Talk:Gore effect/Archive 1

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

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

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


 * Tony it`s not a blp, were did you get that idea from? This article is about the phrase "The Gore Effect" noting more, it is no different to the article about bushisms in fact. --mark nutley (talk) 14:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * An article about Bushisms is also a BLP and would have to pass the same tests I apply here. --TS 14:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well it don`t matter now does it, it`s been deleted. chris got his petty revenge did`nt he.
 * Everything in the article was well sourced, and i fail to see any issue other than spite to get it removed. --mark nutley (talk) 14:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the article lead we have "a mythical phenomenon" would this read better as "an amusing coincidence" ? --mark nutley (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 'Amusing' is a POV term; not everyone finds it amusing. To work as an article (the long-term goal), the material has to avoid projecting any particular POV, or attempting to actually be amusing. --RL0919 (talk) 18:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


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

Photo.
I see that the photo has been deleted. If this thing survives I'll photoshop up a suitable replacement and upload it myself so that there are no copyright issues. I don't know why it was deleted. Was it a copyright issue or something else? --GoRight (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It was an attack image to accompany an attack article. Of course it was deleted, and any replacement is going to get CSD'd as soon as it gets uploaded for the same reason. Don't waste your time. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting. You are claiming that an as of yet non-existent image is an attack image.  Please review WP:AGF.  --GoRight (talk) 18:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I do assume good faith, but not when the assumption has already been disproved. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Really? Please demonstrate that my non-existent image is an attack image.  --GoRight (talk) 18:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

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

The image wsa my own work, no copyright issues involved. If the article survives chriso`s attack i can reupload it. --mark nutley (talk) 18:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If it's your own work why is this identical copy sourced to an unknown author on a blog? And why did you upload this image which is overprinted with "neoconnews.com"? Stealing images off other websites and passing them off as your own is very much not tolerated and will earn you a permanent block if you're not careful. I'm going to be looking very closely at any further image uploads you make. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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


 * Critics claim the "Gore Effect" is mere coincidence.

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

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


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


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


 * Given it is the urban dictionary then i think cultural phenomenon is covered :) I`ll look for more links though, it`s not hard to find referances though it is in widespread usage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marknutley (talk • contribs) 14:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The book is titled "Mo' Urban Dictionary: Ridonkulous Street Slang Defined" and is published by Andrews McMeel. That isn't a promising pedigree for a serious work on cultural phenomena--the book is obviously more along the lines of a "weird and whacky things people do and say" book. --TS 14:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, since this subject is an aspect of political humor within pop culture how, exactly, is a dictionary of urban street slang NOT an appropriate source? --GoRight (talk) 15:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

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


 * With respect to my good friend Tony who asserts that "evidence of wide currency is absent", I disagree. The subject of this article is in wide circulation within the third party media sources, and we will certainly be adding additional sources over time to continue to flesh out the list of events claimed as evidence of the phenomenon.  Regarding his assertion that the topic is being treated as "a scientific hypothesis", he might wish to consult his dictionary to refresh his memory on the definition of the word "mythical".  Regarding his comment that "the following sentence makes the piece look like a parody of a Wikipedia article", that is the most that can be stated based on the sources analyzed thus far.  As I noted on Mark's talk page we should seek to improve this aspect of the article ... assuming that it even continues in its current direction.  And finally, regarding his statement that "The sentence that follows is almost as bad" the sentence in question is completely appropriate given the feedback this article has received thus far, including his comment above that this article was being treated as "a scientific hypothesis".  The inclusion of this sentence is important to make it clear to the reader that this is NOT a serious scientific theory, but is instead a topic of political humor within pop culture.  --GoRight (talk) 15:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please provide the many third party media sources to establish wide currency. The absence is what is killing this article at MFD. --TS 15:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In due time. --GoRight (talk) 15:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I just added a New York Daily News article. Also, since when did an even split at MFD become "killing"? --RL0919 (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ever since we decided that deletion discussions weren't votes, of course! --TS 17:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have this one which reports al in University of Toronto and two days later in the same paper February was coldest in 28 years however it does not use the term "the gore effect" so i dunno if it`s any good to use? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marknutley (talk • contribs) 16:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If the term is not used, then including it would be synthesis at best. If the term is used in a source but without discussion, then it could be used for the examples list. The best sources are those that discuss the origins and usage of the term, since those are crucial to creating an acceptable mainspace article. --RL0919 (talk) 17:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. No synthesis allowed.  There are lots of examples that could be identified as such, but unless someone in the media makes the connection to the gore effect it shouldn't be included, IMHO.  --GoRight (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A thought occurs, as we are trying to prove this as a pert of pop culture/cultural phenomena should we not use blogs? As they are pretty much the best indicator for such things. Or would that not be allowed? mark nutley (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It might depend on how this was approached. I sense that we would get resistance to such an approach, but a modest section which uses material from prominent blogs on both sides might be usable from that angle. The key here is to keep it crisp and not to let it become pointy. I would recommend proposing something on talk first to better lay out what you have in mind and to see what the reaction is. Just my $0.02. YMMV. Other than just giving us more material to work with do you think the blogs offer something the media doesn't? Do they have any kind of a unique angle on the issue? --GoRight (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We need to stick to reliable sources. Most independent blogs don't qualify because there is no editorial oversight. Online sources that do qualify -- such as a blog by a reporter on the site of an established newspaper, or articles in online publications that have professional editorial staff vetting the submissions -- would be acceptable. --RL0919 (talk) 18:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree. I think we can still find more sources in the media.  Lets see how things progress just on that front first. --GoRight (talk) 18:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


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

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


 * -- Politico is a multimedia journalism business and has been accepted as a reliable source, so this should be usable.
 * -- Magazine blog post that criticizes the item above. Now used
 * Posts from American Thinker:, . These are more examples of usage than discussion of the subject, and this is an explicitly ideological publication. But there is an editorial staff, so it may be usable as an example of the opinions of those who use the term.
 * New York Daily News --mark nutley (talk) 19:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We're already using that one, so I did a strikethrough (revert if you want it listed here for some other reason). --RL0919 (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Kgov radio station —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marknutley (talk • contribs) 10:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * -- Short opinion piece, but contains a quote from Senator James Inhofe. --RL0919 (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC) Now used
 * -- Brand new newspaper op-ed.
 * Search results for National Review Online -- A bunch of different blog posts, but from an established publication, so WP:RS should be satisfied. I haven't read through them to see what the content is, but there could be something usable there. All but one are from planet gore, no way will that be allowed :)--mark nutley (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * -- Discusses one specific occasion. Some text currently on the page discussing that particular occasion appears to be plagiarized from this, so that needs to be corrected.
 * -- Criticism of the idea. Now used
 * -- Posting to a blog for the Republican minority on the Environment and Public Works Committe of the US Senate. Senator James Inhofe is the ranking Republican, and he apparently has a thing for the Gore Effect (see reference above that quotes him).

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

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

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

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


 * During MFD #2, Mark offered to blank the page when it wasn't being actively worked on. That seems a reasonable compromise in hope of preventing more time-wasting MFDs. Does anyone object to me blanking the page (that is, User:Marknutley/The Gore Effect, not this talk page) for now, or does someone plan to work on it very soon? --RL0919 (talk) 21:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I am going to collapse the article when it is not being worked on, anyone who does some work on it can always remove and replace them when needed, is collapsing ok or should i delete and restore when i want to work on it?
 * I imagine that some will not be satisfied with anything short of complete deletion of the page, but I'm not sure what you mean by "collapsing". "Blanking" normally means that the content is removed from the page (leaving perhaps some brief notice about why the page is otherwise blank), but it can be easily recovered from the history by any editor, by reverting to an earlier version. "Deleting" would normally mean that the page is deleted so that only an admin could recover the historical versions. --RL0919 (talk) 22:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * When i said deleting i meant the text not the page :) I`ll do that now mark nutley (talk) 22:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest leaving a small amount of material (maybe just the "noindex" and "Userspace draft" templates, and perhaps a link to this discussion), because sometimes total blanking of a page is interpreted as a request to delete the page. In the circumstances, we wouldn't want anyone to get "confused". --RL0919 (talk) 22:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, that's what you did even as I was writing my comment. --RL0919 (talk) 22:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * lol, thanks mate :) mark nutley (talk) 22:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Article name
I think the article should be moved to "Gore Effect" because policy states that article titles should not include definite or indefinite articles at the beginning. Any disagreement? Cla68 (talk) 04:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well it`s known as the gore effect, but that could always be redirected to Gore Effect? mark nutley (talk) 07:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a Wiki comparative to a similar construct provides the answer. One that immediately comes to mind is "The Peter Principle" which is designated "Peter Principle" in its Wiki treatment. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Query
What is an "anthropogenic global warming event"? It sounds like an occurrence of especially strong anthropogenic global warming, but I don't think it's what the author(s) mean. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 11:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * An event were people who want to protest or discuss AGW is what it means i guess mark nutley (talk) 11:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You "guess" this is what it means? It's disconcerting that both of us are unclear on this. Let's try to find more precise wording. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Justify list
Can someone justify why a list of "Events described as instances of the Gore Effect," is appropriate for this article? Are there other similar articles about jokes with lists of events where the joke was used listed? Hipocrite (talk) 12:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That it is a joke is hardly central. Your question is basically—in an article about a phenomenon (real or purported), is it appropriate to include a list of examples.


 * Optical phenomenon See Optical_phenomenon
 * Natural phenomenon See Natural_phenomenon
 * Internet phenomenon See Lead "This is a list of phenomena specific to the Internet"
 * -- SPhilbrick  T  13:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * addendum
 * Sound effect See list of effects in Sound_effect
 * Special effect See list in Special_effect
 * Josephson effect See list following "The three main effects predicted by Josephson..."


 * This is an article about a joke, though, according to the authors and others. Is there a purported phenominon? If so, it would be addressed by the sources that typically adress phenominons - IE, scientific sources. Do those exist? Additionally, we already have articles about the phenominon which this is an example of - Confirmation bias and Availability heuristic. Hipocrite (talk) 13:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Further, those lists are links to types of the broader class of phenominon. In the article Alexander's band, there are not lists of rainbows that showed Alexander's band. Is there any article about an actual example phenominon, as opposed to an overall class thereof (in this case, that article would be weather phenomenon), that shows examples? Hipocrite (talk) 13:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * None of your addendum examples are remotely similar - a dated list of times that those effects happened, not what the effects do, or are used by. Actual dated examples of the effect in play, please. Hipocrite (talk) 13:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course this is about a purported phenomenon. Of course, it is scientifically bogus, but the article doesn't claim it is real.If it did, we would have a problem.If one had an article about a purported phenomenon, and failed to give examples, now that would be an example of a poor article. -- SPhilbrick  T  13:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If this article is about a purported phenomenon, it appears to lacks any mention in reliable sources. Sources about weather phenominon are peer-reviewed scientific journals (see our articles on Hurricane El Niño-Southern Oscillation or Derecho for some quick examples of good articles about various weather phenominon, none of which give a list of press mentions. Has this purported phenominon been discussed in any reliable sources about weather phenominons? Hipocrite (talk) 13:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Your analogy is flawed. Alexander's band is a existential claim—all it take to support an existential claim is a single example, and they have one. It's a degenerate form of a list, only one item, because only one is needed. The Gore Effect is a statistical claim—with statistically significant probability p, observation of A and observation of B coincide in time. Such a claim requires multiple examples - a single example can never support such a statistical claim. And because the phenomenon definition depends on time (unlike Alexander's bad) it is more than appropriate, it is necessary to include dates. Again, it is a joke because it purports to be a statistical phenomenon, but the event space is not properly defined. It fails as a scientific statement, but the article doesn't claim it is a valid scientific statement, so we don't judge it on the science.--  SPhilbrick  T  13:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


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


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


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


 * Please provide an article about either a weather statistical claim or a joke that contains a list of press mentions, and I'll go away. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 13:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Unacceptable narrowing of the criteria. Why don't you insist that the title have a four letter word? Because that's not relevant. Nor is the fact that it is weather related or a joke.-- SPhilbrick  T  13:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


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


 * Lightning As a bonus, it is weather-related.-- SPhilbrick  T  16:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


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


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


 * For an article about a joke, sure. However, Peter Principal also has substantial mention in the scholarly press,, while the Gore Effect? Not so much (two articles about Gore Effect, having nothing to do with weather phenominon). Is this about a joke, or about a weather effect? Hipocrite (talk) 13:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Huh? Obviously, about the joke. Is that really in question? Does anyone seriously think there is a cause and effect relationship?-- SPhilbrick  T  13:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Above you argue the article is about a weather phenominon. Is the article about a joke, or about a weather phenominon? Hipocrite (talk) 14:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is that hard to follow. The joke is that there is a weather phenomenon, although of course it is anecdotal coincidence. Two men walked into a bar...  Is that bar-related, or a joke? Answer, yes.--  SPhilbrick  T  15:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, Lar, you should really read WP:GOOGLE (specifically, this ref). Once you pass 1000, Google just makes up the numbers. Guettarda (talk) 14:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What makes you think I haven't read it? Also, what part of "No position on any issue is taken by providing these" needs to be made clearer? ++Lar: t/c 14:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Er, I thought you haden't read it because you pulled out the "179k ghits" and "124k ghits," and the linked article contains a section GOOGLE which depreciates entirely the first-order estimates given on the first search page. Hipocrite (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I was assuming good faith. I mean, I would never assume that you would knowingly making misleading and deceptive arguments. Thanks for the clarification. In that case, I would recommend you cease engaging in tendentious editing. Guettarda (talk) 14:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "I was assuming good faith" is not evident from the word choices you made. The numbers are estimates based on frequency counts. That does not mean they are "meaningless", merely that they are estimates. But that's irrelevant, really. What is it you guys are up to, exactly? Rather fast to hurl a TE charge wouldn't you say? Over giving a link to a couple of searches? Astonishing. ++Lar: t/c 14:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That does not mean they are "meaningless", merely that they are estimates. Nope, that's not true. They are simply meaningless. So either you are intentionally misrepresenting them, or you are claiming familiarity with WP:GOOGLE when in fact you aren't. Neither of these are acceptable. Guettarda (talk) 14:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * False dichotomy. That section doesn't say what you think it does. I provide a couple of links and get attacked. THAT is what is unacceptable. What is your game here? ++Lar: t/c 14:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * what part of "No position on any issue is taken by providing these" needs to be made clearer? - You threw up statistics that you knew were meaningless? That's unacceptable monkey-wrenching. Guettarda (talk) 14:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite, notability does not apply to parts of articles, only to entire articles. Whether or not to include the list is a matter of editorial judgment. I'd prefer to recast that whole section and make it a list of prominent instances of usage rather than listing events that have been called examples, because the point should be to show the examples of usage as a way of illustrating usage and showing how widespread the usage is. Making the events the prime focus of the list doesn't accomplish that as directly as naming each source in each bullet point and then describing how the source used the term. A Daily News columnist and Washington Times editorial are certainly prominent sources to cite, and older sources at least show how early the term was used. I did that once for an article about the political phrase "flip flop" (goes back to the 19th century, at least -- here it is Flip-flop (politics)). -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * To me it is clearly just WP:LISTCRUFT- random list of events sans any contextual relation to give the reader an understanding of how they relate to the article topic. Active Banana (talk) 19:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The sources clearly tie the events to the term "Gore Effect" so no violations of WP:SYN are occurring. I support keeping the list, or changing it into paragraph/narrative format. Cla68 (talk) 23:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Narrative format would be good, along with trimming. All that's needed are a few examples of usage. Usually when I see a list like this it makes me think the authors are just dumping stuff in without much thought (the worst are those "X in popular culture" lists). Sometimes there are good reasons for a list, such as describing different versions or models of something, but this isn't one of them. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * RE: "The sources clearly tie the events to the term "Gore Effect", perhaps the sources do, I havent checked, but this LIST doesnt. Active Banana (talk) 03:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the list of alleged examples is unnecessary. I'd be fine with mentioning a few of them (that are referenced to more than one source) as part of the prose, but I don't think a list of every alleged example really adds anything to the article. Once you get the basic idea, you don't need nine examples; it would be one thing if there was some kind of scientific hypothesis being proposed here, but this is just a lighthearted joke - I don't think it's intended to make any kind of serious point beyond 'ha, Al Gore makes a fool of himself again'. Robofish (talk) 02:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really. If there are only three example, then the purported phenomenon could simply be written off as simple coincidence. It is the fact that it has happened so many times that causes the concept to be interesting. Just so there’s no confusion,  the event space is not properly formed, so the statistical significance has not been test, or even examined, to the best of my knowledge.  If there had only been three such incidents, I’d side with those who think there’s nothing of interest.  Space is cheap, I see no reason to exclude six sourced items. We have far longer lists in many articles; what’s the legitimate rationale for limiting this list?  SPhilbrick  T  11:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * RE:"simply be written off as simple coincidence. " - so you are claiming that it is something OTHER than coincidence? Active Banana (talk) 12:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me see if I can illustrate with examples. Suppose you were in a room with thirty people, and someone checked the birthdays, and found that two people shared a birthday. If something thought that was quite a coincidence, and wanted to write a Wikipedia article about it, well, they could, as long as their point of emphasis is that this is perfectly unexceptional. See Birthday problem. On the other hand, if someone noted that there are some interesting similarities between the death of Lincoln and the death of Kennedy, it is interesting enough to be notable, not because it is causal, but because it is an interesting, as opposed to a simple coincidence. See Lincoln-Kennedy coincidences urban legend. Moreover, if someone said you don’t need to list all the points of comparison, just list a few, and readers will get the point, then they have missed the point. The interesting part of the Kennedy-Lincoln coincidence is that there are so many. Listing three doesn’t make the point. There are probably three points of coincidence between any two people. SPhilbrick  T  14:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Using other crappy articles as evidence to support your point does not make a convincing statement. Active Banana (talk) 15:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you didn't understand the point, as the quality of the links articles is orthogonal to my point. Do you have a relevant objection to my point? Do you understand my point?-- SPhilbrick  T  14:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

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

What WP:RS means and does not mean
''Hipocrite posted the following at my talk page, and I replied there, but this discussion really should take place here. -- JohnWBarber'' I'd ask you to review WP:RS. Neither blogs nor user created content are reliable sources - specifically, you have added content sourced to "instapundit" and other unreliable blogs, along with "urbandictonary." Please don't do this. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 23:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * We may use primary sources. These sources in the article are used to establish that the phrase was used at that time by those sources, no more. It's essentially using them the same way we'd use a commentator as a source of what the commentator's opinion is, which is allowed under WP:RS, and they're reliable for the same reason: We don't need to trust the commentator for anything but the fact that the commentator said a particular thing at a particular place and time. There is no sourcing problem here. I'm going to repost this at the talk page for the article, where this kind of discussion really belongs. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

This is the passage being referred to (all but the last sentence of which has been removed from the article and should be restored):
 * One early example of usage of the term for cooler weather associated with Gore is in a November 15, 2006 posting at Urbandictionary.com. Blogger Tim Blair was using the term in this sense as early as January 16, 2007. The next day, Glenn Reynolds mentioned the Gore Effect on his "Instapundit" blog, with a link to Blair's post. As early as February 11, 2004, Blair was using the term in a different, broader sense of an action by Gore taking place just as fate reverses the situation to create the opposite effect of the one Gore desired. As late as March 26, 2007, Mark Steyn was using the term in the same, broader sense.

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

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

That's WP:RS supporting use of this material in the article. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You really believe The Gore Effect is writing a blog about itself???? Active Banana (talk) 01:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course I do. But if you choose not to believe that, you can skip the part of the quote after the comma, wise guy. ;) -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if the blogs can be used in this case. At this time, WP doesn't appear to allow the use of independent blogs as references unless the article is about the blog itself. Cla68 (talk) 11:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please address my point that these are sources about themselves since I'm only proposing to use them to note that the phrase has been used at a particular time by particular people. (The passage gives us an idea about when the phrase began to be used in this sense and, apparently, moved away from being used in other senses.) WP:RS is there to guard against unreliable sources saying something about some other subject. There is no other subject here other than the individual writers themselves. The WP:RS passage I cite above specifically states that sources are considered reliable about themselves. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 12:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * He did. "WP doesn't appear to allow the use of independent blogs as references unless the article is about the blog itself." This article is not about a blog. You are alledging that we can use blogs as references for what the blog says - in other words, we can't use a blog to say "Relativity is false (ref totally unreliable blog)" on the relativity, but we can us a blog to say "Totally unreliable blog says relativity is false.(ref blog)" You are wrong. Hipocrite (talk) 12:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * but we can us a blog to say "Totally unreliable blog says relativity is false.(ref blog)" That's exactly what a citation for usage is: a statement saying a certain source said a certain thing at a certain time. Why don't you understand that that's exactly what the passage is about? What else did you think the passage was about? Using a source to source the fact that the source said something is what usage examples are all about. These examples are particularly pertinent because they appear to be the earliest or among the earliest examples. Why is this so difficult to understand? We are not sourcing for facts here, but for usage. For us to say that those sources used the term is inherently to use those sources to source facts about themselves. The section Identifying reliable sources specifically allows this. The proposed text meets all the requirements of that WP:RS passage. What is your reason for thinking that it doesn't? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 13:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what you're alledging. Like I said, "You are wrong." We can't coatrack unreliable sources into articles by putting "x says" infront of the unreliable stuff they say, and then state that we aren't actually using them as sources for anything but themselves. But, I'll wait for yet another person to inform you about exactly how wrong you are about policy and practice before responding to you again. At what point are you going to realize that you don't get it? Why not take this to RSN? Hipocrite (talk) 13:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Citing a source to back up the fact that the source used a certain phrase at a certain time is as inherently reliable as citing a source to back up the fact that the source stated a certain opinion at a certain time. Do. You. Understand. That? It ... can't ... be ... wrong. As WP:RS says in the passage I've been repeatedly citing, 4.there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; To explain something else glaringly obvious: It can't be coatracking to cite early examples of usage when the subject of the article is a phrase. It. Is. Central. To. The. History. Of. The. Subject. History of usage of the term is central to the subject. If you leave out usage of the term on the Internet, you create a vast gap in the history and benefit the article's coverage not one bit. Because ... It ... Can't ... Be ... Wrong ... To ... Say ... That ... These ... Sources ... Used ... The ... Term. Can you or anyone else say whether or not using these sources for this purpose would introduce some possibly-wrong facts into the article somehow? Is there a better way of sourcing the early history of usage of the term other than by relying on these sources? I'm trying to get at just what you think you're protecting the encyclopedia from, and you're not getting that across. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 13:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not how we do things here, sorry. You might want to review WP:NOR to see why doing unique research into who used a term first is inapropriate. Seek strong consensus before adding another unreliable blog to any article except an article that is titled with the blog or the author of the blogs name. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 13:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, progress! You've successfully established that I shouldn't have used the phrase "One early example of" at the start of the passage. I can change that by recasting the first sentence to something like "The term was used [...] as early as [...]" as I do in the rest of the passage. No OR. You do realize that WP:OR allows obvious statements like "at least as early as" because, well, they're obvious? What objection of yours has not been met? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 13:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)Just to expand a bit: There is nothing in WP:RS demanding that the source we're citing is specifically, consciously addressing the subject of the source itself. Because we're only citing them for usage here, that is irrelevant. I don't see an alternative commonsense explanation for this. WP:RS must allow it because it's impossible for any harm to be done by citing or even quoting from these sources -- at least not in terms of WP:RS. It is impossible for the sources themselves to be incorrect on the fact that they used the phrase at that time, at that place on the Internet. Or are you suggesting someone went back and changed the timestamps at Instapundit and Tim Blair's blog? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 13:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm saying you are engaging in prohibited OR and violation V if you use primary sources that are unreliable as sources about anything except themselves. Hipocrite (talk) 13:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * if you use primary sources that are unreliable as sources about anything except themselves. How is that NOT what I'm doing? How would a usage citation about what the source itself said be anything but that? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 13:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This is an article about "The Gore Effect". It is not about "instapundit." If you are inserting information that is not about "The Gore Effect", then you are at the wrong article. Hipocrite (talk) 13:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * But of course I'm inserting information about "The Gore Effect". A phrase has to be used in order to exist. An article about a phrase must cite the best sources available about usage of that phrase. We have no better sources at this time other than primary sources for that part of the article. Citiing Instapundit is inherently citing a source about itself because it's being cited for its own usage. It is inherently about the subject of the article because it's being cited for its own usage. This is just how we use sources as sources for themselves in any articles that are not about those sources. Note that the WP:RS passage I quote near the top of this thread ends with especially in articles about themselves, so obviously the source doesn't have to be used only in an article about itself. Perhaps you'd like to take a break and think about this, because this discussion is beginning to go around in circles. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 13:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You are using blog sources as sources for information that is not about the blog itself. If the blog owner is an otherwise respected expert in the appropriate field - in this case political satire and humor, perhaps their opinions on their blog are appropriate for inclusion, otherwise NO. Active Banana (talk) 14:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You're supposed to interpret policies using common sense, as the box at the top of the WP:RS page states. As the relevant part of WP:RS states: Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field and to cite the blog for the fact that the blog said something in the blog is, in any commonsense way you look at it, within the policy. But I've already said that. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem to keep missing about themselves. Active Banana (talk) 16:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem to keep missing the fact that I've addressed this. Most recently at 13:48, 10 June, not that far above. To repeat: When we cite them using the term, we're citing them for information about themselves. It's obviously reliable. At the same time, we're citing them for something central to the subject of the article: usage of a term in an article about that term. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

At this point, it appears that WP:YOUDIDNTHEARTHAT. Unless someone who is not you shows up to support your understanding of our reliable source policies, it's time for everyone to let this lie. There appears to be strong consensus that you are wrong. Hipocrite (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well i support what he is saying, he is most certainly citing the policys corrextly, methinks it is you who WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT so you can remove reliably sourced content from an article during an AFD mark nutley (talk) 18:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm waiting to hear from Cla68 and SPhilbrick. Let's give them and others time to reconsider. It's been less than 24 hours, so you shouldn't be so quick to try to hustle away arguments that you haven't addressed. Since I appear to be the only one actually addressing the other person's comments, citing policy specifically and showing how my reading meets the commonsense meanings that anyone can understand, perhaps you might try to address arguments rather than skip around them. Your comments appear to fit the description "refusing to acknowledge others' input or their own error". Perhaps you should more closely attend to the actual intent of WP:RS policy. Specifically, you might actually try to answer the point I made at 13:48, 10 June. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No it does not in any way come close to common sense reading. You are not citing Gore Effects Blog for non-contorversial information about Gore Effect or his blog. Active Banana (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As I've said to you at 17:51, 10 June and as I've said to Hipocrite repeatedly, most recently at 13:48, I don't have to under WP:RS. How is citing a blog for using a statement not citing the blog for information about the blog itself? How is that possibly unreliable? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If the mere fact that it appears in the blog is sufficient for content from a blog to be used as a source then your "logic" allows all content in all blogs to be used as sources. COMMONSENSE interpretation of our policies clearly does not work that way. Active Banana (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, read WP:SELFPUB. It allows us to cite them for information that doesn't apply to anybody else but the source. The fact that they used a term is the reason they're being used as a source, to establish that the term was used in that way at that time by that source itself. This falls within WP:SELFPUB. How could this not fall within it? Have you followed the link and read WP:SELFPUB? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Adding: WP:SELFPUB says you can't use the sources for other purposes, but this isn't a prohibited purpose. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Read WP:SYN - wikipedia editors lining up a series of primary sources "to establish" anything is original research. Active Banana (talk) 18:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Not responsive to my question. I addressed this adequately at 13:39, 10 June. The page you cite contradicts you. A little above, at WP:PRIMARY it states A primary source can be used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge. Note: can be used. WP:SYN talks about to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. No conclusion would be drawn in my passage. I'm noting the times in the blogs' timestamps and what the blogs are saying in those posts. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

AB, you appear to still be responding. I'm of every hope that Cla68 and SPhilbrick will show up, look at the redonculous argument (which, you are correct, allows you to insert blog sourced content across any article, as long as you preface it with "BLOG SAYS,") and say "wow, that's just wrong." In fact, Cla68 already did just that - apparently he needs to do it again before it'll be accepted. Stop responding. Hipocrite (talk) 18:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You are right. I was hoping against hope, but its not happening.. Active Banana (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * (which, you are correct, allows you to insert blog sourced content across any article, as long as you preface it with "BLOG SAYS,")  Permit me to spoon feed you a helping of WP:SELFPUB. Open wide:
 * Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves [...] so long as:
 * the material is not unduly self-serving;
 * it does not involve claims about third parties;
 * it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
 * Now please digest that. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Humour / malice
Who says this term is "humourous"? It is used exclusively by Gore opponents, as far as I can see, for obviously malicious reasons William M. Connolley (talk) 08:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've changed it to satirical, as "malice" generally means a "desire to cause pain, injury, or distress to another" or an "intent to commit an unlawful act or cause harm without legal justification or excuse." The term is pretty obviously satire, sorry.   Glenfarclas   ( talk ) 08:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think your defn perfectly fits the use. But since we can agree, and there is no source at all, I've added the obvious cn tag William M. Connolley (talk) 08:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Changed back to Humour per ref 2 “As amusing as this little study sounds, we don’t think it should distract us from the reality,” said his spokeswoman, Kalee Kreider. mark nutley (talk) 11:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Several of the references use the word "humour" to describe the term. The references that label the term insulting or offensive are already clearly attributed in the article. In other words, the article is fine describing the term as amusing or humorous. Cla68 (talk) 11:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Your references are junk. says a climatological phenomenon known by the scientific community as the Gore Effect.  which is twaddle. Is http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15931.html supposed to be reliable? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Your references are junk. I believe the Washington Times editorial (or at least passages of it) was a species of literature we English majors were taught to call "satire". This would place the Times statement in a category other than "twaddle". I believe your expertise in the subject is, ah, misplaced, given your Who says this term is "humourous"? ejaculation at the top of this thread. I don't think you actually need to "get" the humor in order to understand the article. I would not use satirical statements in the article, since there are always people who don't get a satirical statement, and I would not use that editorial as a source for statements of fact other than the fact that the Times said what it said. I think if you simply accept the fact that some other people find the thing humorous you'll be able (theoretically) to help us improve this part of the encyclopedia just fine. Yes, the Politico article is supposed to be reliable. In fact, it does appear to be reliable. Do you have reason to doubt its reliability? And please try to remain calm at all times amid satire. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 12:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


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

The term is being described here as "humorous" yet Cla68 repeatedly has attempted to add it as a see-also to Global warming controversy, a decidedly non-humor oriented article. You can't have it both ways. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The term's used to satirize an aspect of the global warming controversy; what's so hard to understand?  Glenfarclas   ( talk ) 19:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The term is reflective of (and this is explained in the article) of the social/political debate over climate change.  I guess I need to go start a discussion on the Controversy talk page.  Global warming is, as far as I can remember, the first topic I've ever encountered where editors will make such effort to remove links from a "see also" section. Cla68 (talk) 23:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

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


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

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


 * The whole "article" needs work. I dont know that you will find many people willing to put a whole lot of effort into it until the AfD is complete. Active Banana (talk) 04:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the article is going to be kept, judging by the comments so far in the AfD. How do you propose changing the lede? Cla68 (talk) 04:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * How do you propose changing the lede?
 * Perhaps even more curious, how does one go about "balancing" an article referencing a satirical concept? With anti-satire satire?
 * Wouldn't "balance" be essentially limited to expressions of "it's not funny" and "I don't like it" disdain? JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the article is balanced because it includes criticism of the term by several observers. The lede, IMO, should contain three sentences:  A definition of the term, how it is used by those who use it, and  not everyone thinks it is funny. Cla68 (talk) 06:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

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


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


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


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

It never snows in London
I am removing the following: "October 2008 – London saw the first snow since 1922 while the House of Commons debated the Climate Change Bill". Obviously this is misinformation - it snows in London, as this article proves. Could User:Marknutley who obviously lives in or near London (my guess is Essex or N. Kent) please explain why he inserted this text when he has seen snow almost every year? TFD (talk) 06:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Believe it or not that's what the cited source actually says. Given that almost all of the sources for this article are of partisan nature (op-eds and the like) rather than factual reporting, it's likely we'll find yet more, um, "highly creative and imaginative" content if we check. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 06:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Instead of deleting it, just leave out the "since 1922" bit. It will still be true with the source that way. Cla68 (talk) 06:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--Rush&#39;s Algore (talk) 08:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

--Rush&#39;s Algore (talk) 08:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The original reference was inartfully worded, but based upon other references, it is clear that the intention is to say the first snowfall in October since 1922. (I'm not opining on whether that statment is factual, just noting that those rebutting it with with exmaple of January snow are not providing proof the claim is flawed.-- SPhilbrick  T  11:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Which is also incorrect - 1934 is the correct date (see above section). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that while an editor above has identified a reference to clarify the issue, there already is a reference in the article, one that has been in there for days, and has been the subject of discussion. The clarifying citation is the Lovely article, currently the # 2 footnote. Link Quote: "And less than a week later, on Oct. 28, the British House of Commons held a marathon debate on global warming during London’s first October snowfall since 1922." (emphasis added)-- SPhilbrick  T  11:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, and as i've pointed out - its incorrect, even bolded. 1922 should've been 1934 - Using sources that are only reliable to quote the writers opinion - is here used to reference factual information (in direct disagreement with WP:V) - and with demonstrative factual errors, showing us why such sources shouldn't be used as refs for facts! [ironic isn't it?] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't check your links, but assuming you are correct, you've identified a nit. A technical error that doesn't change the conclusion. Do you have substantive objections?-- SPhilbrick  T  13:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Off by twelve years is a nit? It emphasizes that these sources are opinion pieces and cannot be relied upon for statements of fact. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Depends on the context. If it was a birth date, it would be a major error. In the context of implying that something is unusual, something that has happened for the first time in seventy some years is qualitatively no different than saying something hasn't occurred for eighty some years.-- SPhilbrick  T  15:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It is a major error in weather information as well. But that isn't the actual problem here: We are sourcing factual information to sources that aren't reliable to factual information. This error shows us exactly why such sources aren't reliable to such information. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not a "technical error" - as i demonstrated, the source is copying information from a non-reliable source (Orrloff in the Register) without checking basic factual information (1922 vs. 1934) [something which i was able to do within seconds]. That shows a clear lack of editorial control => non-reliable. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Since this subject is an Internet meme, among other things, wouldn't it be useful to readers who want to know more about this subject to mention that the error has been made repeatedly? It would help readers understand an aspect of this -- that not everything said about it is accurate. Rhetorical devices used in public controversies (something else that this is) are supposed to be accurate (at least when they're not exaggerating for humorous effect). This may even help readers think about the weather/climate difference that's part of the joke (a third thing that this is). -- JohnWBarber (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point. Proposed wording? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ugh! Sorry, that's going to take more time than I have right now. In the next 30 hours or so, I've got 7 hours of driving to do and some preparation before that. If anybody else doesn't want to wait and wants to write it, please do. Tomorrow, if I'm not too tired and if nobody else has, I'll try it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think, perhaps, what might normally be considered laudable and proper consideration for NPOV "balance" may easily be overdone, overstressed or overemphasized here to the detriment of the article itself. This is a subject about a humourous, satirical, albeit ideologically inspired, concept (not a scientific hypothesis) and its contemporary use in public discourse.  Anything more than a simple acknowledgement that proponents of "climate change" might bridle at its use owing to, perhaps, some arguable or even demonstrable factual inaccuracy in each iteration seems an odd approach to the presentation of satire.  Care should be taken here. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think part of the problem is that this is not simply satire: it's active misinformation, deliberately confusing weather and climate to get across a (completely false) message that "if it's snowing global warming can't be real". The factual inaccuracy is not incidental to the "satire", it's the central point of it. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Moved From Duplicate section
I am removing the following: "October 2008 – London saw the first snow since 1922 while the House of Commons debated the Climate Change Bill". Obviously this is misinformation - it snows in London, as this article proves. Could User:Marknutley who obviously lives in or near London (my guess is Essex or N. Kent) please explain why he inserted this text when he has seen snow almost every year? TFD (talk) 06:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * -- ChrisO (talk) 07:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Chris, quite out of bounds. Not only is it a cheap personal attack, it isn't even factually based. As noted before, and as obvious if you read the references, the claim was the first October snow, not the first snow. Admittedly, the primary reference was inartfully worded, but it's wrong to claim someone has "a disregard for factual accuracy" because the Washington Times copywriter did an inexpert job, and you fail to read all the references. Please consider refactoring your comment, and I'll be happy to remove mine.-- SPhilbrick  T  11:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I live in neither Essex or Kent, Chris remove your PA please. And i see Sphilbrick has beaten me to giving you the obvious explanation mark nutley (talk) 11:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to make sure there's no confusion, the clarifying citation is the Lovely article, currently the # 2 footnote. Link Quote: "And less than a week later, on Oct. 28, the British House of Commons held a marathon debate on global warming during London’s first October snowfall since 1922." (emphasis added)-- SPhilbrick  T  11:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well the 1922 date is incorrect as well. It was the first October snow in London since 1934 (not 1922) - it also was also not a unique debate in the House of Commons - it was the 3rd reading of the bill.
 * This is the reason that references such as this one aren't reliable - they have very little (if any) editorial control - and thus are prone to repeat errors (from other just as unreliable sources) and lack simple fact-checking. Why are we using such references? (and what does it have to do with Gore?) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Why are we using such references? Because if we restricted ourselves to references which never make an error, we'd have no sources. This is so obviously self-evident, I wonder if you meant something other than you asked.-- SPhilbrick  T  13:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Why are we using references that aren't generally reliable? Opinion pieces are only reliable to the authors opinion - there is a reason for that. But here we apparently, blow that lark, and use such references to actually source factual information - doesn't that strike you as a bit odd? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

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


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


 * It's common for an article to be improved during an AfD such that the article ends up being kept. This is in fact one of the benefits of the AfD process. And yes, deleting unnecessary material can be one way to improve an article. 15:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)The material I thought was removed was merely moved. Nevertheless, I'm unclear whether our policies on editing articles are precisely the same as or different during the course of an AfD. It's my view they should be different, and if I can clearly understand the current policies, I'll see if I can articulate my proposal, and find the right venue for it. -- SPhilbrick  T  15:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm quite aware of WP:Bold, but thank-you very much. I may not have phrased my question clearly - I'm looking for examples of policies, guidelines or essay that may override the normal policies, essays, and guidelines in case an AfD is in progress. I'm aware of three such examples (blanking during AfD, removal of edit notice during AfD, and the overarching WP:IAR), wondering if there are others.-- SPhilbrick  T  15:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * My bad for not using clearer edit summaries during a quickly evolving article and AfD debate. Active Banana (talk) 15:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I now see Guide_to_deletion and see there are a few more restrictions than I mentioned, but fewer than I think are appropriate. That page looks like a good place to discuss this further.-- SPhilbrick  T  16:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * All poorly sourced material should be removed from articles. Unfortunately in this article everything is poorly sourced.  TFD (talk) 17:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)