Talk:Gore effect/Archive 4

Proposal
The Gore effect is a reference to the apparently and anecdotal relationship of sudden cold weather and appearances of former U.S. Vice President and Nobel Peace Prize recipient Al Gore at global warming associated events.

Its rather funny how close Hipocrite is to slang and abusive mud slinging used in the Urban dictionary, e.g. The phenomenon whereby right-wing climate change denialists grasp onto any weather event not involving wildfire occurring in the same hemisphere that Al Gore is visiting and use it to "prove" that climate change is a myth. How come ? Polentario (talk) 18:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please cease your personal attacks. Hipocrite (talk) 18:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Polentario, are you aware of the climate change sanctions? (WP:GSCC.) You're liable to have a complaint filed against you at WP:GSCCRE, if it hasn't happened already. Please limit your comments to something constructive. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm Hypocite is calling sceptics "denialists" and "rightwing". Art least for a German, thats a sort of libel. Polentario (talk) 19:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, are you accusing me of breaking a law? Hipocrite (talk) 19:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No he is not, he is just making a passing remark, i think it`s time to drop this thread mark nutley (talk) 19:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

"The Gore effect is a reference..." is a rather poor start for an encyclopaedia article. It's a phenomenon, a slur, a joke, a phrase that refers to...but it's not a reference. A reference is not a noun (except, of course, when it's used as shorthand for "a cited reference"). Guettarda (talk) 19:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Compare Pauli effect. It seems to work there. Polentario (talk) 19:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Nope, doesn't work there either. Guettarda (talk) 19:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Appearance and background primary?
In the section The Gore Effect a tag primary was added. Can anyone explain this tagging? As far as I see theres no rationale for it. Nsaa (talk) 22:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Becasue some editors here think the sources are unreliable mark nutley (talk) 22:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that would be tagged with . Guettarda (talk) 22:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)Because the section has been synthesised from primary sources, for the most part. The tag explains the rationale pretty well. Guettarda (talk) 22:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

NPOV the third
This article fails to be written from an NPOV. There are multiple POVs on the temperature at Harvard University during Gore's lecture in October 2008. One POV is that it was near 125 year lows - this is the POV held by a Washington Times editor. Another POV is that the temperature was perfectly normal - this is the POV held by the NOAA and other weather data maintainers. There are the same multiple POVs about the temperature at global warming rally held in New York City - some think it was "one of the coldest days in the city`s history," while others believe it was "not one of the coldest days in the city`s history." Only one is expressed. Further, there are multiple POVs about the meaning of the term. Some think it refers to a relationship between cold weather and appearances of former U.S. Vice President and Nobel Peace Prize recipient Al Gore at global warming associated events, while yet others believe it describes Gore's impact in raising global warming as a public issue, particularly following his 2006 documentary An Inconvenient Truth. One of these is granted the privlidged position of being first, while the other is arguably far more prominent. Thus, I have inserted the POV tag, as I've done before, outside of NSAA's constant reverts. Hipocrite (talk) 18:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * How 'bout inserting the referenced information? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hipocrite, in consideration of the AfD decision, is your POV objection as to "the meaning of the term" now moot? JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Why would it be? Untill the page is moved to "The Gore Effect (something)" and this page replaced with either the more common use of the term or alternatively a disambiguation page, that objection will last, and I repeat that only one POV with respect to the temperature at various locations at various days ignores the reliable PoV expressed by the NOAA and other temperature archives, relying soley on the opinion of far-right opinion columns. Both attempts to remove the one pov, and attempts to insert the other PoV have been reverted - you suggest I try again - I instead suggest that someone who is typically seen as a denialist instead write for the enemy. Hipocrite (talk) 15:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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


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

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

On matters that an editor knows have been contentious, the proper place to start objecting is on the talk page, not with edits directly to the article. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that editors involved with the climate change article have objected to the use of newspapers as sources before, including the New York Times. The regulars at the RS Noticeboard were non-plussed, to say the least, by that attitude.  Perhaps I should make that another question for examination in the ongoing case. Cla68 (talk) 23:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with using a newspaper as a source, and everything to do with what the newspaper article is. As we all know not everything in a newspaper is reliable in general or in context. This particular "article" seems to be a leisure item, or a "filler", where you tell something amusing, which may or may not be correct. The true reference is the urbandictionary - which as far as i know - isn't a reliable source. (self-published, and not particularly known for its editorial control). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC) btw. your description of the RS/N discussion on a particular NYT item - is quite POV (or in other words, there are more than your opinion about what conclusions to draw from it). And it has exactly no relevance here - unless you really think that everything written in a newspaper is per default reliable (which is false). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Any claim that any source should always be considered a reliable source is nonsense. In this instance, the relevent content is 101 words about this topic. 23 are direct quote from a user generated content site, 31 are a summary of events also dependant upon that user generated content. Of the remaining: "AL GORE EFFECT, THE" the title "According to urbandictionary.com, this is" the attribution to the user generated content "It happened in Canada this year, sort of," sort of???? "Peter Scowen" the author of this segment.  Active Banana (talk) 23:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reason to believe the newspaper was not careful about what it published? Newspapers quote people all the time, including quoting sources they believe are correct. What's different about this? Do you have reason to believe that the newspaper didn't check the accuracy of what "Urban Dictionary" said? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that most editors (at least I am) would be very hesitant about using content in an article that is simply a reliable source quoting an unnamed sourced. That is exactly the equivilent of the content that we are using in this article - a generally reliable source quoting from an unnamed source.* So yes, I think it is below wikipedia's standards to use this as a reference even though it might technically fit within our definitions. *In this case it is not completely unnamed source they are quoting since we can go to urbandictionary.com- it is aparently Bill Calvin  (William Calvin?) not someone that we have any reason to believe has any particular standing to provide a valid definition. Active Banana (talk) 00:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I asked you Do you have reason to believe that the newspaper didn't check the accuracy of what "Urban Dictionary" said? because I thought you were assuming that the writer did no further checking. I assume the writer had reason to believe the term went well beyond a simple "Urban Dictionary" definition. I assume that because I did it myself when researching sources for the article. Google is very easy for a writer to use. Wikipedia assumes that when something appears in a newspaper that otherwise appears to be a reliable source, that the information is reliable for reasons not explicitly stated in the report. You should have a reason before declaring the report is unreliable. Simply that the newspaper happened to quote an Internet 2.0 source is not enough. Anything a journalist writes for a newspaper, particularly under that journalist's own by-line, is supposed to be accurate, or at least not misleading. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * See answer just below (something which btw. has been raised before). Nb: Things that are in a in a newspaper are not by default reliable - it depends on the amount of editorial control - the pure news journalism is considered the most reliable, articles/focus items less, leisure section less, editorials less, opinion articles less, down to the letters somewhere along the way which are not considered reliable at all. To make it even more complicated the author of a particular column/article may also be an item (ie. is he/she generally considered accurate, highly regarded journalist etc etc.) [doesn't count in regular news btw]. A political columnist writing about science is considerably less reliable than a science columnist writing on the subject and vice versa. Reliability is not black/white. And as said - this particular piece seems to be a leisure item. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * A specific "Reason to doubt" is required to question reputable sources which would be otherwise beyond doubt. It is not needed for sources which are not really considered reputable to begin with, such as a self published book without editorial control or a similar website (urban dictionary).--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There are several "reasons to doubt" about that piece - one of the very first is the title "almanac", almanacs are not usually reliable. The second is on the same lines: This is most likely a leisure/culture/entertainment item in the newspaper - which are generally also not reliable (not regular journalism => less editorial control => lower RS level). And the final one i will give, is that the "almanac" piece is comprised of piecemeal gathered from various other sources (notice the stub-like sections, and the many different authors). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstood my comment. I wasn't asking for any reasons. I just said that for non-reputable sources no specific reason of doubt are needed. non-reputable sources are simply not good enough to establish anything (contested) on their own in WP.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes. I see what you mean. Guess i have to slow down on commenting in the middle of (my) night, when i'm really focusing on programming :) Sorry for that. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 04:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If you don't agree with what a newspaper is saying, all you need to do is attribute it: "The Toronto Globe and Mail stated that..." and then move on.  The reader can then check the source and decide on their own how much credibility to give it. Cla68 (talk) 01:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the material should stay more or less as-is except that the Urban Dictionary also should be linked as it is important to the sourcing. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Good idea. I don't think anyone will disagree with that. Done. The footnote has Web links to both the newspaper and Urban Dictionary, by the way. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see: WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary:  Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a slang, jargon or usage guide. The goal of this project is to create an encyclopedia."  What one needs is an article about the topic.  TFD (talk) 01:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In some cases in the past in articles which successfully passed FA or GA, I have linked to a primary source along with the secondary source that is referencing it within the footnote. I think SBHB's suggestion is fine. Cla68 (talk) 02:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Phrase "Gore Effect" - Dubious source(s)?
This is troublesome. Here is one of the sources purporting to support an alternative use of the phrase "The Gore Effect"...


 * Title:carbon, climate change and A1 Gore's movie effect on choices for future electric power generation
 * Body:But it's clear that for now, carbon, climate change and A1 Gore's movie are having a major effect

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


 * Just a Google combiner harvest. To be dismissed. Polentario (talk) 05:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "Gore effect" doesnt appear in the free preview portion, but that doesnt mean that it isnt used later in the article. Do you have access to the whole article to know that it doesnt? Active Banana (talk) 11:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It should be cut. The full "article" is here. First of all because it doesn't use Gore effect in any way - and secondly because its a leisure/opinion item, and not really reliable for anything. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I commend your forthrightness in this deletion.
 * As the AfD resolution appears to support this article subject as identifiably unique and quite independent of other suggested uses, might those who supported the case for "parity" consider paring the lengthy list of citations to a few that might best support that content? JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * See the section below.Active Banana (talk) 16:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In however or in whatever place this content gets incorporated, the citation list is needlessly lengthy...and rather odd-looking. It appears to have been assembled to make a point made all but moot by the AfD resolution and no longer really serves any purpose. IMHO, nothing is lost by paring it down to a few of the most representative citations. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

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


 * No. You cannot grant your prefered use of the term privlidged status - there are far, far more uses of the term to mean the effect Al Gore had on public perceptions of global warming. Turning this page into a disambig of the two terms is fine, but putting the more widely used phrase in the ghetto is not acceptable. Hipocrite (talk) 16:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Fully support Hipocrite. Active Banana (talk) 16:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect hipocrite, the gore effect about the weather, The other is usually called The Al Gore Effect to do with his raising awareness, any other objections? mark nutley (talk) 16:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Mark, your unvarnished assertion is belied by the reference count. Hipocrite (talk) 16:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps even more salient (and as has been commented upon, I believe, several times already), I have yet to see any (and I mean even ONE) source suggesting that some alternative reference or use of "The Gore Effect" isn't simply an incidental and/or convenient turn of phrase as opposed to a concept that has made its way into the public lexicon. This repetition of an apparently unsupportable contention is beginning to approach obduracy level. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As compared to that ultra reliable source Urban dictionary? Active Banana (talk) 17:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You have recourse to pursue any RS objection you might have within WP:RS/N. I'd suggest you take your observation there to, perhaps, elevate your observation to something more than your opinion. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's be clear - I have no problem with using the globe and mail to refer to UD. I do, however, have a problem with placing the definition you don't like into a ghetto because... well, there's a reason, but I haven't seen it yet. I made it clear I was fine with disambiguating this page into Gore Effect (satire or whatever) and Gore Effect (public policy or whatever). It seems that if editors were playing fair, that would be seen as a fair compromise from my preferred position of merge and redirect to Al Gore and the Environment, or rewrite this article with public policy as the main topic. However, I realize that accepting a compromise up front is weakness, and so I'll be forced to defend from a position of reasonablness against unrelenting hordes of less-than-willing-to-play-fair individuals, per my talk page essay User:Hipocrite. Please demonstrate that you're trying to encyclopedia by accepting my compromise position. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 17:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hipocrite you are wrong now just as you were above about the cold weather in NYC. Look at the refs about his campaigning, the Al Gore effect the Al Gore Effect the Al Gore effect this Al Gore Effect the Al Gore effect the Al Gore effect All your refs call the campaigning crap The Al Gore Effect, not The Gore Effect mark nutley (talk) 17:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * But, Mark, everyone except you realizes I was right about the weather in NYC. Hipocrite (talk) 17:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No you were not, look at all the links i provided. But never mind that for now, comment on the fact that the refs you say support the gore effect`s most common meaning is about his campaigning when those refs actually say "The Al Gore effect" this appears to be misrepresenting sources mark nutley (talk) 17:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So you alledge that all of the refs from 8-20 in the current article say "Al Gore Effect," and none of them say "Gore Effect?" Is that your position statement? Hipocrite (talk) 17:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Lets See shall we?
 * 8 the Al Gore effect


 * 9 the Al Gore Effect
 * 10 the Al Gore effect
 * 11 this Al Gore Effect


 * 12 the Al Gore effect


 * 13 the Al Gore effect


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


 * 15 the Al Gore


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


 * 16 This is in dutch


 * 17 the Al Gore effect


 * 11the Al Gore effect

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


 * Interesting. How about, The Australian Green Consumer Guide: Choosing Products for a Healthier Home? Hipocrite (talk) 17:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Further, doesn't the key source used in this article -, define what you think is the "Gore Effect" as the "Al Gore Effect?" It seems the phrases are interchangable, no? Hipocrite (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The CNN transcript also uses "Al Gore Effect." Is there any evidence that "Gore Effect" exists at all? Hipocrite (talk) 17:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * actually *14 the Al Gore Effect Active Banana (talk) 17:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Interesting, proved wrong again and you move the goalposts. No the phrases are not interchangeable as the majority of refs with the phrase "the gore effect" are about the joke and not his campaigning so either another article is created for The Al Gore Effect {climate change campaigning) or a lot of sources will be misrepresented here mark nutley (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Which refs use "Gore Effect?" Hipocrite (talk) 17:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Go take a look yourself, you can always assume good faith on my part that the majority of refs refering to bad weather are called the gore effect. But as you are once again proved wrong shall we begin to remove the misrepresented refs? and move them to The Al Gore Effect (Climate Change Campaigning)
 * Mark, are you suggesting we remove all references that state "Al Gore effect" as opposed to "Gore effect?" I guess I could get on board with that if it's what you're arguing we do... Hipocrite (talk) 18:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't create two articles, just because, well, this is not significant enough. I would have the article focus on the dumb joke Gore Effect, and include a subsection noting the usage of the phrase "al gore effect" with a different meaning within the article.--Milowent (talk) 18:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Milowent`s suggestion is reasonable, a subsection titled Other uses of the phrase might be a good way to go mark nutley (talk) 18:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


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

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

Numerous sources for ignored definition
I'm not sure how people are disputing that there is an equally notable use of this term to refer to Al Gore's efforts and impact in galvanizing a public response to climate change. There are many sources that use and describe the term with this meaning. I would think that the above sources show a consistent usage of this term, at least on par with any other usage that is currently discussed in the article. Note that a couple of sources which I have not included do use this term in a general sense, perhaps including this article in CNN (and the 2004 use by Tim Howard relating to Gore's endorsement of Howard Dean). However, all of the above seem to be consistent. I welcome anyone else to provide their own review (in detail and with direct comparisons to other sources, please, so that we can remain focused). Mackan79 (talk) 20:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "In doing so, he was only responding to rising concern in the US about global warming, a disquiet brought about as much by Hurricane Katrina and other climatic aberrations as the Al Gore effect — the relentless campaign to alert the world to the issue by the man Bush did not win against. .... Gore's shadow, and the possibility that he may be a last-minute stealth candidate, has alerted a plethora of presidential aspirants on both sides to a potent issue. ... Next only to Gore, the man who has changed the tone of the debate is California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger who has moved to reduce state greenhouse gas emissions by 11% by 2010, 25% by 2020 and 80% by 2050." Global Warning, by Chidanand Rajghatta.  The Times of India.  June 5, 2007.
 * "Some call it the Al Gore effect, others say it just makes good business sense. Concern about climate change, popularized by the former U.S. vice-president, has helped to accelerate interest in green and socially responsible investing, say industry experts.  In six years, the assets of socially responsible investment (SRI) funds have grown nearly 10-fold to $609 billion from $65.5 billion, according to the Social Investment Organization, a non-profit association that is the voice for the socially responsible investment industry in Canada."  Gore Effect Spawns Green Investing, By Ross Marowits.  New Brunswick Business Journal. November 2, 2009. (This entire article is directly on the subject.)
 * "But with “sustainability” now a buzzword in nearly every industry, green is becoming the new normal in luxury hotels. According to the International Ecotourism Society, the eco-tourism category grew three times faster than the industry as a whole in 2004. Marketers attribute the growth to a group they call “metrospirituals” — hybrid-driving, yoga-practicing baby- and echo-boomers for whom social responsibility and seeking out new adventures are a way of life. ... No doubt surging energy costs and media attention to climate change are powering this Al Gore effect." Easy Being Green, by Heidi Mitchell.  The New York Times.  September 4, 2006.
 * "Whether it's the Al Gore effect or just the new reality, the school of thought on Canadian business campuses these days is that there's potentially a lot of green in being green. Call it economics meets the environment if you will, and with corporate Canada jumping on board, academia is along for the ride." Learning to make money from going green, by Lisa Wright. The Toronto Star.  December 17, 2007.
 * "As Al Gore and the panel have told us with great authority, there is no longer any serious scientific debate about the catastrophic consequences we will face if we continue our unsustainable burning of fossil fuels." Letter to the editor by Eric Chivain, M.D.  The New York Times.  October 16, 2007.  (Editor's heading: "On the Gore Effect: The Nobel and the Politics")
 * "Jack Freele, who co-founded the New England Rain Barrel Company with his wife Joan, said Acton was one of the first towns to partner with his company to offer the barrels at a discounted rate. ... Freele said interest in rain barrels has definitely grown in recent years, but isn’t quite sure why. 'Demand seems to really be a lot more intense this year,” he said. “I’m not sure if it’s water bills going up or the Al Gore effect or what. … But something’s going on.'"  Barrels offered to save water, by Christian Schiavone.  GateHouse News Service.  April 23, 2008.
 * "Ook zou het Al-Gore effect zijn uitgewerkt. Door de film 'An Inconvenient Truth' nam vorig jaar de aandacht voor milieuproblemen sterk toe." Rough translation "Also the Al Gore effect may have been developed. Last year, the film "An Inconvenient Truth" strongly increased the attention to environment problems." Ledental milieuorganisaties daalt.  Nederlandse Omroep Stichting.  21 dec 2008.
 * "Career suicide? Not on the West Coast, which has become a destination for a growing number of professionals in their 30s who are abandoning well-paying jobs to work in the sustainability field - a phenomenon one might call the Al Gore Effect." Trading Wall Street's greenbacks for B.C.'s green conscience, by Adriana Barton.  The Globe and Mail.  May 14, 2007.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * the Gore Effect: The Nobel and the Politics


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


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


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


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

Our sourcing policy gives clear priority to scholarly sources: Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources where available. If you take a look at the scholarly literature, this strongly supports the notability of this usage. On the other hand, I cannot find any scholarly sources that support the "magic effect on weather" meaning. For example: Guettarda (talk) 21:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Attitudes towards CO2 taxation - is there an Al Gore effect?
 * Poverty alleviation as big business
 * The Al Gore Effect: An Inconvenient Truth and Voluntary Carbon Offsets
 * Is Green the New Black? Reflections on a Green Commodity Discourse
 * The Australian Green Consumer Guide: Choosing Products for a Healthier Home (Published by an academic press)


 * Please get back to content. the expression "Gore effect" is mentioned once per entry, always in a sort of passing by style, never explained nor attributed to anything or anyone of any importance. Insofar not useable as a source. Polentario (talk) 21:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, not really. While I don't have access to the first article, its abstract makes it pretty clear that it actually is an analysis of the "Gore effect". And if it's the title of the paper, it's pretty safe to say that it's more than "passing mention". The third paper is also explicitly about a 'Gore effect'. The fourth paper first explains what it means by the 'Gore effect', and then uses the phrase later on when it refers to what it discussed earlier. The other two only use the term, but it's pretty clear from the context how they are using it. The article is, of course, based on examples of usage. Here we actually have articles - scholarly discussion, not op-eds - that analyse the term and what it means. Guettarda (talk) 00:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Our sourcing policy gives clear priority to scholarly sources...
 * Unfortunately "scholarly sources" are probably not likely to be found referencing the "Gore Effect" subject of this article though I'd surmise they may eventually appear within some not-too-distant future poli-sci treatment of the subject. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * LOVELY reasoning by both Polentario and JakeInJoisey /cough cough urbandictionary cough cough/Active Banana (talk) 21:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Guettarda's sources seem to be extremely persuasive. Polentario, are you really claiming that the sources, such as this one, only use the term once while passing by?  I would like to work for consensus here, but it will be hard to work with that kind of position. Mackan79 (talk) 23:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Polentario or JakeInJoisey, but frankly neither of their comments seem attentive or serious. This article, as annotated above, is entirely about the "Gore effect," offering numerous examples of the sudden increase in attention to climate change. Detailed statistics are offered in several to show this sudden increase (particularly in investment). Jake says, "NONE of these possess a common understanding in popular culture as does the subject of this article, and its uniqueness and independence have now been resolved by the RfD." This is nonsensical: a.) uniqueness and independence could not be established by any AfD, b.) uniqueness and independence are not any sort of relevant standard, c.) nor is "a common understanding in popular culture" any sort of standard, and d.) nothing Jake says makes any attempt to compare the sources for the two different usages. Polentario says the phrase is only used once, passingly, in each of these sources, which is simply false: I believe every one is about the upsurge in interest relating to climate change, which is exactly what the term is used to denote. I need to look at the sources added by Guettarda, but please also consider that we are here to carefully consider sources, not to engage in advocacy. Being confrontational, writing in all caps, and harping on AfDs damages the editing environment, and please note that I will request administrative intervention if it continues. Mackan79 (talk) 23:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I haven't had time to look over all these sources, but there seems to be an impressive number of them. Is there a single alternative, specific definition that a good number of sources can be found to support? Do we have sourcing that covers the concept in depth for that definition? For each definition that has sourcing at least as detailed and reliable as the joke definition, we should have coverage in the encyclopedia. Please see WP:DICDEF and the first table there, lower right-hand box. I'm not very familiar with that policy, but my impression is that it indicates separate articles are in order. Am I wrong? Please keep in mind that we just got a consensus from, what? 40 or so editors for an article on this particular subject attached to the humorous definition. No matter how many other sources you have, that simply isn't going to be enough to remove this definition from having essentially it's own article. I'd also like to know what the relationship would be between one of these alternate devinitions and the "Eco-finance" article I mentioned somewhere above on this page. updated -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The article here, titled "The Al Gore Effect: An Inconvenient Truth and Voluntary Carbon Offsets," is an in depth treatment of the effectiveness of An Inconvenient Truth as an "awareness campaign" to motivate public action, in which the author tests whether communities in which the film was shown had an increase in purchases of carbon offsets. The article here, titled "Attitudes towards CO2 taxation - is there an Al Gore effect?", seems to present similar testing and analysis.  Those are two of the articles Guettarda presented, and of course you can see relevant quotes from several business and general interest pieces above.  For instance, the article "Gore effect spawns green investing," in the New Bunswick Business Journal, notes "In six years, the assets of socially responsible investment (SRI) funds have grown nearly 10-fold to $609 billion from $65.5 billion, according to the Social Investment Organization, a non-profit association that is the voice for the socially responsible investment industry in Canada."  The general theme is that there has been a very dramatic increase in public response to climate change over the last few years, which is attributed to Gore.  Personally I have not seen anything like this treatment of the "joke" meaning; I keep asking, but I can't get anyone to present the sources that show the significant coverage of that use.  Proper treatment here is something to discuss; my view is that two articles on the "Gore Effect" would make us look even sillier than this article does by itself, since clearly both could be discussed in an article like Al Gore and the environment.  But of course I'm open to ideas. Mackan79 (talk) 03:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Mackan...contrary to your assertions, the AfD determination indicates that sourcing requirements and notability criteria as presented by contributors to the AfD and examined (with some rather laudatory compliments to the examiner) were sufficient to satisfy Wikipedia requirements for the existence and continuing development of an article addressing the satirical use of the term "Gore Effect" independent of any other use considerations. While I understand your desire to re-debate the question, that time has come and gone...at least for now. Let's get on with writing the article as currently identified and see how it develops. JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "independent of any other use considerations" ... erh? No. First of all that is something that cannot be determined at an AfD, and secondly it is an incorrect description of the AfD. The AfD participants were evaluating an article where this alternate use was mentioned - and afaicr there was no statement that other uses shouldn't be here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 05:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As I read the AfD determination, reference is made specifically to the satirical use of the term "Gore Effect" and no reference is made to any other purported use of the term. I believe "independent of any other use consideration" legitimately represents the AfD position. You, of course, are free to interpret it in any manner of your choosing.
 * ...afaicr there was no statement that other uses shouldn't be here.
 * That is not my position. The AfD addressed the Wikipedia propriety of presenting an article focusing on the satirical use of the term as is, I'd suggest, rather clear in the examiner's closing comments. That affords, IMHO, WP:WEIGHT to the subject as political satire and that other suggested uses do not have WP:WEIGHT parity in this article. As has already been suggested, an "Other Uses" section appears to be an appropriate and workable approach barring, of course, the treatment of suggested "other uses" in an article independent of this one. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

See the closers comment: Active Banana (talk) 15:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And? What? JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Any claim that the closer intended the article to be only addressing the unusual cold weather at Gores appearances is false. Active Banana (talk) 16:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm unsure why you raise the issue, apparently directed at my comment(s). I make no such claim.  But, as long as we're discussing it (again), the examiner's comment (about which I was previously unaware or, perhaps, failed to take adequate note of) is worthy of note here...
 * Yes---The_Gore_Effect, and that would be a place wherein I would expect those who have a differing view on the term to step forward and ensure that those different usages are covered.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That pretty much echoes my observations on the WP:WEIGHT issue. I suggest you re-read my comments above. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Jake, your claim that an AfD can establish the respective weight that should be given to different meanings of this term is plainly incorrect as a matter of any Wikipedia policy or practice. I would like to ask that anyone who opposes discussing the different meanings of this term prominently in the lead explain their opposition with specific regard to the sources available. Note again that at the top of this section we have some dozen articles discussing the use of this term to refer to Al Gore's effect on the public response to climate change. If these do not create "due weight" to be discussed prominently in the lead of this article, there needs to be a specific explanation of how another use has received much more discussion among reliable sources. Mackan79 (talk) 21:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Last time for me on this Mackan...and only because I respect the depth of your belief (albeit what is increasingly appearing to me to be approaching obduracy) in your position...(which, I should have hastened to add, is probably mutual).
 * ...your claim that an AfD can establish the respective weight that should be given to different meanings of this term...
 * Let's be precise here. My "statement" asserts that the AfD close (and, subsequently, the examiner's more specific response) DID establish A respective weight.  That is QUITE clear (esp. see the response to Active Banana's query). Can we agree on that? JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What is quite clear isL "ensure that those different usages are covered." with no statement at all of how much weight to give to any usage. That would be covered by WP:UNDUE which says that the article covers the perspectives of the topic in approximate weight by which they are covered by reliable sources. Active Banana (talk) 03:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

See also again
I removed Cherry picking and Confirmation bias as requiring explanation. It would make sense to include them in the body, if sources could be obtained, but not as unadorned "See also" links. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Why do you feel that those see-also links require explanation? Have you reviewed WP:SEEALSO, which states "Links included in the "See also" section may be useful for readers seeking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question." But, of course, I'll find sources. However, I'll be trimming some other stuff out of See Also. Hipocrite (talk) 14:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * IIRC, the peripheral relationship must be clear (and not violate NPOV and BLP). — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * So it would be acceptable, in your mind, to demonstrate the relationship by the use of unreliable sources - IE, that multiple people when discussing the Gore Effect note Confirmation Bias (I don't consider Cherry Picking to be relevent.) Not for inclusion of such sources in the article, but rather to note the relationship, or are you insisting only reliable sources for such be used? Hipocrite (talk) 14:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If you don`t consider cherry picking to be relevant then why did you revert it back in and then demand i self revert it back in? mark nutley (talk) 15:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's what I get for giving an inch. Sorry, mark, you've made me reconsider. I REALLY REALLY NEED Cherry Picking in the document - I'm not going to attempt to compromise on anything. If you can pry Cherry Picking out of my hands, you should consider it a MASSIVE WIN. Hipocrite (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What the hell are you on about? mark nutley (talk) 16:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Mark, as usual, when I attempted to find middle ground - accepting the removal of "Cherry Picking," with the hopes you would allow reinsertion of "Confirmation Bias," you took my capitulation and used it to try to pry more out of me. Basically, I gave you an inch, again, and you took a mile. It's your standard practice, and it needs to stop. Hipocrite (talk) 16:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And again "What the hell are you on about?" Yesterday i removed cherry picking and you reverted it back in, above i ask you why and now you think i`m trying to take a mile? I have no idea what your on about mark nutley (talk) 16:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Forget it, mark. Hipocrite (talk) 16:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * (Ignoring bickering between Hipocrite and Marknutley)
 * (ec)Hmmm. If people note confirmation bias in regard their own use of the term "The Gore Effect", then it's probably reliable, per WP:SELFPUB.  Otherwise, I'll have to think about it.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Removed again, but I restored the content tag, at your request. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't consider your removal a revert, as I stated I would do so myself.
 * My question to you is very clear - are you requiring reliable sources for every "see also" or are you merely requesting that others have discussed the link between the phrases. Please respond to that, not to any other question. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 16:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * For a controversial #Seealso, I think we would need a (nearly) reliable source making the connection, not just evidence of the connection. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ? It's not an open-blogging platform, rather it's limited only to their housebloggers. I consider it on the cusp - possibly reliable for electronic media type things, which this is. Hipocrite (talk) 16:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I wonder how many "skeptics" know that on average, half the places you or I or Al Gore go too will be below average (for a climate with no secular temperature trend, assuming a symmetric temperature distribution, and that we travel at random, yadayadayada...). But I agree. Google spits out some Skeptic (as in James Randy, not Jim Inhofe) websites, but nothing obviously highly reliable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

the scientific community
Re "the scientific community" - while I don't believe a WT puff-piece editorial is an appropriate source for hte opinions of "The scientific community," I'm pretty confident it dosent fail verification - first paragraph -

"...the latest victims of a climatological phenomenon known by the scientific community as the Gore Effect." Hipocrite (talk) 16:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Concur. It's an editorial, and not reliable.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

template farm
Over templating and extended insertions of templates spoil the readability quality of the article. We are keeping the article so lets get rid of the issues that people want to sit templates on the article so...Lets get them removed what is the actual problem? Off2riorob (talk) 17:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Contrary to your assertion, it is considered improper to remove tags which have been discussed, while the discussion is still active, and there is no consensus for the tag removal. In particular, your removal of the content tag was based on a lack of objection for less than 10 minutes.   — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

NPOV template on the whole article
The whole article is disputed as not neutral, what is the content that is the actual issue? Who added this template? Off2riorob (talk) 17:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The core problem is that there are nearly no reliable secondary sources to the term. Most sources are primary, i.e. they use the term, they don't report on it. If they report on it, they often report on it tongue-in-cheek. Some even run with the joke. There is very little serious and useful material out there. As a result, an unduly long part of the article is a simple list of sightings. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

So the issue is not actual neutrality at all and does not warrant the NPOV sitting on the whole article. You mention primary citations, the citations are not primary are they? You seem to be asserting that the phrase is only mentioned in passing in the citations, which is more actually about notability and the article has just been kept as notable. What is the actual content that is in the article that is not neutral? Templates are not supposed to sit on articles for long periods, we are here to remove and correct the specific issues that the templates were added to help correct, who added this NPOV template? Please present here the actual content it has been placed to correct. Off2riorob (talk) 17:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure they are. This is essentially primary. This is, too (picked the first two from the list, but it applies to most). These are sources that use the term, they do not do substantial reporting on it. As such, they are primary sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

No, the issue is that a notable PoV is excluded. We include the PoV of a Washington Times editorial and an Ottawa Citizen columnist with respect to the status of a specific day being "one of the coldest days in the city`s history." We exclude the PoV of the NOAA that that day was "not one of the coldest days in the city`s history."

We include the PoV expressed by a Washington Times editorial that on a specific day there were "low temperatures that challenged 125-year records." We exclude the PoV expressed by the NOAA that on a specific day there were "not low temperatures that challenged 125-year records." Attempts to remove the PoV of the Times/Ottawa Citizen were reverted. Attempts to include the PoV of the NOAA were reverted. Thus, the tag was included. Hipocrite (talk) 17:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

To Stephen, those issues do not warrant a NPOV template. The term is only an expression and reports will only mention it in the context of a bigger picture, that is not actualy a NPOV issue and does not warrant a NPOV template.Off2riorob (talk) 17:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

To Hipocrite..So add the balance and the other opinion, please present the content here for acceptance and inclusion. Off2riorob (talk) 17:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Done previously and reverted. Feel free to re-do . Hipocrite (talk) 17:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That edit is impossible to replace the article has been pretty much rewritten since then. If you think you have an addition that is needed to balance the article then present it here or the template has no value and should be removed. Off2riorob (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, that edit could pretty much be redone without effort. I've done so and removed the NPOV tag. Hipocrite (talk) 18:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The question of Hipocrite's suggested edits in that regard have been addressed at several intervals in prior discussions of the prosposed edits. They are WP:OR and WP:SYN.  If it would be helpful to repeat the rationale again here, I'll have a go at it but it will be yet another re-iteration of the same point/counterpoint. P.S. Can we slow down here a little and allow some reasonable time for involved editors to comment? JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll self revert back to the version with the NPOV tag, or we can remove both the false claims (regarding the coldest day and the 125 year low) and the balancing info. Which would you prefer? Hipocrite (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Which would you prefer?
 * I'd prefer a consensus resolution on the question of the WP:OR and WP:SYN nature of your edits...already discussed at length and, I believe, not favorably for your position. Speaking only for myself (and pending input from other editor's), I'd suggest that you revert and replace the tag. Your edits are clearly WP:OR and WP:SYN. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've said it before, and I'll say it again. It is not synthesis to use a source about temperature to rebutt claims about temperature. It is, however, a violation of V to use editorials to insert claims about temperature, especially when those claims are demonstrably false. Hipocrite (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * However, in the interest of not-edit-warring, I've self-reverted to your preferred version with tags. Hipocrite (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've said it before, and I'll say it again.
 * And every time you do, you will again be asked to cite reliable sources that have seen fit to echo your assertion. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure what's transpiring here, but the article still contains content and citations that have been previously rejected under WP:OR and WP:SYN objections. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, well done. Off2riorob (talk) 18:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Also at issue is the repeated slanting of the article to only cover the "cold weather comes with Gore" use of the term by climate change skeptics/bloggers when such a large percentage of the much more reliable sources in the general media are using the term in a different way - the impact of Gore and the film 'IT' to change the cultural viewpoint about climate change. Active Banana (talk) 18:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Can someone explain how the number of citations went from 34  to 29  under the description "all cites are in the article in other locations"? Active Banana (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Off2riorob removed all statements and sources to which the NPOV template might have applied, either because of questionable reliability, or because they were objectively false, but the source for the contrary information didn't refer to that specific comment, and so could not be included, per WP:SYN. He seems to be of the opinion that tags should be removed at the expense of article content.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Appearance and background
Templated as needing independent third party references, which content is this template actually related to? Off2riorob (talk) 17:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

list format
Is there an editor that that would be prepared to re write this list into a paragraph? Off2riorob (talk) 17:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps an observation first? While I may be quite wrong, I believe both the length and format of this tagged "list" and the rather ridiculously excessive number of citations currently supporting an "other uses" entry are most probably vestiges of posturing for a convincing argument on the AfD question.  As the "list" objection might be characterized as "cosmetic", I'd suggest that the "onus" of a re-write is upon he/she who placed the tag. I wouldn't mind doing it eventually, but right now getting beyond some consensus on the first sentence may be problematical. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, we are likely left with a fluffing up to support keep and it could be trimmed, you are welcome along those lines to do a write and present it here for acceptance, that is what it needs. Off2riorob (talk) 18:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

template addition
Author Rubin has added yet another template when the article was jusrt about readable. What is Aurhur Rubins actual issues with the content in the article now? Off2riorob (talk) 19:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As per discussion immediately above, he believes that the section titled See also should [EDIT:should not] include 'confirmation bias' and 'cherry picking'. There is currently no section titled See also. It seems to me that a tag is overkill and serves to confuse more than to explain.--Heyitspeter (talk) 19:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope. I believe there should be a #Seealso section, and it should not include "confirmation bias" and "cherry picking".  Also, the removal, without attempt to repair or WP:BALANCE, the material which led to the NPOV and primarysources tags being in the article, seems inappropriate.  I don't see the new version as an improvement over what was there yesterday.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I hesitate to restore the NPOV tag, but it seems appropriate; sources which individually were biased were removed, rather than an attempt being made to balance the various views. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:RS says that where two reliable sources contradict each other, both should be covered in a balanced and unbiased way, but here you seem to be saying that unreliable sources can be included where they cancel each other out. I'm phrasing this in a way that makes it seem obviously ridiculous to make a point, and I imagine your reasoning is more subtle than this, but do you see how the conclusions you appear to reach might seem faulty to me? Answers in the form of rexplanation of your already made point would be fine. :) --Heyitspeter (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't fix the article, now; I've used 3 reverts repairing damage (perhaps indirectly) caused by Off2riorob's WP:BOLD edits, and most of what I want to do is restoring deletions. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I don't consider any reversions of my edits to this article to be reverts for the purpose of 3rr, as I would have self reverted on request. Hipocrite (talk) 19:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:3rr is a bright line rule. No one has that prerogative.--Heyitspeter (talk) 19:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

We could have a straw poll to see how is consensus. At least we only have one template now and the content is readable to passers by that may want to get an overview. This article is a little silly comedy expression about a climate change weather conference issue that it is sometimes cold when they have conferences, it is that simple. Lets just keep it simple and move along. The reader is our ultimate consideration. The repeated addition of silly wiki templates ad nausea without a direct desire to resolve the alleged issues is detrimental to the readability of the article and therefore detrimental to the person the article is created for...the reader. Off2riorob (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) We could have a straw poll. It would be appropriate to restore most of the deletions, or to copy them to this talk page, so that the changes can be seen.  I now consider the article clearly an WP:NPOV violation, in that notable points of view are omitted because they are (individually) biased.
 * The repeated deletion of templates while the matter is being discussed, and while there is no consensus for deletion, is generally considered improper. If the #See also section were restored without the disputed material (confirmation bias is now in the article, so need not be in #See also), and the other sections prior to the edits were copied here (with an embedded tag, so that they can be seen), then, and only then, would a straw poll be appropriate.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Stability is also something that editors should hold in mind as beneficial to readers, this Gore effect phrase is a simple issue that does not need continual disruption and constant reversions, to strengthen readers trust and reliability in wikipedia a degree of stability is required, just sort the issue out and move along. Off2riorob (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Are there any editors that support Authur Rubins position? Off2riorob (talk) 19:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Stability is needed, and was present (except for the See also section) before you came here. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If I wasn't at 3RR, I would consider it an improvement to revert to yesterday's version, and add the additional material supplied by Hipocrite. As for discussion, WP:BRD suggests that Off2riorob should self-revert until consensus can be determined.  "No objections for 15 minutes" does not establish consensus.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As there has been no objections to my proposal, .... — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm all for "readability", but not at the expense of the product of no small amount of already heavily-discussed issue resolutions. There now exists content in this article that had been previously rejected by multiple deliberations as to its inadmissability under WP:OR and WP:SYN consideration.  It needs to be removed by Hypocrite (as was his stated intent - see above) and the tag restored if that is his continuing position. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I countence anyone removing it if they reinsert the big fat "NPOV" tag at the top, or also remove the false claims (125 year low, record low temperatures), and won't complain about 3rr about them doing so. I removed the disputed statements as requested in this self-revert. The content was readded by Off2riorob - thus, it would not be a self-revert if I were to remove it again, and I am well aware that there are lurking malcontents. Hipocrite (talk) 20:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It is my intent to remove the content in dispute in an attempt to reflect the result of previous deliberations. You are welcome to tag anything you wish at your discretion. Perhaps this maelstrom of editing will precipitate a final (and more considered) resolution to this dispute. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Failing to reinsert the NPOV tag at the top of the article when you remove one side of a dispute will be seen by me as an intentention provication - a failure to edit in good faith. Please don't do that. Hipocrite (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I played no part in this round of editing and will edit out previously discussed WP:OR and WP:SYN material with considerable good faith, TYVM. I'm unclear just why you're claiming some inability to re-tag, but that's really not my concern. If it's some 3RR consideration (which I wouldn't think precludes the placement of a tag), you'll just have bide your time. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * In what way is your intended edit going to benefit the reader of the article? Off2riorob (talk) 20:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I see JIJ's point: the material added violates WP:SYN, and so cannot be used in Wikipedia. "Benefiting the reader" is secondary.  I'm not sure I agree, but if there is consensus, it shouldn't be added until that consensus is changed.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see any SYNTH at all. What I have found is if you create a balanced article both sides become happy with it, if an article is weighted one way then disruption occurs and continues, I think hypocrites small addition is simply a bit of balance that may help to stabilize the article which will give it at least a value to the reader which previously it has not had. Off2riorob (talk) 20:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't mind telling you Off2 that I find your rationale almost bewildering. You are countenancing sacrificing WP policy at the altar of peace in the valley.  Have you read the prior discussions on this subject? JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I will say that if the endless disruption and squabbling at this silly little comedy article is not settled I will renominate it myself and add my support for its deletion. Off2riorob (talk) 20:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm having trouble following this. What is the disputed content at the moment? (no explanations req, just the diffs) Thanks, Verbal chat  20:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * and the removal of the entirety of the see-also section. Hipocrite (talk) 20:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And I think ..Tobias Ziegler, blogging on Crikey opined that the Gore Effect can be described by the availability heuristic and confirmation bias.http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/2009/03/03/gore-effect-explained Off2riorob (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And Off2riorob's rewrite of the article. Sources were removed, (as noted above by the Banana), for no apparent reason.  (At least no reason apparent to me, except that they may have been biased, and removing them would help remove the WP:NPOV tag.) — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * To H's diff, the info should be restored but in a more factual manner, without the "actually". These are basic facts, don't contradict WP:OR, and we are an encyclopaedia. The see also should be restored, but not with duplicate links. If Rob could explain his edits, and then we might find out. Verbal chat  21:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Verbal, I have reverted your edit. Please conduct a careful review of the numerous discussions on this content before reverting again. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * you reverted good copyedits as well, and I have added the NPOV tag as the article is now clearly misleading, which is a detriment to the reader. Verbal chat  21:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll have to plead ignorance on the nature of "copyedits" and what that implies and I'll await your POV dispute resolution section in talk. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

There was a template requesting a rewrite of the section. I rewrote it in good faith and removed the template, as in please rewrite this section. There were excessive unnecessary supporting external citations that added nothing of value to the article and I removed some of the weaker looking ones, we are not a link station to other peoples articles. The see also section was imo of little value to the reader and was disruptive to the article.Off2riorob (talk) 21:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That is incorrect. NPOV requests changes, and primarysources requests addition of secondary sources, not removal of primary sources.  Neither really requests a rewrite.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I beleive he is refering to Prose Hipocrite (talk) 21:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It is correct. The list template requested a write and I did it. Me, an independent neutral editor attempting to improve the article so the reader can actually read it. Off2riorob (talk) 21:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)