Talk:Gore effect/Archive 8

Lede onward
The current version of the lede suffers from prolixity and clumsy construction. I am suggesting the alternate rewording:

"''The "Gore Effect" is a term with various meanings relating to past U.S. Vice President Al Gore. In typical usage, the term is a humorous concept suggesting a causal relationship between unseasonably cold weather during a global warming rally, speech, or other event,[1], and can be used whether or not Gore himself personally appears.[1][2][3][4][5] The phrase has also been used to describe Gore's impact in raising global warming as a public issue,[6][7][8][9] and in other ways related to Al Gore.[10][11][12][13].

Please enter any comments or suggestions here. Fell Gleaming talk 13:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * FG, the exact wording of the lead has evolved via extensive prior discussion and re-opening that subject is, IMHO, both premature and rather pointless given the ongoing dispute over a much more basic issue...the question of "other uses" and its relevancy and subsequent "weight" within this article. The first sentence was recently edited without consensus (IMHO and which I intend to address in due course).
 * If you would like to substantively contribute to that dispute resolution, perhaps you might consider commenting, instead, as to an assertion that "other uses" and the satirical "Gore Effect" are the "same subject". JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll weigh in on the content issue. However, my edit affects "usage #1" solely.  I think we're all competent to discuss more than one issue at the same time.  And of course, consensus is not an immutable quantity; a consensus reached in the past may not be true today. If you're claiming my edit was inappropriate, I disagree.  It was primarily one made for grammatical and succinctness concerns, rather than to settle the ongoing content dispute.  What specific reason did you have for reverting it?  I'm sure you're familiar with Don't_revert_due_to_%22no_consensus%22   Fell Gleaming talk  15:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What specific reason did you have for reverting it?
 * They are many, not the least of which is the employment of "typical usage" which is, I suspect given the preceding evolution of this dispute, a particularly charged phrase. I could go on with several more but I'm just not inclined to participate further in editing the lead until a much more fundamental issue is resolved. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Then changing that phrasing to "one usage" -- pending the outcome of the content dispute issue -- would answer your objection? Fell Gleaming talk  15:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * My "objection" is to altering the previously existing text that had achieved a relative degree of stability (spell that "consensus") until Mackan79's edit. I don't see any purpose in refining that amended text until the underlying and much more fundamental issue is resolved...but you can do whatever you want. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll wait to see what other editors think.  Fell Gleaming talk  17:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The use of "typical" is questionable. If you look at Google Scholar, for instance, you do not find the humorous meaning. I realize this may be consistent with FG's intended use of the word "typical" (maybe if typical is distinguished from scholarly usage) but I don't believe it's precise enough. The other changes seem fine, other than to say that the term "can" be used in a certain way, which isn't really up for us to say. (If it were left to me I would write something more chronological, as is seen in Bush doctrine, and as is seen here, but I think the current version is ok). Mackan79 (talk) 23:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content
I am surprised by the edit here, and have reverted it. No policy-based reason is offered for removing the material. If editors think the topic of this article should be delineated further, then let's have that discussion, but removing just some of the material even when it is well sourced is not supported. Mackan79 (talk) 23:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:SOAPBOX. This is an article about the Gore Effect, not a platform to talk about environmental issues.  The text was too long and diverged into tangential areas.   Fell Gleaming talk  05:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This is an article about the Gore Effect, not a platform to talk about environmental issues.
 * The place to make that assertion is in the designated dispute resolution section addressing the "same subject" issue. Thus far no proponent for that assertion has elected to defend it there and ALL editors specifically addressing that assertion have rejected it. In fact, and as you'll note, the most recent proponents are now avoiding even the use of the word "subject" and have, instead, opted for references to "meaning" and "topic" while, at the same time, asserting "no consensus" on the "same subject" issue despite their non-participation in that issue resolution process.
 * This "other use" content can no longer co-exist with the Wikipedia process-established "subject" of this article and was incorporated as a compromise concession. That "compromise" is now being rejected with an assertion of "equal weight" and "parity" in the lead. The next step will be dominance. Time for this to end. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't understand what you said there. However I too don't see why the new paterial is "tangential". I *do* see that up above some few editors - most obiously MN, now departed - have taken it upon themselves to decide exactly what this article is about. But they (obviously) hve no authority to do that William M. Connolley (talk) 13:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's very easy to understand. The Swedish report, for instance, that underpins a paragraph here isn't even about the Gore effect, or even the Al Gore effect.  It's entitled "SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE PURCHASING IN THE SUPPLY CHAIN", and the entire 70-page report mentions Gore just once.  This is clear coatracking to insert the paper's message into an article is has essentially nothing to do with.   Fell Gleaming talk  14:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * But the report says The increased interest in environmental issues (the Al Gore effect) will be of influence, ie it takes the naming as given. Why is that irrelevant? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As above. When you use a 70 page report that tangentially mentions Gore only once as the underpinning for a paragraph on increased environmental spending, this is the very definition of soapboxing. Does it help the reader to understand what the Gore effect is?  No...we've already said the exact same thing elsewhere in the article.  Fell Gleaming talk  15:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but there is no requirement anywhere that each source used in an article must be primarily about the topic of the article. Active Banana   ( bananaphone  16:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There is however a requirement that the material actually inserted in the article be related more than tangentially to the topic.  Fell Gleaming talk  17:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If WMC is quoting the source, then there is zero question about "tangentiality" in that instance. Active Banana   ( bananaphone  17:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That report states as follows: "However, organisations speak about the Al-Gore-effect – raised awareness about environmental issues across the world may take away attention from the social issues. On the other hand, if environmental and social issues are integrated in a company, the chance of environmental issues overtaking the attention is small." This is classic secondary coverage as preferred under WP:NOR.  There is also nothing "tangential" about this, if you mean that somehow it is not addressing the topic of the source.  The topic here is "Gore effect," and the subtopic is use of this term for Gore's impact on the increased attention to climate change.  This report is on increased attention to that topic, and so I included one sentence on what the report said.  Tangential mentions include ones like here or maybe here.  It doesn't include any of the reports that I added to the article. Mackan79 (talk) 23:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

do you really need me explain how text like "The November 2009 article notes that Socially Responsible Investment funds has grown ten-fold in the last six years, largely as a result of greater interest in environmental issues." is utterly tangential to an article on the Gore effect? Fell Gleaming talk 17:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That is the "Gore effect" as it is being presented in that article. It's the same as writing that someone claimed it was cold at a particular event he attended.   That particular quote comes from an article called "Gore effect spawns green investing."  The first sentence says "Some call it the Al Gore effect, others say it just makes good business sense."  The header says "Socially responsible investment funds have grown nearly 10-fold in six years."  Please look again, and why are you contributing to a revert war?  It does not help the discussion to have people reverting back and forth, at all. Mackan79 (talk) 22:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, a minor regional paper says "Some call it the Al Gore effect". And if we tried that on Wikipedia, it would get rightfully struck as vague weasel-wording.  Who calls it the Gore effect?  The journalist doesn't say ... because he doesn't know, and he's simply making an unsupported assumption.  This sort of random speculation adds nothing to the article.  Surely you can find a better source than this? 23:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * FellGleaming, you can't remove a source based on speculation about his assumptions. We have seen at least 20 sources here that use the term as he says; could he not be referring to them?  This is an article titled on the term that refers to usage of the term, and explains what it refers to.  I am not seeing how you would think its contents are not relevant. Mackan79 (talk) 23:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Eh? You couldn't be more wrong.  Our judgement as to the veracity of sources and the notability of their contents is what we do here at Wikipedia.  We don't mashup anything and everything we can find a link to.  We decide if its accurate and notable, and include it accordingly.    Fell Gleaming talk  23:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, and why again are you saying this article is not accurate or that it should be removed for lack of "notability"? Mackan79 (talk) 23:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Separate articles
It has been proposed that we could create a separate article on Al Gore effect (climate change awareness), move this article to Gore effect (satire), and have a disambiguation page at this location leading to each of these. I have opposed this mainly because I think we would look rather silly to have more than one article on the use of this term, when the use in total could very easily be summarized in Al Gore and the environment. Nevertheless, I am curious if other editors believe we should create two separate articles in this manner or in some other manner.

I know some editors want to remove and disregard material on any meaning besides the satirical meaning, without creating any other articles. However, I would encourage them to consider that such an approach is unlikely to gain consensus given a.) the dozens of sources simply on the "climate change awareness" meaning, including secondary coverage in high quality sources b.) the view that such an approach would violate WP:BLP, and c.) the presumptive ability of any editor who opposed such an approach to create a separate article and force an AfD with unpredictable results. Thus, if editors prefer a third option certainly they're free to say so, but I am mainly curious how people feel about covering the major meanings in one article or two. Mackan79 (talk) 04:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The effect of Gore on climate change awareness already has an article. Material in here relating to that subject should most properly be moved there, and this article should be retained as "The Gore Effect".  It is, after all, the title of the article; adding non-related material is simply confusing.  Fell Gleaming talk  10:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ...the use in total could very easily be summarized in Al Gore and the environment.
 * That question was decided after due consideration on the contributions of some 80+ editors addressing it in the AfD. The AfD found, in its  "Keep" determination, that the satirical "Gore Effect" satisfied all Wikipedia criteria for existence as a stand-alone article. The satirical "Gore Effect", therefore, will continue to exist as the legitimate "subject" of an article independent of the existence of other purportedly related content wherever that "other use" content might ultimately reside. It should also be noted that the AfD determination itself is challengeable via submission of petition for review of the AfD, a process which those advocating for inclusion, and now parity, of "other use" content have not availed themselves.
 * ...disregard(ing) material on any meaning besides the satirical meaning, without creating any other articles...is unlikely to gain consensus given a.) the dozens of sources simply on the "climate change awareness" meaning, including secondary coverage in high quality sources...
 * Whether or not the creation of an independent article addressing "other uses" based on your purported sourcing for notability would, itself, survive an AfD is premature and irrelevant to the resolution of a much more fundamental issue related to THIS article. Without resolution of the "same subject" issue, an independent article on "other uses" is challengeable (and has already been challenged) as WP:POVFORK, your purported notability sourcing notwithstanding.
 * For the benefit of those editors not fully versed in that issue and how it impedes resolution here, according to WP:CFORK and WP:POVFORK (emphasis mine),...
 * "A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject."
 * POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion.
 * ...and therein lies your conundrum. If you acknowledge "other uses" as a different "subject" (which, IMHO, is patently obvious and supported by consensus), then your case for parity (and probably inclusion) in THIS article effectively goes out the window but "might" open the door for independent article treatment. Little wonder you are neither 1. willing to debate that assertion within the designated dispute resolution section or 2. un willing to, now, even utilize the term "subject". In other words, you want assured placement of "other uses" into its own ARTICLE (with a presumption of ASSURED AfD survivability) before you are willing to even debate (no less acknowledge) the irrelevancy of "other uses" to this existing article.
 * A solution is evident. Acknowledge that the satircal "Gore Effect" and "other uses" are different subjects, move irrelevant content to somewhere within existing CC space then write your independent article subject to AfD review. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Jake, I think you are mistaken to suggest that Wikipedia policy is ever a system of legalistic paradoxes. The point of WP:POVFORK is that you shouldn't have two different articles on the same thing, but simply offering a different perspective.  Our decision, meanwhile, is whether we should cover two different but related uses of a term in one or two articles.  Anyone is certainly free to believe that material should stay in this article, but also that if it is removed it should go in one article rather than another.  No immutable position on whether it is one "subject" can be required for exactly that reason, among many others.  Besides that, Wikipedia policy is not Kafka; editors aren't required to hold an AfD when they don't actually want to delete an article.  I do accept your position: you seem to think all material not on the satirical use should simply be deleted.  I strongly disagree for the reasons mentioned above, that this would violate WP:NPOV and hence WP:BLP.  If you are open to the creation of another article, however, then that's also good to know. Mackan79 (talk) 21:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting. My stated position...
 * "...move irrelevant content to somewhere within existing CC space..."
 * has somehow managed to morph into...
 * I do accept your position: you seem to think all material not on the satirical use should simply be deleted.
 * The irony of your allusion to Kafka is heavy. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies: I mean that you seem to want it deleted and not mentioned in relation to Wikipedia's coverage of the "Gore effect." Whether material on any meaning may be added to other unrelated areas of the project is not in my view a significant issue here, since the current problem is how we can fairly cover this term. Mackan79 (talk) 03:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * My position from Sept 11th (here) is unchanged. - Pointillist (talk) 17:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Your position is neither relevant to nor even incorporated within the section designated to achieve consensus resolution on the issue in dispute...an assertion that the satirical "Gore Effect" and "other uses" are the "same subject".  Four editors have, thus far, rejected that assertion and NONE have elected to defend it.  "Nolo contendere" does not bode well for your ASSUMED position on that issue. The consensus for rejection is, thus far, unanimous. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Jake, no one needs to take an immutable position on whether anything is "one subject." I am open to treating it as one subject or two.  I am strongly opposed to removing all mention besides the satirical use because it would violate WP:NPOV and hence WP:BLP.  You're free to disagree, but you're mistaken if you think this is not "relevant" to your position. Mackan79 (talk) 22:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Jake, no one needs to take an immutable position on whether anything is "one subject."
 * No, they don't. But "no comment" carries no weight in the Wikipedia dispute resolution process.


 * I am open to treating it as one subject or two.


 * The current consensus within the dispute resolution section is unanimous that they are 2 different subjects.


 * I am strongly opposed to removing all mention besides the satirical use because it would violate WP:NPOV and hence WP:BLP.


 * Removal of content irrelevant to a Wikipedia-process established "subject" of the article and subsequently supported by a consensus of contributing editors affirming that position does not violate NPOV. Nor do WP:BLP policies apply directly to the "subject" of this article, the satirical "Gore Effect". JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think by generalizing your terms you are simply obscuring the issue. "Gore effect" is a term with multiple uses, some positive, some negative.  "Gore" refers to Al Gore.  Many of us recognize that the multiple uses reflect a pattern where people apply this phrase to prominent individuals; readers unfamiliar with this term therefore will be looking to find what Gore's "effect" is considered to be.  Our articles will be presumed to present and cover notable usages.  There is no reason for us not to present and cover notable usages.  To ignore a notable positive use, therefore, while presenting the term as if it is only used in satire, would quite obviously not represent fair and responsible coverage.  Meanwhile, if your choice of subject creates an unfair and inaccurate picture of how a term that reflects directly on a living person is used, then that is a problem with the choice of subject.  I know you will say this was resolved in the AfD, but the closer of the AfD also directly stated that he expected both uses to be covered in this article, so clearly that is incorrect.  Maybe I'll simply start to write another article to see if that will move us toward resolving this, but I'd like for us to be clear about the issues at hand. Mackan79 (talk) 04:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with two articles, since I think these are separate subjects. I see no reason to change the name of this article, however, since this subject is far more prominent and secondary sources discuss it. I consider the other subject so lacking in notability (which is separate from usage) that it would surprise me if it even passed AfD. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

As before: I think there should be one article. Al Gore and the environment doesn't mention the Gore effect, that I can see, and probably shouldn't. There is a great deal of OWNership being shown over this by a few editors who are insisting that only "their" meaning of The Gore Effect be allowed in; this is wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 11:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm dying to hear why you think an article about Al Gore's effect on the environment shouldn't mention .... Al Gore's Effect on the environment.  Fell Gleaming talk  13:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Update Consensus seems rather clear in this case. Even the couple of editors who are opposed still admit we have two entirely different subjects here. We don't have a single article combining bark (of a tree) with bark (a boat) and bark (of a dog). And it's important to remember that What_Wikipedia_is_not. A small minority should not be used to hold up improving the content. Fell Gleaming talk 14:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Your assertion of consensus is spurious; indeed, tendentious. We have two very closely linked concepts; and a number of the keep votes at the AFD were explcitly conditioned on including both meanings. As for A small minority should not be used to hold up improving the content - this appears entirely spurious. Who is preventing you improving what? William M. Connolley (talk) 14:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please stop casting aspersions. We have essentially unanimous consent that this article encompasses two different concepts.  We also have a small minority who, though they admit the problem, don't want to move forward by separating the content.  There is 'already another article on Al Gore's effect on environmental issues.  This is clearly content forking, into an article where it doesn't belong.  Fell Gleaming talk  14:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with WMC, both on content and that no one can in good faith claim consensus on any point here. You say above everyone agrees that these uses are "entirely different subjects."  I disagree completely; I have said rather that they are heavily related and that to cover one while ignoring the other is likely a WP:BLP violation.  I may disagree with WMC a bit in that I think this could be mentioned in Al Gore and the environment, and then that this should be considered a break off of that article (given that both uses are directly within the scope of that article, even if insignificant parts go beyond the scope).  This is basically what we have now, which is ok.  I'm less excited about different articles the more I think about it, since I think it would largely result in a POV fork and two overly de-contextualized articles. Mackan79 (talk) 21:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ...no one can in good faith claim consensus on any point here.
 * That's just not so, per WP:CONS...(emphasis mine)...
 * Consensus-building in talk pages


 * Limit talk page discussions to discussion of sources, article focus, and policy. The obligation on talk pages is to explain why an addition/change/removal improves the article, and hence the encyclopedia. Other considerations are secondary. This obligation applies to all editors: consensus can be assumed if editors stop responding to talk page discussions, and editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions.'''


 * Despite the existence of a designated (and still open) dispute resolution section, no proponents of the "same subject" assertion have seen fit to defend it. The consensus of contributing editors (by default) and by WP P&G is that the assertion is consensus rejected. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Please see Ignoratio elenchi (sometimes affectionately known as the Chewbacca defense). For us to discuss what amounts to a "subject", without that term having been defined in policy, is meaningless (as I also pointed out in your section). Editors have explained what they consider to be the relevant considerations; you're simply ignoring them.  If we want to get somewhere, I suggest we respond to each other rather than trying to insist that other views should be disregarded. Mackan79 (talk)

One article, at best. The topics are closely connected - they both deal with the same person (Al Gore) and his effect on the climate issue - on one hand, convincing people to change their behaviour, on the other hand, being mocked by the fringe as a way of undercutting that same influence. Same person, same issue. Therefore, same article. And, by the way, why is this "The Gore Effect"? Doesn't that violate the naming convention in more than one way? Guettarda (talk) 06:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

My core position remains that when a reader searches for "Gore Effect" they must be made aware of multiple meanings immediately. If there's a single-article approach, the multiple meanings should be present in the first one or two sentences. If there are multiple articles, it would be misleading to select any single meaning as being the "primary" article, so the current page should be moved to a new name and replaced by a disambiguation page that links to separate articles (or in-article anchors) for each meaning. - Pointillist (talk) 21:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

HAARP?
Has anyone considered that maybe the vast right-wing conspiracy is using HAARP (or something similar) to influence the weather to cast popular doubt on the scientific reality of global warming? 173.23.8.168 (talk) 15:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a chat forum. Is this comment somehow related to improving this article? Active Banana    (bananaphone  16:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If there is anything online about noteable speculation that neferious government factions are using HAARP to purposely alter the weather for the colder/nastier (winterier?) on days of global warming conferences, just to make Al Gore look like a fool and to discredit the reality of global warming in the minds of the masses, I intend to find it and to work it into the article somehow. I believe this would make it more exciting and interesting, even if it's only a single sentence. If this is allowable (and does NOT constitute the unpardonable sin of "chatting" on a TalkPage), I invite anyone and everyone else who has interest to assist in this as well.  Thank you. 173.23.8.168 (talk) 01:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the article would be improved some if it was more inclusive of some tie-in, even tangential, elements to this alleged phenomena, especially if it indeed is more than a statistical coincidence. Maybe if there were just some links to some kind of crazy site entertaining notions such as the above (the HAARP hypothesis), I believe the reader would be better served to see how this relates/connects to the "bigger picture" instead of just a detached, isolated, stand-alone subject.  Afterall, if everything were to be strictly on the straight and narrow, why does Wikipedia even allow any links at all? 173.23.8.168 (talk) 01:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

More on Jacbobsen
This story popped up on my screen today. Hard to say why today, and whether it's correct that Jacobsen is coming out with something more. It mentions a Time article from 2008 about whether films can change the world. From AOL:
 * He isn't the only one to test an Al Gore effect, however. The Pew Research Center for People & the Press, in a study that gauged the public's perception of the environment, found that from June to July of 2006, a period that overlapped with the film's showing, nine percent more Americans believed global warming was the result of human activity.

I was hoping he would mention the two "Gore effects" together, but no luck there. Mackan79 (talk) 22:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

How is the Fox effect related to this so-called "effect"?
How is the Fox effect related to this so-called "effect"? 99.112.212.240 (talk) 00:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Good question. It seems related to, but opposite, to Gore Effect, but it doesn't seem closely related.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Article title restoration - "The Gore Effect"
I petitioned for assistance in reverting an undiscussed article title change to "Gore Effect". The assistance rendered should not be interpreted as an expression of preference by the assisting editor. In the future, please address proposed article moves in talk before instituting them. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Requested move
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved to Gore Effect. Favonian (talk) 17:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The Gore Effect → Gore Effect – Per WP:THE, we should only use "the" in the title if it would be capitalised in running text. As can be seen by the article and the sources, that is not the case here. Jenks24 (talk) 16:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose I think the "the" is important here to denote that the topic is not a special effect/gore effect. aprock (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Neutral - While I'm rather ambivalent on the question, repeating my prior comment on this subject (which was never, to my best recollection, resolved), perhaps a WP comparative to a similar case provides the answer. "The Peter Principle" is designated "Peter Principle" in its Wiki treatment. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Change position in deference to whatever editorial consensus is arrived at. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - seems uncontroversial, per WP:THE. Aprock, I don't understand your !vote - do you want to elaborate? Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  08:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Gore effect, as in special effects and gore, relating to a gore film. aprock (talk) 08:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, OK. But doesn't the capitalisation clarify that? Also, is "gore effect" (referring to gore films) a common term? Jenks24 (talk) 08:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * All articles are capitalized. If you do a search for "gore effect" you get stuff about this article.  If you search for "gore effects" you get stuff about special effects and gore. aprock (talk) 15:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. I see what you mean now, but I don't think much confusion will be caused to horror fans, and would still rather the page be moved - the 'The' doesn't seem to be a part of the title to me. Incidentally, article titles are not routinely capitalised except for the first letter of the first word, which is a feature of the wiki software. Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  16:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Support per Jenks24 - the MOS is quite clear that articles should not start with "The" unless it is a fixed title such as a work of art. Any confusion with other meanings of "gore effect" is covered by the hatnote. 86.146.221.44 (talk) 14:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:UE. This isn't really even controversial.  — <span style="border:1px solid #000073;background:#4D4DA6;padding:2px;color:#F9FFFF;text-shadow:black 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em"> AjaxSmack   01:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Though I understand the opposers' rationale, the default rules still should apply here.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  04:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

A 2nd level aspect of the joke
In the current description of the Gore effect one aspect of the whole thing is omitted. One of the reasons that climate skeptics bring up the Gore effect is to provoke AGW advocates into an forthright denunciation that weather is not climate. This is a quite useful tool to be able to deploy at need since the AGW side seems to be just as likely to forget the fact during unseasonably warm or extreme weather. It is also the only serious purpose for the Gore effect that I have discovered. TMLutas (talk) 13:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As more scientists speak up (on both sides) rather than leaving it to politics, the 'Gore Effect' becomes more than a joke. Data is more important than models. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * A good article here. TNKS for info. I think the 'See also' link over to WP page/article 'Murphy's Law' is well placed. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Rettig and Jochen Mai
That book (published in Germany 2012 and highly listed at amazon and the Spiegel beststeller list) is refering to more than hundred psychological mechanisms and memes as e.g. the Fishpond-effect or the TINA-principle, including some pages about the Gore effect. Real world Sources stay existant, event if some WP author tries to erase them here. Crazy. Serten (talk) 21:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Why do we care about 'hundreds of psychological mechanisms' (and are these people experts? The books does not look in the least but scholarly). What do the TINA principle and Fishpond effect have to do with this? It looks like cruft. In addition, if you're going to revert my edits, please fix the spelling and grammar errors. Guettarda (talk) 21:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Those guys are authors and highly acknowledged journalists - as I mentioned at the RfD disc with an academic background and they define and describe the meme much more serious and list and compare it with the other phenomena. The book is as much, resp even much more scholarly as the Politico article, the tacit knowledge scholarly background btw. is synchronicity as defined by C.G.Jung with a little help from fellow austrian Wolfgang Pauli. Maybe i dont suffer fools "errots" gladly, but if your judging a book that went viral on the spiegel Sachbuchbestsellerliste just by looking on the pics on amazon, youre completely out of sync. Neither is Martenstein a "just more of the examples of usage". You might find "errots" in my spelling, but your understanding of those sources is limited and strongly biased, frankly nonexistant. Serten (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The book might be a great source, but you haven't used it in the article, you have used the article to write about - and promote - the book. Sources should be used to enhance articles, not the other way around. Guettarda (talk) 22:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Goodness. I am bad. Rettig is not a weather forecaster, but an Expert in "Alltagsdenken", he's working on folklore/Alltagspsychologie in the scholarly sense. That means his listing of the Gore effect with TINA et al has a genuine academic background, thats the use and thats as well what I edited. Were talking about a Web meme, and not digging into climatism. Thats said, your point about cruft shows nothing more than your ignorance. Another "errot", as I allow myself to quote you.  Serten (talk) 22:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I never said it was an unsuitable source. I said your addition was unsuitable. This article, bad as it is, is about the 'Gore effect'. Your addition was about the book. When we write articles, we use the content of a source to add relevant content to the article. Your badly-wrought addition tells us plenty about the book (by alleged experts who apparently lack bios in either the en or de Wikipedias) but they add nothing to this article. Please try to discuss the topic instead of lobbing insults my way. Guettarda (talk) 00:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hear here! And 'Gore Effect' has a capital 'E'. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thnx mighty teacher. ;) Serten (talk) 19:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Gore Effect. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.theglobeandmail.com/archives/article741856.ece

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 11:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello - this link is maybe today the best : http://www.medialens.org/23_fg_75_lc/viewtopic.php?p=8275&sid=3bbdfefd7fb86bc007836ffcae4c5839. You see a citation by Peter Scowen, Globe editorial writer. The article headline and more: AL GORE EFFECT, THE

According to urbandictionary.com, this is the phenomenon that leads to unseasonably cold temperatures, driving rain, hail, or snow whenever Al Gore visits an area to discuss global warming." It was spotted in New York City in 2004 and again in Australia last November, when his arrival there on his "Inconvenient Truth" tour was marked by an unexpected late-winter snowstorm.

It happened in Canada this year, sort of, when tickets to a Feb. 21 speech by Mr. Gore at the University of Toronto went on sale — on the coldest Feb. 7 on record for downtown Toronto. — Peter Scowen. .--Maxim Pouska (talk) 08:03, 2 December 2016 (UTC)


 * PS the full article by Peter Scowen you can only read if you subscribe to The Globe and Mail and pay some Dollars.--Maxim Pouska (talk) 08:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This is already fixed. Don't talk to a bot. It won't answer. ;-) --87.153.112.247 (talk) 19:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

A 3nd level aspect of the joke: Humor
The spokeswoman for Al Gore, Kalee Kreider told Erika Lovely: "As amusing as this little study sounds, we don’t think it should distract us from the reality." I think this is an important statement. It thus confirms the later reference of Harald Martenstein that humor plays a role in the interpretation of the slogan Gore Effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxim Pouska (talk • contribs) 03:31, 18 December 2016 (UTC) It is like you listen to an anecdote.--Maxim Pouska (talk) 03:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Martenstein
Why is he relevant? Do we really have to quote every member of the denial industry echo chamber repeating what the other members of the denial industry echo chamber say? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Harald Martenstein got a Kisch Prize and a WP entry. Are Berliner Tagesspiegel, Die Zeit, Süddeutsche Zeitung nowadays affiliated with the Koch Brothers? Any Reptilians behind it, or the Bilderbergers? Either provide about a link between Martenstein and the phenomen you call the denial industry or stop cliaiming that here. Polentarion Talk 22:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


 * What he writes is climate change denial, pure and simple. He does not even try to look at the facts, he just repeats the anecdotes he heard in the echo chamber. No research, just ignorant smirking. How is he a reliable source on that? --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)


 * You may have strong beliefs. But you better stop abusing other users here. And if you do not like someone, that is no reason to delete him from WP. As said, provide a source for your claim. Your POV is not being asked for. Polentarion Talk 23:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Please remember that you recently tried to get the admins to punish me for disagreeing with you and calling your lies for what they were. You failed because everybody could see that you were indeed lying, as I said. I, on the other hand, have not tried to get anybody blocked, much less "deleted". --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Hallo Hob can you please understand that the Die Zeit is a "reliable source". You and some other are just trying to delete the Gore-Effekt article in WP:de - and all of you are hating this man. Info for readers - at WP:de is now the same fighting like here back in 2009 and 2010.--Maxim Pouska (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Errata: Hob and others stubbed the deWP Gore effect, then failed with a further afD attempt and AfD appelation (Löschprüfung). Talk page and article were semiblocked after some IPs and sockpuppets had turned up. Hob and his new friends went about a dozen times to the german admin board, trying to block anybody not in line with the posse, to no avail. He won't understand that a journalist is neither a scientist nor under his command nor in need to follow Hobs interpretation of WP-rules. Polentarion Talk 00:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "Hob and his new friends went about a dozen times to the german admin board, trying to block anybody" This is a lie. I haven't tried to get anybody blocked for years. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * See Verifiability. Martenstein adds nothing that is not already in other sources in English. Never mind what I want, you should just start to abide by the rules. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * You started with libellous claims, without any source nor proof till now but various further baseless accusations in between. Let us close the section and ignore it. The Martenstein article shows international interest in the phenomenom. Polentarion Talk 18:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "Let us close the section and ignore it" Let's not. International interest is not as interesting as you think. There is nothing new in what Martenstein actually says: it's just the same superstitious nonsense as what the superstitious folk in the English-language sources say. Oooo - black cat is unlucky. Oooo - Al Gore brings bad weather. The logic does not get better in translation, and the rules page I linked is pretty clear. --Hob Gadling (talk) 23:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * You aint serious. Humour. Synchronicity. Ever heard of? Polentarion Talk 21:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Since no serious reasons in favour of the source are forthcoming, I will now delete it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, OK just start an edit war - your reason is you don't like him because he is just a journalist. hey - this is like censoring free speech.--Maxim Pouska (talk) 20:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You are lying. You just invent reasons because you do not have any real reasons. "Censoring free speech" is bullshit and you know it. You are free to praise Martenstein or whoever you want, wherever you want - but if you want him quoted in an encyclopedia article you have to give real reasons why you want that. By your reasoning, removing some IP's "FUCK YOU ALL" from an article is "censoring free speech".
 * Of course I will not remove it again, because I am not like you. I will give you another chance to give a reason that trumps Verifiability. If you cannot, I will remove the unnecessary quote again. --Hob Gadling (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * It was included by consens long time ago. If you like to remove it now you have to achieve consensus.--Maxim Pouska (talk) 04:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes it is relevand because of the humor in his article. Like in a text from New Zealand in 2013. Also humor is a point in this text: "However, for several years now, global warming sceptics, those not entirely convinced by the latest scare, have noted with amusement a phenomenon known as 'The Gore Effect'. " .--Maxim Pouska (talk) 04:29, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "It was included by consens long time ago."
 * This is not true. One user was in favor and one was against it but stopped arguing for some reason. One person is not a consensus.
 * It is true that this was six years ago but that does not matter. Antiquity does not override a rule.
 * "it is relevand because [stuff]"
 * The other links already do this, and the foreign-language text adds nothing new. According to the rules page I linked twice, "English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance".
 * Again, you failed to give a valid reason why the source should stay. Do you want another chance to think up a good reason for your desire to keep the source? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:52, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Synthesis of primary source material
Wikipedia articles are supposed to report what primary sources say. Not only does this article rely overly on primary sources, it also uses them to demonstrate usage, which is a clear violation of SYNTH. Guettarda (talk) 17:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, with respect to this: the article is making factual claims about weather. It's inappropriate to use an op-ed (by a non-expert) to support claims like this. Guettarda (talk) 18:05, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yet another very good reason to throw out the source. And still not a shred of good reasons for it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:43, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are absolutely right. --87.153.118.180 (talk) 18:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)