Talk:Gore effect/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 8

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

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

  • ALL content about living people is subject to the stringent WP:BLP policies, per the policy. The "humor" / "satire" of the "Gore Effect" in relation to weather phenomena is clearly commenting/attacking his credibility. Yes clearly BLP applies to content in this article. Active Banana (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Of course, all biographical material about a living person is subject to WP:BLP. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


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

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

RE:WELLKNOWN " If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out" - I think we have one instance that is covered by a third party. Active Banana (talk) 16:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I've added back the reliable source from Politico that had been removed from the article in the past 24 hours. (Way to go, my fine fellow editors, way to go.) And added another. These sources have been prominently displayed either in the article in the past or at the AfD. I find it hard to assume good faith that you didn't already know this. Very, very hard. But just in case it happens to disappear on the article page again, here's the current second paragraph of the article:
The Toronto Globe & Mail defined the term with a quotation from the online Urban Dictionary website as "the phenomenon that leads to unseasonably cold temperatures, driving rain, hail, or snow whenever Al Gore visits an area to discuss global warming."<FOOTNOTE>Scowen, Peter, "AL GORE EFFECT, THE", definition in "The New Climate Almanac", February 17, 2007, Toronto Globe & Mail, quoting from Calvin, Bill, "The Gore Effect", entry, "Urban Dictionary" website, both retrieved June 13, 2010</FOOTNOTE> According to an article at the "Politico" website: "The so-called Gore Effect happens when a global warming-related event, or appearance by the former vice president and climate change crusader, Al Gore, is marked by exceedingly cold weather or unseasonably winter weather." The "Politico" article notes that skeptics of global warming use the term "half seriously".<FOOTNOTE>Lovely, Erika, "Tracking the 'Gore Effect'", November 25, 2008, Politico, retrieved June 9, 2010</FOOTNOTE>
-- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
With all due respect, your comment isn't RfC related and will probably generate additional non-related content. Please consider placing this elsewhere (and deleting my suggestion as well after your consideration) JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
With all due respect, here is the exact language of WP:WELLKNOWN which clinches the argument that this RfC is a complete waste of time since there's only one way to read this passage (boldface added):
In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out.
I have every reason to be irked that within 24 hours, the crucial passage that sourced this subject to a reliable source in the article was removed, then an RfC was mounted in which lack of reliable sources was the only crutch holding it up. As I say, this is a complete waste of time. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
While Politico in general may be a reliable source, we have a reliable source taking that particular article by Lovely and tearing its" journalistic reliablity" to shreds. Hence it is not a reliable source. CORRECTION: calling it vacuous and asisnine.Active Banana (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
As has been pointed out to you at the AfD, the reliability of that article was not questioned in the CJR article. You confused that with the CJR article's questioning of a separate article. This article was a sidebar to that. The writer had the opportunity to say this sidebar was unreliable and did not. I should not have to repeat points to you only to see you ignore them later. Reliability is the issue here, so other kinds of criticism are irrelevant. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Somehow in the terrabits of comments in this discussion, if you made that point in the AfD I missed it and will review my comments on basis of your information. Active Banana (talk) 17:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
So you want to hold vacuaous and asinine "journalism" as your basis... not seein much difference. Active Banana (talk) 17:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Then look up the definitions of "asinine" and "vacuous". -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • NO Jake Active Banana is wrong here, attacking his credibility is completely false. This is an article about a phrase. There is no attack on any person whatsoever. The fact that there is no biographical information in the article should be a clue. Plus of course the fact that the phrase is also used about bad weather at any AGW event, Gore does not actually have to be there mark nutley (talk) 15:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Um...surely you're confusing my position on the RfC with someone or something else. Nor have/had I even commented yet in this RfC. A very confusing observation. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry jake, fixed it :) mark nutley (talk) 16:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
It is a phrase attacking Gore (a person)'s credibility by making an incredibly lame claim to a connection between AG's appearacnes and weather phenomena that supposedly shows that his position about climate change is baseless. Active Banana (talk) 17:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


Just to remember the fact that if somebody described in a BLP e.g. Helmut Kohl is being described as being a Birne doesnt mean hes a fruit (Banana seems actively to ignore the difference) nor does it rule out mentioning the nickname or satire in a WP article. Polentario (talk) 16:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
You keep forgetting - "if covered by third parties in reliable sources" Active Banana (talk) 16:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
You keep forgetting. Reliable sources have been repeatedly brought forward and displayed prominently. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
You keep keep missing "third party reliable sources" Active Banana (talk) 16:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • NO - This article subject is not "biographical material". It addresses an overtly satirical construct, well-documented as existing in the public sphere, suggesting an absurd causal relationship between either an individual advocate's presence or a cause-associated event and unusual or unseasonal weather phenomena. A Wikipedia treatment of non-factual satire should not be impeded by mis-applied WP:BLP considerations simply because it may have some perceived consequence to either an individual advocate's credibility or the credibility of a cause or idea he might espouse. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
from WP:BLP: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives" (emph added) - the titilating claim that Al Gore is somehow able to control the weather. "This policy applies to BLPs, including any living person mentioned in a BLP even if not the subject of the article, and to material about living persons on other pages" (emph added)Active Banana (talk) 16:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Could you be reaching any further? the titilating claim that Al Gore is somehow able to control the weather Dear sweet god in heaven, nobody actually thinks gore can control the weather, try again mark nutley (talk) 16:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
This guy Talk:The_Gore_Effect#Martenstein aparently does. Active Banana (talk) 16:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
That would appear to be an example of Satire it is obviously a joke, try again mark nutley (talk) 17:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
...the titilating claim that Al Gore is somehow able to control the weather.
Strawman argument. It is a satirical construct and neither it nor its numerous chronicleers suggest otherwise. Perchance, should anyone do so, they are certifiably one donut short of a dozen and uncitable.
You also presume the question. Whether WP:BLP sourcing considerations are applicable to this article is the subject in contention. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • NO - Gore is a prominent public figure and as such he is not immunized against people making jokes regarding him or his beliefs. A joke, especially one based on such an obviously false premise as this, cannot be legitimately construed to constitute criticism of the man or to call his credibility into question. The only material in this article that directly relates to Al Gore are assertions that he was present at a certain place on a certain date. Such statements of fact cannot possibly be considered prejudicial against the man. He was either there, or he wasn't, and in neither case does that fact say anything about the man's credibility. Simply taking note of the weather that coincided with his visits, again, says nothing about the credibility of the man's beliefs. It is surprising to see so many apparently well educated people who fail to grasp this concept. --Rush's Algore (talk) 17:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes of course it is. And no amount of consensus here can change that. This RfC is thus rather silly. We are talking about a term that is made to make fun of a living person (Al Gore) - thus we of course are talking about BLP-content. We seem to be at the point where people have realized that there aren't any real reliable references for this term .... But that doesn't mean that you can cut off BLP requirements. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Huh? There are plenty of reliable sources about this term. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Reliable from a BLP RS perspective. I still haven't seen a non-opinion article that discusses the term. (as the Gore => Cold usage (there are plenty of real reliable sources for the Gore advocacy impact usage though.)) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
There's the Politco article, for starters. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, Kim. The Politico article. The one you pulled from the article yesterday. The one I put back today. Then there's the New England Cable Channel. Then there's the Toronto Globe & Mail, sources I'd mentioned in the AfD discussion. And CNN's own weatherman commenting on weather forecasters, also mentioned in the AfD. All reliable sources. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Kim you seem to be on four reverts on this article today, could you please be more careful mark nutley (talk) 19:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually all (except one) are marked "per BLP" (thus specifically marking that i'm invoking the BLP exception clause of 3RR) - do please invoke enforcement if you think it is incorrect - perhaps we may find out if the article is under BLP or not. And this is not the forum for such - try addressing content not editors. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The one you pulled from the article yesterdaÿ́ - diff please - or correct your sentence, i can't find that i should have done so. As for the rest NECC (is new) but as far as i can tell its opinion - its certainly not journalism.... Toronto Globe&Mail is a strange fish but its not journalism (and one that wasn't in the article at any point where i've been watching it - i don't follow the AfD, i've given my 2cents). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
My mistake: It's the "New England News Channel". The person who wrote it is a weather forecaster and an environmental news reporter. Looks like Polentario removed the footnote, thinking it only applied to another passage, [1] then you removed the other sentences from the Politico article that the (then-missing) footnote had supported. [2] You did this without, it appears, checking the history, as I just did, to see whether past versions of the article had the footnote for that sentence, which would be the rational, good-faith assumption to make about a passage with such specificity. And you did this to an article you want to see deleted. When editors at the AfD are complaining about sourcing. That kind of behavior on your part helps create an atmosphere of distrust on these pages. Please try to avoid similar behavior in the future. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Its possible that the Politico article is a WP:RS - i'm not particularly familiar with that site/whatever(?) is it highly regarded? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Actually looking again it`s five reverts :) Calm yourself down mate. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] mark nutley (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Politico is a reliable source.[8] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
If Politico isn't a reliable source, we have some major problems here at Wikipedia.[9] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
You are making a wrong assumption: That reliability is general and not context based. There is no such thing as a completely reliable source, which is why we do not have a "white-list" of sources that are considered reliable. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
You are correct, reliability depends on context. If you honestly believe that this particular article is not reliable in the manner that it's being used, then you're free to bring it up at WP:RSN. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Kim, Politico is a reliable source. And The Toronto Globe and Mail is a reliable source. And CNN is a reliable source. And the New England News Channel is a reliable source. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry - but this is an incorrect statement - reliability is never general - but instead contextual. As noted in the RS/N discussion on a particular context of Politico - it is somewhat alike to the Huffington Post - a site that certainly can be reliable but isn't always. (in fact i'd think at least twice before using it). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but as you know, unless you've got a specific reason to doubt an otherwise reliable source, you've got nothing substantial to object to. As has been pointed out to you in a discussion on another article page. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • YES but only the parts of the article that refer to Al Gore or to the "Gore effect". TFD (talk) 20:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Brought up on the BLP notice board [10] mark nutley (talk) 21:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • This article is not a Biography of a living person at all, the template whoever put it on should remove it. As with any article any content that is about living people is subject to compliance with WP:BLP policy. Off2riorob (talk) 22:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
    • The template is there for a purpose - at various stages the article has included poorly-sources attacks on living people. This article has attracted one entirely new editor who was unfamiliar with the policy. Not to mention that the fact that someone felt the need to add an RFC to ask the question of whether BLP is reason enough to suggest that the template is needed. BLP is, after all, a policy that applies to biographical content about living people, not simply to biographies. It's an important distinction that new editors tend to miss. Guettarda (talk) 22:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
      • I don't know about your reasons for adding the template but it is not because the article is a wikipedia biography of a living person because it is not, and the template should be removed. You could easily direct the new editor to whatever policy and comments you want to. Off2riorob (talk) 22:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • No. This article is not about Al Gore. It's about the use of humor by other people to mock a cause that Al Gore is involved with. Thus, this article is about Global Warming, not Gore. Cla68 (talk) 00:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Some of it may certainly be to indirectly mock Al Gore's cause - but it directly mocks Al Gore - who is (as far as i know) a living person. Thus BLP applies and careful sourcing is necessary. Humour is not excempt from WP:BLP or any other policy.--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
No it mocks the weather and AGW, not al gore BLP does not apply to this article and the tag will be removed as it has no place in an article which is not a BLP mark nutley (talk) 00:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
If the article isn't at all about Gore, why does it discuss his activities repeatedly and mention him by name 11 times? Perhaps those are errors, and they should be removed from the article. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Uh, lemme just make a wild, wild stab at that and guess that those who repeat the satirical point want to make a point about climate change. How's that? What insight into Al Gore do you believe the tellers of the joke are trying to convey? I can't think of anything. This is far, far, far from the criticism or even mocking that Al Gore must've received from even his first few years in office. Honestly -- what does it even really mock about Al Gore himself? The idea that there is a BLP problem here is utterly bizarre. What is the justification for thinking so? What? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I think it's mainly to mock Gore, personally. It's saying "haha look at you trying so hard and, whoops, better luck next time." It's specifically trying to turn his efforts into a PR liability rather than an asset. I don't see how BLP could not apply, though I'm only perusing this discussion. Mackan79 (talk) 07:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, I hope the removal of so much reliably sourced content doesn't continue as it will get in the way of nominating this article for Good Article once the AfD is closed. Cla68 (talk) 01:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
You said that the article is not about Al Gore, so the repeated mention of him presumably would constitute off-topic rambling that may prevent the article from becoming a Good Article. Admittedly content-oriented factors are only incidental to the Good Article evaluation process, but it still could hurt. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes clearly. It is a spin-off from a BLP and the subject refers to a man, who is alive. Verbal chat 09:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
In fact, this subject is very clearly not a "spin-off from a BLP" and is about how some people simply use the fact of Gore's advocacy to repeat a joke. The possibility of actually attacking Gore through edits to this article is no riskier than in any other article in which Gore is mentioned. No one has explained how this article is any more sensitive -- liable to be used to hurt Gore -- than any other article mentioning him. That's because that case can't be made. Therefore the BLP idea is spurious. Therefore drop the box. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I think you could do one better, John: just by showing up, Gore helps decrease global warming. So really they're trying to build him up. Mackan79 (talk) 20:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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 [11] 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 [12]. 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).[13] 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 [[14]] 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? [15] 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 [16] 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. [17] 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):
  • Lofgren, Å.; Nordblom, K. (2010). "Attitudes towards CO2 taxation - is there an Al Gore effect?". Applied Economics Letters. 17 (9): 845. doi:10.1080/13504850802584849.
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. [18] 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 [19], 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" [20] "the Obama effect" [21] "The Blair Effect" [a book title] [22]). 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" [23] "the Obama effect" [24] "The Blair Effect" (a book title) [25]. 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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gore_effect/Archive_3&oldid=887595298"