Talk:Gore effect/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Introduction - cont'd (2)

The second sentence currently reads...

The phrase has been used as well to describe Gore's impact in raising global warming as a public issue.

May I suggest, as a "copyedit" alternative...

The phrase has also been employed in works related to Al Gore's prominence and influence as a leading advocate for global warming awareness and concerns.

Just IMHO, but I think it reads a bit better. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Amending suggested text to incorporate "related"...

The phrase has also been employed in works addressing Al Gore's prominence and influence as a leading advocate for global warming awareness and related concerns.

JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

PLease reinsert Al Gore and the environment and Global warming controversy as discussed meters above. BR Polentario (talk) 16:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Polentario, I'm not quite sure what you are suggesting nor am I clear as to what discussion you are referring to. Can you be more explicit? JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Some yards above on this page, we have been discussing the "See also" Paragraph. Al Gore and the environment and Global warming controversy had been integrated into the entry, Hipocrit has erased em. I will reintroduce those links. OK? Polentario (talk) 09:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it again - after going through each and every reference. Your text is not supported by any of the references, since not a single one of these "mock" Gore. None of them are about controversy either. In fact all of them are attributing the Gore effect as something positive. In other words: Text was completely unsupported by references. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Apparently you realized that the text was unsupported - so you just removed the refs[1]. So now we have a text claiming that Gore is "mocked" without any reliable sources to support it. Do you think that is allowed? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I couldnt care less. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Gore_Effect#See_also.2C_any_objections is to be regarded. Polentario (talk) 09:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I surely hope that you could "care less" - because agreeing that wikilinks should be added to the text - isn't the same as inserting text that is 100% unsupported by references - or inserting text about a WP:BLP being "mocked" which is completely unreferenced. Perhaps you should try to "care"? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: I will remove this as a rather clear BLP violation, unless you provide some reliable source that supports the text, and do remember that it has to be due weight as well, since this is a rather strong statement so any ole' opinion article wont do. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I see that Hipocrite has removed it - i suggest that it isn't readded unless referenced. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

(undent) after many ecs - I removed it coincidentally. If I had noticed I could have just reverted, I would have. In addition to being unsourced, it was also untrue. Further, the second paragraph was not in english - it had an extra "as such" thrown in there without meaning. Hipocrite (talk) 10:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

It appears that in the sequence of edits related to Polentario's revision, the second sentence (noted above) which had previously been acceptable, has been relegated to a subsequent paragraph comprised of that single sentence. Perhaps this was unintentional and as there appears to be no opinion as to my suggested copyedit of the second sentence as it previously existed, without further objection as to it's content, I will re-insert it as an improvement to the earlier existing text and re-create the single opening paragraph...

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 events associated with appearances of former U.S. Vice President and Nobel Peace Prize recipient Al Gore. The phrase has also been employed in works addressing Al Gore's prominence and influence as a leading advocate for global warming awareness and related concerns.

JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Upon further re-consideration, "prominence" and "leading advocate" are redundant, arriving at...

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 events associated with appearances of former U.S. Vice President and Nobel Peace Prize recipient Al Gore. The phrase has also been employed in works addressing Al Gore's influence as a leading advocate for global warming awareness and related concerns.

JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

That works for me jake, how about everyone else? mark nutley (talk) 18:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Well i added your version jake but verbal reverted it out for some reason mark nutley (talk) 07:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not a good edit as it removes relevant text, and minimises one use of the phrase. Verbal chat 07:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

So a drive by revert then, given the current other usage in the lede is The phrase has been used as well to describe Gore's impact in raising global warming as a public issue and jakes version is The phrase has also been employed in works addressing Al Gore's influence as a leading advocate for global warming awareness and related concerns Which is longer and better written, thoughts on this please? mark nutley (talk) 07:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Well i added your version jake but verbal reverted it out for some reason

This process is a simple one...and there is no rush in making a determination if it is supported by consensus. Until others elect to chime in, perhaps Verbal could elaborate and clarify just what "relevant text" is, in his opinion, removed and which "use" was "minimised" by the suggested edit. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

With Verbal not replying i think we may s well put this back in, it does not minimise anything and is written better than the current lede mark nutley (talk) 11:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. "to describe Gore's impact in raising global warming as a public issue." should not be removed/minimised or conflated with other uses. Verbal chat 11:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Strongly disagree? Yikes. This strikes me as much ado about nothing. "Gore's impact in raising global warming as a public issue" is the equivalent of "global warming awareness" nor is it "conflated" with "other issues". In fact, the proposed text suggests an even more expansive "influence" into "related concerns". JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree "global warming awareness" is not the same as "raising global warming as a public issue". You can be very aware - and still not see it as a public issue, the two things are not mutually exclusive. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

{outdent}Very well. While, IMHO, suggesting that a prospective reader of this article on a satirical jibe at "global warming" needs to be "informed" that this is a "public issue" may border on condescension, perhaps the following will satisfy...

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 events associated with appearances of former U.S. Vice President and Nobel Peace Prize recipient Al Gore. The phrase has also been employed in works addressing Al Gore's influence as a leading advocate for global warming awareness as a public issue and other related concerns.

JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Polentario, inre your...
I will reintroduce those links. OK?
First, while I agree that Wikipedia both encourages and prefers incorporation of "see also" content into the article itself, it is, as I understand it, neither mandatory nor preclusive as to other considerations.
Second, I believe your suggested content, even assuming that it might be incorporated in a manner satisfying both Wikipedia WP:V considerations AND editorial consensus, the content is already adequately referenced by the thus far acceptable (I assume) existing text.
In the future, prior to inserting substantive revision(s) to the existing text, please post your suggested edits here for discussion towards reaching consensus acceptability. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Without further objection, I will shortly incorporate the above suggested text into the article. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

People already objected above. Asking the same question again and not getting further response, when this thread is no longer very active, does not mean those editors no longer object. Verbal chat 08:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

People already objected above.

And the suggested text was modified in response to those objections...with no response in return. What, specifically, do you now object to in the modified text as currently comprised? JakeInJoisey (talk) 10:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Refactoring archive pages

Kslotte (talk · contribs) recently refactored the archive pages. If there is consensus, and it's verified that any links to the moved sections were correct, it may be reasonable. Otherwise, it should be reverted.

I haven't checked whether links were broken. Yet. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Made archive 1 and 2 into a reasonable size of about 100kB. No links are broken. Implemented auto-archiving for threads that haven't been edited for 10 days. I assume this is OK? --Kslotte (talk) 22:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems OK. Archives 1 and 2 were originally manually created, and I recall no specific reason for choosing one or the other except that Archive 1 was created first. The archiving suggestion seems to be still live here at #request for archiving. I have no objection to autoarchiving, but I really don't see a consensus for or against. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It appears that many of the prior contributing editors may now be principals in the CC arbcom discussion currently underway which may be impacting their consideration here. Until the results of the arbcom are finalized, perhaps the archive time criteria needs to be changed to indefinite. As it is now, many of the previously discussed issues remain unresolved and those prior discussions should be readily accessible, not archived. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Considering this further, until this question is resolved, I'm increasing the "count" to 20 and the "time" to 30 days. If I understand the parameters correctly, the addition of another section would have archived an ongoing (though not currently very active) dispute after 10 days of inactivity. Someone please correct me if my understanding is incorrect. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

DISPUTE - PoV, yet again

Apparently JiJ insists on a section header for any tag. The PoV problem in this article is clear - it provides undue weight to half of the article - there is an assumption that the article is about the satire, with the effect as the secondary topic, when, at the very least, they need equal weighting. I previously made edits that reflected this - they were reverted. I am willing to discuss any compromise that anyone would like to make to have this article reflect the prominance of each in reliable sources. Hipocrite (talk) 14:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Apparently JiJ insists on a section header for any tag.

I'm unsure why you choose to frame an attempt to employ recommended Wikipedia process for dispute resolution as some personal "insistence" on my part, but so be it. In that regard, it also suggests that the word "Dispute" be integrated into the section title to facilitate both identification and resolution. I'm adding it to the section title as per the Wikipedia recommendation which you are, of course, free to revert if you, for some reason, object. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Agree that coverage of only one use of the term is POV and not reflective of the usage in reliable sources. Active Banana (talk) 14:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The article is about the satire, that is what it went up for afd on, they most certainly do not need equal weighting at all mark nutley (talk) 14:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

And again, while the initial article that was nominated for AfD may have been a POV slanted partial coverage of the term, during most of the AfD process the article that editors considered contained multiple reliable sources about different uses of the term, and many of the more reliable sources were in fact about uses other than the "humorous" use. Stop with your non-sense. Active Banana (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Again. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

No you are again wrong, as pointed out before, other uses were inserted 00:24, 15 June 2010 (near as i can make out given the state of the history) AFD closes 08:10, 16 June 2010, so for one day the other usage was in the article, tell me again were you get during most of the AfD process the article that editors considered contained multiple reliable sources about different uses of the term as it obviously wrong mark nutley (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Mark, The 9th of June version contains the sentence[2]: Previously, the "Al Gore Effect" was sometimes used to describe the impact of Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth, on the climate change debate - and it was discussed on talk in a sepearate section on the 11th of June[3] - so your description is incorrect. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Mark, what % of the AFD 7 days would the other use need to have been present for them to have been there for "most" of the AfD process? Hipocrite (talk) 15:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

What`s the best part of a week? I would say 5 days to be considered most, or 4 minimum what would you call the best part of 7 days? mark nutley (talk) 15:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The AfD was opened on June 9. This version of the article from June 9 contains at least 3 sources of alternate uses. [4] - so something close to 99% Active Banana (talk) 15:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The information was added to the article first 00:56, 9 June 2010. The article was nominated for deletion at 07:49, 9 June 2010, so the information was there for 104% of the AFD. Hipocrite (talk) 15:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

@AB Your diff shows no instances of the other usage that i can see, @ Hipocrite, [5] as of this diff it is not there, 01:23, 9 June 2010 you may want to recalculate your % mark nutley (talk) 16:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

While it is, IMHO, irrelevant to the issue in dispute, what contributors to the AfD considered to be the subject of the article in making their personal determinations cannot be inferred or implied by anything other than the content of their comments in response (see amended comment below JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)) to the framing of the issue as stated in the original AfD...

This article is fundamentally unencyclopedic: it is a dictionary definition of ideological trivia comparable to "Teleprompter President" and all the Bush/chimp jokes - Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It is simply not a topic substantial enough to warrant coverage in a serious, respectable reference work. The page is ultimately an attack page; although the polemic of the original version has been cleaned up, it's little more than a list of quotes supporting an Urban Dictionary-style definition of a particular line of political invective. The fact that the page has been deleted so many times before should indicate that it does not have a hope of being a suitable subject for Wikipedia. This kind of thing is more suited to Uncyclopedia than Wikipedia.

There is no mention of "other uses" either in the AfD language itself or the AfD determination. To suggest that, at the moment of their comments, AfD contributors were cognizant of the exact sourcing and content currently incorporated into an actively evolving article is simply an unsustainable assertion both in logic and fact. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Upon further consideration, I am amending my original comment to correct an oversight and to read as follows...

(amended text)...what contributors to the AfD considered to be the subject of the article in making their personal determinations cannot be inferred or implied by anything other than the content of their comments in response to either other contributor comments and/or to the framing of the issue as stated in the original AfD...JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Any opinions of AfD commentors that were not "cognizant of the exact sourcing and content" should not have been considered in the closing! Active Banana (talk) 16:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Contributors to an AfD discussion are understood to have read the article, and checked the references. (whether it is correct or not). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Upon further consideration, I am amending my original comment to correct an oversight and to read as follows...

...what contributors to the AfD considered to be the subject of the article in making their personal determinations cannot be inferred or implied by anything other than the content of their comments in response to either other contributor comments and/or to the framing of the issue as stated in the original AfD... JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The only thing that you can infer from the AfD - is that the article shouldn't be deleted. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

No we can infer from AFD based on the !votes cast that the article was about the satirical aspect of the gore effect, that much is obvious mark nutley (talk) 17:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

That the article "shouldn't be deleted" is the AfD determination, not an inference. That the "determination" suggests parity between an unremarked upon, unspecified "other use", in either the AfD declaration or determination, is an inference. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

@MN: I'm still not quite sure what you're trying to state here (despite the amended text). While AfD editor comments can certainly suggest that an AfD determination should be predicated on some consideration other than what is stated in the AfD submission, barring recognition of "other" considerations by the closing examiner or re-submission of a re-stated AfD, then the AfD, as submitted, and the closing examiner's comments can only be used in identifying the "subject" of the article on which the determination was based. Is that what you mean? JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes sorry, i am currently a tad stressed at another editor closing a thread on the RS noticeboard which had not been resolved so my mind is elsewere mark nutley (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Previously, the "Al Gore Effect" was sometimes used to describe the impact of Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth, on the climate change debate.

I have lost any ability to WP:AGF in your editing of this topic. Active Banana (talk) 16:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I am willing to discuss any compromise that anyone would like to make to have this article reflect the prominance of each in reliable sources. Hipocrite
I'd suggest that you already have the "compromise" you seek. IMHO, there's a strong case to be made for establishing "other uses" as irrelevant to this article. As the suggested text now reflects, an accommodation is already being made in deference to what I (and several other editors) deem to be an unsustainable assertion that the "subjects" of "Gore Effect" and "other uses" are identical. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I suggested splitting this article into two articles, as you may recall. Perhaps you are confusing who you are attempting to compromise with? Hipocrite (talk) 19:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation (which you previously suggested) is irrelevant to (and would make moot) any question of "prominence". Your current POV objection (and offer of "compromise") is predicated on the acceptance of an already made "compromise"...which is, in turn, reflected in the recognition of "other uses" in both the current and suggested lede. What you appear to be pressing for, again, is for parity of the 2 uses in this article. That is simply unacceptable on multiple levels and already argued to a fare-thee-well in many of the preceding discussions.

As to your suggestion of "disambiguation", critical to the viability of such an alternative is a consensus determination as to the postulate that "Gore Effect" is the "same subject" as "other uses". In an attempt to reach a consensus determination on that issue, you were a no-show. Rather curious that you would elect to refrain from commenting on an assertion being advanced as an obstacle to your own suggestion. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

If you can't explain things in ways people can understand, don't be surprised when they ignore you. That's why I'm not responding to the above - it dosen't make any sense. It's a lot of words, but it's not at all clear what you're saying. Try again. Hipocrite (talk) 19:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll be happy to assist. Which word/phrase/concept is giving you difficulty? JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The entire thing. I think you make assumptions about what I do and do not believe. Allow me to summarize what I do believe for you. I believe that "Gore Effect" has two meanings - one is the satire, the other is the effect Gore had on public perceptions of climate change. Both meanings may or may not be wikipedia-notable seperately, while they are proven wikipedia-notable together (per AFD). I believe that this article (not so-much the lede, currently) provides undue weight to one of the two meanings. I have attempted/suggested multiple solutions to this - my first attempt was to place two top-level headers - creating two major divisions in the aritlce - one being satire, the other being effect on public perception of climate change. You can see that edit here, but reversion was requested atUser_talk:Hipocrite/06/2010#edit_request, and while I requested that O2R discuss his request, he failed to do so. I also suggested splitting the article in two, as you may remember, but that was also rejected. Given that I appeared to be the only individual offering solutions, I decided that any further attempt to offer solutions was futile, and instead decided that I would tag the article and wait for someone else to offer a solution, or acquiesse to either of mine. There you go! Hipocrite (talk) 20:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe that "Gore Effect" has two meanings - one is the satire, the other is the effect Gore had on public perceptions of climate change.

And other editors, for the purposes of this article, strongly assert otherwise. I have provided what I believe to be a credible argument evidencing support for that contention in the closing determination of the AfD...the only objective Wikipedia-process consideration that is thus far citable. Your position, OTOH, is purportedly supported by what one editor has rather astutely identified as a "snowclone" construct...a rather common and convenient literary turn of phrase. Even within those cited "other uses", the use of the phrase refers to a multitude of different subjects and is predominantly incidental to the subject of the source.

Suppose we start with that one. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I can start by dissuading you of something - you appear to think that AFD rulings are applicable to some sort of content argument. This is wrong. Please ask the closer if his close of the AFD can be used to argue that the article should look like X as opposed to Y. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 20:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I've been reading this, not with interest especially, but I feel I should say I agree with Hipocrite, Kim and Active Banana if that helps establish anything. The AfD in no way limits the content of this article. RS strongly assert that the Gore effect has multiple meanings. Verbal chat 20:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

...you appear to think that AFD rulings are applicable to some sort of content argument. This is wrong.

What's "wrong" is your mis-characterization of my position. I believe that THIS AfD found that Wikipedia criteria warranting the existence of a Wikipedia article addressing the satirical "Gore Effect" were sufficiently demonstrated, independent of any other suggested "uses"...either in the AfD submission or in the AfD closing determination. Furthermore...

Please ask the closer if his close of the AFD can be used to argue that the article should look like X as opposed to Y.

Asked and answered (multiple times in this discussion). That question has already been posed to the examiner...and he has, thus far, elected not to elaborate. I've no intent to badger him further into submission...nor do I believe it is necessary. When first queried as to this question, he did offer the following observation (emphasis mine)...

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)

1. "Yes---", he did take those purported "uses" into consideration.

2. He made no mention of those purported "other uses" in his closing. They were, therefore, of no consequence worth citing in reaching his determination.

3. Were these "other uses" to be incorporated in this article, the appropriate (and expected) place would be The_Gore_Effect#Other_use_of_the_phrase.

You can spin that as you will, but his position appears to be rather clear as to any alleged parity of the 2 uses e.g. your apparent, sought for "compromise". JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no spin required. The closer has stated that ensuring the proper inclusion and proportionalaity is up to the articles editors. We can broaden the discussion through an RfC if you want. Active Banana (talk) 04:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Per others: the AFD isn't a content ruling. I also think it is regrettable that, with no apparent irony, MN can write ‎ (Reverted to revision 373271674 by Polentario; rv don`t insert tags and not go to talk guys. (TW)) and yet not use the talk page himself William M. Connolley (talk) 16:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I see no conclusion to the discussion here that has resolved the problems that led to the tags being added. I'm looking forward to MN and Polentario's solutions. Verbal chat 17:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, there hasn't been a conclusion. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Polentario, why doesn't your English userpage link to your other language sites (English, Dansk, Nederlands, Français, Norsk (bokmål), Italiano, English (again)), such as Benutzer:Polentario (German)? http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Polentario 99.35.11.76 (talk) 20:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

a) done so, "Wenn's der Wahrheitsfindung dient" b) I dont see the need for a further closer look on the "positive Gore effect" which has already been inserted beyound its due weight. Glueing various tags to the article, sounds more like a revenge foul after the AfD was lost by one side. Its just boring. Polentario (talk) 20:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Excessive cites?

The current number of cites supporting the defining sentence are, IMHO, excessive and detrimental to both the appearance and readability of the lede. Perhaps the list should be pared down to 3 or 4 of the most representative? JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

NO. Active Banana (talk) 00:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Jake. Or at the very least, they should be bunched. --Yopienso (talk) 08:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC) [Stricken by me July 6. --Yopienso (talk) 03:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)]

I disagree with jake. Until the issues above are resolved they should remain. Verbal chat 08:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no need for all those ref`s in the lede as what is in the lede is supported in the content below, see wp:lead The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article It does without all those ref`s in there mark nutley (talk) 09:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately they seem to be required until the POV issues are addressed. I'm glad you switched to the correct spelling of lead ;) Verbal chat 11:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:LEDE also says "The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited. ... there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations". Give the reams and reams and reams of discussions on this talk page, the content of this lede is clearly controversial. Active Banana (talk) 12:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

If the problem is aesthetics, just put all the sources into a single footnote with each separated by a semi-colon. That will take care of it. Cla68 (talk) 23:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, the purpose of cites in a lede is to advise the reader on the existence of supporting sources for what might be challengeable within the article content. 2 or 3 of those cited for the first sentence should be more than adequate. JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

No longer having any reason to even fake an assumption of good faith: This is no more than a run around attempt to remove evidence that the use of the term by reliable sources is in no way limited to the "satirical" usage that is being pushed as the primary focus of the article in contravention of WP:UNDUE. THERE WILL BE NO CONSENSUS FOR THIS REQUEST. Active Banana (talk) 01:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Active, please take it easy. If you want all the citations to remain, just do as I suggest and combine them all into a single footnote. That's what I do in most of the articles I submit for FAC. Cla68 (talk) 01:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

If someone can apprise me of just how paring the sources for the first sentence "...remove(s) evidence that the use of the term by reliable sources is in no way limited to the 'satirical' usage...", I'd be most appreciative. I have no idea what he's talking about. JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Notes # 2-10 don't support the lede but relate to other uses of the term "the Gore effect" and even "the gore effect." They should be deleted, shouldn't they? --Yopienso (talk) 03:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Notes # 2-10...should be deleted, shouldn't they?

Yikes! Perhaps I'm not seeing the forest for the trees here, but the lede only requires minimal citation for the purpose of alerting the reader that the lede content is supported by at least (but not limited to) those cites in the main body of the article. We now have 10 cites for the content "...with particular emphasis on events associated with appearances of former U.S. Vice President and Nobel Peace Prize recipient Al Gore." That nuts!

What am I missing here? This appears to be quite simple and should be uncontroversial.

JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that certain editors are determined to make a point that "the Gore effect" (as well as "gore effect") can refer to something other than the humor alluded to by Marciano and Bolt. If that is correct, the attempt is altogether wrong, since that information should be included later in the article if included at all. (My strong opinion is that it has no place unless it is very lightly weighted.) Some of that info is already in the last section under Gore's impact on public awareness of global warming issues.

I struck my comment agreeing with you, Jake, because I realized the refs need to be evaluated before being deleted or bunched. It's not a case of a redundancy of notes: nine of the ten have nothing to do with what they supposedly serve as sources for, so they should be gotten rid of or relegated as a footnote in themselves to the bottom of the article. --Yopienso (talk) 04:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it is that there are wikipedia editors who want to ensure the WP:UNDUE is followed and that the article represents the usage of the term in roughtly the same proportions as the reliable sources do. Active Banana (talk) 04:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Paring the cites to a representative few that source the content in the lede as it exists is irrelevant to your argument. All the sourcing currently contained in the article is not impacted one iota by not being cited in the lede.

I struck my comment agreeing with you, Jake, because I realized the refs need to be evaluated before being deleted or bunched.

Yopienso, paring the number of citations in the lede does NOT delete them from the ARTICLE (at least it shouldn't, as the citations should all be incorporated already). Nor do I agree with...

...nine of the ten have nothing to do with what they supposedly serve as sources for...

The citatations should all support the text...

"...with particular emphasis on events associated with appearances of former U.S. Vice President and Nobel Peace Prize recipient Al Gore."

I believe they all do BUT, if they don't, then they shouldn't be citing that text anyway.

I just don't get this issue. It should be a no brainer. What am I missing here? JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

{Outdent} I double-checked, and it's numbers 6-10 that do not support the text. I tried twice to delete them, but being such a ditz about footnotes got huge red signs telling me I'd done it wrong. --Yopienso (talk) 23:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Active Banana! --Yopienso (talk) 00:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

For this article, and I am not sure why, the full citation and its name is located in the "References" section (rather than the typical inclusion in the body of the article) and within the body of the article is just using the "name" - so you have to remove it from both places. Active Banana (talk) 00:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Yopienso (talk) 00:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The disputed tag

The article is currently tagged as having disputes over the factual accuracy of the article. Is there a section where this is being discussed (I can't seem to figure out where)? If not can someone please summarize the specific concerns with diffs, please? --TheNeutralityDoctor (talk) 02:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The rationale for the {{dispute}} tag is contained in the designated dispute section, DISPUTE - There's this 800# Gorilla... DISPUTE - Are the 2 "uses" being advanced the "same subject"?.JakeInJoisey (talk) 11:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC) I'm unsure who or for what reason the {{POV}} tag was placed. JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It appears that the {{POV}} tag was applied by User:Verbal here. As there appears to be no active talk section designated to address resolution of this dispute per Wikipedia guidelines for dispute resolution, I am removing the tag and advising User:Verbal. If he or any other editor wishes to re-instate the tag, please establish a designated "dispute" topic stating the basis for the tag insertion to facilitate dispute resolution. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Nearly every section on this page is addressing the POV issue. Verbal chat 17:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI the initiatiator of this section User:TheNeutralityDoctor (known to this page prior to a name change requested by an admin, [6] as User:Rush's Algore ) has been identified blocked as a sock puppet of BANNED editor User:GoRight. see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/GoRight/Archive#30_June_2010. Active Banana (talk) 02:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Marknutley aparently believes the above statement about TheNeutralityDoctor is incorrect because he TWICE improperly struck MY comments. If he provides evidence that supercedes the evidence that I based my statement on, I will strike my own comment. Active Banana (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Funny, did you not read the edit summary? Nor my talk page? Nor the SPI you link to? Strike your false accusations or i will, i`m not fussed mark nutley (talk) 17:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You do NOT have the right to strike others talk page comments. EVER. Active Banana (talk) 18:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

factual accuracy

So what in the article is not factually accurate? mark nutley (talk) 12:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Assuming you are referencing my objection, a contention that the 2 "uses" of "Gore Effect" are the "same subject" is, IMHO, factually absurd on its face and will inevitably give rise to further disputes inre NPOV. I would appreciate it if you might consider moving your observation (including my response) to the section I created to support the tag application. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

How can this not be factually correct?

The phrase has also been used to describe Gore's impact in raising global warming as a public issue,[6][7][8][9] and in other ways related to Al Gore.[10][11][12][13]

Current footnotes #1-5 document the humorous usage of the term.

Current footnotes #6-9 refers to Gore's bringing environmental issues to the fore.

Current footnotes #10-13 refer to political strategies or phenomena.

The only reason I'm not removing the tag right this minute is out of deference to the consensus system. Surely by the time I check back in either there will be comments authorizing me to or someone else will have removed it. --Yopienso (talk) 03:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The "fact" in dispute is an assertion that the 2 "uses" of "Gore Effect" address the same subject. I started the dispute section in order to resolve that question which MUST be resolved before this article can attain stability. Those supporting that contention have, thus far, been unresponsive. If you can suggest a more appropriate tag that would adequately lead to a resolution of that issue, I'm all ears. JakeInJoisey (talk) 10:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The subject is "The Gore Effect", and that subject has multiple uses. I'm impressed by your assertion of "unresponsive", when it is rather more a case of people not wanting to repeat the same arguments again and again. See long discussions in the archives (which aren't that old...) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The subject is "The Gore Effect", and that subject has multiple uses.

No, the "title" is "The Gore Effect". The "subject" of the 2 "uses" are decidedly different and, thus far, your contention that they are the "same subject" (thus precluding a separate treatment under WP:POVFORK) has received no support in the section designated to resolve that dispute. In fact, it is only you (that I can see) suggesting otherwise and you did so by objecting to Hipocrite's suggestion of separate treatment for both uses.

Whether you participate or not in the section designated to resolve that dispute is your choice, but "see the archive" just isn't going to cut it. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You mean it didn't get support in the section you created just after having discussed the same thing in several other sections? Why don't you try an RfC? Since you quite apparently are unwilling to let go of the issue, and will keep repeating it until people are so tired of it, that they stop responding? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The "same thing" was NOT discussed in other sections. It was YOU who first proffered the notion that the "2 uses" were the "same subject" thus precluding Hipocrite's obvious resolution for separate treatments in individual articles due to WP:POVFORK. Fair enough. Let's see how that contention holds up under dispute resolution.

As to an RfC, I believe editors are currently distracted by the ARBCOM process and an RfC, at this point, will likely garner little input. If and when it is appropriate, I will certainly post the suggested text for an RfC here for consensus framing of the question.

In the interim, I'll look forward to your contribution in the designated dispute resolution section. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Silly me--I should have realized there was some contention here. OK, as one who has been uninvolved in this particular quibble, though I've contributed to the talk page wrt footnotes and to the AfD, this seems quite simple. The subject of this article is the humorous application. However, the media has used the same term--"the Gore effect"--in different ways. None of those ways is significant or defined enough to merit its own article. Therefore, as a form of disambiguation--not a directed disambiguation, since there's nothing to redirect to--the other usages of the same term are noted in the lead. This clears up any questions the reader may have about the use of the term, and is 100% factual. --Yopienso (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I would put a slightly different take on it: "the current content is largely focused on the "humorous"* (* actually half serious) usage of the term. That does not mean that the current content is an appropriate representation of the use by reliable sources.WP:UNDUE Active Banana (talk) 16:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The subject of this article is the humorous application.

Then I assume you also agree that the "2 uses" being advanced are NOT the "same subject" which is the issue in question. If so (or even if not), I would appreciate your input in the designated dispute section. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. The subject/topic is "The Gore Effect". That particular subject has 2 (or more) meanings (sub-subjects). This article as it currently stands focuses almost exclusively on the humourous meaning - which is WP:UNDUE in the context of this current article. As simple as that. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. I should have realized I was getting in the middle of a POV-pushing scuffle. This article as it currently stands DOES focus almost exclusively on the humorous meaning--that's the subject. It's a service to the general reader to note there are other meanings of the phrase outside the scope of this article. --Yopienso (talk) 19:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that. It seems that i did misinterpret your meaning then - sorry to have done so :) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem--we both assumed good faith with the other, justifiably so, I think. This was a genuine misunderstanding by me of the situation and misunderstanding by you of my meaning. I think the article is fine as it stands and the tag should be removed since I find no factual inaccuracy. Again, thank you for working with me and seeking to properly interpret and represent my thoughts. Much appreciated! :-) --Yopienso (talk) 19:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It is misleading to open the article with the ironic use, because it post-dates the first serious uses by at least two years. If both uses are to be covered in the same article, the balance needs to be corrected. - Pointillist (talk) 23:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

What needs to be corrected is the citing of primary sources without any requisite third-party sourcing suggesting those "first-uses" were recognized by anyone more than the author himself. How are ANY of those "first-use" citations not WP:OR? JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Add Weather or Not?: Last Winter's Record Snow Driven by Short-Term Meteorologic Patterns, Not Long-Term Climate Change

Add Weather or Not?: Last Winter's Record Snow Driven by Short-Term Meteorologic Patterns, Not Long-Term Climate Change: A new study helps to explain how extraordinary snowfalls occur despite global warming by Nicholette Zeliadt in Scientific American August 2010; also see 'The Gore Effect' in the 2010 book "The Climate War" by Eric Pooley (ISBN 978-1401323264) pages 342 & 343 "... Myron Ebell and others claimed to have descerned a 'climatological phenomenon' called the Gore Effect: whenever there was a big climate event, the weather got colder. 'The Gore Effect was first noticed during a January 2004 global warming rally in NYC, held during one of the coldest days in the city's history,' according to an editorial in the conservative Washington Times* ... " 99.35.11.251 (talk) 18:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

If you were familiar with the history of this article's evolution to include the AfD determination and subsequent discussion, you would understand that the Zeliadt content is irrelevant to the subject of this article. If it has a home, it is not here. As to the Pooley content, the Washington Times cite has already been noted and incorporated. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

merge to template

Merge discussion to ..Climate change denial.. Hi, I removed a template and I should really have explained why, I looked on the merge talkpage here and there was snow rejection and so I removed it, feel free to replace it more time is required but it looks to be totally opposed, I also oppose but saw the snow and didn't bother to vote comment, imo this article is a stand alone and doesn't or shouldn't be merged anywhere. Off2riorob (talk) 01:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what the Wikipedia norm is for a reasonable time period for comment, but perhaps a week or so (barring, of course, some active issue in dispute) might be reasonable. Why not restore it and give it a week to see if any support is forthcoming. If not, I think the tag can be approproately removed. JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. Off2riorob (talk) 01:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

What is this archive bot doing?

Can anyone explain why this talk content was moved by the bot to "Archive 20" (which doesn't even display in the archive record above?). —Preceding unsigned comment added by JakeInJoisey (talk • contribs) 16:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It was misconfigured. –xeno^talk 17:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. My fault for mucking with something I didn't understand. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It happens =). I can see how 'counter' isn't exactly self-explanatory. –xeno^talk 17:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Introduction

The second sentence currently reads...

The phrase has also been used to describe Gore's impact in raising global warming as a public issue,[6][7][8][9] and in other ways related to Al Gore.[10][11][12][13]

I had earlier submitted the following (amended in an attempt to satisfy an objection submitted by KDP)...

The phrase has also been employed in works addressing Al Gore's influence as a leading advocate for global warming awareness as a public issue[6][7][8][9] and other related concerns.[10][11][12][13]

As no response was offered to the amended suggested text, I am offering it again as a copyedit of the existing text. Comments? JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

My impression is that Gore's impact in raising global warming as a public issue was the original meaning, pre-dating the ironic gloss. If so, "also" is wrong. You need to be careful about "humorous", too: I don't remember that from any of the original ironic references, so "humorous" and indeed "ironic" are OR. I should say that in respect of this article (i) I have no personal bias; (ii) I put together a long list of sources a couple of months ago; (iii) I lost interest in day-to-day work on this article when all the argy-bargy started; (iv) I'll probably come back and repair the article when all the heated disputants have lost interest; but (v) I hope you work out your differences without me in the meantime. - Pointillist (talk) 23:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

'Gore's impact in raising global warming as a public issue was the original meaning, pre-dating the ironic gloss. If so, "also" is wrong.

Not according to the AfD determination nor, I'd suggest, the consensus of the majority opinion as thus far expressed in this talk section after the issuance of the AfD determination. Nor do I think you can sell an assertion that just because a common literary use may have pre-dated the satirical use that it should have some bearing on its "weight" in this article. It's a rather unique argument, but, IMHO, it just doesn't hold water. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

You need to be careful about "humorous", too: I don't remember that from any of the original ironic references, so "humorous" and indeed "ironic" are OR.

The use of the word "humorous" was agreed to in a consensus-based evolution of the lede and was the subject of considerable discussion during that process. I'd suggest that you check the archives for the numerous "introduction" sections and how that text was agreed upon. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, JakeInJoisey, but I don't agree that was the result of the AFD and I don't respect the consensus you describe. In a situation where a small number of vigorous supporters effectively bully other points of view into silence, as I think happened in the "considerable discussion" you describe, the point can be re-opened by any good faith contributor. When I have time, that's what I'll do. - Pointillist (talk) 00:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

...the point can be re-opened by any good faith contributor. When I have time, that's what I'll do.

Pardon me then. I confused your comments with re-opening the discussion...and the PA is duly noted. JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

With regard to the syntactic and semantic configurations, I fail to recognize a significant divergence that extends beyond the abundance of lexical units employed.

I don't see a difference beyond the word count. :) Maghnus (talk) 04:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a copyedit that reads better I think...but no biggie. JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Introductory sentence, request for comments

I've taken a break from this discussion, but I am curious about what has happened to the first sentence. Currently it says as follows:

The "Gore Effect" is a humorous concept suggesting a causal relationship between observed or unseasonably cold weather phenomena and global warming associated events,[1] with particular emphasis on events associated with appearances of former U.S. Vice President and Nobel Peace Prize recipient Al Gore.[1][2][3][4][5]

This seems misleading, given that the term is also used with other non-humorous meanings. My assumptions is that where a term has different meanings, each of which is discussed in a given article, the first sentence of the article (which according to WP:LEAD should provide a definition) would not ignore all but one.

I suggest the following:

The "Gore Effect" is a term used with various meanings relating to U.S. Vice President and Nobel Peace Prize recipient Al Gore. In one use the term is a humorous concept suggesting a causal relationship between observed or unseasonably cold weather phenomena and global warming associated events,[1] with particular emphasis on those attended by Gore.[1][2][3][4][5]

The next sentence notes the other meanings, with sources. Mackan79 (talk) 21:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I`m ok with the proposed change mark nutley (talk) 21:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

"Other use" is not the subject of this article as demonstrated by A. the AfD determination and B. the post-determination comment of the closing admin when asked to address this question.

The facts have not changed since the commencement of your hiatus from this discussion save for a consensus on whether the 2 "subjects" were the same to which no proponents of that position responded. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. If I may pose three questions: 1.) Did you explain how a "keep" at AfD means the scope of this article cannot include any particular material? 2.) If the scope of the article does not include particular meanings, why are they discussed in the article (i.e., the section here)? 3.) If we are limiting the scope of this article only to certain meanings of the term, should that not be clarified at the beginning that the article is only about one meaning of the term and not about others? Mackan79 (talk) 23:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we should remove all reference to the political term, it belongs in gores article or AG & the environment. This article should focus on the humours aspect of this term mark nutley (talk) 17:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Yet again - NO. Our article must reflect the use of the term as supported by reliable sources: WP:UNDUE. I support Mackan79 suggestion as the one that most closely matches what the reliable sources seem to confirm. JakeInJoisey can keep falsely claiming that the AFD did things that it did not and cannot do and at this point we are well within our rights to completely ignore such nonsense.Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 18:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's please try to keep it as civil as possible, can we? I've always found that expressing a lot of frustration on the talk page tends to make the discussion more difficult. Mackan79 (talk) 22:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:CIV is not a suicide pact. When it becomes overridingly clear that an editor is not acting in good faith, there is no reason to blindly continue to extend that curtesy to them. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 22:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

To whom is your comment addressed? If it is specifically to me, then I will respond. If it is addressed to interested editors in general, then I'll defer comment for a period so as to allow time for others to weigh in. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I just moved your comment down to follow standard indentation, if you don't mind, so that I can respond in order. Yes, my first question was specifically whether you explained a point that you just made, and the others also addressed your post. Mackan79 (talk) 05:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with your refactoring. Whatever works best to support an orderly discussion is fine with me. Before I respond tho, a few observations. If you are aware of the Arbcom proposed rulings on the CC mess, a goodly number of the previously involved "Gore Effect" editors (from both camps) are rather preoccupied with that Arbcom process. While I don't mind responding, I don't see anything particularly new in your comments and you can probably anticipate my responses. Perhaps it might be better to table your queries for a few weeks so that your issue might have the benefit of wider input? Up to you but, either way it's late and I'll defer any response till tomorrow. JakeInJoisey (talk) 06:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I am requesting views currently. The first sentence is as I see it plainly inaccurate considering the current scope of the article. I am aware that you prefer for the article only to cover the joking usage; however I don't know if you are proposing to remove all mention of other meanings (contrary to the AfD closer's comments that you've often quoted) or whether you oppose acknowledging the different meanings in the first sentence even if they are all addressed in this article. This is why I'm requesting that you clarify your position. I don't see reason to postpone. Mackan79 (talk) 06:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Very well then...

1.) Did you explain how a "keep" at AfD means the scope of this article cannot include any particular material?

As I do not hold or advocate for that position, I should hardly be expected to explain it. This article can include whatever consensus wants it to include.

That being said, the original author, Mark Nutley, wrote the original article referencing the satirical "Gore Effect". The AfD established, both in the text of the AfD submission and in the "keep" determination itself, that the satirical "Gore Effect" is the "subject" of this article. In the dispute resolution above, it was established (by a unanimous consensus of all editors who elected to respond) that the satirical "Gore Effect" and "other uses" were not the same "subject".

In addition, and subsequent to the AfD itself, the closing administrator's response to your query on whether suggested "other uses" had entered into his "decision process" elicited the following...

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)

His meaning is evident...that "other uses" are incidental to the "subject" of the article and that he would "expect" them to be incorporated in a subsection entitled "Other Uses of the Phrase". The very words "other uses" indicates the non-specificity of those "uses" and they have been, IMHO, correctly identified as a common literary turn of phrase refered to as a "snowclone". It simply strains credulity to argue that this common use phrase warrants parity in the introductory sentence and I will vigorously oppose such an edit. Removal of the content itself would be preferable...and probably not missed.

2.) If the scope of the article does not include particular meanings, why are they discussed in the article (i.e., the section here)?

"Other uses" was incorporated as a compromise solution at the height of the post-AfD debate. In hindsight, I believe that decision was a mistake and simply put off the inevitable quest for parity which we see being resurrected here. I'm no longer confident these 2 subjects can co-exist peacefully within the same article.

3.) If we are limiting the scope of this article only to certain meanings of the term, should that not be clarified at the beginning that the article is only about one meaning of the term and not about others?

The "lede" IS the beginning of the article. What you are advocating for is a modification of the introductory sentence to give parity or equal recognition to "other uses". I vehemently oppose that. The introductory sentence should logically reflect the subject of the article, not an incidental use of the phrase in the english lexicon. You are, of course, entitled to argue otherwise but attaining consensus on that edit is likely to be (and should be) a rather steep uphill climb. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Regarding the first point, I am glad if you acknowledge that an AfD cannot exclude any material from being included in this article. Certainly then I won't discuss Balloonman's comments any further since he has decided (rightly I think) not to participate in the discussion. I appreciate your clarification on the second point, and maybe from there we can move forward. Mackan79 (talk) 22:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I am glad if you acknowledge that an AfD cannot exclude any material from being included in this article.

Now there's an interesting comment. You first misrepresent my position as supporting an absurd position, and then are glad IF I "acknowledge" a tenet from Wikipedia 101. What's next? Have I stopped beating my wife? Here's something that will, in turn, make me glad. Your apology for misrepresenting my position. It's going downhill fast here. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you want an apology for what? Mackan79 (talk) 04:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Please consider my request to be as rhetorical as the implication inherent in your question #1 (which I attempted to ignore) and the implication in your followup response (which I did not). And now, back to the discussion. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, glad to hear. :) Mackan79 (talk) 19:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd welcome any explanation of why any material should be excluded from this article. Right now my concern is that the first sentence is inaccurate, in that it says the term has a meaning which it often doesn't have. Hopefully it's clear enough why we should clarify where a term can mean multiple things (as we clarify that "Gore" can refer to gore with the disambiguation link). Is there a reason not to make the clarification in the above proposal? Mackan79 (talk) 22:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd be more comfortable with Mackan79's proposed first sentence, given that mark nutley supports it too. There are non-ironic uses that pre-date the ironic/satirical one (e.g. [7] [8] [9]), and after the first satirical uses in Australia it took almost two years until Erika Lovely recognised the term as being humorous. - Pointillist (talk) 08:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The satirical understanding is the main usage and understanding of this expression, personally I wouldn't like to see what imo is a falsehood that there are other widely accepted alternatives to that usage inserted into the lede. Off2riorob (talk) 10:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It would be easier to respond to this if you offered what metric you rely on. I'd assume you were talking about coverage in reliable sources, except that a large number of widely varried sources have already been presented here (see also the academic sources added below by Guettarda). Going by the sources, the exclusion of other uses is certainly not supported. Mackan79 (talk) 22:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Right now my concern is that the first sentence is inaccurate, in that it says the term has a meaning which it often doesn't have.

The first sentence currently defines the primary subject of this article as it was presented in the AfD submission and established by the AfD determination. Both the closing adminstrator's comment to your query and the dispute resolution process above further established the satirical "Gore Effect" and "other uses" as 2 different "subjects". Your argument appears to rest on a contention that the incidental use of a common literary term ("other uses") is a "subject" unto itself, supported by adequate reliable sources and, therefore, should be given parity or recognition as a co-equal subject in the opening sentence normally dedicated to defining the subject of an article.

The AfD determination established Wikipedia bona fides for an independent article treatment of the satirical "Gore Effect". No similar official determination has been made (save for, perhaps, being alluded to in the "expectation" of the AfD closing administrator) as to "other uses".

In prior discussions, the creation of an independent treatment of "other uses" was objected to on the grounds that it was a "POV Fork". That objection has now been rendered moot by a consensus determination that the satirical "Gore Effect" and "other uses" are NOT the "same subject". Independent treatment of each is, therefore, a viable option along with the simple incorporation of "other uses" into existing, appropriate articles (which I will argue for).

IMHO, it is clearly obvious that these 2 "subjects" cannot co-exist in the same article without the effective disappearance of an independent treatment of the satirical "Gore Effect" as approved by the "keep" determination. That would be, IMHO, both a dis-service to prospective readers and a POV-laden end run around the Wikipedia process. We should get on with the movement of "other uses" to a more appropriate location.

In the interim, I will retract my objection to the suggested edit of the opening sentence with the clear proviso that it is a temporary concession to preclude edit-warring (which has already commenced) and predicated upon a clear consensus intent for movement of "other use" content to some other location. Should that consensus for movement fail to develop, I reserve the right to revert the first sentence edit so that it reflects the established primary subject of this article. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Just on a technical point, Jake. If there's a consensus for moving content then this page title (The Gore Effect) will become a disambiguation page, and all the text about ironical/satirical use will be under a different title, yes? If so, what should the new title be? The Gore Effect (satire) or something like that? - Pointillist (talk) 15:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

In an unrelated discussion on the introductory sentence, the word "satire" was objected to and "humour" seemed to be a more consensus-acceptable alternative. Were disambiguation deemed to be the consensus resolution, "Gore Effect (humour)" might be a better alternative. Several titles were suggested (and are in the talk archive somewhere). I just don't recall what they were.

As I did earlier when this subject came up (but was dropped from further consideration when the POV-fork objection was raised), I must confess ignorance as to the possible ramifications of "disambiguation" and just how those ramifications might set with other editors. As I recall, Mark Nutley (for one anyway) objected rather strenuously to disambiguation but never made clear or developed his toughts after the consideration was tabled. It is obviously an approach that will require further discussion.

Perhaps a more facile approach (even if only temporary pending article composition) would be the placement of "other use" content into appropriate existing articles as was suggested (with a bit more color) by Mark Nutley. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that temporary approach would only prolong the uncertainty! Let's try to implement an enduring solution. - Pointillist (talk) 16:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that temporary approach would only prolong the uncertainty!

I'm unclear just what you're refering to by "uncertainty". What is the downside in the movement of "other use" content (if only as a temporary measure) to an appropriate existing article? It won't become etched in stone anymore than the suggested first sentence edit. But perhaps that's a cart before the horse. Do you believe this article can treat 2 different subjects? Should ANY article treat 2 different subjects? JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, if we collectively wanted to, we could probably make a fair job of putting all the different meanings into a single article – but it would always be open to criticism that a disambiguation ("DAB") page would have done the job better. Having separate articles might be easier all round, and that way we could also link to gore as a special effect in splatter films. By "uncertainty" I just meant this issue of which meaning is the "primary" one, and the great thing about making "The Gore Effect" into a DAB page is this issue goes away automatically and painlessly. - Pointillist (talk) 18:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, if we collectively wanted to, we could probably make a fair job of putting all the different meanings into a single article...

I'd like to fully understand your position but I don't believe I'm there yet. Just so we're on the same page here, you twice used the word "meaning" as opposed to "subject" (which I specified in my questions to you). If I were to substitute the word "subject" for the word "meaning" in your responses, does that still represent accurately your position? eg...

Well, if we collectively wanted to, we could probably make a fair job of putting all the different subjects into a single article...

JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe they are different subjects in any relevant sense, nor that any consensus (of three?) has established such a thing. In fact I think an article like Bush Doctrine is a good parallel to see the absurdity of having different articles on every purported version of such a phrase. We could have different articles, but it would look quite silly, and probably wouldn't serve WP:NPOV. (This isn't to directly oppose it, though, as I think it would be better than the status quo.) Mackan79 (talk) 19:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe they are different subjects in any relevant sense, nor that any consensus (of three?) has established such a thing.

The section established to appropriately address that question is due north from here. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jake. I'm not sure it helps to de-construct my posts that much. I said "meaning" because "subject" might imply "subject-of-an-article" and that could take us back to the bad place where we can't agree anything. And I think we all agree that we do have to agree something! All I'm saying is that we could probably write one article if we collectively wanted to or we could have several articles linked by a disambiguation page called "The Gore Effect" or similar. - Pointillist (talk) 22:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure it helps to de-construct my posts that much. I said "meaning" because "subject" might imply "subject-of-an-article" and that could take us back to the bad place where we can't agree anything.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I'm not confident that you understand the consequence of your position. "De-constructing" your post is, in fact, quite critical. If it is your position that the 2 "uses" are the "same subject", then disambiguation is precluded by WP:POVFORK. You can't have it both ways. Please clarify where you stand on the "same subject" issue. There is no middle ground. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, well in the sense that WP:POVFORK uses the term "subject", I think meanings (1), (2) and (3,4) in my list below are separate. The (3,4) meanings probably aren't separate because we don't have a RS that distinguishes them. On this basis disambiguation is permissible, but it isn't mandatory. I don't want to continue this style of discussion further, so if you're hoping that I'll treat this talk page as a court of law (or even an undergraduate workshop in propositional calculus) let's stop now, please. I simply want to find a solution to this problem that has gone on for too long. - Pointillist (talk) 23:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

We cannot write articles about terms "with different meanings", we write separate articles. See WP:Disambiguation. TFD (talk) 14:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, which is why this article should focus on the humours aspect of the gore effect and the other junk moved across to AG&TE simple really, and then a lot of the arguments on this page will stop mark nutley (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, there are four meanings with sources in the article (or in the section I've just pasted below):

1. Gore's endorsement of Howard Dean – nothing to do with climate change
2. The effect of Gore's film on perceptions of warming – neutral, not humorous/satirical
3. The idea that weather has generally got colder/wetter since Gore started campaigning – an ironic but serious push against Gore's basic message
4. The idea that local weather acutely deteriorates when Gore (or another campaigner) visits a location to talk about warming – satire based on point 3.

If we could agree to create a "Gore effect" disambiguation page then the first two meanings could point to anchors in slightly adjusted versions of Howard Dean and Al Gore and the environment. That would leave the two humorous ones which could be combined into a single article. How would that be? - Pointillist (talk) 15:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC) bullet points updated 22:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that all of the meanings refer to one individual, Al Gore, and his campaigning with regard to climate change. So yes, we could have different articles on each of the meanings, but at some point it's just a bit absurd. Consider someone going to a disambiguation page and seeing a list of different articles on "The Gore Effect," all as relate to Al Gore's campaigning on climate change. Then they see another article on Al Gore and the environment. Would they be impressed? Mackan79 (talk) 22:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

There are really two usages: One is "the [name] effect", an idiom applied to a lot of influential names. The second usage suggests that Al Gore somehow causes cold weather events that fuel global warming opponents. The first is just general usage that doesn't deserve an article, lest we end up with a million "the so-and-so effect" articles. Some will maintain that the second usage doesn't deserve an article either, but it has one. For completeness it doesn't hurt to acknowledge, without much emphasis, that the phrase is sometimes used in the generic sense. I don't see what's so difficult about this. Maghnus (talk) 22:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

No Maghnus, there are four usages established in reliable sources, and that's the problem on the table. Mackan79's proposed lead was a possible solution. A disambiguation page is another possibility. IMO we could make either of them work, but as The Four Deuces points out, we are basically trying to eliminate ambiguity here, so maybe a disambiguation page will be more effective. The fact that Gore's campaigning has had multiple effects isn't an intellectual barrier: after all, Michael Faraday famously created an entire presentation (here) about the chemistry of a candle. We can fix this, and we must. - Pointillist (talk) 22:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

There are two usages: The imagined effect that Gore has on the weather, and "other". (If you want to count hairs, there are a dozen or more events under "other".) There is no need for a disambiguation page or equal weight because the other usages are no more than common figures of speech. I agree it is worth mentioning that Gore's influence has led to the phrase being used in other ways, and that has already been done. Maghnus (talk) 23:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Why do you say one is a common figure of speech and not the other? In this paper, titled "The Al Gore Effect: An Inconvenient Truth and Voluntary Carbon Offset," a professor at UC Santa Barbara explains his thesis in part as follows: "A unique awareness campaign related to global climate change has been spearheaded by former U.S. Vice President Al Gore. In addition to giving in-person speeches and presentations about the dangers of climate change, Gore starred in the 2006 documentary An Inconvenient Truth, which aimed to convince individuals to take action to reduce climate change. In 2007, Gore shared the Nobel Peace Prize with the IPCC for being 'the single individual who has done the most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted [to counteract Climate Change]' (The Norwegian Nobel Committee, 2007)." The paper then explains how he tested the effect of this campaign, and concludes "It seems plausible that at least some of this change was created by the film, and that this change in public opinion may have influenced other behaviors such as transportation decisions, house-hold electricity consumption, and, perhaps most importantly, political support for climate change legislation.". We have two academic papers on this same topic with this term in the title. Another paper, here, notes that "the issue of ‘global warming’ is starting to get most of the attention in as well the public debate," and denotes this in parentheses as "the Gore effect." The article here, in the New Brunswick Business Journal starts, "Some call it the Al Gore effect, others say it just makes good business sense," and then describes the meaning in detail for the rest of the article. There are more than a dozen sources, including secondary and academic sources, making and describing this usage in extensive detail. I think ultimately we'll either include this material here or create a second article upon which maybe there will be more AfDs or a merge discussion, but if people will look at the sources maybe we can save some time. Mackan79 (talk) 00:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Those are fine examples of Gore's name being used in the common figure of speech. In fact, I welcome you to create an article about Al Gore's influence in the climate change debate, a possible title being Al Gore's influence in the climate change debate, in which you could cite that his influence has been referred to as "the Gore effect." The usage of the term in this article is qualitatively different, as you can see by imagining the title Al Gore's influence on the weather. Again, it is perfectly reasonable to note the more general usages of the term in this article, but they should not be of primary concern. Maghnus (talk) 19:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Your analysis does not lead to your conclusion, unfortunately. Anything in Bush doctrine could also be coherently explained under a more specific title, such as Bush's views on preemptive invasion. Does that mean it should not be the focus of Bush doctrine? The qualitative difference you speak of is not relevant under our policies. Please read the section here, which shows numerous sources discussing and analyzing this use of Gore effect in depth. From one: "With increasing media and public attention and increased focus on corporate social responsibility, social issues are getting more and more important. However, organisations speak about the Al-Gore-effect – raised awareness about environmental issues across the world may take away attention from the social issues. On the other hand, if environmental and social issues are integrated in a company, the chance of environmental issues overtaking the attention is small."[10] (emphasis added) This is classic secondary source coverage of the use of a term in a certain way, and exactly what we cover on Wikipedia. Mackan79 (talk) 20:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

This is an interesting idea, Maghnus, but it doesn't actually hold up. "Gore Effect" for the impact of Gore's endorsement on Howard Dean's presidential campaign was also an ironic and negative usage, as the idea was that Gore cost Dean his independent credibility and marked the turning point in Dean's growth as a candidate. "Gore Effect" for Gore's impact on climate change is not ironic, but is used for the idea that Gore has had a unique impact on public perception of that issue. "Gore Effect" for cold weather when he shows up at events is ironic like the use with regard to Dean (in neither case really a spin on the term, incidentally). With respect, this is all a red herring. The Gore Effect as in Gore's impact on public awareness of climate change has been studied by academics as an actual phenomenon.[11] Another paper was recently mentioned in the New York Times' Freakonomics blog.[12] In fact this must be what distinguishes it from a one-off phrase, not whether or not a use is ironic. It's about the coverage by reliable sources, which I think is where this discussion should really go. Mackan79 (talk) 23:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm currently looking at material to add to the article. It occurs to me that people may consider articles like Bush Doctrine by way of comparison. Note that while different meanings may be asserted it would likewise seem odd to have different articles on each version. Mackan79 (talk) 01:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

@Mackan79 I am attempting to follow this dialogue but you have several responses in sequence and it is difficult to ascertain continuity. Please consider refactoring your comments and outdenting them from comments to which they are responding. Also, this thread is drifting far afield from the section title and is approaching TLTR. Please consider a sub-section to host threads that have become tangential. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Of the above three posts, the first two respond to Maghnus and the third is made generally. I don't see what could be combined, but of course if a thread becomes unusable there is starting anew. You may have noticed I've added many of the sources to the article, which may call for a new section anyway. Mackan79 (talk) 03:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm baffled as to how this has ended up as an edit war [13]. Why is MN now violently objecting to text that he agreed was fine on 21:47, 30 August 2010? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see any consensus for that text on any date ever, that edit imo creates some kind of false reality, the gore effect is mainly, mostly related to a satirical joke, thats the simple position, there have been other mentions but the usage is mainly the satirical joke, attempting to assert it has many equal uses is creating a false reality, this position is supported by climate change worriers because they don't want people laughing about it. But people like a good joke and like to laugh in the face of adversity and that is why the joke has endured. Off2riorob (talk) 09:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I had misread the proposed change, and have struck that comment so there is no further confusion. I have stated in this thread since then that the article should be about the satirical aspect of the phrase, and all other content removed mark nutley (talk) 09:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

the article should be about the satirical aspect of the phrase, and all other content removed - why? Did someone give you a veto over what this pages content should be? I can't understand why you could possibly think that William M. Connolley (talk) 10:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps equally puzzling might be the characterization of an editor's opinion as a declaration of personal veto power. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Early sources

I know this is a bit unusual for a talk page, but I'd like to paste my list of sources in here in case they are helpful. There certainly seems to be established satirical use by the autumn of 2006, well before the Toronto 2007 reference. Anyway, I'll carry on the debate in the existing section. - Pointillist (talk) 15:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

1. The idea of Gore's speeches being associated with particularly cold weather goes back to at least March 2004, when a Heartland Institute story (here) said Gore chose one of the coldest days in New York City’s history to claim that Global warming is causing record cold temperatures. But that piece doesn't say anything about a "Gore Effect".
2. Actually, the Catholic commentator Mark Shea claims he made the very first humorous use of the term in 1992, reflecting on how, despite knowing nothing about Gore, he had been convinced by the Seattle Times endorsement of Gore as vice-presidential candidate. As his claim is just a one-off blog entry (here) I think we can safely ignore it.
3. As the current article already acknowledges, the first non-climate-change use of the phrase was about the effect of Gore's endorsement of Howard Dean during the 2004 Presidential Election (for examples, google "Howard Dean" "gore effect") and his attacks on George W Bush (CNN story). Tim Blair's blog has entries with this use (on February 11, 2004 and June 04, 2004. This is interesting because Tim seems to have been a key player in creating the climate-change usages.
4. The first ironic climate-change use I've been able to find was in Tim Blair's July 4, 2006 column in the Australian Bulletin magazine (archived here). In this piece Blair isn't talking about Gore's visits coinciding with cold weather, but that "in the very month your global warming movie was launched" global temperatures have been falling, even though "the globe is supposed to be warming." Blair employed this general usage in his blog (on July 2, 2006) noting that rainfall in NSW was returning to normal after a dry spell which Blair called "a version of the Al Gore Effect". By August 29, 2006 a colder than average winter predicted in 2006/7 was "the Al Gore effect" - "a version" had been dropped. On October 13, 2006 heavy snow in New York State was "the fabled Al Gore Effect".
5. Somewhere around this period Gore started travelling to promote the movie and this seems to be when the term began to be used satirically to link Gore's actual presence to localised bad weather. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find anything earlier than Tim Blair's post on October 27, 2006 which already assumes his readers know the use of the term in this sense. By the time Al Gore visits Australia on November 15th, we start seeing the term used satirically in Andrew Bolt's Melbourne HeraldSun blog (here) "right on cue, the weather responds to the famous Gore effect". Bolt tips his hat to Tim Blair's list of examples. Bolt then gave an almost perfect definition in his November 17th column (here): "Call it the Gore Effect -- the uncanny ability of the world's most famous global warming alarmist to cool any place he tours."
6. From then onwards, this satirical meaning enjoyed widespread use and dominates the results of most searches. However, the term still continues to be used in a neutral sense simply to describe the effect of his film An Inconvenient Truth (examples: February 2007, June 2009 and November 2009).

Which is the most common usage? Which publication is more widely read, the Globe & Mail or Time Magazine? TFD (talk) 06:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we can decide for encyclopaedic purposes because it depends on what period you examine. Being widely read doesn't automatically boost the reliability of a source anyway. Currently the satirical meaning seems to be most highly-ranked by google but that might just reflect a viral-meme-trope pattern picked up by popular media. This popularity could die down quickly (e.g. if Gore ceased campaigning) whereas the non-satirical meaning might not. If we try to prioritize a single meaning right now, we'll hit issues of recentism, original research and to some extent maybe OR/COI. Instead, we should try to present all the notable meanings while somehow keeping neutrality. - Pointillist (talk) 22:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Those relying on Google would probably be surprised by a search on Google Scholar, where "Al Gore Effect" gives almost entirely results on the "climate change awareness" meaning,[14] and I don't believe any on the joke meaning. A search of Google Books for "Gore effect" gives, at least in the first several pages, just two relevant hits for the "climate change awareness" meaning and one for the joke meaning, none of which are especially relevant. The point seems clear to me that yes, as an internet meme the joke meaning is much more prevalent, and yet in academic papers there is no discussion of that meaning and a clear focus on a different phenomenon going by that name. Note that just a month ago the New York Times' Freakonomics blog quoted one of the papers on the "climate change awareness" meaning.[15] Not to insult everybody in the room, but I think ideally we could ignore the politics and come up with a good way to present this dichotomy to readers. Mackan79 (talk) 03:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Protection requested

Due to the recent edit war, I have requested full protection. Cla68 (talk) 10:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done—edit warriors, please bear in mind that this article is on probation. Keep edit warring after the protection expires and you will be blocked :(. Airplaneman ✈ 10:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying if anyone reverts to the previous consensus version they will be blocked for it? mark nutley (talk) 11:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

No. If there are multiple reverts after protection expires, like there were before the protection, that's a problem. Airplaneman ✈ 11:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok thanks i shall revert to the previous version then if no consensus is reached here for the change mark nutley (talk) 11:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I fully support both the Cla68 petition for full protection and Airplaneman's application of that protection. However, as the recent edit history will reflect, the "edit warring" was commenced by a highly contentious, non-consensus based edit to the introductory sentence by Mackan79 which I reverted. The disputed text was again inserted without any input in talk by user:Verbal, which I also reverted. I had considered petitioning for article protection myself but was attempting to work towards a resolution of this long-standing dispute when the most recent flare-up necessitated this article protection.

Whether or not the disputed text in question should be restored to that which existed before Mackan79's initial edit is Airplaneman's option. However, it is the underlying dispute that must be resolved. JakeInJoisey (talk) 11:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather not do anything that would make it appear that I'm "taking sides" on this conflict, so to speak. I just protect whatever version I come upon. Airplaneman ✈ 05:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe my edit was contentious; actually it seems a very non-obtrusive way just to acknowledge that the term has multiple uses (which, given that the term purports to explain the "effect" of a living individual, by his name, I think should really be quite uncontroversial). Jake did manage to revert the edit one minute after I made it, and then immediately reverted Verbal who made the same edit again. I'd note that other editors have also now reverted multiple times, while several who have expressed views have not reverted at all. I also notice that none of the reverts have proposed an alternate solution (though some seem to propose that the article simply ignore any use of the term besides the satirical use, including the substantial number of academic and other sources I have been expanding on in this section). In any case it seems clear that there is not currently consensus for anything, though it would be nice if rather than reverting people could offer some constructive suggestions on how to get there. Mackan79 (talk) 19:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

In any case it seems clear that there is not currently consensus for anything,...

And you believe your initial edit was consensus based? JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:Consensus based, absolutely; for that matter three of four commenters supported the edit (even if Mark then clarified that he would prefer to restructure the entire article). Can we talk now about the dozen sources in the section here? It seems to me that these need to be taken into account when we say what is meant by the "Gore effect." If editors plan to continue reverting after the page is unprotected then now is our chance to come up with another way. Mackan79 (talk) 05:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

A question about responsibility

I am curious whether editors here are concerned generally with the use of Wikipedia to attack personalities involved in the climate change debate. I've considered this an unfortunate pattern, though admittedly more often on the other side of the political spectrum where I've personally worked to address the coverage of skeptics including Christopher Monckton and Ian Plimer.

It seems to me that if "Gore effect" has been used prominently in one sense that mocks Gore's efforts to raise awareness about climate change, and used prominently in another sense that credits his efforts to raise awareness about climate change, and in yet other ways relating to other issues, that it's problematic for us to have an article on the Gore effect which for some reason only attempts to cover one of these. I've made an analogy to "X doctrine," which has recently been used with U.S. presidents' names, and which often has similarly been used with different meanings. The term here clearly has two notable meanings, if it has any, as documented by at least a dozen sources now in the section here. Why ignore either one?

I think one way we could raise the level of discussion in this area is if everyone took seriously the idea that living individuals get treated fairly. I can see a reasonable argument that we should have a disambiguation page going to two meanings, though I think it would make less sense than a single article, but I have a hard time seeing a fair argument that we simply present the joke meaning and de-emphasize other meanings because those can just as well be covered elsewhere (as if this entire article could not be covered in Al Gore and the environment).

We can start to go through the various options in more detail, but I just wanted to spell this out. Mackan79 (talk) 23:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

As you know, all editors should follow Wikipedia's policy for biographies of living persons, but as a "public figure" Gore doesn't receive much protection on that basis. Imagine that "Gore effect" was always mocking in reliable sources, and positive associations were universally called "Uncomfortable truths". In that case the two terms might well be found in separate articles yet, despite the difference in labels, the concepts are closely related and we'd still have a duty to ensure that readers could see both of them, maybe via links to Al Gore and the environment. In the current situation we have exactly the same duty to readers, that if they search for "Gore effect" they should find the multiple meanings rather than just one. - Pointillist (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You have, IMHO, several problems to deal with in making your case here...and they might be characterized as a bit of a Hobson's choice that you appear reluctant to make. But first...

Mackan79 both opens and closes with regrets? on the lack of, I guess, gentility? or consideration? inre CC BLP policy.

Fine words Mackan79...unfortunately foreign to the CC debate but, and more importantly, do "not apply directly to the subject of this article" as was established by the RFC Is "The Gore Effect" an article subject to the more restrictive sourcing requirements of "WP:BLP"? and the BLP/N The Gore Effect. More bad news for you is the recent recognition of this article as non-BLP by Arbcom.

As to your joint argument for parity in this article, allow me to reference Mackan's words as a paraphrase for both (emphasis mine)...

...and used prominently in another sense that credits his efforts to raise awareness about climate change,...

Your task is to make a consensus case for that alleged "prominence" by citing reliable sources supporting that "prominence" and not by a list of sources that employ the common literary construct. You suggest "Bush Doctrine" as an apt comparative. It is not. The existence of "Bush Doctrine" in the common lexicon ("prominence") is easily established and not even debatable. Which of your submitted sources clearly establishes the alleged "prominence" of "other uses" in the public sphere? You are dancing with WP:OR/WP:SYN here if sourcing supporting your contention is not forthcoming.

As to your "Hobson's choice", both of you appear to be hedging your bets and as to the question of whether or not the 2 uses are the "same subject" (though I'll confess to some ongoing head-scratching as to deciphering Pointillist's last comment in the section above...I'm still working on that). If they are the "same subject" (as consensus thus far rejects), then WP:CFORK (or WP:POVFORK) appear to preclude disambiguation...and argue for the removal of this material to a more appropriate, already existing article. It is also noteworthy that neither of you have elected, thus far, to defend that "same subject" assertion within the designated section other than to assert (Mackan) that there is no consensus. That won't (and shouldn't) float. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Jake, I mean that the page readers reach when they search for "[The] Gore Effect" should be one that points to multiple meanings. It can be a single article of the style Mackan79 prefers (with multiple meanings in one article headed by a neutral lead) or to a disambiguation page which then links to multiple articles (personally I think that might be easier). Basically our duty is to our readers. I don't think the question of "attacking" Gore really comes into it either way. Cheers - Pointillist (talk) 19:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

...the page readers reach when they search for "[The] Gore Effect" should be one that points to multiple meanings.

I fully understand your position but, as I stated above, I do not believe you have presented a credible basis under WP:V in defense of that position. Please provide reliable sources suggesting that "other uses" has attained the level of "prominence" in the public sphere that you assert to be true. A Google list of common literary uses simply does not suffice. That is clearly WP:OR/WP:SYN. Please provide sourcing suggesting third-party recognition of that "prominence".

It can be a single article of the style Mackan79 prefers (with multiple meanings in one article headed by a neutral lead)...

Please stop assuming resolution of the "same subject" debate upon which the above observation must be predicated. We are addressing the "subject" of this article, not some non-wikipedia introduction of "meanings" into this discussion on the legitimacy of "other uses" content within this article. I'm highly doubtful that an assertion stating 2 different "subjects" can be legitimately hosted in a single article (which you neglected to respond to above) would survive Wikipedia P&G examination.

...or to a disambiguation page which then links to multiple articles...

Again, you can't suggest "disambiguation" while at the same time asserting that the 2 uses are the "same subject". That has already been objected to as WP:POVFORK. Please make up your collective minds. Either defend the assertion that the 2 uses are the "same subject" (which NO proponent of that position has done thus far) and give up disambiguation or yield the point and proceed towards disambiguation or content movement. What'll it be? You can't have both. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Jake, I'm sorry to hear that you disagree with my position but I don't think it would help to get more involved in explaining things to you here. When I have time – hopefully early October – I'll look into what has to be done to start an RfC. - Pointillist (talk) 20:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that you disagree with my position...

I can't disagree with your position as you have no declared position to disagree with. That's fine...but let's review. You haven't, as yet, commented in the dispute resolution section on the "same subject" issue. When asked to clarify your position on the "same subject" question, you "...don't want to continue this style of discussion further..." and now "...don't think it would help to get more involved in explaining things to you here." I must assume then that you also have no position on whether this "other use" content must be moved. I understand that position as well and will consider it accordingly when re-addressing the composition of the introductory sentence. JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

But Jake, you said "I fully understand your position but, as I stated above, I do not believe you have presented a credible basis under WP:V in defense of that position.". How can you understand my position if you don't think I've declared one? Pointillist (talk) 20:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Jake, the principle I have in mind is responsibility in our treatment of living people. This is indeed what is written in WP:BLP. It isn't something I'm seeing from you, and frankly it may lead us to dispute resolution if your approach continues to look more like advocacy than a considered effort to cover this topic. If you've followed the ongoing arbitration case you may have seen this is addressed in the first principle.[16] More specifically:

1.) Above you claim that an RfC has established that WP:BLP does "not apply directly to the subject of this article," but this is baseless. The RfC was started and closed by you, in the latter instance where you claim that an "uninvolved admin" has made such a determination. In fact, the admin added a template without making any determination on the RfC. The template states, "While Biographies of living persons policies do not apply directly to the subject of this article, this article may have content that directly relates to other living persons, such as friends and family of people no longer living or living people involved in the subject matter" (emphasis added). Look to WP:BLP and you will see, "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" (emphasis added). In other words, this page is not a biography of a living person, but rather an article that deals heavily with one particular living person, whose very name is included in the article title. If the material is about Al Gore, then the policy applies. No RfC, no template, and certainly no uninvolved admin has determined otherwise.

2.) There has not been any "consensus" that these usages are different subjects. The section in which you raise this point shows Active Banana, Kim D. Peterson and myself disagreeing with you, as well as a post from Kim D. Peterson listing two other editors who contested your view. [17] The question itself is not relevant considering that articles will always cover what may be called different "subjects"; these can simultaneously be considered different subjects but part of the same larger subject, "Use of the term 'Gore effect'".

3.) With regard to the term's prominence, I agree that this is one of the major considerations. I offer three points: a. To present two definitions does not suggest some sort of equality between them, but simply that the two uses are notable. No notable meaning should be ignored in the definitional sentence. b. The notability of the "climate change awareness" meaning is established by a combination of primary and secondary usages included in the article. Secondary sources include here ("However, organisations speak about the Al-Gore-effect – raised awareness about environmental issues across the world may take away attention from the social issues.") , here ("Some call it the Al Gore effect, others say it just makes good business sense."), and here ("Sinds afgelopen herfst is er echt sprake van een Al Gore-effect, zegt Sjaak de Ligt van Trees for Travel.") Primary sources includehere ("Those who answered the question after the huge media coverage of climate change were less likely to advocate a reduction of the CO2 tax on gasoline (the likelihood decreased by 17%). Hence, we find support for an ‘Al Gore effect’") and here ("Today, however, there are more consumers connecting the dots between their consumption and the environment either through the "Gore effect" or vis-a`-vis the global economic crisis."). There are a dozen sources now included in the section here, not including the above Dutch source and the recent Freakonomics posting in the New York Times here, but including two academic papers investigating the claimed effect in detail along with numerous other papers and articles. c. A look through the relevant section shows that many of the sources for the non-satirical usage are scholarly and treat the subject in more depth than any of the sources given for the satirical use. A search of Google Scholar shows that the scholarly use is almost entirely in reference to Gore's impact on public awareness.[18] Thus, while tabloids and blogs may favor the satirical use, the academic sources we have refer only to the "climate change awareness" meaning, in a manner that Wikipedia generally covers.

Now, are there a lot more reliable sources for the satirical meaning? Not that I have seen, though I would welcome someone showing this to be the case. The question remains in my view how to cover the two major usages, but not whether we should. Mackan79 (talk) 06:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

All of your comments are rebuttable, have been rebutted before and I (and hopefully others from both sides) will address each point you raise until we attain consensus resolution. But first...

It isn't something I'm seeing from you, and frankly it may lead us to dispute resolution if your approach continues to look more like advocacy than a considered effort to cover this topic.

This is velvet glove WP:PA and is not unique to you. My only "advocacy" is for an adherence to WP P&G in resolving this dispute. Let this be the last of the ad hominems. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It isn't a PA, Jake, just a request that you not play so fast and loose with your claims. Saying there was consensus on a particular point when there wasn't forces other editors to go back and check the point in detail just to rebut what turns out to be an extraneous and irrelevant issue. It's no wonder Pointillist won't want to continue in that mode. I much prefer to discuss the content, however, and in particular welcome any ideas on how to improve the coverage that is currently in the article. Mackan79 (talk) 03:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution

I am establishing this new section as the development of this discussion has ventured beyond the parameters of the previous section. If there are any objections or suggestions as to how to better proceed, please comment. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I object - Pointillist (talk) 22:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Mackan79, stating that another editor is playing "fast and loose" with claims is clearly ad hominem and WP:PA. Please desist. Tempting though it may be to respond in kind, I'll instead ask you to please provide cites from contributing editors to the designated dispute section which you purport to represent a defense of the assertion that the 2 "uses" being advanced are the "same subject"...and when we've settled this question, I intend to examine your rather interesting (and rather contextually fluid interpretation) as to what constitutes "consensus" and just when it might be established. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

If you have a question, please ask it. If you would like to tally views on an issue that you think is important here, I think that is up to you. I believe I have already addressed your question about whether the two meanings are the same subject more than once in detail, most recently in the second point here. Incidentally, I do not believe anyone has given you a yes or no answer, since I don't believe you have defined your term or clarified what you consider to be its relevance. Mackan79 (talk) 19:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Response @Pointillist from section above...

How can you understand my position if you don't think I've declared one?

There are at least 2 issues which you have addressed...
1. As to "prominence" (or notability), I do not believe your sourcing establishes WP:V required to support that "prominence" but, instead must rely upon WP:OR/WP:SYN to make that case. Please provide reliable third-party sourcing suggesting that the employment of a common literary phrase has risen to a level of "notability" that warrants even mentioning (to say nothing of "parity") in this article. But that issue is secondary (and is rendered moot) by a rejection of the almost absurd assertion that...
2. The satirical "Gore Effect" and "other uses" are the "same subject". This is your "non-position" to which I was referring and responding to in sequence but, you are correct...I should have been more careful in my choice of words. Please allow me to rectify that here...
I can't disagree with your position on the "same subject" issue since you have no declared position to disagree with and, thus far, appear committed to non-committal. I believe I do understand why. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Jake, you say the first point is moot, but then you haven't addressed the similarity to Bush doctrine, since you comment only on the notability of that phrase. Note specifically how that article starts: "The Bush Doctrine is a phrase used to describe various related foreign policy principles of former United States president George W. Bush. The phrase was first used by Charles Krauthammer in June 2001 [1] to describe the Bush Administration's unilateral withdrawals from the ABM treaty and the Kyoto Protocol." The point is that these are clearly different meanings, treated under the same subject.

Regarding notability, you give only an opinion. I would ask how you address the fact that a search of "Al Gore Effect" on Google Scholar turns up seven papers using the term for his effect on public awareness, and not one with the satirical use. Of books, the only one I can find of the satirical use is a reprint of Urban Dictionary, while books referring to his effect on awareness include this, this, and another directly relevant source I just found in this ("Governments are paying more attention to CSR by corporations because of increasing political pressures from the 'green movements' and the 'Gore effect.'"

Some more sources that haven't been raised so far: [19][20][21][22][23][24][25] Mackan79 (talk) 04:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Jake, you say the first point is moot,...

No Mackan79, that's not what I said. This is what I said...

But that issue is secondary (and is rendered moot) by a rejection of the almost absurd assertion that...2. The satirical 'Gore Effect" and "other uses" are the "same subject".

The resolution of this question is fundamental to this dispute...and there was NO defense, to say nothing of any rational defense, of that assertion offered by anyone (to include yourself and Pointillist) within the section established to resolve it. Your assertion that "no consensus" was attained by those editors who elected to respond (to include, BTW, Yopienso, whose position was initially misrepresented as supporting the contention until refuted by her in a rather extensive dialogue) is unsupported by the dialogue within the section.

If you have a question, please ask it.

I will...again. Please provide cites from contributing editors to the designated dispute section which you purport to represent a defense of the assertion that the 2 "uses" being advanced are the "same subject".

You say there was no consensus. Prove me wrong by citing ANY argument you found to be persuasive supporting that premise. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer not to argue about past discussions, unless you insist that they are binding in some respect. My view, again, is that we should treat these meanings in one article just as is done with Bush Doctrine. Both articles involve different notable meanings of a term that nevertheless center around one individual's work. Because both articles involve a phrase that can to some extent be used generally or with a specific meaning, it isn't practical to have different articles on each notable meaning that appears. But where notable meanings appear, it makes sense to include them, particularly if the alternative is to take one negative meaning and exclude all others. Therefore, all meanings for this term relating to Al Gore should be considered one subject (at least until there is enough material that it should be split). The use for Gore's effect on public awareness of climate change is well documented and notable; it's also often used without explanation, which means that people may well come here to learn about its meaning (see i.e., here, or the book I just linked which doesn't seem to otherwise reference Gore). Readers following the see also link from Al Gore should see all notable meanings. These are several reasons to keep the material here in one article. Mackan79 (talk) 18:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

"The Bush Doctrine" is a bit of a red herring. It's easily fathomable that there would've been a "Gore Doctrine" if Gore had been President for 8 years, and that has nothing to do with "the Gore effect." A more honest comparison would be with "the Bush effect," which has been published in pop-media and journal articles with regard to Bush's effect on elections, foreign policy, and energy/environmental issues -- just as with Gore. We don't see people clamoring for a Bush effect article, since it's simply a common phrase and follows a common template for headlines and titles. There's also an Obama effect, McCain effect, Palin effect, Clinton effect, Jimmy Carter effect, and reliable sources documenting an "effect" from pretty much any influential name you can think of. The only reason "the Gore effect" is notable enough to warrant an article--assuming it is--is the unusual claim of his effect on the weather, so that should be the focus of the article unless/until it gets deleted again.

When I first encountered this article several weeks ago, I was intrigued by all of the history and debate that brought it into shape, and I am impressed with the outcome. (Or I was impressed until the extraneous final section started getting bloated.) Once again, I just don't understand how there can still be so much text about something as obvious and fundamental as the subject of the article, while the article itself is/was nearly perfect. Kudos to those who made it so. It's a shame to see it destroyed. Maghnus (talk) 10:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

My view isn't complicated: if people clamor to create Gore effect, or "Obama effect," or "McCain effect," or "Palin effect," or "Clinton effect," or "Jimmy Carter effect," then the article should cover all notable usages of the term. Bush doctrine shows exactly how this can be done effectively. If one group says the "Jimmy Carter effect" is something great (maybe realizing your full potential after leaving office) and another group says it's something perverse (maybe losing your wits but still commanding attention), both should be included. Would you consider it obvious that both of those are different subjects and therefore couldn't be included in one article? Personally I think that would be a clear WP:BLP violation, as it would be to ignore the multiple meanings here. Mackan79 (talk) 22:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the "same subject" question is loaded, given than some en.wikipedia editors assume that different "subjects" should be presented in different articles, so I prefer the label "meaning" because this doesn't automatically imply "subject". According to my investigations (e.g. above), Tim Blair developed the satirical meaning of "Gore effect" in 2006 as an extension of earlier meanings which he had picked up from outside sources and used literally in his blog from 2004 onwards. On this basis I believe it would be feasible to create a single encyclopedic article tracking the changing meaning of the term "Gore effect". However any such article would be open to criticism on WP:OR and/or WP:SYN grounds unless it could cite at least one reliable secondary source that tracks the different meanings. I haven't seen a source like this yet and though I'm confident this story will get told one day it might not be soon enough to support a single article treatment of the term. It therefore makes sense to consider explaining the different meanings in different articles (or sections of different articles). However, if we take this approach, it would be misleading to select any single meaning as being "primary", so the current page should be moved to a new name and replaced by a disambiguation page that links to articles (or in-article anchors) for each meaning. - Pointillist (talk) 22:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I prefer this to the previous situation, although I think it would make us look silly to have multiple articles on this phrase rather than just to cover the major uses in one article. Mackan79 (talk) 23:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

DISPUTE - Are the 2 "uses" being advanced the "same subject"?

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 different subjects. Its not even clear the second usage is notable enough for an article, rather than simply being idiomatic usage. Fell Gleaming^talk 15:17, 19 September 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)

In response to Polentario...

a) youre right...

I'm unclear what your comment refers to. If, by that, you are offering an opinion on this question (which I think you are), then I'd suggest you state your opinion here.

b) are they still necessary? I doubt it.

I can only speak to the issue related to this dispute tag and, thus far, no one supporting the referenced postulate has seen fit to comment...which is fine. However, after some reasonable length of time for comment has passed (perhaps a week?), it is reasonable to interpret the lack of opinion in support of the postulate as deference to the position of those who have elected to comment. IOW, rejection of the postulate could then be legitimately held as a consensus opinion and I would remove my tag. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Given the opinions expressed above and with no voiced opposition having thus far been offered, there appears to exist a consensus that the 2 "uses" of "Gore Effect" are not the "same subject" for the purposes of any subsequent editorial considerations. On that basis, I am removing the {{dispute}} tag and consider this issue to be resolved. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

No there is no such consensus - and that is readily determined by reading the next talk page topics. For myself - this particular topic was ignored, because it was a) strangely written b) begging the question c) completely ignored other views. You got 2 answers - from the same 2 people who have already stated their positions - and none from those who you know disagree. Beware - here be horse carcasses. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm satisfied that the 3 responses to the question "Are the 2 'uses' being advanced the 'same subject'?" reflect a negative consensus of those who have elected to respond and, on that basis, I have removed the tag. Your observation that no consensus exists will be considerably enhanced if and when you elect to respond to the question as stated. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

You have gotten the views from several editors in other sections - but apparently you chose to ignore them. Sorry, but you are beating the deceased equine .... and rather hard. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Very well. As you suggest there is no consensus, I am restoring the dispute tag until some consensus resolution is established. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I have retitled this dispute section to hopefully encourage comments by interested editors. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I have re-inserted my factual dispute tag removed by MN. This issue remains unresolved and my intent is to pursue consensus resolution of this issue (via RfC if needs be). It is, IMHO, highly likely that this discussion has only been temporarily tabled pending the outcome of the current CC Arbcom deliberations. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Given Kim is the only one actually objecting then what is the issue? mark nutley (talk) 11:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Except of course that i'm not the only one objecting.... try looking at the rather prematurely archived discussions. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

...what is the issue?

Mark, the "issue" is in the title of the dispute section.

...try looking at the rather prematurely archived discussions.

Perhaps you believe you can sell "see here" in a dispute resolution process. Good luck with that. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to "sell" anything - but it would be nice if you'd acknowledge that Verbal,Hipocrite,Active Banana,Yopienso[added] and myself (just the ones not in the archives) have all been disagreeing with your viewpoint. It doesn't really bode well for a dispute resolution - if you keep ignoring what people write. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Strawman. The question is on your contention that the "2 uses" are the "same subject" and I don't recall any of them so asserting or "disagreeing with" my viewpoint. However. I would be delighted to see your cites from Verbal, Active Banana, Hipocrite or Yopienso making that case as none have thus far seen fit to participate in this dispute resolution process. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

*Sigh*:

Hipocrite[26] "it provides undue weight to half of the article - there is an assumption that the article is about the satire, with the effect as the secondary topic, when, at the very least, they need equal weighting"

Active Banana[27] "Agree that coverage of only one use of the term is POV and not reflective of the usage in reliable sources."

Verbal[28] "I've been reading this, not with interest especially, but I feel I should say I agree with Hipocrite, Kim and Active Banana if that helps establish anything. The AfD in no way limits the content of this article. RS strongly assert that the Gore effect has multiple meanings. "

Yopienso[29] "How can this not be factually correct?" [striken - i misinterpreted Yopienso's comment - see below --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)]

--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

NONE of the above unequivocally asserts that the "2 uses" are the "same subject", the subject of this dispute. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

<irony>Of course they don't - how silly of me.</irony> --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[removed - i've instead asked the editors in question to comment on whether i've correctly captured their intent. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)]

I will state now that unless a gaggle of new sources have appeared in the past (6weeks?) since I did my search, it was VERY clear to me that the use of the term "Gore Effect" and "Al Gore Effect" in reliable sources was in no way limited or even predominantly used to refer to "Al Gore Brings Cold Weather"; and that since this somehow survived an AFD with keep as a result, the article MUST support in proper proportion the varied uses of the term. WP:UNDUE

And while I stopped being actively involved in attempting to edit this article. I applaud Kim D. Petersen on her the continued efforts to maintain a proper encyclopedic article here. Active Banana (talk) 16:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Erm Banana, kims a guy :) however the article is based on the humorous version of the saying, not the other, so obviously the funny would take precedence mark nutley (talk) 16:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You keep asserting that, but your assertion STILL is not based on any facts AND contradicts policy. Active Banana (talk) 16:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

No really kim`s a guy honest mark nutley (talk) 17:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

buh-dum-ching! Active Banana (talk) 17:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

...the article MUST support in proper proportion the varied uses of the term.

That is unresponsive to the assertion in dispute...that the "2 uses" are the "same subject". Do you agree with that assertion or not? If so, please state your grounds for that support. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I have attempted, since June, to bring this issue to consensus resolution. For whatever reasons, not a single editor (to include the proponent of the premise in question) has availed themselves of the opportunity to defend that premise in this designated space. As the only editors who have elected to offer comment all reject the premise, I consider this question to be consensus-resolved against the premise and am removing the {{dispute}} tag. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I consider you to not be unbiased in the matter, and have returned the tag (as did AR) per the discussion. Verbal chat 20:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Tag whatever you like, but I've withdrawn my objection. You now own the tag. I'll look forward to your dispute resolution process (and I've re-dated the tag to reflect my dispute withdrawal). JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Haha, wow! This tag is still here? It wasn't even proper in the first place, considering it links to WP:Accuracy_dispute, which applies to "articles for which much of the factual accuracy is actively disputed." From what I can see, the only fact in question is which usage of the term came first, and that doesn't warrant an article-wide accuracy dispute. The disputed tag is clearly not meant for these philosophical debates about an article's treatment. If the real dispute is about NPOV or UNDUE or the notability of one of the expression's meanings, then is it safe to remove this factual accuracy tag? (For what it's worth, I don't care if the subject matter is given 0, 1, 2, or 100 articles. I just think the "factual accuracy dispute" should be considered resolved because it mischaracterizes the actual dispute.) Maghnus (talk) 01:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I also support this position and the removal of the template. Off2riorob (talk) 01:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

By any reasonable standard, 2 months is more than enough time for interested editors to comment on an issue in dispute. As to the appropriateness of the specific tag, IMHO factual assertions were in dispute and the tag was appropriate (though, as I responded to User:Yopienso earlier..."If you can suggest a more appropriate tag that would adequately lead to a resolution of that issue, I'm all ears. JakeInJoisey (talk) 10:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)". That being said, the issue has been resolved to my satisfaction and I have withdrawn my original objection. I suggest you take up any further question on the tags placement with User: Verbal,who now owns it.

I also support removal of the tag unless and until User:Verbal institutes the appropriate dispute resolution process recommended by Wikipedia. JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, three editors here already that don't see any value to it, as you say it has been there a long time, I can't see anything to discuss or any discussion that hasn't already been gone over twice already. Off2riorob (talk) 02:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Apparently User:Verbal thinks otherwise as he has re-instated the tag assumedly asserting there to be no consensus despite his non-participation in the dialogue over the last 2 months. JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he must really like it as he was not edited for ten days and only edited to replace your template, give it 48 hours andd if there is no discussion it can imo be removed. Off2riorob (talk) 02:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Glancing through the history I see there had been a {{content}} tag at one point, which I think has a more appropriate message about relevance (despite also linking to the accuracy dispute page), so I probably would have suggested that if I had been around at the time... But anyway, I was just surprised to see this long debate when, as an outsider, the article seems to serve its purpose quite well. I.e, if a reader wants to learn what the heck "the Gore effect" means and lands here, I think they'd be satisfied with the accuracy and scope, and probably neutrality. The issue of whether a section should be expanded/removed/whatever doesn't seem related to accuracy, so I just thought I would chime in and maybe prod toward a resolution. Maghnus (talk) 02:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The {{content}} tag was mine, when the article was being revised in ways not obviously sourced so quickly that I had 3 reverts (2 of which have been restored to my version) in about 10 minutes, so I couldn't restore the specific tags which I thought belonging in the various sections, including {{NPOV}}. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

But anyway, I was just surprised to see this long debate...

Actually, if you look at the responses of the editors who elected to comment on the question, there was NO debate. All editors who elected to respond to the issue as stated rejected the assertion that the "2 uses" are the "same subject". Your opinion (or the opinion of any interested editor) would be welcome (and perhaps determinative in ending this dispute) as to whether or not a "consensus" on the question, based on the comments of those who have elected to contribute, has been reached. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I see five people now that have not supported the template as have any beneficial reason to be there any longer. 12:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps so, but do you concur or not concur that a consensus on the issue in question has been reached? Until that question is resolved, this dispute will never reach closure. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

No consensus is not a reason to keep the template, there has been enough discussion and the template has been there two months, its enough to remove without a clear consensus, as in no consensus , lengthy discussion - default to remove. Saying that, give it another 24 hours and see if anyone comes to support the template and explain the reasons behind its continued existence on the article. As yet no one has. Off2riorob (talk) 12:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

No consensus is not a reason to keep the template...

Of the three editors who elected to respond to the issue, ALL rejected the premise in question. I believe that satisfies Wikipedia criteria, after a more than reasonable time frame, for a declared "consensus" on the question and I consider the issue to be resolved. If and when someone wishes to dispute that assertion, I am fully prepared to debate the point further. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The extent of a "subject" is not defined on Wikipedia, so far as I'm aware. I don't see how Wikipedia can comfortably have multiple articles on the "Gore effect," all referring to the same person and climate change. On the other hand maybe someone could propose a way to have separate articles. Should it be Gore effect (joke), and Gore effect (climate change awareness)? Then should there be a disambiguation page? I wouldn't especially care, although it does bother me that the current definitional sentence is inaccurate. Mackan79 (talk) 07:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Please consider posting this comment somewhere else more appropriate. This section was established to solicit opinion on the issue stated in the section title...are the 2 "uses" being advanced the "same subject"? Thanks JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

As ARBCOM has apparently entered the closing phase of the CC determination, hopefully more editor input will be forthcoming in reaching consensus as to this issue which, per at least 2 editors, remains unresolved. Pending a lack of further contribution and resolution to the question, an RfC would probably be next. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)