Talk:Gore effect/Archive 6

See also, any objections
We are also looking to include these in a see also section, are there any objectons or anything people also want to include. Off2riorob (talk) 18:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


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


 * Ahem. I could live with or without synchronicity; I really don't see the relevance.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Follow the link? Makes sense to me....--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I wouldn't specifically request it be put in, but I don't have any objection.  The article "confirmation bias", I do object to, but it's now in the body of the article in a reasonable context.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Synchronicity is a must. Pauli and others saw it as a suitable explanation for e.g. Pauli effect withaout the need to establish a causality. Polentario (talk) 23:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The first two links need to be in the text of the article; these are the parent articles to this one. Synchronicity doesn't belong; it's an example of confirmation bias, not synchronicity. Guettarda (talk) 00:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm, any sources :) ? Martenstein fits more to Sync. Polentario (talk) 01:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would agree that the first two can and perhaps should be included in the actual body of the article, which leaves only Ting hai and Pauli and synchronicity and there appears to be multiple differing opinions. Off2riorob (talk) 12:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Ting hai, Pauli and syncronicity are classical see alsos. just paste them back. Polentario (talk) 20:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

One revert climate change template
This article is clearly in need of climate change editing one revert restrictions, where is the template. Off2riorob (talk) 18:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Please also don't revert tag team, discuss. Off2riorob (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What tag team? There seem to either be several or none. Going with WP:AGF, unless there is evidence of collaboration we should go with "none" and not make uncivil accusations . Verbal chat  18:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Introduction - cont'd
As we now have a source that refers to the article subject as "satire" (which, I'd suggest, should be consensus-stipulated anyway), I am amending the suggested introductory text and re-inserting the 2 previously deleted words. Please be mindful that this is suggested text for the first sentence only...


 * The "Gore Effect" is a satirical concept suggesting an absurd causal relationship between observed or unseasonably cold weather phenomena and global warming associated events, with particular emphasis on those associated with appearances of former U.S. Vice President and Nobel Peace Prize recipient Al Gore.

Comments/criticisms/suggestions solicited JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support, I thought to change the leading comment that it is comedy as sometimes it is not very funny, it is as I understand used satirically and your write is a clear improvement. Off2riorob (talk) 17:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually I suggested the addition of "absurd" to emphasize the comic-absurdity of the satire and that appeared to satisfy Hypocrite's objections (see index for prior introductory discussions). Not sure if this is acceptable to all, but there's no rush. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately "absurd" doesnt really match with what the sources say. The Crikey piece is about how columnists and even journalists are NOT treating it as absurd and other sources saying that those who are using the term are "half serious" or "only half ironic" Active Banana (talk) 17:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I object to the use of "absurd", however it it will appease hipocrite then go for it mark nutley (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * JakeInJoisey's source for "satirical" is a blog, so I'm afraid it fails WP:RS. - Pointillist (talk) 20:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Very well, removing "satirical" and "absurd" again, and re-inserting "humorous"...


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

JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I can support that. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to establish some possible continuity, the following might be considered as a draft for the next entry...


 * Observers have also remarked on its use by global warming "skeptics".

...but I think the opening needs to be nailed down as consensus acceptable. JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Per this discussion, I am inserting this suggested text (with the same citations) into the article. Anyone with heartburn, please bring it here. JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggested text for sentence #2...


 * Observers have remarked on its use by global warming "skeptics".

This content can be sourced to Politico as well. If anyone is concerned inre possible POV, please cite an RS that suggests a more broad-based use. JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's the introductory, defining text as currently comprised...


 * The "Gore Effect" is a humorous concept suggesting a causal relationship between observed or unseasonably cold weather phenomena and global warming associated events. Particular emphasis has been put on events associated with appearances of former U.S. Vice President and Nobel Peace Prize recipient Al Gore, his environmental activism and Gore's role in the Global warming controversy.

The second sentence composition creates 3 independent assertions. Removing the commas and stating each individually...

Assertion 1: Particular emphasis has been put on (global warming associated) events associated with appearances of former U.S. Vice President and Nobel Peace Prize recipient Al Gore.

Assertion 2: Particular emphasis has been put on (global warming associated) events associated with (Al Gore's) environmental activism.

Assertion 3: Particular emphasis has been put on (global warming associated) events associated with (Al Gore's) role in the Global warming controversy.

This structure and the resulting assertions are problematical on several levels...

Assertion #2 is inaccurate. The word "emphasis" was originally employed to suggest the primary focus of "Gore Effect" on (global warming associated) events where Gore was in attendance. Assertion #2 both expands and then mis-applies the use of the word as refering to "events associated with (Al Gore's) environmental activism". Unless all global warming events (whether he is present or not) are now understood to be de facto identifiable as "Gore's environmental activism", assertion #2 is simply innacurate.

Assertion #2 is imprecise. "Environmental activism" is an umbrella term that can cover a broad spectrum of activity. "Gore Effect" is specific to "global warming" activism which is already implied by the characterization of "events" in the first sentence as "global warming associated". In combination with point #1, it should be struck as both redundant and innacurate.

Assertion #3 is inaccurate and imprecise. The same criticism also applies to assertion #3 which simply re-words "(Al Gore's) environmental activism" as "(Al Gore's) role in the Global warming controversy". For the purposes of "defining" this subject, it's simply a distinction with no distinction.

A single, defining sentence is preferable. While the edit in its current form is not only redundant and inaccurate, from a "style" perspective, it also introduces both an unwarranted and undesirable division of the "definition" into 2 different sentences. One sentence, I'd submit, is always preferable to 2 unless the length of content required to adequately define the subject precludes it.

In short, I believe the text suggested in the discussion on the introductory thus far should suffice in terms of style, content and accuracy...


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

JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

"Controversial" Tag
I have added the tag to the talk page. Hopefully it will encourage contributing editors to utilize "talk" rather than drive-by editing of substantive content. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Things are pretty polite and stable here recently but every little helps. I notice that the article has had a degree of stability in the last five days which is great. Off2riorob (talk) 12:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You forgot to knock on wood... JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There is little or no justification for the main topic of this article being the satirical use. There is no justification for the only topic permitted being the saterical use. I merely noted that both uses exist in the lede. Since we are prevented from splitting this article by use, it's imperitive that this article neutrally reflect what is in reliable sources. Hipocrite (talk) 14:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There is little or no justification for the main topic of this article being the satirical use.
 * "Little" and "none" are mutually exclusive. Nor does "little", IMHO, reflect reality. But resolution of that question is, perhaps, premature and should be tabled anyway...at least for the moment.
 * There is no justification for the only topic permitted being the saterical use.
 * Strawman. Nobody I'm aware of is suggesting that. However, my position on that at the moment is accomodation. I could easily argue that case and may feel compelled to do so (as I'm confident will many others) pending outcome of the deliberations on an alternative resolution.
 * That being said, all of this becomes moot with the creation of an alternate article. As I see it, opposition to that creation currently cites "fork" as justification.  IMHO, that is, by "fork" definition, an unsustainable assertion.  If consensus cannot be reached among current interested editors, perhaps an RfC might be advisable and productive.
 * ...and you should still self-revert your edit of the lede. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I will not revert my edit to the lede. The article previously relegated what should be the main topic of this article to a ghetto titled "other uses." I merely made the most common use of the phrase its own section, and made note of that use in the intro. It is a violation of NPOV to decide that one PoV (that the "Gore Effect" refers to Gore's effect on public perceptions of global warming) into a ghettoized, poorly named section, and it is a violation of NPOV to prevent mention of that substantial PoV from the lede. As such, no, I will not remove my edit, and still further, if anyone does so, they should include a Pov tag at the top of the then biased article. Hipocrite (talk) 15:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hip's edits are a step in the right direction. Guettarda (talk) 15:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * ...and it is a violation of NPOV to prevent mention of that substantial PoV from the lede.
 * Another strawman. Nobody I'm aware of has prevented, is preventing, or is proposing to prevent mention of the allegedly "substantial" PoV in the lede. This is easily demonstrated in the immediate instance with the survival of Verbal's also undiscussed edit . As it was my intent to subsequently introduce that reference myself, I did not object to it and left it alone.
 * Your own edit unilaterally imposing your own non-consensus view gives that "mention" undue parity in the first sentence with the main (and formally established) subject of this article. It is that suggested "parity" which I and other editors strenuously object to and I fully intend to oppose any sense of equal parity being alluded to by its inclusion in the opening sentence.  It is also worthy of note that you never availed yourself of the opportunity to discuss this edit in the talk section where lede composition was actively being discussed.
 * I have been attempting to avoid a push-comes-to-shove atmosphere by suggesting that you simply hold your edit in abeyance pending what might become a consensus-acceptable resolution that would eliminate the issue. As you appear to favor, instead, immediate confrontation and incendiary edits to consensus building, I will revert your edit as undiscussed per the recommended guidelines for "controversial topics" and as unsupported by consensus. You are free to "tag" at your discretion. Pity. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Three editors have expressed support for the change (Hip, Verbal and I). One editor (you) have reverted for "lack of consensus". If anything can be said to have "no consensus", it's the revert. Guettarda (talk) 20:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not really involved in the discussion but I don't see any hurry, if the lede is to have a fundamental change imo waiting perhaps till tomorrow to allow other users involved to comment is a good idea. Off2riorob (talk) 20:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I`m with jake, this article is about the gore effect joke, that is why it was put up for AFD, the content should reflect that not the other uses mark nutley (talk) 20:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is about what the reliable sources say. The multiple uses were documented within the article (by some of the most reliable sources) throughout most of the AFD. Lets not start perpetuating revisionist history. Active Banana (talk) 21:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect, when this article went for AFD there was no mention of the other use`s at all, I know as i created this article. Lets not start perpetuating revisionist history. mark nutley (talk) 21:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, Marknutley, you wrote the original article, but see WP:OWN. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I wrote the original article, and thus know what i am talking about, hence my comment above, I am unsure why you are pointing to wp:own when all i was doing was pointing out the facts mark nutley (talk) 13:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "when this article went for AFD there was no mention " At the point it was nominated for AfD, perhaps that is true. HOWEVER for most of the time when people were weighing in on whether or not the article should remain, many (sometimes up to a third) of the reliable sources in the article were supporting use of the phrase in a different manner. Stop your revisionist history. Active Banana (talk) 16:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Where is the original research here?
Kim D. Petersn has reverted the addition of this passage:


 * "The Gore Effect" is a "Snowclone" phrase in which the word "Effect" (capitalized or not) is added to a prominent office-holder's last name in discussions of that person's influence or the reaction of other people to the office holder. This phrasal template has been used in describing the influence of U.S. Presidents George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Ronald Reagan, as well as with Tony Blair, former prime minister of the United Kingdom "The Reagan Effect" and "The Blair Effect" are book titles.

Is there a single thing here that is not obvious? Stating the obvious is not WP:OR, and it is just like what the WP:CALC section of WP:OR describes in dealing with simple calculations. Does anyone object to anything stated in the passage as possibly not factual? ... Anybody? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Any reference to "Snowclone" where no source uses the term is WP:OR. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There's that. And, of course, associating this with other "effects" is OR. Guettarda (talk) 02:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec with below) No, there isn't that. We don't need a source to tell us that 843 + 111 = 954 either. No difference. What is obvious is not OR. associating this with other "effects" is OR In what way are these various "effects" being "associated" other than cited as examples of the same kind of usage? Why wouldn't we inform the reader of similar usage examples when we inform the reader that this is a snowclone, a kind of phrasal template? And why wouldn't we inform the reader that the subject of the article fits the definition of these two things exactly? These are not rhetorical questions. Answers, please. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It will not be WP:OR in what must be the inevitable resolution to this question of parity. From the inception of the appearance of this article, this pseudo-equivalency of "subjects" being advanced is as contrived and strained as it is specious. To suggest that these 2 terms have anything more in common than 2 words in the English lexicon and should be entertained in the same article is not, IMHO, capable of surviving any rational Wikipedia examination of that assertion. It has not yet been Wikipedia-procedurally challenged since accommodation has been the order of the day...and wrongfully so. Let's get this question resolved in the most appropriate Wikipedia forum in which to make such a determination. JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Again: Does anyone object to anything stated in the passage as possibly not factual? ... Anybody? Answers, please. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please answer Guettarda's and my concerns. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Your stated concern: Any reference to "Snowclone" where no source uses the term is WP:OR. (that's not actually a "concern" that's a bald assertion)
 * My already-given answer: We don't need a source to tell us that 843 + 111 = 954 either. No difference. What is obvious is not OR.
 * Guettarda's stated "concern": associating this with other "effects" is OR.
 * My already-given answer: In what way are these various "effects" being "associated" other than cited as examples of the same kind of usage? Why wouldn't'' we inform the reader of similar usage examples when we inform the reader that this is a snowclone, a kind of phrasal template? And why wouldn't we inform the reader that the subject of the article fits the definition of these two things exactly?
 * Now it's your turn. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * To begin with, "the name effect" is not a "snowclone", per our definitions. Calling an effect associated with a person X "the X effect" could be descriptive.
 * And the association with other "effects" should be limited to #See also lines, as in the two satirical effects already included. Saying any more about the relationship would add a POV as to whether the name was satirical.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to be numbering my questions for you to make it easier for you and anyone else to answer them. I can't make head or tail out of your reply. "The Gore Effect" seems to fit the definition of both of these concepts perfectly. [1] How is it different from the "X is the new Y" example given at Snowclone? [2] How is it not a phrasal template? To call something a snowclone or phrasal template is to suggest that there are others, and any reader would find it useful to know that. Finding an example is not generally something that needs to be footnoted and never when the example is this obvious. Anyone can see the substitution of the names in the template "The X Effect". I don't even know what you mean by including something in the "See also" section. I don't believe there are articles for The Clinton Effect, The Bush Effect, The Blair Effect, The Reagan Effect. The point of including those names in the passage is to show that this usage is part of a larger pattern. The value of this information to the reader is obvious. [3] What is the value of keeping out information that we all know to be true? [4] Calling an effect associated with a person X "the X effect" could be descriptive. Why does that matter? What is your point with that sentence? I really don't understand your meaning. One aspect of the subject "The Gore Effect" is that it is a construction of words. A comprehensive encyclopedia article covers the important information we have about all important aspects of a subject unless the sourcing is unreliable. [5] What is unreliable about this sourcing or how does it not cover what is said other than WP:CALC-compliant information? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 14:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * [3] What is the value of keeping out information that we all know to be true?
 * It's not a question of "value", it's a question of WP:V and WP:OR as it relates to the suggested content. I don't believe it is any more admissable under those criteria than were Hipocrite's suggested sourcing to rebut the "factuality" of alleged weather conditions supporting an assertion of a "Gore Effect" occurence.  But I'm still listening. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It isn't a violation of WP:V to say this is a snowclone or phrasal template once the reliably sourced information is staring you in the face. Once the connections are reduced to something this simple, it's a matter of simple editorial judgment to identify what obviously exists. [6] Please explain to me how this is not so. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I made that argument about Climategate, and it was rejected. I don't think it will hold here. Hipocrite (talk) 15:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It isn't a violation of WP:V to say this is a snowclone or phrasal template once the reliably sourced information is staring you in the face.
 * I would suggest you are misconstruing the rationale behind WP:V...and you better run for the hills if User:QuestFofKnowledge gets wind of this. WP:V is unconcerned with "truth".  What it IS concerned with is that reliable sources are citable as having made that observation specifically referencing "Gore Effect" as an example.  If it ain't out there somewhere, IMHO you're on thin ice here...probably worse. That being said, I believe you are spot on in asserting its relevance and, while it is probably not citable in the article, it sure as hell is citable in discussion. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * When there is no question about truth, such as WP:CALC there can not be a question of WP:V. In fact, whenever WP:CALC applies, WP:V simply can not apply (regardless of the fact that we're talking about two different policies), [7] isn't that true? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

In what way are these various "effects" being "associated" other than cited as examples of the same kind of usage? Because making this association is original synthesis. The citations don't make an association between the two of them, you make an association between the two of them. One that is not made by the underlying references. Guettarda (talk) 15:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Because making this association is original synthesis. [5] How does WP:CALC not apply? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Everyone, please review this, from WP:NOTOR (Ooops, wrong quote. Now corrected; boldface & italics added):

"* Identifying synonymous terms, and collecting related information under a common heading is also part of writing an encyclopedia. Reliable sources do not always use consistent terminology, and it is sometimes necessary to determine when two sources are calling the same thing by different names. This does not require a third source to state this explicitly, as long as the conclusion is obvious from the context of the sources. Articles should follow the naming conventions in selecting the heading under which the combined material is presented."

This essay is linked at WP:OR and seems to be a reasonable interpretation of it. [8] Does anyone disagree with what's said here, or does anyone think the principle in boldfaced italics does not apply? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC) corrected and boldface & italics added -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The essay seems reasonable, but it doesn't apply here.


 * 1) "Snowclone" being such an absurd and obscure term, it's a clear WP:OR violation to include it unless a reliable source uses it.
 * 2) The "X" effect as any effect associated with "X" (whether or not the association is rational) may be a snowclone (although I doubt it)
 * 3) The listing of arbitrary "X" effects where the similarity is only in the name is clearly inappropriate. If the Bush effect has an article, it might be listed in the See also section, but use in the text is a clear WP:UNDUE violation, even if not WP:OR.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You still haven't answered why WP:CALC doesn't apply. Neither has Guettarda. Neither has Jake. Of course the essay applies because the same principle as the one behind WP:CALC applies: What's obvious on the page in front of you doesn't need to be sourced. Anything you can see or figure out in a common-sense way, applying no interpretation, just hard, cold facts, applies. If we can't do that, then we can't write anything not in a source's own words and attribute it to a source, because that involves the same common-sense, simple calculations that we find in WP:CALC or here (and in fact rewriting is more complicated than this). Addressing your points in order:
 * "Snowclone" is not so obscure that it doesn't have a Wikipedia article, and so there's no reason it wouldn't be good enough for us. You haven't demonstrated that it's absurd and I don't think you can. It's a term that describes a very simple phenomena that anyone can see on the page, involving multiple phrases with similarities and differences. I don't need a source calling something either a "snowclone" or a phrasal template (which you haven't mentioned). Once a reader knows what a snowclone is, any reader can see that the phrases mentioned fit the extremely simple pattern that a third grader could understand. The entire rationale for calling something a "snowclone" is that the phrases are similar and different. Once we link to the Snowclone article, where the definition is sourced, no further sourcing is needed because no sourcing could ever add the slightest bit to the verifiability of what the reader sees on the page with the reader's own eyes. The only remaining sourcing need is to show that the other uses exist (and nobody here has raised a doubt about that). There is no purpose to WP:V if the reader can do the verification by looking at the page. No source would make the matter any more verifiable than the readers' own eyes and common sense. That's the justification for WP:CALC. And that's why it's important that you (and others) haven't addressed my question [5].
 * Ah, I think I see what you mean. Confirm this: Do you doubt that "_____ Effect" is a cliche? That this is used in "an array of different variants"? Because if you do, I have no problem dropping "snow clone" and keeping phrasal template instead. I think it would be ridiculous overkill, but we could add this source: Susan Armstrong (1994) Using Large Corpora, ISBN 0262510820, p. 149 [9] Would that satisfy you?
 * The listing of arbitrary "X" effects where the similarity is only in the name is clearly inappropriate. That isn't grammatical and I can't figure out the meaning. Please explain. The similarity is supposed to be "only in the name" for either a phrasal template or a snowclone, by definition. We don't need an article for something in order to state that that thing is an example of something. We do that all the time in Wikipedia. The use of those examples is only to show that other such phrases exist, which is what a reader would want to know once the reader is told that this is either a "snowclone" or "phrasal template". These things only exist in groups, by definition, so you need some examples of other members of the group. This also enormously helps the reader to understand the meaning. The closer the other examples are to the subject at hand (very prominent office-holders in this case) the better. Listing several three-word phrases in a short sentence at the tail end of a short article is not WP:UNDUE. Other usage examples are needed when the article is about a phrase and you're showing that the phrase is part of a certain category in the language. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "Snowclone" is absurd and obscure. Wikipedia has a lot of articles on absurd and obscure subjects.  It requires a reliable source to connect this absurd, but not obscure, topic, to that term.
 * The article is not about the phrase, but about the meaning and usage. If you want to add a section about the phrase, using the term phrasal template, go ahead.  A source would be helpful, but I'm not sure it's required.
 * Comparing "the Gore effect" to "the Bush effect" and "the Blair effect" is WP:UNDUE, as it implies that the meaning of the term relates to the secondary meaning, not to the primary meaning. The Pauli effect is sufficiently similar to the (at the moment, primary) use of the term that it should be in the See also section, but it would require references to include that in the body, as well.  If there were a Carter effect (as there probably should be), it should also be in See also.
 * The meaning of the Bush effect is not at all similar to any of the meanings attached here, as well. I'll need to go into that in more detail later, but, if you must use a list of examples, their being politicians is completely irrelevant to both the primary and secondary meanings, so should not be considered as a factor.  You should use celebrities, if there are any such uses.
 * If you could support, with references, adding "the name effect" to the snowclone article, you might have a case here. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This whole discussion is about whether references are needed to state the obvious. You haven't addressed that part of WP:OR policy. The meaning is "the influence of ____" in all the cases I cited (and I can put quotes to that effect in the footnotes, if one doesn't fit, it can be dropped). The link between the various examples is the similarity of the phrase name and the fact that it's used to mean essentially the same thing in each, down to the fact that they're all prominent public officials. There's nothing OR in saying that each example fits a pattern, since the source for each will prove it. I don't see how WP:UNDUE has anything to do with that. The primary, ironic meaning of "Gore effect" doesn't fit well because the other uses aren't ironic/humorous, but no matter. I wouldn't mind mentioning other examples in the same passage, including the Pauli effect, and I wouldn't mind putting this passage in a separate section. But this is part of the subject since the subject is essentially a thing made up of words, and words that fit this particular kind of phrase. I'd like to know what other editors think of these ideas. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not obvious; Guettarda (I believe) and I don't think it's true. It is WP:OR to note that they form a pattern, since I am specifically stating that
 * The secondary meaning is not "the influence of name"; I'm not exactly sure what the meaning is, because I don't see it as significant, but it may be "effects of the perceived example of name". The primary meaning is "the effect of name 's presence", which is not the same.
 * the relevant pattern is not politicians, but "celebraties" (which includes Gore and Blair, probably Clinton, Reagan, and (Paris) Hilton, and probably not Bush) The "Bush effect" is something completely different, it appears, anyway.
 * The choice of examples is cherry-picking.
 * — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not cherry picking to take the closest examples because they have been well-known public officials and therefore have more in common with Gore. I don't mind mentioning other examples, but if they don't have as much in common, then they don't. Where do you think people got the idea for using the phrase "The Gore Effect"? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The main point is: Since at least 3 editors feel that it isn't obvious, then you must be able to provide references for it, otherwise you are doing WP:OR. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not a contribution to a discussion. Please answer my questions and start being constructive. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but what is not constructive in requesting that you reference your addition (per WP:V), so that the WP:OR goes away? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That it completely ignores everything previously said in this thread. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no compromise to doing WP:OR - either you can verify it - or you can't. Half-original research is still original research. And i'm sorry to say that i haven't ignore anything you've said. You claim that it is obvious - people disagree - thus you will have to reference it or it can't go in. It really is that simple. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Summarazing the PoV problems
There are two major PoV problems with the version that JohnWBarber has recently reverted to. Firstly, it ghettoizes the use of the term to mean Al Gore's effect on public policy into an "other use" section. Secondly, it neglects any mention of this other use in the lede. It appeared there was broad agreement that mentioning the use in the lede and having a seperate section for this other use was appropriate - see comments by JakeInJoisey at 14:58, 22 June 2010, 15:51, 22 June 2010. It appears that no non-party to the grand GWCC case of 2010 has stepped up to support the excise from the lede and ghettoization of the alternative phrase - while they have opposed parity, I see no evidence they support total exclusion. I suggest that JohnWBarber consider writing for the enemy, or tagging the version of the article he dosen't like, as opposed to repeatedly reverting to his preferred version. Hipocrite (talk) 16:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It appeared there was broad agreement that mentioning the use in the lede and having a seperate section for this other use was appropriate - see comments by JakeInJoisey at 14:58, 22 June 2010, 15:51, 22 June 2010.
 * While I believe "other uses" (in whatever terminology is consensus acceptable) would be an appropriate section, my comments in 14:58, 22 June 2010 were, I believe, unrelated to your observation. Perhaps you simply misconstrued them. Not really important anyway.
 * In 15:51, 22 June 2010, I clearly distinguished between "use in the lede" (Verbal's edit) and "use in the opening sentence" (your edit). Assuming dual treatment in the same article survives debate, I do and will strongly argue for the former. As to "mention" in the lede, you are correct...and I believe demonstrated in my acquiescence in Verbal's edit.JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Specifically, Verbal's edit was undone. There is no longer mention that the phrase is used for anything except cold weather in the lede. Perhaps you should ask JohnWBarber to self revert, or revert him yourself? Hipocrite (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * JohnWBarber wants the "snowclone" V and NPOV violation in the lede. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I, for one, am out of the article editing/reverting game...at least for the short term. I'm simply uninterested in editing in an environment where drive-by editing is deemed acceptable with all the nonsense attendant to it. Without definitive resolution to at least 2 issues, any content will have a short shelf-life anyway. P.S. I'm not really clear that you're not confusing the "lede" with the "first sentence". Are we on the same page there?  Verbal's edit was not the problem.  It was yours. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that JohnWBarber's revert should be undone as was not justified by "consensus" here or policy. Verbal chat  17:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Verbal, or anyone else -- where is your consensus to make a contested change to the lead? The language should be status quo ante the discussion, at least as concerns the contested point (other changes are fine). You know that there is no consensus to describe both meanings in a roughly equal fashion. I think there is consensus to have mentioned the other meaning in the lead, but no more than a mention. Show me where your consensus is and I'll back off. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The consensus is at WP:LEAD and in all those opposing your changes. I'm very disappointed by the partisan stonewalling here. Verbal</b> chat  18:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Stop the WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. You need consensus on this page and you know that. The lead reflects the article. You haven't responded to my request and that's leading me to think you can't do so. Discuss. Get consensus. If you have consensus, change the article to that consensus. Otherwise you're "stonewalling". -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears that you are both hung up on who has consensus and who dosen't, who is stonewalling, and who isn't. Ironically, it means that both of you are wrong. Please try to seek a compromise - you know, one where you don't get everything you want, that you'd both be willing to live with, or just leave the article alone for people who are willing to try to find solutions to deal with. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 19:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with that. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  19:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree all you want, but Show me where your consensus is and I'll back off. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC) If you can't point out where it is, looks like you don't have it. How difficult can it be? Where are your compromise suggestions for the addition of the snowclone passage? Where are your compromise suggestions on the lead? I've been away from the article for a bit, did I miss where you offered them? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I mean now the other meanings have aprominent place. I dont understand why the tags are still being reinserted. The german WP calls the tendency to keep an article tagged by all means Bausteinwerfen, "bricklayering". Seems this is the case here18:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I dont understand why the tags are still being reinserted.
 * The reason for the tag placement is supposed to be explained in a talk section clearly designated to facilitate discussion and resolution of the issue. I've done so for my placement of the tag if you'd care to take a look.  JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * a) youre right b) are they still necessary? I doubt it. Polentario (talk) 21:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see my response in the designated dispute section. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)