Talk:Gore effect/Archive 5

Source requested
For this partial sentence:
 * in 2007 quoting Bill Calvin's submission to the online Urban Dictionary website

Specifically - how has it been determined that William H. Calvin should be the author of this? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

His name is on the 2006 insertion here. Off2riorob (talk) 22:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Erm? How do you verify that "Bill Calvin" is William H. Calvin? How many Bill Calvins are there? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have been unable to verify it is the same Bill, perhaps it is not? any editors interested in the subject know if he has commented or are there any reliable citations, if not the internal link should go, in fact if it is disputed I inserted it after a simple wiki search to see who the name refereed to and if he was notable and 'assumed'' it was him. Off2riorob (talk) 22:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Removed internal as dubious. Off2riorob (talk) 22:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Then it goes (per BLP) - its a handle, every bit as anonymous as WP's. This most certainly isn't written by the person who's name is signed. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * More than dubious - its an open submission system, where you chose your own handle, and can write (just about) what you want. I just registered as "dabelstein" to check if there was information hidden below the surface, which could cast light on who this is. This is not a reliable source (for anything) - the only reason that people have argued that information from this site could be here, is because it is quoted in the Globe and Mail's "almanac". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Removed the name completely. Off2riorob (talk) 22:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Article Protection Needed
I haven't gone down this road before as I've never witnessed a need for this type of intervention. I believe it's fair to say I have now. The pace and volume of edits, edits attached with pledges to revert-on-call, counter-edits, reverts, tag placements, tag removals, threats, PA's and on and on associated with this article today has been, and is continuing to be, staggering. It defies anyone's capacity to absorb it all in some deliberative manner.

I don't know the process for requesting article protection but, IMHO, this article needs to be restored to some point earlier today...then protected. And we should have seen this coming. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the climate change articles (and see Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change). I'm honestly sorry. You can request page protection at WP:RFP, though note that as a rule administrators restore whatever page happens to be around when they apply the full protect. At that point you can request changes on the talkpage. You can also request assistance from administrators, who have the power to block users, including from specific pages, at WP:ANI. And you can request comments at WP:RFC, though that is usually a long process and the results are never stronger than strong suggestions.--Heyitspeter (talk) 01:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the information but already read up on the protection process and submitted a request...which was politely declined with wait-and-see. While the current activity appears to have subsided to a level where one might commence digestion, I'm thinking the dormancy may be tenuous at best. Perhaps Verbal offered the understatement of the day..."I'm having trouble following this." JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You might also request a 1rr restriction on this article for a week or two. I think WP:GS/CC/RE would be an appropriate venue for that, though if you do open a request there, make it clear that you also requested a full protect at WP:RFP that was declined, and that this was suggested as an alternative. I don't think 1RR is ever a bad idea.--Heyitspeter (talk) 02:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think WP:GS/CC/RE would be an appropriate venue for that...
 * While I appreciate the thought, I've managed to avoid that mess thus far (my interest here is Wikipedia integrity not CC, though even this article is too close for comfort) and would like to keep it that way. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Other than the continuing lack of a see-also section, which no one likes, where exactly haven't you gotten everything you wanted, today? This appears to be creative destruction to me, not edit warring. Hipocrite (talk) 22:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * ...where exactly haven't you gotten everything you wanted, today?
 * You could start with a deliberative process allowing adequate time for principal contributors to weigh-in. I'll await the dust settling before commencing digestion.  It's hard to see my keyboard. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The pace and volume of editing,? articles are sometimes in need of improvement, an article swimming in templates that have sat for lengthy periods of time are good examples of that, what are the templates for if the article didn't require editing and improving. The extended templating actually required the article to be improved...we are very experienced editors working to improve the article, there has not even been a 3RR warning given, there is no reason for protection and no reason to go backwards and revert to a version that was clearly worse that what exists now. Off2riorob (talk) 22:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Take a Break
I read the article, simply as a reader, then went to talk because of the neutrality and AfD templates. At about that point I became lost. I understand commitment and a desire to see something through but I do not understand a few things.
 * 1)- Is there a time-line I am unaware of for this article to be complete and to all editor's approval in a couple of days?
 * 2)- Why ask for a consensus and make changes before some poor working stiff can get off work or back on the PC? I could not keep up with the article because of sudden changes, reverts, re-reverts, new changes that was unacceptable, reverts, templates removed, templates added, more reverts(not sure of the counts just that there were lots), amid all this the bantering, and all the time I was trying to determine which part was considered NPOV so I could help out.
 * 3)- Why have a template hang on a page for no apparent reason. Thanks to the person that added the new template. It more correctly, in my opinion, reflects what is actually on-going.
 * I became involved in Wikipedia because of a desire to read and learn and that, as I understand, is what Wikipedia is about.
 * I would say, if it matters, that when a problem or discussion becomes heated to the point of flying keystrokes, that will not benefit anyone, that all take a breather or break.
 * I am a neutral party because I do not have a vested interest either way. I have heard of the subject a long time ago and thought it appropriate to be in Wikipedia.
 * The occurrences did happen, it was notable, and I find interesting to be able to explore.
 * I would be hesitant to jump on a sinking ship or try (and I am probably one of a larger number than you might imagine) to add anything, when there is clearly a war going on.
 * As far as I knew Gore Effect, The Gore Effect, or The Al Gore Effect (also including the Al Gore Effect if it matters) all were suppose to be a humoristic fun poking about a man named Al Gore(obviously notable), specifically at certain noted times being related to some aspect of global warming at speeches or meetings, and the correlation to those times, global warming, and sudden cooler (colder or freezing) changes in temperatures.
 * There are some (no one notable or reliable as source) around my neck of the woods that will make a "Gore Effect" joke, if the temperature suddenly and unexpectedly drops, that Al Gore must be in town. While looking up a reply might be, "I think he is flying over".
 * The bottom line was that it was ironic that "this" particular man would be in an area at the time of cooler or extremely cooler temperature changes, at times that was more than a couple, when there was to be some function concerning global warming. Simple satire listed as political satire.


 * It would be great if a few could get together, make it simple, of course follow the rules that can apparently make funny not funny, and reach a resolution. Otr500 (talk) 07:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


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


 * Is there a time-line I am unaware of for this article to be complete and to all editor's approval in a couple of days?
 * Quite simply, no...at least that I'm aware of. Nor are, as far as I know, any articles in Wikipedia deemed to be "complete" if by that you mean no longer open to further improvement.  Articles, however, CAN be submitted for peer review process and those afforded a "good article" rating will generally be more stable from an "improvement" perspective.


 * Why ask for a consensus and make changes before some poor working stiff can get off work or back on the PC?
 * I assume this question is rhetorical and your point is well taken.


 * Why have a template hang on a page for no apparent reason.
 * That's not, as I understand it, the way it's designed to work. An editor placing a dispute template is supposed to concurrently establish a talk section clearly identifying the specific issue in contention (with "Dispute" or some variant thereof incorporated in the section title)and the rationale for the tag placement.  In fact, a template can be linked directly to the respective talk section to facilitate resolution (I've forgotten the Wiki mechanics of just how to do that). If a reader is unable to discern either the nature of the dispute or a talk section designated to resolve that dispute, inquiries should be made, IMHO, to the editor who placed the tag. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

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


 * 1) All references to actual temperatures, or even perceived temperatures, have been removed. It should be pointed out that the effect is supposed to represent unusually cold weather at his speeches and climate conferences, not just unusual weather.  The fact that the weather at the claimed occurrences wasn't really that cold makes it difficult to do without violating WP:SYN, but the joke has been lost.  Perhaps, restoring all the references (but not the content in the article; possibly adding a quote from the reference) to individual occurrences (or, at least, one per alleged occurrence) which used to be in the list and which specifically referred to the Gore effect, whether or not accurate, would be appropriate.
 * I realize that the list of events is problematic, especially since most of them were not really unusually cold but now the article doesn't honestly say what the effect is (supposed to be).
 * (added) Thinking it over, perhaps only adding "unusually cold", as in "The phrase has been used in relation to the unusually cold weather conditions at..." would be adequate. I do think a number of sources have been removed, but I can't say I'm sure they are all needed.
 * 1) I don't know whether the multiple references for "In one sense the phrase has been used to describe Gore's impact in raising global warming as a public issue, particularly following his 2006 documentary An Inconvenient Truth." are all necessary, but probably more than one is.
 * 2) The See also list needs to be restored. My suggestions would be:
 * 3) * Al Gore and the environment
 * 4) * Global warming controversy (unless specifically, and prominently, mentioned in the text)
 * 5) * Pauli effect
 * 6) * Synchronicity (I'm not sure about this one. Perhaps it should go.)
 * 7) * Ting Hai effect
 * The terms availability heuristic and confirmation bias have been quite properly moved to the text. We can argue about synchronicity; I won't fight for or against it.  I believe the article to be biased without the other ones.

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

An awful lot of meat on this table...but let's try...
 * It should be pointed out that the effect is supposed to represent unusually cold weather at his speeches and climate conferences, not just unusual weather.

Not quite accurate IMHO. First, there isn't any authoritative or formal definition to refer to (and we may arrive at, via this process, the most citable yet). Nor, as has been credibly pointed out several times already in this discussion, even seasonal inclement weather phenomena is enough to evoke observations of "Gore Effect", whether he be present or not (interestingly enough, see an anecdotal comment recently posted here in talk). Nor is the factual accuracy of the exact weather conditions prevailing particularly germane. In fact, out there in the real world, NOBODY CARES if an "invoker" might stretch the truth of an occurrence whose PREMISE is absurd...which probably accounts for the dearth of RS making that point. As User:Quest For Knowledge has often interjected into this discussion, the TRUTH is IRRELEVANT here. I'll yield the floor. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Truth is irrelevant, but those quoting the effect must be intending to imply that the weather is unusually cold (whether or not it is), or the joke is lost. It doesn't make any sense to label unusually warm weather as "the Gore effect".  (I realize this is attempting to assume that the people using the label are making sense, but it is usually good form to assume they are attempting to make sense.)  I'm not sure of the correct phrasing for the article; what was there yesterday would be close.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ...but those quoting the effect must be intending to imply that the weather is unusually cold (whether or not it is), or the joke is lost.
 * I believe it has grown beyond that now, though "extremes" (or purported extremes) still make for a much more "delightful" evocation. For example, a routine school closure for seasonal inclement weather is cited in one of the sources as evidence of a "Gore Effect" occurrence. Absurd? Of course...but that is how far it has progressed...and also why I suggested replacing "unusual" with "observed" in the introductory.  JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "Observed" implies (to me) "real", but I could be wrong. Perhaps "noted".  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Only my opinion, but while "observation" and "notation" are pretty much synonomous (I'm struggling to extract a nuance), "observation" is a word often associated with weather (not that it really makes any big difference as one who offers the use probably isn't particularly concerned as much with accuracy as in pushing irony). Nor is either word necessarily limited to weather itself but can also encompass peripheral, weather-associated events...such as the school closings.  But perhaps this is more for the "introductory" discussion. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

''The See also list needs to be restored. My suggestions would be:...''

Not having experienced either the existence or content of a "See Also" section as a subject of dispute before, I'll have to plead ignorance as to the exact nature or ramifications of what is at issue here. Perhaps a resolution as to the existence of a "See Also" needs resolution first, content later. Just my .02 JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a list of issues here from AR and some of it is unclear. It is better to take one issue at a time. The see also...I would be happy with a see also section, lets have a small discussion here and get an agreed list and add one. I don't care what is in the see also as long as there is some agreement on what to add. Off2riorob (talk) 13:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Trying to get my arms around this issue. It appears that the "Content" tag relates, now in part, to the non-existence of the "See Also" section.  If I understand the genesis, should a partial list of consensus-acceptable categories be listed, an editor may probably raise an NPOV objection with associated tag.
 * If only serving to focus this issue, may I suggest that an empty "See Also" section be created into which the current "Content" tag might be placed? JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Upon further re-consideration, I'm not sure that would be quite kosher without AR's explicit concurrence that issue's #1 and #2 are resolved to his satisfaction. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think the see also is a part of it only, but if there are no objections after some time we could add the list belowOff2riorob (talk) 16:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


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


 * That list is OK with me. The "effects" listed are reported effects by an individual on things which he could not logically have anything to do with.
 * My point 2 would require a localized tag, if any. I'm more questioning why it was done, then complaining.
 * Point 1 is more serious; as the article was written the last time I checked, the article would apply the term to any (perceived) weather condition associated with an Al Gore speech or climate conference. It's obvious that that it only makes sense if it is (perceived or claimed to be) cold weather.  I don't have a specific suggestion, except to note that that problem didn't exist before the rewrite, although other problems did.  That concern can't really be localized to a section (except, possibly, the lede), which doesn't help much in keeping prominent tags off the article.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Does the suggested introduction, as currently proposed, satisfy your concern that it clearly refers to cold weather phenomena? JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

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

2; I removed the citations as I thought 12 citations was excessive, in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Gore_Effect&diff=next&oldid=368636863 this edit, with this summary.. trim not needed cite farm, all cites are in the article in other locations)] turned out the edit created some redlinks and I thought as there were imo enough references left to easily support the simple comment I they dived in and removed them completely in this edit here, which. I marked as minor as it was really just removing the redlinks. I still think that twelve citations to support that claim is unnecessary, I removed what looked to me as the less major publications and left four, but I didn't do it in much of a scientific manner more in a cleaning trimming way. These are the citations I removed, if you feel any of them are real important and necessary then please feel free to replace. Off2riorob (talk) 17:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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


 * The suggested introduction helps, but I don't think it's enough. I would say that any specific mention of "weather" in the examples section must also have some reference to "cold", and examples that don't mention weather are someone questionable.
 * I think I'll withdraw my objection in point 2; now that it's been explained. (As an aside, if the title "Hurricane Katrina and other climatic aberrations as the Al Gore effect" reflects the article, it's not reliable.  I didn't check.)
 * The suggested "See also" section resolves my point 3, but I'm not sure it would be accepted as NPOV by other editors. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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


 * I'll yield to someone more familiar with talk archiving norms, but 48 hours seems a ridiculously low threshold. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 1 through to 11 can be archived as they are all from whe nthe article was in userspace mark nutley (talk) 22:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 48 hours would be way too short for an automatic archiving, but are there really any conversations from prior to 48 hours ago that have relevance now that the AfD has completed and new conversations about the same topics have been initiated? Active Banana (talk) 22:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It might be best to archive those sections which belong to the version of the article before the rewrite; I agree that the issues should be completely different. The remaining issues relate to potential misconduct by Off2riorob, which shouldn't be discussed on this talk page, anyway.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ...are there really any conversations from prior to 48 hours ago that have relevance now that the AfD has completed and ...new conversations about the same topics have been initiated?
 * It seems rather obvious that prior discussions of the same topic be kept readily accessible. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * One can access the previous conversations in the archive. But, even if they were ongoing, they're moot unless we wish to return to the article before the rewrite.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If there are any that you think have particular lasting relevence, feel free to list them in the section below as something that should be kept in prominent view for a while longer. Active Banana (talk) 03:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

List of inactive sections that should not yet be archived
I archived the old stuff last night which was really separate discussion to Archive 1 sections one through eleven. Everything above NPOV tag, is over 8 or nine days old and would be a good start and would create Archive 2, it is needed as the page is getting very large. Off2riorob (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Bolt
Is an opinion by Andrew Bolt a reliable source to this factual information?

--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The comment should be attributed. Off2riorob (talk) 22:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * He does not appear to be a published expert in Internet History or anything similar. I would say no. Active Banana (talk) 22:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

He does not need to be any kind of expert, he used the expression in 2006 simple fact. Off2riorob (talk) 22:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * He is good for his opinon, and his opinion is that it began around 2006, that`s not factual information it`s an opinion mark nutley (talk) 23:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, he is citable in 2006 in a reliable citation using the expression, that is a simple fact. Off2riorob (talk) 23:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes he is (it confused me that the ref name was 2008) - but it was WP:OR to state it like the above. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That he used the term in the general media on a certain year is fine. However, he is not "suggesting" -he is making a statement of fact in an opinion piece for which we have no reason to believe that he is an authority. Active Banana (talk) 23:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Read the following "began around 2006" see the around bit? That`s called taking a guess and giving an opinon, a guesstimate if you will mark nutley (talk) 23:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ahh, you are still talking about the version above which was modified to the version below to be a little more accurate representation. Active Banana (talk) 23:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Rep to KDP, yes as it was it was not correct, thanks for pointing those issues out and and for helping refine the content. Off2riorob (talk) 23:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

 The original is not "suggesting" it is making a flat out declaration. Active Banana (talk) 23:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Articles must be based on facts not opinions. TFD (talk) 05:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Simply not a supportable assertion per WP:NPOV...
 * When we want to present an opinion, we do so factually by attributing the opinion in the text to a person, organization, group of persons, or percentage of persons, and state as a fact that they have this opinion, citing a reliable source for the fact that the person, organization, group or percentage of persons holds the particular opinion. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Reading his bio, I'd say "no", he's not the most reliable source for factual information. So the question really is why we'd insert his opinion prominently into this article. Guettarda (talk) 06:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * His opinion was published in a reliable source. He, himself, is a reliable source for his own opinion and, in his opinion, a demonstration of the "Gore Effect" occurred in Boston in 2004. As ANY assertion as to an occurence of the conceptual "Gore Effect" must, by definition, be non-factual, this objection might be leveled as a rationale against noting ANY assertion of such an occurrence and, as I see it, is simply not sustainable.
 * Nor does an assertion that he is not an "authority" on the subject have any credible basis in fact. There can be no "authority" on an assertion that "Gore Effect" occurred save for the individual making the assertion.
 * Please don't revert again until this question is resolved. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I support your (re)inclusion of this content and don't see the claim in the edit summary as correct at all, the nature of this article is that opinion comments are relevant and to remove this comment that is one of the earliest examples of the usage in a mainstream report seems incorrect, the writer is at least wikipedia notable and has his own article, unlike this comment which we have in the article which is by a not wkikpedia notable person blogging on what looks like a not mainstream web based publication..Tobias Ziegler, blogging on Crikey opined that... as was discussed yesterday, balance is required and simply removing one side and leaving the other is disruptive to the article. Off2riorob (talk) 14:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Inre Ziegler, I'm not really familiar with either the cite or the "disruptive" issue you raise (perhaps stemming from an aversion to examining it due to language considerations), nor am I familiar with what "was discussed yesterday"...but I'll take a look and, perhaps, comment then. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Who is Ziegler and what is a criky blog? mark nutley (talk) 15:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it isn't what I thought it was (a Polentario-related cite) and is most certainly in English ...reading. P.S. Anyone object to sectionalizing this thread? JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Article ownership like this is not acceptable. Stop edit-warring and try to make your case logically. Guettarda (talk) 15:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * balance is required
 * On the contrary, WP:NPOV says to work for balance when reputable sources contradict one another; Ziegler isn't being used to contradict Bolt and talking about "balance" is specious.
 * the nature of this article is that opinion comments are relevant
 * Not every opinion is relevant. Why is Bolt's opinion notable? You can't declare yourself right by fiat. Why do you think you're right?
 * don't see the claim in the edit summary as correct at all
 * You still have not addressed the question of why we should consider Bolt reliable. After all, according to his bio he has been repeatedly questioned on his factualy honesty, and has been successfully sued for libel over claims he has made in his position as a columnist.

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


 * ...the question of why we should consider Bolt reliable.
 * First, he is most certainly reliable for his own opinion, is he not? Do you take issue with that assertion? JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I am reliable for what my opinion is, too- but we dont quote me on implications of astrophysics on human culture or my analysis of tonal music or my interpretation of the longstanding cricket rivaly between Sri Lanka and Uganda. Why is Bolt's opinion on this topic something that we/a reader should be paying attention to? Active Banana (talk) 18:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Why is Bolt's opinion on this topic something that we/a reader should be paying attention to?
 * He is cited both to document a use of the term and for his opinion on its first appearance. It is not unlikely that a reader interested enough to view the article might find that to be of interest as well. JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, why is Bolt's opinon about this something that bears mentioning? Active Banana (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Because he is a notable person? Because is opinion has weight given he is a columnist and associate editor of the Melbourne-based Herald Sun. He also writes for Brisbane's Sunday Mail and makes regular appearances on the Nine Network, Melbourne Talk Radio, ABC Television, and local radio. People find what he says interesting, mark nutley (talk) 14:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As a noted global warming skeptic, it is very clear that his opinion about the FACT of when a term began to be used is suspect, and if used in the article any claims made need to be placed in proper context. WP:NPOV particularly WP:PSCI Identifying_reliable_sources etc.Active Banana (talk) 14:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don`t actually care what your opinion on bolt is, nor do i care that you consider his opinion suspect, we use what the sources say. Bolt is a notable person and as such his opinion carries weight, more than enough to include his opinions in this article that is all that matters here mark nutley (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry you are incorrect. Just being notable does not make your opinion about anything worth including in Wikipedaia only those whose backgrounds and knowledge inform their opinions in a way that helps readers understand the topic about which they are opining. In this instance Bolt is opining about the history of a particular phrase. His background and qualifications are not as far as I have seen anything in the realm of Linguistics or Cultural Studies or History of the internet or anything else that would give him special insight into this topic other than the fact that he is a partisan in the global climate change debate thus rendering his opinion about factual history suspect. Active Banana (talk) 15:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

You are so far out it stuns me, you do not need to be an expert on Linguistics or Cultural Studies or History of the internet to give an opinion on a phrase which is in common usage, the opinion of a notable person is always of note. You can give it up or try the reliable sources notice board and ask there if this reference is reliable mark nutley (talk) 15:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * He is certainly free to give his opinions. But as an encyclopedia, we only include the opinions of people who have particular insight into the topic, particularly when providing his opinions about facts. Active Banana (talk) 16:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

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

I understand JakeInJoisey opposes the inclusion of such a discussion, although I have not gotten him to address the sources that lead him to take his position. As such I'd like to ask for others to clarify their current views on what these sources tend to show about how to treat the different meanings of the term. Thanks, Mackan79 (talk) 18:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose, this article is about the satirical expression, not about the campaigning stuff and as such it belongs in the "Other Uses" section. mark nutley (talk) 18:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please explain your position; articles are not written by unexplained voting. The above sources show that the exact same phrase, "Gore effect," is used in a different way.  This could lead us to create different articles on different meanings of this same term.  However, our current statement that the term "suggests a relationship" between Gore and cold weather would still be incorrect based on the some dozen above sources.  Does this not suggest we should change how we present the definition of the term? Mackan79 (talk) 18:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * From a global aspect the term is only used in the humorous satirical way. There may be other uses but I would say this usage is now by far the major one. In Europe it is the only one. Off2riorob (talk) 19:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Global perspective of alternate use also includes: India Times Active Banana (talk) 23:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That seems questionable, given that two of the sources for the non-satirical meaning are Dutch (one apparently from a blog, and one from their public broadcasting). Are you sure this is the relevant issue?  I am looking at three academic sources, two of which don't just discuss the non-satirical meaning in detail, but submit it to scientific testing.  Note we also have The Australian Green Consumer Guide, and numerous Canadian articles.  We have the Times of India.  Would we dismiss this on the idea that it is not global? Mackan79 (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not dismissing anything, there are some alternative usage but the satirical comedy expression is by far the main usage. (at least out of my window it is the only one that anybody would know about) Off2riorob (talk) 19:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, but I am saying we should take a closer look at the sourcing. It strikes me that the real difference here is between tabloid/blog style journalism, which indeed is all over the place, and which predominantly treats the "Gore effect" as satire.  On the other hand academic or "serious" sources seem to treat it as Gore's impact on public opinion.  It would seem worth determining if that is true. Mackan79 (talk) 19:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * "the satirical comedy expression is by far the main usage" - not in reliable sources - there it seems that it is the other way around. Yes, there are reliable sources that use the satirical expression, but the major portion of these are opinion articles. On the other hand there are more highly reliable sources that support the alternative. And that is a problem. If we go by WP's NPOV definition - then the alternative should have significantly more WP:WEIGHT - because opinion articles carry very little weight in general. Now i'm personally in agreement that we should (according to the AfD) describe the satirical usage, but to leave out the alternative expression - is basically against WP's neutral point of view. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * We have the The_Gore_Effect#Other_uses_of_the_phras section, personally I don't see that the other uses are notable and presently have enough weight in the article. Do you consider that usage of the gore effect is notable and would survive an AFD? Off2riorob (talk) 19:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * How are you assessing that one is more notable than the other? Mackan79 (talk) 20:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I am using the discussion here and the citations presented and my searches and my personal contact with the usage of the expression as someone who is a newspaper reader and news report listener. I am not bothered about global warming one way or the other. Off2riorob (talk) 20:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand, but my concern is that none of this is objective. For my own metric, I have seen listed on this page numerous extremely high quality sources which discuss "Gore effect" as referring to his impact on public opinion, and to be honest I am not aware of even one single such source for the meaning as satire.  I recognize as you say that the satirical use is popular around the internet, but of course that isn't our primary standard.  If we are deprecating numerous high quality sources, I'd like to see not just an argument but the sources that support doing so. Mackan79 (talk) 20:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps there should be two articles if you assert the other usage is notable (personally I don't agree that it is, the comedy satirical usage has taken over) and we can remove the see also content from here and provide an internal to the new article and clearly state in the lede that this article is about the expression used in a satirical/comedy way,. I also think that the long term usage in the comedy-satirical manner is increasing and will likely outlive him whereas the other usage will not, but that is a crystal ball comment. Off2riorob (talk) 20:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there consensus for a fork? And more importantly is there content enough to merit a fork? How will it not be a POV fork? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I dont have any sources to back it up (since third party analysis of the "Gore effect is cold weather following Gore" does not exist) but it seems pretty clear to me that there would be no humor in the use of the term in that way if the " Gore / IT affecting view of climate change" was not a widely established cultural phenomena. Active Banana (talk) 00:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ...the satirical comedy expression is by far the main usage.
 * I'll go you one further...and considerably more to the point. It is the subject of this article. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It is if it should be, and the other meaning shouldn't be. The decision is based on a.) the sources, and b.) our content policies.  But we don't normally decide arbitrarily that only one meaning of a term will be covered in an article, unless we are very clear about doing so and stating that there are multiple meanings for the term, but the current article focuses only on one.  If that is what you support perhaps we could discuss how and what reasons there are for doing so. Mackan79 (talk) 20:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Asked and answered Mackan. There is no parity...per the AfD close (already explained) and per the examiner's post-AfD comment when queried on this topic (already explained). JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem to be misinterpreting what the closer said: "I would expect those who have a differing view on the term to step forward and ensure that those different usages are covered." See the closers comment:  We are stepping forward- with reliable sources. And you have nothing but your unsubsantiated claims which are more and more not reflecting reality. Active Banana (talk) 00:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem to be misinterpreting what the closer said:
 * Interesting. You mean the statement he made from which you cropped only a portion of his sentence?  And I'm "misrepresenting" what he said? Yikes. JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please explain then how you could interpret the full sentence in a way that would be different from this portion? Active Banana (talk) 00:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Not answered, Jake, you're simply repeating your opinion, and continuing to distract from the actual issue of what the sources say. An AfD does not set or offer any pretensions of setting article content, nor do the comments of anyone who closes an AfD discussion.  Certainly these do not override our content policies, or allow editors to continually ignore questions of how to comply with policy.  If you are saying that "there is no parity," please show that this is the case.  If neither you or anyone else can show this then the article needs to be changed. Mackan79 (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Answered...and you're simply repeating the same assertion. What you appear unwilling to either understand or concede is that the sources for other uses are irrelevant to the established topic of the article. Yes, established. You had an opportunity to make that case in the AfD and no mention was made of your position in the AfD close.  When pressed on the issue, the examiner suggested an appropriate location within "other uses".  "Other uses" simply do not have parity in an article referencing a subject that is now all but recognized as a modern day colloquialism.
 * Amen. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Jake, I think you are being tendentious. You can't say I am "simply repeating the same assertion" when I have raised here over a dozen sources that support a particular meaning, and for your meaning you have not brought a single one. If the scope of this article is "established," on what basis?  The fact that it was not deleted?  If you like we can have an RfC on whether the AfD precludes us from matching this article to the available sources on the "Gore Effect," or I can ask the admin who closed the AfD if he believes that is what he did.  It would be easier if we went straight to discussing how to fix the obvious discrepancy between our current treatment and these sources. Mackan79 (talk) 22:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Mackan, you are certainly free to pursue this in any Wikipedia venue of your choosing. In fact, you can, as I understand, appeal the AfD determination itself. As to your suggested "discussing how to fix the obvious discrepancy between our current treatment and these sources", you presume a "discrepancy" to exist where none exists at all...and this is my final exchange on the subject.  Perhaps someone else might be willing to engage you further. Good luck. JakeInJoisey (talk)
 * You are aware that you are misrepresenting what an WP:AfD can do - right? (you've been pointed this out before). The AfD was run on an article that contained more than one definition, and what was decided was to keep the article - not "keep the article, throw one point out" (which as said is something AfD can't do). If you want a content fork - then gain consensus for it. Be aware though, that it might be seen as a WP:POVFORK. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You are aware that you are misrepresenting what an WP:AfD can do - right?
 * Well, I guess you could say that I'm now aware that you are alleging that I am misrepresenting what a WP:AfD can do. Actually (and as I mentioned earlier), I am stating what this AfD did, not what it can do. As to your counsel, as it has been somewhat less than, shall we say, spot on in these parts of late, I'll hope you'll understand if I opt to keep my own counsel, TYVM. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps i could entice you to actually read WP:AfD - that might help? You may even want to keep commenting on content/arguments instead of on editors - for instance you could direct us at the part that supports your assertion about how an AfD closure can do what you state it does? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, my statements refer to what the AfD did do, not what it can do. You are, of course, more than welcome to rebut my opinion with reference to some WP:AfD sourced information and I would be happy to consider it. In fact, as often as it has been referenced here, I'm somewhat surprised it has yet to be presented. JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please look up Negative proof. An AfD can tell you whether an article should be deleted, merged or kept - it can't make content decisions. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Nah. I thought I was gonna see something revelatory from WP:AfD. Instead you want to play in the LF yard? I'm gonna go watch some golf. JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's the first bullet point in the summary: "For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately." We are talking about the need for improvement and POV problems.  I don't think your claim is especially serious, but let me say this: I can see someone reasonably thinking we shouldn't completely remove the satirical meaning right after an AfD, even though the AfD obviously would not be relevant as a matter of policy.  What you are saying is that we can't even include other meanings (in the lead?) once the article has been kept.  That's ludicrous. Mackan79 (talk) 04:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As this is another mis-representation of my position (alleged now as well in Mackan's post to Balloonman's talk page), I must respond...
 * What you are saying is that we can't even include other meanings (in the lead?) once the article has been kept. That's ludicrous.
 * Nope. Never said that either. (Where do you get this stuff?) In fact, and as I have now hopefully made Baloonman aware, the issue for me is not inclusion in the lede (though I'm not sure all might agree on that), but the weight assigned to the suggested "uses". Specifically (and should inclusion in the lede be consensus-established), what's "ludicrous" to me is any suggestion that a "use" other than the satirical GE use be prioritized or given some sense of parity (or "weight") in the opening of the lede. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think your comments speak for themselves, Jake, but I'm not interested in sparring over what you've said. The problem is this: you are now saying it is ludicrous to give two meanings of this term equal weight in the article, but you have not presented a single source to support your position.  In fact, all you have talked about is what is said in an AfD.  Do you really believe an AfD can determine that one meaning of a term must thereafter be given greater weight than another?  If so please consider two things: 1.) Given that WP:AfD explicitly says AfD is not for improving articles or resolving issues of NPOV, you are suggesting that an issue was resolved in an arena where it was explicitly disallowed from being discussed.  2.) If that is the result of the AfD then no one would ever be able to overcome that without renominating the article for AfD, even though they did not believe the article should be deleted.  Perhaps you can consider or address these issues.  If I have misinterpreted you, on the other hand, in any respect, then please simply clarify why you have not been willing to say anything about the reliable sources which presumably should be used to determine issues of due weight. Mackan79 (talk) 22:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ...you are now saying it is ludicrous to give two meanings of this term equal weight in the article...
 * "Ludicrous" (which I used in quotes) is not really my descriptive of choice, but rather meant to mirror the apparent hyperbole with which you introduced it.
 * ...but you have not presented a single source to support your position.
 * Here's a deal. I will address every  single  point you raise (hopefully to at least your satisfaction if not agreement), but for the purposes of discussion development and continuity, I am done in this thread.  Few want to spend time (or even will for that matter) trying to follow 2 independently running threads in the same section.  If you feel the need to re-assert some particular point you raise here (as you apparently did with the link in the other thread), please feel free to avail yourself of cut-and-paste at an opportune moment. Thanks JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Except of course that for the significant majority of this articles lifetime - the article has contained more than one defintion (including the time where the AfD ran). So you are indeed wrong in your "one further". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


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

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


 * While I'm not inclined to comment further, I will, however, correct misrepresentations of my position...
 * ...saying that by not deleting an article we've somehow precluded any further need to discuss how to write the article
 * Never said that nor is that my position...
 * ...or precluded ourselves from adding material to the same article.
 * Never said that either nor is that my position.
 * A.His statement that other meanings should be discussed lower in the article... and B. ...shows that he does not even believe this himself.
 * A. Have said something similar to that and B. About as peculiar an observation as I've yet to read in this discussion. JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You commented, "There is no parity...per the AfD close" (ellipses your own), and have then refused to say anything about any sources that support or oppose your position. Forgive me, but this gives me the impression that you claim the AfD precludes your having to discuss changes to the article.  Of course, you could immediately change my impression by making reference to any sources that you believe support your position. Mackan79 (talk) 04:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Mackan, you'll simply have to engage someone else on that issue. Your misrepresentations of my positions noted above and which I believe I have expressed with some clarity suggest to me that you're either no longer reading my comments or simply talking past them.
 * We have a fundamental disagreement as to the ramifications attendant to the AfD closing determination and the import of the examiner's direct response to the specific question you raise here. Perhaps you'll meet with more success engaging another editor on your position. JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I welcome comments on what the above sources show from other editors, as that is the reason I started this section. I'll then make another proposal based on the sources we have.  I have one goal here: to get to the point where we are actually considering what these sources indicate about how we should cover this term.  I've been under the impression that you are attempting to stand in the way, though I'll be glad to find otherwise. Mackan79 (talk) 07:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with Mackens well reasoned and well presented comments that the weight issue could benefit from more discussion and is not a clear cut closed case Off2riorob (talk) 09:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * A final point. My statement cited above, "There is no parity...per the AfD close", apparently warrants further clarification. I am NOT asserting that the AfD close either stated, was designed to determine or even addressed the question. It is an observation that the question of parity treatment to be afforded to some other suggested use is unremarked upon in the AfD close. There is no "other use" mentioned save for the references to the satirical "Gore Effect". It is a valid  inference from that focus that the Wikipedia "keep" determination is/was predicated upon the rationales AS  STATED, not upon some other suggested or implied rationale. That certainly both suggests and implies, while not directly stating, that the criteria for a Wikipedia treatment of the satirical "Gore Effect", regardless of any other "use" considerations, were satisfied. Were no "other uses" even suggested for incorporation, the article would still be legitimately supported by the AfD determination.  It is simply not supportable to suggest that "other uses", unremarked upon by the AfD close, should have article parity.
 * This is further evidenced by the examiner's direct response to this subsequent question when posed by Active Banana...


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


 * Yes---The_Gore_Effect#Other_use_of_the_phrase, and that would be a place wherein I would expect those who have a differing view on the term to step forward and ensure that those different usages are covered.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe the examiner's reply to be not only revelatory of his position on this issue, but unquestionably supportive of the position I espouse. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You have a weird interpreatation of "step forward and ensure that those different usages are covered" somehow meaning "only the humorous phrase connotation shall be included in the article." Active Banana (talk) 17:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not quite so weird as your apparent discomfort with acknowledging the preceding "Yes---The_Gore_Effect#Other_use_of_the_phrase, and that would be a place wherein...". Nor does your rather bogus suggestion that I ever asserted or even hinted at the rest of that nonsense even warrant a rebuttal. I will have to seriously consider ignoring any further contributions from you here. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:STICK —Preceding unsigned comment added by Active Banana (talk • contribs)
 * FYI, I have requested for Balloonman to clarify whether he intended his close or comments to determine how this article should continue to be written. I consider it plainly obvious that any question about weight must be resolved by the available sources and the content policies, and not by anything that was said in regard to an AfD, which explicitly is not for "improving articles" or addressing NPOV.  Unfortunately I don't see how to have a productive discussion when Jake keeps interrupting to talk at length about what Balloonman said in or after the AfD (while repeatedly adding that he has nothing else to say on the matter).  Hopefully Balloonman will clarify so we can move on. Mackan79 (talk) 22:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ...whether he intended his close or comments to determine how this article should continue to be written.
 * Your question, as framed, is rhetorical. You ask a question as to the validity of an overstated and ill-defined assertion made by nobody (certainly not me), and will then, presumably, offer the only response possible as some evidence supporting your case. I might just as easily ask Balloonman if he intended his AfD determination to assert that the moon is made of green cheese. Your argument is deteriorating Mackan. JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that, besides Balloonman's comments, I still have not seen you offer any support for your position that there cannot be "parity" with the different meanings of this term. I am not sure what relevance you think the AfD should have, but I've also addressed the issue here.  If you don't think his comments should be determinative on any point, then great, let's move on, but otherwise I am hoping that he can clarify.  Mackan79 (talk) 05:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You, again, are misrepresenting my position...this time with imprecise language...
 * I still have not seen you offer any support for your position that there cannot be "parity" with the different meanings of this term.
 * My position is that there "should not" be parity, not "cannot" be parity. Whether there is "parity" or not is not an objective call but one that will be arrived at via discussion and consensus.  However, from my considerations on this discussion thus far, what, I believe, "parity" (or even "dual treatment" if you will) may portend for the the future of this article, the creation of what will inherently be a "muddied" article and the high probability for incessant bickering over future content, I've re-considered my position and believe that "disambiguation" (if that's the proper term for 2 independent articles) is the appropriate, wisest, most equitable and, perhaps, only viable solution. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. As to your link to the other active thread, please see my response here. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation proposal
Is there any outstanding objection to creating Gore Effect as a disambiguation page pointing to Gore Effect (Satire), this article moved, and Gore Effect (Public Policy), about Gore's effect on public perceptions of climate change? Hipocrite (talk) 13:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I, for one, see that as a possibly viable (even if only temporary) resolution. My only concern might be that it somewhat establishes a predicate that the two terms warrant independent treatment under Wikipedia criteria.  While I'm not prepared or even inclined (at this point anyway) to argue that point, I'm not, by any means, sure that it will set well as a consensus resolution acceptable to all. Nor am I confident that I'm aware of all the implications to such a resolution.  I am, however, all ears.
 * BTW, would you consider a separate section to address this? I believe it is warranted both for it's import and to allow the ongoing discussion to contine apace.JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you arguing that one or the other is not notable, or that they are linked and thus need to be in the same article? Hipocrite (talk) 14:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I am fully prepared to argue relative notability (or "parity" if you will) within the same article. I'm not inclined to argue "notability" for an independent treatment. Is that clear? JakeInJoisey (talk)
 * Not really. You are prepared to say that Satire is notable on it's own, but Public Policy is not, or are you only prepared to say that tehy are notable when taken all-at-once? Hipocrite (talk) 14:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I'm missing some nuance, but I'll try again (though it appears tangential to the purpose of this discussion)...
 * You are prepared to say that Satire is notable on it's own...
 * My position is that the notability and sourcing of the satirical "Gore Effect" satisfied(s) the Wikipedia criteria to exist as an article independent of "other uses".
 * ...but Public Policy is not...
 * I am not prepared (or inclined) to argue that the same judgement would not also be rendered on a Wikipedia treatment of "Gore Effect (Public Policy)" independent of "Gore Effect (Satire)". It has simply not been made. However, as "notability" has been suggested and "sources" offered by proponents inre "Gore Effect (Public Policy)" and as the AfD examiner has made note of them as well, I assume it would survive an AfD challenge, were one to be made.
 * ...or are you only prepared to say that tehy are notable when taken all-at-once?
 * Nope. Both may have arguments for "notability" and "sourcing" independent of one another, but, IMHO, only one has been formally established by Wikipedia process.
 * Now, we can continue to discuss those points, or we can address the subject of this section. I'd suggest we move on to the latter. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Great. If it turns out that the Public Policy page is nominated for deletion and is deleted, we can consider what to do then. Your argument is merely that it might be nominated, so it appears you have no objections to the split. Anyone else? Hipocrite (talk) 15:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ...so it appears you have no objections to the split.
 * Let me be 100% clear. I have no objections to the split as of this moment, but I want to hear from all sides as to additional considerations that might be relevant. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes i object, by all means create a page for Gore Effect (public stuff) But there is no need for a disambiguation page, this article should remain The Gore Effect with a link in the See Also section to the other use article mark nutley (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you please expand a bit on the rationale for your position? As I'm unfamiliar with the attendant issues of disambiguation, I, for one, would appreciate the education. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, i believe that it would be a WP:POVFORK at this point in the articles lifespan. Expand and develop both - and if any of them grow beyond the point where they need a separate article, then split/fork. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur with KDP. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems pretty clear to me that, if this page is actually going to exist, it should be structured as a daughter article of Al Gore and the environment. And it should be an article, not a collection of quotes - one that unites both "effects" into a logical whole. Which really wouldn't be that hard to do... Guettarda (talk) 19:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject.
 * I believe the jury is decidedly out as to whether the "same subject" is being treated. While they both incorporate the same 2 words in their title and are both tangentially related to the subject of global warming, the "treatment" ends there. As I see it, if it does not meet the first Wikipedia criteria for consideration as a "fork", then the question of "POV fork" becomes moot. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "Al Gore has rallied support for efforts to combat global warming and been a focus for attacks by anti-environmentalists. The term 'Gore effect' has been applied in both contexts". Or we could have two articles, one that says "Al Gore has rallied support for efforts to combat global warming and been a focus for attacks by anti-environmentalists . The term 'Gore effect' has been applied in both this context s " and "Al Gore has rallied support for efforts to combat global warming and been a focus for attacks by anti-environmentalists. The term 'Gore effect' has been applied in both this context s ". Guettarda (talk) 19:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The title of this section is "disambiguation proposal". Please consider creating an alternate sub-section in which your proposal might be addressed. Thanks JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, and I replied to your comment. I was trying to shed some light on the issue, since you clearly did not understand it. Obviously your confusion is even deeper than I had anticipated. My apologies for adding to it... Guettarda (talk) 00:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The subject is "Gore effect", and that is a term being used in two different contexts. One is satirical, and the other is in reference mainly to Gore's impact on awareness. Ie. Both are neologisms/terms/expressions that relate to Gore, and both are about "effect" satirical or real-world impact. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree. The "title" is "Gore Effect". Where a single use of a term or phrase is recognized, a "title" might be legitimately said to reflect a "subject" as well. Where there are 2 or more uses of the phrase or term recognized, then the "subject" of the term MUST be defined by the content its use relates to and is assuredly the understanding in colloquial use.  They may share a common "title" and tangentially relate to a common element, but they are, by no means, the same "subject". It is almost self-evident. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Your definition that some people fought so hard for from Urban Dictionary.com is "Al Gore Effect, The"  Active Banana (talk) 23:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong disagree as well. Is there any proof of a prolonged use or, beware unified use of the "beneficial Gore efffect"? E.g. does anybody believe or state that a "Gore awareness effect" witzh regard to the film is or was valid still? Did a further discussion of any of the other purported effects take place? Sources? Are the purported references all about awareness, are they speaking of the same term? Isn't it just a incoherent coincidence of wording which was brought up by a google search? I doubt due weight of the sources which have not received any reasonable echo. Polentario (talk) 23:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, some of the sources in the reliable sources are as recent as late fall 2009. Active Banana (talk) 00:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I doubt if two scientific papers specifically about the subject can be called "a incoherent coincidence of wording which was brought up by a google search". The sources have been presented again and again - try reading them. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


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


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