words. Please be mindful that this is suggested text for the first sentence only...

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.

Comments/criticisms/suggestions solicited JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Support, I thought to change the leading comment that it is comedy as sometimes it is not very funny, it is as I understand used satirically and your write is a clear improvement. Off2riorob (talk) 17:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually I suggested the addition of "absurd" to emphasize the comic-absurdity of the satire and that appeared to satisfy Hypocrite's objections (see index for prior introductory discussions). Not sure if this is acceptable to all, but there's no rush. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately "absurd" doesnt really match with what the sources say. The Crikey piece is about how columnists and even journalists are NOT treating it as absurd and other sources saying that those who are using the term are "half serious" or "only half ironic" Active Banana (talk) 17:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I object to the use of "absurd", however it it will appease hipocrite then go for it mark nutley (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

JakeInJoisey's source for "satirical" is a blog, so I'm afraid it fails WP:RS. - Pointillist (talk) 20:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Very well, removing "satirical" and "absurd" again, and re-inserting "humorous"...

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) 22:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I can support that. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to establish some possible continuity, the following might be considered as a draft for the next entry...

Observers have also remarked on its use by global warming "skeptics".

...but I think the opening needs to be nailed down as consensus acceptable. JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Per this discussion, I am inserting this suggested text (with the same citations) into the article. Anyone with heartburn, please bring it here. JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggested text for sentence #2...

Observers have remarked on its use by global warming "skeptics".

This content can be sourced to Politico as well. If anyone is concerned inre possible POV, please cite an RS that suggests a more broad-based use. JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Specific content issues

Now that the gutting of the article has slowed down, I can describe what my concerns are so that the article is accurate, meets WP:NPOV and still be understandable.

1. All references to actual temperatures, or even perceived temperatures, have been removed. It should be pointed out that the effect is supposed to represent unusually cold weather at his speeches and climate conferences, not just unusual weather. The fact that the weather at the claimed occurrences wasn't really that cold makes it difficult to do without violating WP:SYN, but the joke has been lost. Perhaps, restoring all the references (but not the content in the article; possibly adding a quote from the reference) to individual occurrences (or, at least, one per alleged occurrence) which used to be in the list and which specifically referred to the Gore effect, whether or not accurate, would be appropriate.

   I realize that the list of events is problematic, especially since most of them were not really unusually cold but now the article doesn't honestly say what the effect is (supposed to be).

   (added) Thinking it over, perhaps only adding "unusually cold", as in "The phrase has been used in relation to the unusually cold weather conditions at..." would be adequate. I do think a number of sources have been removed, but I can't say I'm sure they are all needed.

2. I don't know whether the multiple references for "In one sense the phrase has been used to describe Gore's impact in raising global warming as a public issue, particularly following his 2006 documentary An Inconvenient Truth." are all necessary, but probably more than one is.
3. The See also list needs to be restored. My suggestions would be:
   • Al Gore and the environment
   • Global warming controversy (unless specifically, and prominently, mentioned in the text)
   • Pauli effect
   • Synchronicity (I'm not sure about this one. Perhaps it should go.)
   • Ting Hai effect

   The terms availability heuristic and confirmation bias have been quite properly moved to the text. We can argue about synchronicity; I won't fight for or against it. I believe the article to be biased without the other ones.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

An awful lot of meat on this table...but let's try...

It should be pointed out that the effect is supposed to represent unusually cold weather at his speeches and climate conferences, not just unusual weather.

Not quite accurate IMHO. First, there isn't any authoritative or formal definition to refer to (and we may arrive at, via this process, the most citable yet). Nor, as has been credibly pointed out several times already in this discussion, even seasonal inclement weather phenomena is enough to evoke observations of "Gore Effect", whether he be present or not (interestingly enough, see an anecdotal comment recently posted here in talk). Nor is the factual accuracy of the exact weather conditions prevailing particularly germane. In fact, out there in the real world, NOBODY CARES if an "invoker" might stretch the truth of an occurrence whose PREMISE is absurd...which probably accounts for the dearth of RS making that point. As User:Quest For Knowledge has often interjected into this discussion, the TRUTH is IRRELEVANT here. I'll yield the floor. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Truth is irrelevant, but those quoting the effect must be intending to imply that the weather is unusually cold (whether or not it is), or the joke is lost. It doesn't make any sense to label unusually warm weather as "the Gore effect". (I realize this is attempting to assume that the people using the label are making sense, but it is usually good form to assume they are attempting to make sense.) I'm not sure of the correct phrasing for the article; what was there yesterday would be close. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

...but those quoting the effect must be intending to imply that the weather is unusually cold (whether or not it is), or the joke is lost.

I believe it has grown beyond that now, though "extremes" (or purported extremes) still make for a much more "delightful" evocation. For example, a routine school closure for seasonal inclement weather is cited in one of the sources as evidence of a "Gore Effect" occurrence. Absurd? Of course...but that is how far it has progressed...and also why I suggested replacing "unusual" with "observed" in the introductory. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

"Observed" implies (to me) "real", but I could be wrong. Perhaps "noted". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Only my opinion, but while "observation" and "notation" are pretty much synonomous (I'm struggling to extract a nuance), "observation" is a word often associated with weather (not that it really makes any big difference as one who offers the use probably isn't particularly concerned as much with accuracy as in pushing irony). Nor is either word necessarily limited to weather itself but can also encompass peripheral, weather-associated events...such as the school closings. But perhaps this is more for the "introductory" discussion. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The See also list needs to be restored. My suggestions would be:...
Not having experienced either the existence or content of a "See Also" section as a subject of dispute before, I'll have to plead ignorance as to the exact nature or ramifications of what is at issue here. Perhaps a resolution as to the existence of a "See Also" needs resolution first, content later. Just my .02 JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a list of issues here from AR and some of it is unclear. It is better to take one issue at a time. The see also...I would be happy with a see also section, lets have a small discussion here and get an agreed list and add one. I don't care what is in the see also as long as there is some agreement on what to add. Off2riorob (talk) 13:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Trying to get my arms around this issue. It appears that the "Content" tag relates, now in part, to the non-existence of the "See Also" section. If I understand the genesis, should a partial list of consensus-acceptable categories be listed, an editor may probably raise an NPOV objection with associated tag.

If only serving to focus this issue, may I suggest that an empty "See Also" section be created into which the current "Content" tag might be placed? JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Upon further re-consideration, I'm not sure that would be quite kosher without AR's explicit concurrence that issue's #1 and #2 are resolved to his satisfaction. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think the see also is a part of it only, but if there are no objections after some time we could add the list belowOff2riorob (talk) 16:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Al Gore and the environment
• Global warming controversy
• Pauli effect
• Ting Hai effect

That list is OK with me. The "effects" listed are reported effects by an individual on things which he could not logically have anything to do with.

My point 2 would require a localized tag, if any. I'm more questioning why it was done, then complaining.

Point 1 is more serious; as the article was written the last time I checked, the article would apply the term to any (perceived) weather condition associated with an Al Gore speech or climate conference. It's obvious that that it only makes sense if it is (perceived or claimed to be) cold weather. I don't have a specific suggestion, except to note that that problem didn't exist before the rewrite, although other problems did. That concern can't really be localized to a section (except, possibly, the lede), which doesn't help much in keeping prominent tags off the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Does the suggested introduction, as currently proposed, satisfy your concern that it clearly refers to cold weather phenomena? JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

1; I think this is just a couple of qualifier type word, I just replaced one snowstorm in relation to Nancy Perlosi cancelling a meeting, it get removed in the flurry and is clearly needed. Off2riorob (talk) 18:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

2; I removed the citations as I thought 12 citations was excessive, in this edit, with this summary.. trim not needed cite farm, all cites are in the article in other locations) turned out the edit created some redlinks and I thought as there were imo enough references left to easily support the simple comment I they dived in and removed them completely in this edit here, which. I marked as minor as it was really just removing the redlinks. I still think that twelve citations to support that claim is unnecessary, I removed what looked to me as the less major publications and left four, but I didn't do it in much of a scientific manner more in a cleaning trimming way. These are the citations I removed, if you feel any of them are real important and necessary then please feel free to replace. Off2riorob (talk) 17:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The "Gore Effect" is a phrase that has been used in different ways in relation to U.S. Vice President and Nobel Peace Prize recipient Al Gore. In one sense the phrase has been used to describe Gore's impact in raising global warming as a public issue, particularly following his 2006 documentary An Inconvenient Truth.

These three were also supporting the comment but were also supporting other content so are still in the article.

The suggested introduction helps, but I don't think it's enough. I would say that any specific mention of "weather" in the examples section must also have some reference to "cold", and examples that don't mention weather are someone questionable.

I think I'll withdraw my objection in point 2; now that it's been explained. (As an aside, if the title "Hurricane Katrina and other climatic aberrations as the Al Gore effect" reflects the article, it's not reliable. I didn't check.)

The suggested "See also" section resolves my point 3, but I'm not sure it would be accepted as NPOV by other editors. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Inre Content #1 AH, can you please identify the sources about which you have continuing issues.

Housekeeping note...It is becoming increasingly difficult to follow the progression of this discussion, perhaps exacerbated by the 3 different aspects of the objection. Please do what you can do in terms of formatting to make this easier to digest. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

request for archiving

I think that many of the discussion sections on here have run their course or are moot. Are there any of the sections that are older than say 48 hours that still have relevent content that current discussions should be taking into account or can they be archived? Active Banana (talk) 21:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll yield to someone more familiar with talk archiving norms, but 48 hours seems a ridiculously low threshold. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

1 through to 11 can be archived as they are all from whe nthe article was in userspace mark nutley (talk) 22:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

48 hours would be way too short for an automatic archiving, but are there really any conversations from prior to 48 hours ago that have relevance now that the AfD has completed and new conversations about the same topics have been initiated? Active Banana (talk) 22:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It might be best to archive those sections which belong to the version of the article before the rewrite; I agree that the issues should be completely different. The remaining issues relate to potential misconduct by Off2riorob, which shouldn't be discussed on this talk page, anyway. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

...are there really any conversations from prior to 48 hours ago that have relevance now that the AfD has completed and ...new conversations about the same topics have been initiated?

It seems rather obvious that prior discussions of the same topic be kept readily accessible. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

One can access the previous conversations in the archive. But, even if they were ongoing, they're moot unless we wish to return to the article before the rewrite. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

If there are any that you think have particular lasting relevence, feel free to list them in the section below as something that should be kept in prominent view for a while longer. Active Banana (talk) 03:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

List of inactive sections that should not yet be archived

I archived the old stuff last night which was really separate discussion to Archive 1 sections one through eleven. Everything above NPOV tag, is over 8 or nine days old and would be a good start and would create Archive 2, it is needed as the page is getting very large. Off2riorob (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I have been archiving bits and bobs that are stale for 7days, the size is a bit more manageable than it was. Off2riorob (talk) 18:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of different meanings, continued

I would like to request an update here of who continues to oppose including a prominent discussion of the alternate meanings of this term in the lead. The section above, linked here, including posts by myself and by Guettarda, provides a large number of sources which discuss this term as referring to Gore's impact on the public response to climate change. Several are academic sources; at least two are academic papers devoted entirely to testing the extent of the "Gore effect." We've gone back and forth, but I see that currently this meaning has again been moved down from the lead.

I understand JakeInJoisey opposes the inclusion of such a discussion, although I have not gotten him to address the sources that lead him to take his position. As such I'd like to ask for others to clarify their current views on what these sources tend to show about how to treat the different meanings of the term. Thanks, Mackan79 (talk) 18:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, this article is about the satirical expression, not about the campaigning stuff and as such it belongs in the "Other Uses" section. mark nutley (talk) 18:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Please explain your position; articles are not written by unexplained voting. The above sources show that the exact same phrase, "Gore effect," is used in a different way. This could lead us to create different articles on different meanings of this same term. However, our current statement that the term "suggests a relationship" between Gore and cold weather would still be incorrect based on the some dozen above sources. Does this not suggest we should change how we present the definition of the term? Mackan79 (talk) 18:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

From a global aspect the term is only used in the humorous satirical way. There may be other uses but I would say this usage is now by far the major one. In Europe it is the only one. Off2riorob (talk) 19:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Global perspective of alternate use also includes: India Times Active Banana (talk) 23:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

That seems questionable, given that two of the sources for the non-satirical meaning are Dutch (one apparently from a blog,[31] and one from their public broadcasting[32]). Are you sure this is the relevant issue? I am looking at three academic sources, two of which don't just discuss the non-satirical meaning in detail, but submit it to scientific testing.[33][34][35] Note we also have The Australian Green Consumer Guide,[36] and numerous Canadian articles. We have the Times of India.[37] Would we dismiss this on the idea that it is not global? Mackan79 (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not dismissing anything, there are some alternative usage but the satirical comedy expression is by far the main usage. (at least out of my window it is the only one that anybody would know about) Off2riorob (talk) 19:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but I am saying we should take a closer look at the sourcing. It strikes me that the real difference here is between tabloid/blog style journalism, which indeed is all over the place, and which predominantly treats the "Gore effect" as satire. On the other hand academic or "serious" sources seem to treat it as Gore's impact on public opinion. It would seem worth determining if that is true. Mackan79 (talk) 19:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

"the satirical comedy expression is by far the main usage" - not in reliable sources - there it seems that it is the other way around. Yes, there are reliable sources that use the satirical expression, but the major portion of these are opinion articles. On the other hand there are more highly reliable sources that support the alternative. And that is a problem. If we go by WP's NPOV definition - then the alternative should have significantly more WP:WEIGHT - because opinion articles carry very little weight in general. Now i'm personally in agreement that we should (according to the AfD) describe the satirical usage, but to leave out the alternative expression - is basically against WP's neutral point of view. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

We have the The_Gore_Effect#Other_uses_of_the_phras section, personally I don't see that the other uses are notable and presently have enough weight in the article. Do you consider that usage of the gore effect is notable and would survive an AFD? Off2riorob (talk) 19:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

How are you assessing that one is more notable than the other? Mackan79 (talk) 20:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I am using the discussion here and the citations presented and my searches and my personal contact with the usage of the expression as someone who is a newspaper reader and news report listener. I am not bothered about global warming one way or the other. Off2riorob (talk) 20:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand, but my concern is that none of this is objective. For my own metric, I have seen listed on this page numerous extremely high quality sources which discuss "Gore effect" as referring to his impact on public opinion, and to be honest I am not aware of even one single such source for the meaning as satire. I recognize as you say that the satirical use is popular around the internet, but of course that isn't our primary standard. If we are deprecating numerous high quality sources, I'd like to see not just an argument but the sources that support doing so. Mackan79 (talk) 20:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be two articles if you assert the other usage is notable (personally I don't agree that it is, the comedy satirical usage has taken over) and we can remove the see also content from here and provide an internal to the new article and clearly state in the lede that this article is about the expression used in a satirical/comedy way,. I also think that the long term usage in the comedy-satirical manner is increasing and will likely outlive him whereas the other usage will not, but that is a crystal ball comment. Off2riorob (talk) 20:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there consensus for a fork? And more importantly is there content enough to merit a fork? How will it not be a POV fork? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I dont have any sources to back it up (since third party analysis of the "Gore effect is cold weather following Gore" does not exist) but it seems pretty clear to me that there would be no humor in the use of the term in that way if the " Gore / IT affecting view of climate change" was not a widely established cultural phenomena. Active Banana (talk) 00:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

...the satirical comedy expression is by far the main usage.

I'll go you one further...and considerably more to the point. It is the subject of this article. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It is if it should be, and the other meaning shouldn't be. The decision is based on a.) the sources, and b.) our content policies. But we don't normally decide arbitrarily that only one meaning of a term will be covered in an article, unless we are very clear about doing so and stating that there are multiple meanings for the term, but the current article focuses only on one. If that is what you support perhaps we could discuss how and what reasons there are for doing so. Mackan79 (talk) 20:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Asked and answered Mackan. There is no parity...per the AfD close (already explained) and per the examiner's post-AfD comment when queried on this topic (already explained). JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be misinterpreting what the closer said: "I would expect those who have a differing view on the term to step forward and ensure that those different usages are covered." See the closers comment: [38] We are stepping forward- with reliable sources. And you have nothing but your unsubsantiated claims which are more and more not reflecting reality. Active Banana (talk) 00:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be misinterpreting what the closer said:

Interesting. You mean the statement he made from which you cropped only a portion of his sentence? And I'm "misrepresenting" what he said? Yikes. JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Please explain then how you could interpret the full sentence in a way that would be different from this portion? Active Banana (talk) 00:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Not answered, Jake, you're simply repeating your opinion, and continuing to distract from the actual issue of what the sources say. An AfD does not set or offer any pretensions of setting article content, nor do the comments of anyone who closes an AfD discussion. Certainly these do not override our content policies, or allow editors to continually ignore questions of how to comply with policy. If you are saying that "there is no parity," please show that this is the case. If neither you or anyone else can show this then the article needs to be changed. Mackan79 (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Answered...and you're simply repeating the same assertion. What you appear unwilling to either understand or concede is that the sources for other uses are irrelevant to the established topic of the article. Yes, established. You had an opportunity to make that case in the AfD and no mention was made of your position in the AfD close. When pressed on the issue, the examiner suggested an appropriate location within "other uses". "Other uses" simply do not have parity in an article referencing a subject that is now all but recognized as a modern day colloquialism.

Amen. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Jake, I think you are being tendentious. You can't say I am "simply repeating the same assertion" when I have raised here over a dozen sources that support a particular meaning, and for your meaning you have not brought a single one. If the scope of this article is "established," on what basis? The fact that it was not deleted? If you like we can have an RfC on whether the AfD precludes us from matching this article to the available sources on the "Gore Effect," or I can ask the admin who closed the AfD if he believes that is what he did. It would be easier if we went straight to discussing how to fix the obvious discrepancy between our current treatment and these sources. Mackan79 (talk) 22:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Mackan, you are certainly free to pursue this in any Wikipedia venue of your choosing. In fact, you can, as I understand, appeal the AfD determination itself. As to your suggested "discussing how to fix the obvious discrepancy between our current treatment and these sources", you presume a "discrepancy" to exist where none exists at all...and this is my final exchange on the subject. Perhaps someone else might be willing to engage you further. Good luck. JakeInJoisey (talk)

You are aware that you are misrepresenting what an WP:AfD can do - right? (you've been pointed this out before). The AfD was run on an article that contained more than one definition, and what was decided was to keep the article - not "keep the article, throw one point out" (which as said is something AfD can't do). If you want a content fork - then gain consensus for it. Be aware though, that it might be seen as a WP:POVFORK. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

You are aware that you are misrepresenting what an WP:AfD can do - right?

Well, I guess you could say that I'm now aware that you are alleging that I am misrepresenting what a WP:AfD can do. Actually (and as I mentioned earlier), I am stating what this AfD did, not what it can do. As to your counsel, as it has been somewhat less than, shall we say, spot on in these parts of late, I'll hope you'll understand if I opt to keep my own counsel, TYVM. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps i could entice you to actually read WP:AfD - that might help? You may even want to keep commenting on content/arguments instead of on editors - for instance you could direct us at the part that supports your assertion about how an AfD closure can do what you state it does? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, my statements refer to what the AfD did do, not what it can do. You are, of course, more than welcome to rebut my opinion with reference to some WP:AfD sourced information and I would be happy to consider it. In fact, as often as it has been referenced here, I'm somewhat surprised it has yet to be presented. JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Please look up Negative proof. An AfD can tell you whether an article should be deleted, merged or kept - it can't make content decisions. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Nah. I thought I was gonna see something revelatory from WP:AfD. Instead you want to play in the LF yard? I'm gonna go watch some golf. JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

It's the first bullet point in the summary: "For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately." We are talking about the need for improvement and POV problems. I don't think your claim is especially serious, but let me say this: I can see someone reasonably thinking we shouldn't completely remove the satirical meaning right after an AfD, even though the AfD obviously would not be relevant as a matter of policy. What you are saying is that we can't even include other meanings (in the lead?) once the article has been kept. That's ludicrous. Mackan79 (talk) 04:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

As this is another mis-representation of my position (alleged now as well in Mackan's post to Balloonman's talk page), I must respond...

What you are saying is that we can't even include other meanings (in the lead?) once the article has been kept. That's ludicrous.

Nope. Never said that either. (Where do you get this stuff?) In fact, and as I have now hopefully made Baloonman aware, the issue for me is not inclusion in the lede (though I'm not sure all might agree on that), but the weight assigned to the suggested "uses". Specifically (and should inclusion in the lede be consensus-established), what's "ludicrous" to me is any suggestion that a "use" other than the satirical GE use be prioritized or given some sense of parity (or "weight") in the opening of the lede. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I think your comments speak for themselves, Jake, but I'm not interested in sparring over what you've said. The problem is this: you are now saying it is ludicrous to give two meanings of this term equal weight in the article, but you have not presented a single source to support your position. In fact, all you have talked about is what is said in an AfD. Do you really believe an AfD can determine that one meaning of a term must thereafter be given greater weight than another? If so please consider two things: 1.) Given that WP:AfD explicitly says AfD is not for improving articles or resolving issues of NPOV, you are suggesting that an issue was resolved in an arena where it was explicitly disallowed from being discussed. 2.) If that is the result of the AfD then no one would ever be able to overcome that without renominating the article for AfD, even though they did not believe the article should be deleted. Perhaps you can consider or address these issues. If I have misinterpreted you, on the other hand, in any respect, then please simply clarify why you have not been willing to say anything about the reliable sources which presumably should be used to determine issues of due weight. Mackan79 (talk) 22:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

...you are now saying it is ludicrous to give two meanings of this term equal weight in the article...

"Ludicrous" (which I used in quotes) is not really my descriptive of choice, but rather meant to mirror the apparent hyperbole with which you introduced it.

...but you have not presented a single source to support your position.

Here's a deal. I will address every single point you raise (hopefully to at least your satisfaction if not agreement), but for the purposes of discussion development and continuity, I am done in this thread. Few want to spend time (or even will for that matter) trying to follow 2 independently running threads in the same section. If you feel the need to re-assert some particular point you raise here (as you apparently did with the link in the other thread), please feel free to avail yourself of cut-and-paste at an opportune moment. Thanks JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Except of course that for the significant majority of this articles lifetime - the article has contained more than one defintion (including the time where the AfD ran). So you are indeed wrong in your "one further". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• per WP:NPOV we cover all topics in proportion to their coverage by reliable sources. There being zero evidence that the primary use of "Gore Effect" is limited to cold weather during Gore's speaking engagents (except perhaps by a small minority of global warming skeptic bloggers) and a vast array of reliable sources showing other uses by mainstream media, those other uses need to be adequately covered in the article. Active Banana (talk) 23:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm hoping for additional comments. I think Jake's position is clearly baseless, in saying that by not deleting an article we've somehow precluded any further need to discuss how to write the article, or precluded ourselves from adding material to the same article. His statement that other meanings should be discussed lower in the article shows that he does not even believe this himself. The argument is in any case irrelevant, as none of our content policies include an exception, "unless there was an AfD." I appreciate that Off2riorob has addressed the issue above, but I think he is mistaken to put so much weight on popular sources, even assuming that one use is trending toward increased popularity. Wikipedia is full of editors who read the latest news, but that doesn't mean we should make that our sole metric. In fact, WP:UNDUE specifically states, "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." This is why I am insisting that the claims here about due weight need to be supported by sources and not simply by claims about what is generally known. The issue needs to be addressed. Mackan79 (talk) 03:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

While I'm not inclined to comment further, I will, however, correct misrepresentations of my position...

...saying that by not deleting an article we've somehow precluded any further need to discuss how to write the article

Never said that nor is that my position...

...or precluded ourselves from adding material to the same article.

Never said that either nor is that my position.

A.His statement that other meanings should be discussed lower in the article... and B. ...shows that he does not even believe this himself.

A. Have said something similar to that and B. About as peculiar an observation as I've yet to read in this discussion. JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

You commented, "There is no parity...per the AfD close" (ellipses your own), and have then refused to say anything about any sources that support or oppose your position. Forgive me, but this gives me the impression that you claim the AfD precludes your having to discuss changes to the article. Of course, you could immediately change my impression by making reference to any sources that you believe support your position. Mackan79 (talk) 04:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Mackan, you'll simply have to engage someone else on that issue. Your misrepresentations of my positions noted above and which I believe I have expressed with some clarity suggest to me that you're either no longer reading my comments or simply talking past them.

We have a fundamental disagreement as to the ramifications attendant to the AfD closing determination and the import of the examiner's direct response to the specific question you raise here. Perhaps you'll meet with more success engaging another editor on your position. JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I welcome comments on what the above sources show from other editors, as that is the reason I started this section. I'll then make another proposal based on the sources we have. I have one goal here: to get to the point where we are actually considering what these sources indicate about how we should cover this term. I've been under the impression that you are attempting to stand in the way, though I'll be glad to find otherwise. Mackan79 (talk) 07:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Mackens well reasoned and well presented comments that the weight issue could benefit from more discussion and is not a clear cut closed case Off2riorob (talk) 09:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

A final point. My statement cited above, "There is no parity...per the AfD close", apparently warrants further clarification. I am NOT asserting that the AfD close either stated, was designed to determine or even addressed the question. It is an observation that the question of parity treatment to be afforded to some other suggested use is unremarked upon in the AfD close. There is no "other use" mentioned save for the references to the satirical "Gore Effect". It is a valid inference from that focus that the Wikipedia "keep" determination is/was predicated upon the rationales AS STATED, not upon some other suggested or implied rationale. That certainly both suggests and implies, while not directly stating, that the criteria for a Wikipedia treatment of the satirical "Gore Effect", regardless of any other "use" considerations, were satisfied. Were no "other uses" even suggested for incorporation, the article would still be legitimately supported by the AfD determination. It is simply not supportable to suggest that "other uses", unremarked upon by the AfD close, should have article parity.

This is further evidenced by the examiner's direct response to this subsequent question when posed by Active Banana...

In your closing you did not mention the fact that numerous commentators at the AfD had brought up about the fact that about a third of the (and generally more reliable) sources in the article were discussing a use of the phrase in a different manner than the supposed effect that Gore's appearance has on lowering local temperatures. Did that enter your decision process at all? Active Banana (talk) 14:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

I believe the examiner's reply to be not only revelatory of his position on this issue, but unquestionably supportive of the position I espouse. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

You have a weird interpreatation of "step forward and ensure that those different usages are covered" somehow meaning "only the humorous phrase connotation shall be included in the article." Active Banana (talk) 17:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps not quite so weird as your apparent discomfort with acknowledging the preceding "Yes---The_Gore_Effect#Other_use_of_the_phrase, and that would be a place wherein...". Nor does your rather bogus suggestion that I ever asserted or even hinted at the rest of that nonsense even warrant a rebuttal. I will have to seriously consider ignoring any further contributions from you here. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:STICK — Preceding unsigned comment added by Active Banana (talk • contribs)

FYI, I have requested for Balloonman to clarify whether he intended his close or comments to determine how this article should continue to be written. I consider it plainly obvious that any question about weight must be resolved by the available sources and the content policies, and not by anything that was said in regard to an AfD, which explicitly is not for "improving articles" or addressing NPOV. Unfortunately I don't see how to have a productive discussion when Jake keeps interrupting to talk at length about what Balloonman said in or after the AfD (while repeatedly adding that he has nothing else to say on the matter). Hopefully Balloonman will clarify so we can move on. Mackan79 (talk) 22:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

...whether he intended his close or comments to determine how this article should continue to be written.

Your question, as framed, is rhetorical. You ask a question as to the validity of an overstated and ill-defined assertion made by nobody (certainly not me), and will then, presumably, offer the only response possible as some evidence supporting your case. I might just as easily ask Balloonman if he intended his AfD determination to assert that the moon is made of green cheese. Your argument is deteriorating Mackan. JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that, besides Balloonman's comments, I still have not seen you offer any support for your position that there cannot be "parity" with the different meanings of this term. I am not sure what relevance you think the AfD should have, but I've also addressed the issue here. If you don't think his comments should be determinative on any point, then great, let's move on, but otherwise I am hoping that he can clarify. Mackan79 (talk) 05:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You, again, are misrepresenting my position...this time with imprecise language...

I still have not seen you offer any support for your position that there cannot be "parity" with the different meanings of this term.

My position is that there "should not" be parity, not "cannot" be parity. Whether there is "parity" or not is not an objective call but one that will be arrived at via discussion and consensus. However, from my considerations on this discussion thus far, what, I believe, "parity" (or even "dual treatment" if you will) may portend for the the future of this article, the creation of what will inherently be a "muddied" article and the high probability for incessant bickering over future content, I've re-considered my position and believe that "disambiguation" (if that's the proper term for 2 independent articles) is the appropriate, wisest, most equitable and, perhaps, only viable solution. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

P.S. As to your link to the other active thread, please see my response here. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation proposal

Is there any outstanding objection to creating Gore Effect as a disambiguation page pointing to Gore Effect (Satire), this article moved, and Gore Effect (Public Policy), about Gore's effect on public perceptions of climate change? Hipocrite (talk) 13:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I, for one, see that as a possibly viable (even if only temporary) resolution. My only concern might be that it somewhat establishes a predicate that the two terms warrant independent treatment under Wikipedia criteria. While I'm not prepared or even inclined (at this point anyway) to argue that point, I'm not, by any means, sure that it will set well as a consensus resolution acceptable to all. Nor am I confident that I'm aware of all the implications to such a resolution. I am, however, all ears.

BTW, would you consider a separate section to address this? I believe it is warranted both for it's import and to allow the ongoing discussion to contine apace.JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you arguing that one or the other is not notable, or that they are linked and thus need to be in the same article? Hipocrite (talk) 14:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I am fully prepared to argue relative notability (or "parity" if you will) within the same article. I'm not inclined to argue "notability" for an independent treatment. Is that clear? JakeInJoisey (talk)

Not really. You are prepared to say that Satire is notable on it's own, but Public Policy is not, or are you only prepared to say that tehy are notable when taken all-at-once? Hipocrite (talk) 14:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing some nuance, but I'll try again (though it appears tangential to the purpose of this discussion)...

You are prepared to say that Satire is notable on it's own...

My position is that the notability and sourcing of the satirical "Gore Effect" satisfied(s) the Wikipedia criteria to exist as an article independent of "other uses".

...but Public Policy is not...

I am not prepared (or inclined) to argue that the same judgement would not also be rendered on a Wikipedia treatment of "Gore Effect (Public Policy)" independent of "Gore Effect (Satire)". It has simply not been made. However, as "notability" has been suggested and "sources" offered by proponents inre "Gore Effect (Public Policy)" and as the AfD examiner has made note of them as well, I assume it would survive an AfD challenge, were one to be made.

...or are you only prepared to say that tehy are notable when taken all-at-once?

Nope. Both may have arguments for "notability" and "sourcing" independent of one another, but, IMHO, only one has been formally established by Wikipedia process.

Now, we can continue to discuss those points, or we can address the subject of this section. I'd suggest we move on to the latter. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Great. If it turns out that the Public Policy page is nominated for deletion and is deleted, we can consider what to do then. Your argument is merely that it might be nominated, so it appears you have no objections to the split. Anyone else? Hipocrite (talk) 15:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

...so it appears you have no objections to the split.

Let me be 100% clear. I have no objections to the split as of this moment, but I want to hear from all sides as to additional considerations that might be relevant. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes i object, by all means create a page for Gore Effect (public stuff) But there is no need for a disambiguation page, this article should remain The Gore Effect with a link in the See Also section to the other use article mark nutley (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you please expand a bit on the rationale for your position? As I'm unfamiliar with the attendant issues of disambiguation, I, for one, would appreciate the education. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, i believe that it would be a WP:POVFORK at this point in the articles lifespan. Expand and develop both - and if any of them grow beyond the point where they need a separate article, then split/fork. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Concur with KDP. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear to me that, if this page is actually going to exist, it should be structured as a daughter article of Al Gore and the environment. And it should be an article, not a collection of quotes - one that unites both "effects" into a logical whole. Which really wouldn't be that hard to do... Guettarda (talk) 19:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject.

I believe the jury is decidedly out as to whether the "same subject" is being treated. While they both incorporate the same 2 words in their title and are both tangentially related to the subject of global warming, the "treatment" ends there. As I see it, if it does not meet the first Wikipedia criteria for consideration as a "fork", then the question of "POV fork" becomes moot. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

"Al Gore has rallied support for efforts to combat global warming and been a focus for attacks by anti-environmentalists. The term 'Gore effect' has been applied in both contexts". Or we could have two articles, one that says "Al Gore has rallied support for efforts to combat global warming and been a focus for attacks by anti-environmentalists. The term 'Gore effect' has been applied in both this contexts" and "Al Gore has rallied support for efforts to combat global warming and been a focus for attacks by anti-environmentalists. The term 'Gore effect' has been applied in both this contexts". Guettarda (talk) 19:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The title of this section is "disambiguation proposal". Please consider creating an alternate sub-section in which your proposal might be addressed. Thanks JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep, and I replied to your comment. I was trying to shed some light on the issue, since you clearly did not understand it. Obviously your confusion is even deeper than I had anticipated. My apologies for adding to it... Guettarda (talk) 00:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The subject is "Gore effect", and that is a term being used in two different contexts. One is satirical, and the other is in reference mainly to Gore's impact on awareness. Ie. Both are neologisms/terms/expressions that relate to Gore, and both are about "effect" satirical or real-world impact. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The "title" is "Gore Effect". Where a single use of a term or phrase is recognized, a "title" might be legitimately said to reflect a "subject" as well. Where there are 2 or more uses of the phrase or term recognized, then the "subject" of the term MUST be defined by the content its use relates to and is assuredly the understanding in colloquial use. They may share a common "title" and tangentially relate to a common element, but they are, by no means, the same "subject". It is almost self-evident. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Your definition that some people fought so hard for from Urban Dictionary.com is "Al Gore Effect, The" Active Banana (talk) 23:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Strong disagree as well. Is there any proof of a prolonged use or, beware unified use of the "beneficial Gore efffect"? E.g. does anybody believe or state that a "Gore awareness effect" witzh regard to the film is or was valid still? Did a further discussion of any of the other purported effects take place? Sources? Are the purported references all about awareness, are they speaking of the same term? Isn't it just a incoherent coincidence of wording which was brought up by a google search? I doubt due weight of the sources which have not received any reasonable echo. Polentario (talk) 23:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, some of the sources in the reliable sources are as recent as late fall 2009. Active Banana (talk) 00:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I doubt if two scientific papers specifically about the subject can be called "a incoherent coincidence of wording which was brought up by a google search". The sources have been presented again and again - try reading them. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "beware unified use". .... Guettarda (talk) 00:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

@ Kim: does anybody discuss or quote these papers? Have they had any significant Citation history? Does anybody blog about them? Do they have any actual value besides trying to whitewash? @ Guardetta: The different references to the awareness effect do not mean the same, thats what I refer to . BTW I erased a comment which could be interpreted as a PA. Polentario (talk) 01:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

See also, any objections

We are also looking to include these in a see also section, are there any objectons or anything people also want to include. Off2riorob (talk) 18:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Al Gore and the environment
• Global warming controversy
• Pauli effect
• Ting Hai effect
• Synchronicity

Ahem. I could live with or without synchronicity; I really don't see the relevance. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Follow the link? Makes sense to me....--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I wouldn't specifically request it be put in, but I don't have any objection. The article "confirmation bias", I do object to, but it's now in the body of the article in a reasonable context. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Synchronicity is a must. Pauli and others saw it as a suitable explanation for e.g. Pauli effect withaout the need to establish a causality. Polentario (talk) 23:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The first two links need to be in the text of the article; these are the parent articles to this one. Synchronicity doesn't belong; it's an example of confirmation bias, not synchronicity. Guettarda (talk) 00:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm, any sources :) ? Martenstein fits more to Sync. Polentario (talk) 01:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that the first two can and perhaps should be included in the actual body of the article, which leaves only Ting hai and Pauli and synchronicity and there appears to be multiple differing opinions. Off2riorob (talk) 12:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Ting hai, Pauli and syncronicity are classical see alsos. just paste them back. Polentario (talk) 20:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

"Controversial" Tag

I have added the {{Controversial}} tag to the talk page. Hopefully it will encourage contributing editors to utilize "talk" rather than drive-by editing of substantive content. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Things are pretty polite and stable here recently but every little helps. I notice that the article has had a degree of stability in the last five days which is great. Off2riorob (talk) 12:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

You forgot to knock on wood... [39] JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

There is little or no justification for the main topic of this article being the satirical use. There is no justification for the only topic permitted being the saterical use. I merely noted that both uses exist in the lede. Since we are prevented from splitting this article by use, it's imperitive that this article neutrally reflect what is in reliable sources. Hipocrite (talk) 14:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

There is little or no justification for the main topic of this article being the satirical use.

"Little" and "none" are mutually exclusive. Nor does "little", IMHO, reflect reality. But resolution of that question is, perhaps, premature and should be tabled anyway...at least for the moment.

There is no justification for the only topic permitted being the saterical use.

Strawman. Nobody I'm aware of is suggesting that. However, my position on that at the moment is accomodation. I could easily argue that case and may feel compelled to do so (as I'm confident will many others) pending outcome of the deliberations on an alternative resolution.

That being said, all of this becomes moot with the creation of an alternate article. As I see it, opposition to that creation currently cites "fork" as justification. IMHO, that is, by "fork" definition, an unsustainable assertion. If consensus cannot be reached among current interested editors, perhaps an RfC might be advisable and productive.

...and you should still self-revert your edit of the lede. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I will not revert my edit to the lede. The article previously relegated what should be the main topic of this article to a ghetto titled "other uses." I merely made the most common use of the phrase its own section, and made note of that use in the intro. It is a violation of NPOV to decide that one PoV (that the "Gore Effect" refers to Gore's effect on public perceptions of global warming) into a ghettoized, poorly named section, and it is a violation of NPOV to prevent mention of that substantial PoV from the lede. As such, no, I will not remove my edit, and still further, if anyone does so, they should include a Pov tag at the top of the then biased article. Hipocrite (talk) 15:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hip's edits are a step in the right direction. Guettarda (talk) 15:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

...and it is a violation of NPOV to prevent mention of that substantial PoV from the lede.

Another strawman. Nobody I'm aware of has prevented, is preventing, or is proposing to prevent mention of the allegedly "substantial" PoV in the lede. This is easily demonstrated in the immediate instance with the survival of Verbal's also undiscussed edit [40]. As it was my intent to subsequently introduce that reference myself, I did not object to it and left it alone.

Your own edit unilaterally imposing your own non-consensus view gives that "mention" undue parity in the first sentence with the main (and formally established) subject of this article. It is that suggested "parity" which I and other editors strenuously object to and I fully intend to oppose any sense of equal parity being alluded to by its inclusion in the opening sentence. It is also worthy of note that you never availed yourself of the opportunity to discuss this edit in the talk section where lede composition was actively being discussed.

I have been attempting to avoid a push-comes-to-shove atmosphere by suggesting that you simply hold your edit in abeyance pending what might become a consensus-acceptable resolution that would eliminate the issue. As you appear to favor, instead, immediate confrontation and incendiary edits to consensus building, I will revert your edit as undiscussed per the recommended guidelines for "controversial topics" and as unsupported by consensus. You are free to "tag" at your discretion. Pity. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Three editors have expressed support for the change (Hip, Verbal and I). One editor (you) have reverted for "lack of consensus". If anything can be said to have "no consensus", it's the revert. Guettarda (talk) 20:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not really involved in the discussion but I don't see any hurry, if the lede is to have a fundamental change imo waiting perhaps till tomorrow to allow other users involved to comment is a good idea. Off2riorob (talk) 20:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I`m with jake, this article is about the gore effect joke, that is why it was put up for AFD, the content should reflect that not the other uses mark nutley (talk) 20:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The article is about what the reliable sources say. The multiple uses were documented within the article (by some of the most reliable sources) throughout most of the AFD. Lets not start perpetuating revisionist history. Active Banana (talk) 21:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

You are incorrect, when this article went for AFD there was no mention of the other use`s at all, I know as i created this article. Lets not start perpetuating revisionist history. mark nutley (talk) 21:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Marknutley, you wrote the original article, but see WP:OWN. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes I wrote the original article, and thus know what i am talking about, hence my comment above, I am unsure why you are pointing to wp:own when all i was doing was pointing out the facts mark nutley (talk) 13:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

"when this article went for AFD there was no mention " At the point it was nominated for AfD, perhaps that is true. HOWEVER for most of the time when people were weighing in on whether or not the article should remain, many (sometimes up to a third) of the reliable sources in the article were supporting use of the phrase in a different manner. Stop your revisionist history. Active Banana (talk) 16:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

One revert climate change template

This article is clearly in need of climate change editing one revert restrictions, where is the template. Off2riorob (talk) 18:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Please also don't revert tag team, discuss. Off2riorob (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

What tag team? There seem to either be several or none. Going with WP:AGF, unless there is evidence of collaboration we should go with "none" and not make uncivil accusations. Verbal chat 18:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Where is the original research here?

Kim D. Petersn has reverted [41] the addition of this passage:

"The Gore Effect" is a "Snowclone" phrase in which the word "Effect" (capitalized or not) is added to a prominent office-holder's last name in discussions of that person's influence or the reaction of other people to the office holder. This phrasal template has been used in describing the influence of U.S. Presidents George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Ronald Reagan, as well as with Tony Blair, former prime minister of the United Kingdom "The Reagan Effect" and "The Blair Effect" are book titles.

Is there a single thing here that is not obvious? Stating the obvious is not WP:OR, and it is just like what the WP:CALC section of WP:OR describes in dealing with simple calculations. Does anyone object to anything stated in the passage as possibly not factual? ... Anybody? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Any reference to "Snowclone" where no source uses the term is WP:OR. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

There's that. And, of course, associating this with other "effects" is OR. Guettarda (talk) 02:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec with below) No, there isn't that. We don't need a source to tell us that 843 + 111 = 954 either. No difference. What is obvious is not OR. associating this with other "effects" is OR In what way are these various "effects" being "associated" other than cited as examples of the same kind of usage? Why wouldn't we inform the reader of similar usage examples when we inform the reader that this is a snowclone, a kind of phrasal template? And why wouldn't we inform the reader that the subject of the article fits the definition of these two things exactly? These are not rhetorical questions. Answers, please. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It will not be WP:OR in what must be the inevitable resolution to this question of parity. From the inception of the appearance of this article, this pseudo-equivalency of "subjects" being advanced is as contrived and strained as it is specious. To suggest that these 2 terms have anything more in common than 2 words in the English lexicon and should be entertained in the same article is not, IMHO, capable of surviving any rational Wikipedia examination of that assertion. It has not yet been Wikipedia-procedurally challenged since accommodation has been the order of the day...and wrongfully so. Let's get this question resolved in the most appropriate Wikipedia forum in which to make such a determination. JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Again: Does anyone object to anything stated in the passage as possibly not factual? ... Anybody? Answers, please. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Please answer Guettarda's and my concerns. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Your stated concern: Any reference to "Snowclone" where no source uses the term is WP:OR. (that's not actually a "concern" that's a bald assertion)

My already-given answer: We don't need a source to tell us that 843 + 111 = 954 either. No difference. What is obvious is not OR.

Guettarda's stated "concern": associating this with other "effects" is OR.

My already-given answer: In what way are these various "effects" being "associated" other than cited as examples of the same kind of usage? Why wouldn't we inform the reader of similar usage examples when we inform the reader that this is a snowclone, a kind of phrasal template? And why wouldn't we inform the reader that the subject of the article fits the definition of these two things exactly?

Now it's your turn. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

To begin with, "the name effect" is not a "snowclone", per our definitions. Calling an effect associated with a person X "the X effect" could be descriptive.

And the association with other "effects" should be limited to #See also lines, as in the two satirical effects already included. Saying any more about the relationship would add a POV as to whether the name was satirical. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to be numbering my questions for you to make it easier for you and anyone else to answer them. I can't make head or tail out of your reply. "The Gore Effect" seems to fit the definition of both of these concepts perfectly. [1] How is it different from the "X is the new Y" example given at Snowclone? [2] How is it not a phrasal template? To call something a snowclone or phrasal template is to suggest that there are others, and any reader would find it useful to know that. Finding an example is not generally something that needs to be footnoted and never when the example is this obvious. Anyone can see the substitution of the names in the template "The X Effect". I don't even know what you mean by including something in the "See also" section. I don't believe there are articles for The Clinton Effect, The Bush Effect, The Blair Effect, The Reagan Effect. The point of including those names in the passage is to show that this usage is part of a larger pattern. The value of this information to the reader is obvious. [3] What is the value of keeping out information that we all know to be true? [4] Calling an effect associated with a person X "the X effect" could be descriptive. Why does that matter? What is your point with that sentence? I really don't understand your meaning. One aspect of the subject "The Gore Effect" is that it is a construction of words. A comprehensive encyclopedia article covers the important information we have about all important aspects of a subject unless the sourcing is unreliable. [5] What is unreliable about this sourcing or how does it not cover what is said other than WP:CALC-compliant information? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 14:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

[3] What is the value of keeping out information that we all know to be true?

It's not a question of "value", it's a question of WP:V and WP:OR as it relates to the suggested content. I don't believe it is any more admissable under those criteria than were Hipocrite's suggested sourcing to rebut the "factuality" of alleged weather conditions supporting an assertion of a "Gore Effect" occurence. But I'm still listening. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It isn't a violation of WP:V to say this is a snowclone or phrasal template once the reliably sourced information is staring you in the face. Once the connections are reduced to something this simple, it's a matter of simple editorial judgment to identify what obviously exists. [6] Please explain to me how this is not so. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I made that argument about Climategate, and it was rejected. I don't think it will hold here. Hipocrite (talk) 15:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It isn't a violation of WP:V to say this is a snowclone or phrasal template once the reliably sourced information is staring you in the face.

I would suggest you are misconstruing the rationale behind WP:V...and you better run for the hills if User:QuestFofKnowledge gets wind of this. WP:V is unconcerned with "truth". What it IS concerned with is that reliable sources are citable as having made that observation specifically referencing "Gore Effect" as an example. If it ain't out there somewhere, IMHO you're on thin ice here...probably worse. That being said, I believe you are spot on in asserting its relevance and, while it is probably not citable in the article, it sure as hell is citable in discussion. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

When there is no question about truth, such as WP:CALC there can not be a question of WP:V. In fact, whenever WP:CALC applies, WP:V simply can not apply (regardless of the fact that we're talking about two different policies), [7] isn't that true? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

In what way are these various "effects" being "associated" other than cited as examples of the same kind of usage? Because making this association is original synthesis. The citations don't make an association between the two of them, you make an association between the two of them. One that is not made by the underlying references. Guettarda (talk) 15:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Because making this association is original synthesis. [5] How does WP:CALC not apply? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• Everyone, please review this, from WP:NOTOR (Ooops, wrong quote. Now corrected; boldface & italics added):

* Identifying synonymous terms, and collecting related information under a common heading is also part of writing an encyclopedia. Reliable sources do not always use consistent terminology, and it is sometimes necessary to determine when two sources are calling the same thing by different names. This does not require a third source to state this explicitly, as long as the conclusion is obvious from the context of the sources. Articles should follow the naming conventions in selecting the heading under which the combined material is presented.

This essay is linked at WP:OR and seems to be a reasonable interpretation of it. [8] Does anyone disagree with what's said here, or does anyone think the principle in boldfaced italics does not apply? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)corrected and boldface & italics added -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The essay seems reasonable, but it doesn't apply here.

1. "Snowclone" being such an absurd and obscure term, it's a clear WP:OR violation to include it unless a reliable source uses it.
2. The "X" effect as any effect associated with "X" (whether or not the association is rational) may be a snowclone (although I doubt it)
3. The listing of arbitrary "X" effects where the similarity is only in the name is clearly inappropriate. If the Bush effect has an article, it might be listed in the See also section, but use in the text is a clear WP:UNDUE violation, even if not WP:OR. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

You still haven't answered why WP:CALC doesn't apply. Neither has Guettarda. Neither has Jake. Of course the essay applies because the same principle as the one behind WP:CALC applies: What's obvious on the page in front of you doesn't need to be sourced. Anything you can see or figure out in a common-sense way, applying no interpretation, just hard, cold facts, applies. If we can't do that, then we can't write anything not in a source's own words and attribute it to a source, because that involves the same common-sense, simple calculations that we find in WP:CALC or here (and in fact rewriting is more complicated than this). Addressing your points in order:

1. "Snowclone" is not so obscure that it doesn't have a Wikipedia article, and so there's no reason it wouldn't be good enough for us. You haven't demonstrated that it's absurd and I don't think you can. It's a term that describes a very simple phenomena that anyone can see on the page, involving multiple phrases with similarities and differences. I don't need a source calling something either a "snowclone" or a phrasal template (which you haven't mentioned). Once a reader knows what a snowclone is, any reader can see that the phrases mentioned fit the extremely simple pattern that a third grader could understand. The entire rationale for calling something a "snowclone" is that the phrases are similar and different. Once we link to the Snowclone article, where the definition is sourced, no further sourcing is needed because no sourcing could ever add the slightest bit to the verifiability of what the reader sees on the page with the reader's own eyes. The only remaining sourcing need is to show that the other uses exist (and nobody here has raised a doubt about that). There is no purpose to WP:V if the reader can do the verification by looking at the page. No source would make the matter any more verifiable than the readers' own eyes and common sense. That's the justification for WP:CALC. And that's why it's important that you (and others) haven't addressed my question [5].
2. Ah, I think I see what you mean. Confirm this: Do you doubt that "_____ Effect" is a cliche? That this is used in "an array of different variants"? Because if you do, I have no problem dropping "snow clone" and keeping phrasal template instead. I think it would be ridiculous overkill, but we could add this source: Susan Armstrong (1994) Using Large Corpora, ISBN 0262510820, p. 149 [9] Would that satisfy you?
3. The listing of arbitrary "X" effects where the similarity is only in the name is clearly inappropriate. That isn't grammatical and I can't figure out the meaning. Please explain. The similarity is supposed to be "only in the name" for either a phrasal template or a snowclone, by definition. We don't need an article for something in order to state that that thing is an example of something. We do that all the time in Wikipedia. The use of those examples is only to show that other such phrases exist, which is what a reader would want to know once the reader is told that this is either a "snowclone" or "phrasal template". These things only exist in groups, by definition, so you need some examples of other members of the group. This also enormously helps the reader to understand the meaning. The closer the other examples are to the subject at hand (very prominent office-holders in this case) the better. Listing several three-word phrases in a short sentence at the tail end of a short article is not WP:UNDUE. Other usage examples are needed when the article is about a phrase and you're showing that the phrase is part of a certain category in the language. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

1. "Snowclone" is absurd and obscure. Wikipedia has a lot of articles on absurd and obscure subjects. It requires a reliable source to connect this absurd, but not obscure, topic, to that term.
2. The article is not about the phrase, but about the meaning and usage. If you want to add a section about the phrase, using the term phrasal template, go ahead. A source would be helpful, but I'm not sure it's required.
3. Comparing "the Gore effect" to "the Bush effect" and "the Blair effect" is WP:UNDUE, as it implies that the meaning of the term relates to the secondary meaning, not to the primary meaning. The Pauli effect is sufficiently similar to the (at the moment, primary) use of the term that it should be in the See also section, but it would require references to include that in the body, as well. If there were a Carter effect (as there probably should be), it should also be in See also.

   The meaning of the Bush effect is not at all similar to any of the meanings attached here, as well. I'll need to go into that in more detail later, but, if you must use a list of examples, their being politicians is completely irrelevant to both the primary and secondary meanings, so should not be considered as a factor. You should use celebrities, if there are any such uses.

If you could support, with references, adding "the name effect" to the snowclone article, you might have a case here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

DISPUTE - There's this 800# Gorilla...

...running amok in this article. It's going to require identification, focus, discussion (more than likely within some Wikipedia venue superior to this article "talk") and resolution with subsequent article oversight before this article can ever attain any sense of stability.

That "Gorilla" is the postulate that the 2 represented "subjects" of this treatment are the same "subjects" for the purposes of hosting article content related to each within a single Wikipedia article.

The postulate is, IMHO, factually wrong, contrived, strained, harmful to (if not preclusive of) the composition of a credible treatment of "Gore Effect (satire)" (or either use for that matter), inherently disruptive to an orderly composition process and unsustainable under any rational examination for validity.

IMHO, the argument is strong, on multiple levels, for the creation of individual treatments of each "use" being advanced but,...first things first.

Hipocrite suggested "disambiguation" as an alternative but it was objected to as having "POV fork" considerations. "Forks", by Wikipedia definition, relate to individual treatments of the "same subject". If another treatment is not related to the "same subject", then "POV fork" becomes moot and 2 individual treatments are viable. I'd suggest we get on with this debate and get this resolved.

Are the 2 "uses" being advanced the "same subject"? JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

No they are actually separate subjects. One (this article) is about The Gore effect, whic hdeals with bad weather at events about AGW. The other is The Al Gore Effect, which is about gore telling everyone about global warming mark nutley (talk) 14:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The humorous, ironic phrase has a different history and is treated differently and used for different purposes than the phrase that uses the same words for the unironic journalists' cliche. The first phrase has caught the attention of reliable sources who discuss it. The second phrase, as far as I can tell, has never been discussed as a subject by any reliable sources. The first phrase is the name of a recurring joke. The second phrase is simply another way of saying that another prominent public office-holder has influence, and as soon as we try to describe that subject, we find ourselves repeating information that other articles cover better. The first phrase is properly the subject of a Wikipedia article because it has the required sourcing, as has been ratified by an AfD. The second phrase hasn't been shown to have any of that. There may be more examples of usage in the second phrase, but by itself that doesn't mean that phrase is fit to be a Wikipedia article, much less this Wikipedia article. It is fine to mention the second subject in the article about the first subject, because they are somewhat related. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 14:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• Emphatic No - (from an earlier discussion) The "title" is "Gore Effect". Where a single use of a term or phrase is recognized, a "title" might be legitimately said to reflect a "subject" as well. Where there are 2 or more uses of the phrase or term recognized (or advanced), then the "subject" of the term MUST be defined by the content its use relates to as is assuredly the understanding in colloquial use. They may share a common "title" and tangentially relate to a common element, but they are, by no means, the same "subject". It is almost self-evident. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Summarazing the PoV problems

There are two major PoV problems with the version that JohnWBarber has recently reverted to. Firstly, it ghettoizes the use of the term to mean Al Gore's effect on public policy into an "other use" section. Secondly, it neglects any mention of this other use in the lede. It appeared there was broad agreement that mentioning the use in the lede and having a seperate section for this other use was appropriate - see comments by JakeInJoisey at 14:58, 22 June 2010, 15:51, 22 June 2010. It appears that no non-party to the grand GWCC case of 2010 has stepped up to support the excise from the lede and ghettoization of the alternative phrase - while they have opposed parity, I see no evidence they support total exclusion. I suggest that JohnWBarber consider writing for the enemy, or tagging the version of the article he dosen't like, as opposed to repeatedly reverting to his preferred version. Hipocrite (talk) 16:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It appeared there was broad agreement that mentioning the use in the lede and having a seperate section for this other use was appropriate - see comments by JakeInJoisey at 14:58, 22 June 2010, 15:51, 22 June 2010.

While I believe "other uses" (in whatever terminology is consensus acceptable) would be an appropriate section, my comments in 14:58, 22 June 2010 were, I believe, unrelated to your observation. Perhaps you simply misconstrued them. Not really important anyway.

In 15:51, 22 June 2010, I clearly distinguished between "use in the lede" (Verbal's edit) and "use in the opening sentence" (your edit). Assuming dual treatment in the same article survives debate, I do and will strongly argue for the former. As to "mention" in the lede, you are correct...and I believe demonstrated in my acquiescence in Verbal's edit.JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Specifically, Verbal's edit was undone. There is no longer mention that the phrase is used for anything except cold weather in the lede. Perhaps you should ask JohnWBarber to self revert, or revert him yourself? Hipocrite (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

JohnWBarber wants the "snowclone" V and NPOV violation in the lede. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I, for one, am out of the article editing/reverting game...at least for the short term. I'm simply uninterested in editing in an environment where drive-by editing is deemed acceptable with all the nonsense attendant to it. Without definitive resolution to at least 2 issues, any content will have a short shelf-life anyway. P.S. I'm not really clear that you're not confusing the "lede" with the "first sentence". Are we on the same page there? Verbal's edit was not the problem. It was yours. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that JohnWBarber's revert should be undone as was not justified by "consensus" here or policy. Verbal chat 17:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Verbal, or anyone else -- where is your consensus to make a contested change to the lead? The language should be status quo ante the discussion, at least as concerns the contested point (other changes are fine). You know that there is no consensus to describe both meanings in a roughly equal fashion. I think there is consensus to have mentioned the other meaning in the lead, but no more than a mention. Show me where your consensus is and I'll back off. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The consensus is at WP:LEAD and in all those opposing your changes. I'm very disappointed by the partisan stonewalling here. Verbal chat 18:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Stop the WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. You need consensus on this page and you know that. The lead reflects the article. You haven't responded to my request and that's leading me to think you can't do so. Discuss. Get consensus. If you have consensus, change the article to that consensus. Otherwise you're "stonewalling". -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It appears that you are both hung up on who has consensus and who dosen't, who is stonewalling, and who isn't. Ironically, it means that both of you are wrong. Please try to seek a compromise - you know, one where you don't get everything you want, that you'd both be willing to live with, or just leave the article alone for people who are willing to try to find solutions to deal with. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 19:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that. Verbal chat 19:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree all you want, but Show me where your consensus is and I'll back off. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC) If you can't point out where it is, looks like you don't have it. How difficult can it be? Where are your compromise suggestions for the addition of the snowclone passage? Where are your compromise suggestions on the lead? I've been away from the article for a bit, did I miss where you offered them? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I mean now the other meanings have aprominent place. I dont understand why the tags are still being reinserted. The german WP calls the tendency to keep an article tagged by all means Bausteinwerfen, "bricklayering". Seems this is the case here18:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I dont understand why the tags are still being reinserted.

The reason for the tag placement is supposed to be explained in a talk section clearly designated to facilitate discussion and resolution of the issue. I've done so for my placement of the {{dispute}} tag if you'd care to take a look. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)