Talk:Gore effect/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Unreliable refs used as sources on temperature

In this revert, Marknutley writes "coldest days in the citys history per ref." The refs used are a Washington Times editorial, which makes an error about snowfall in the paragraph following, writing "In October 2008 London saw the first snow since 1922." Disregarding the pathetically bad phrasing, it was actually the first October snow since 1934. There is no reason to use this questionable source for a statement about temperature

The second source used was an Ottawa Citizen column, which, shocker of shockers, leads with "Snow fell on London this last week, a beautiful blanket of snow -- the first to fall in the month of October since the year of grace 1922." This leads me to be even more certain that we need to be very, very careful about using these columns and editorials for historical weather facts. Hipocrite (talk) 15:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

And you are of course wrong, the ref says The Gore Effect was first noticed during a January 2004 global warming rally in New York City, held during one of the coldest days in the city's history. How exactly is that inaccurate for this? January 15, 2004 – A global warming rally was held in New York City on a cold day.[13][17] please self revert mark nutley (talk) 16:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Those sources are not reliable sources on temperature records. They lack a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, given that the self-same articles failed to fact check and be accurate. Hipocrite (talk) 16:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

That`s a load of bollocks, they are not giving any tempertures the yare saying it was one of the coldest days in the city`s history. Do you have a source saying it was not one of the coldest days in the city`s history? mark nutley (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source saying it was? Looking at the temperature measurements and what not, it appears that the temperature min that day in central park was 1 degree above 0 F, which wasn't even the coldest temperature over the preceding 10 years. Seems cold, but not even close to "coldest." The coldest day on record appears to be Feb 9, 1934, at -15 F, which is over an two Std. Dev more irregular than the purported "one of the coldest days in the city`s history." By the way? The proposed "one of the coldest days in the city`s history," doesn't even appear on the list of "coldest days in the city`s history," at [2]. So no, your sources are not reliable. Hipocrite (talk) 17:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Dunno were your looking but the temps for jan 15 04 in NYC 15 -11.2 -8 -14 1010.4 62 3.81 9.5 15.9 29.4 48.2 so the minimum temp on that day was -15. Which matchs the record you posted mark nutley (talk) 17:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Celcius is very different than Farenheight. Hipocrite (talk) 17:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

That is not an answer now is it, also the site you linked to is not reliable as it is not updated regularly Updated March 12, 2009 mark nutley (talk) 17:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Also At Syracuse Airport in New York State the wind chill fell to -22C and here the wind was particularly punchy

First, it is an answer. -15d farenheight = -26 degrees celcius. Using your page, how could the third coldest day of the month be one of the coldest days ever? It's just not true. Further, what leads you to believe that a relaible site about temperature records (which the NOAA is) needs to be updated? It's about historical records. Finally, Syracuse is 200 miles from new york city. Stop digging, Mark. Hipocrite (talk) 17:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

PS: The temperature in NYC didn't go below 0 F in the winter of 2009-2010. No need to update the list of days the temperature went below 0 F. Hipocrite (talk) 17:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

New York City, Syracuse, N.Y., Binghamton, N.Y., and Worcester, Mass., each had the second-coldest January in the past 50 years I believe Cornell is a reliable source mark nutley (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

January is a month. January 15th is a day. You do see the difference there, right? Hipocrite (talk) 17:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes because of course the temps shot up on the 15 while the rest of the month remained the second-coldest January in the past 50 years try again. This source backs the article source so just admit your wrong and self revert mark nutley (talk) 17:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

And of course "The frigid temperatures of January have tied it for the seventh coldest January in the weather history of Central Park. Now just give it up admit your wrong and selfrevert mark nutley (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Mark, you're a piece of work. So far, your evidence for Jan 15, 2004 having been among the coldest days on record is: 1. Some op-eds that got other facts totally wrong. 2. A mis-read temperature chart (celsisus vs farenheight) 3. Your allegation that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration page listing the days below 0f isn't reliable because it hasn't been updated since the last day that was below 0f. 5. The temperature of something 200 miles away from what we're discussing, and 6. The fact that the month that the day in question was in had an average temperature that was very low. My evidence that Jan 15, 2004 was not among the coldest days on record is a reliable list of the coldest days on record that lists only days colder than Jan 15, 2004, and the fact that one of your sources lists 2 other days in the same month that were colder than Jan 15, 2004. Let's make a friendly wager - how many days would need to be colder than Jan 15, 2004 for it not to be the among the coldest days on record, in your opinion? Hipocrite (talk) 17:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Marknutley do you have any reliable sources that discuss the use of the term? (By reliable I mean newspaper articles or academic papers, not editorials in the Washington Times.) TFD (talk) 17:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Mark, this is simply solved. Stop using opinion pieces for statements of fact. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

AQFK it is not solved at all, Hipocrite your a piece of work, you totally ignore Cornell [3] saying New York City, had the second-coldest January in the past 50 years and NOAA saying this January has been 24.7 degrees—tying it for seventh place on the list for the coldest January in 27 years Now both of these are reliable refs, and they back the article ref now self revert as you are plainly wrong mark nutley (talk) 18:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Mark, what leads you to believe that since the average temperature in January was cold, the temperature on January 15 was very, very, very cold? Is it somehow obvious? I refer to the temperature on Jan 4, 2004. Do you believe Jan 4 was warm? cold? Very, very, cold? Colder or warmer than Jan 15? How about Jan 10? Was Jan 10, 2004 "one of the coldest days in the city's history?" Why or why not? How about Jan 16, 2004? How about 1/19/94, 1/21/85, 1/25/80, 1/17/77, 1/23/76, 1/9/68, 2/8/63, 2/2/61, 2/15/43? How many "one of the coldest days in the city's history" are there, exactly? How many of them are warmer than Jan 15, 2004? Hipocrite (talk) 18:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You still need a reliable source connecting the weather to Al Gore. Do you have a source for example that says whenever Al Gore speaks about global warming the weather is colder than normal. Since he has spoken hundreds of times, how significant is it that on two or three occassions when he spoke during the winter it was cold outside? What we need is a paper by anti-global warming scientists who use linear regression analysis to find the relation between Al Gore speaking and the relative weather, and develop a confidence level. Do you know if any such studies have been conducted? TFD (talk) 18:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Unless I missed something, the Cornell article doesn't mention the temperature in New York City for January 15, 2004. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You didn't. Mark's current line of reasoning is A. Jan 2004 was really cold in NYC, therefore B. Jan 15, 2004 was one of the coldest days ever in NYC. Hipocrite (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Mark, it doesn't matter if what you're saying is true. All that matters is whether it's verifiable. Your first source is an opinion piece and you can't use opinion piece for statements of fact, and you can't use your second source because it doesn't say anything about January 15, 2004. In short, you have no sources to support your change. Either find a bona fide reliable source to support your change or just drop it already. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Get real, two sources saying it is the coldest january in years and you guys think the temps managed to shoot up for one day? @TFD what are you on about i need a RS linking the weather to al gore? It`s a joke for gods sake based on the coincidence of bad weather during global warming events mark nutley (talk) 19:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Either find a source the explicitly states what you want it to say or drop it. You're wasting everyone's time. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Like your not wasting mine with this pathetic charade? Drudge Report New York Times the weekend also experienced record cold New York Times Then came the wind and hyper-chill that sent nighttime temperatures plunging toward record lows. New York Times mark nutley (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Marknutley, the term "was... used... suggesting a relationship between severe cold weather phenomena and Gore's appearances at global warming associated events". Obviously it does not make any sense if there is no connection, and if there is a connection could you please provide a reliable source for it. TFD (talk) 19:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, now was that so hard? I'm not sure about the Drudge Report, but the NYT articles are reliable for the temperature. I'm not sure they support "which suffered one of the city's coldest days in the city's history" but you can probably say, "A global warming rally was held in New York City at a time where it was so cold, the National Weather Service issued a wind chill warning and schools were forced to close" or something like that. That said, TFD has raised the issue of WP:SYN (I think) so you'll have to address that. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The above specifically is a classic synthesis (combining elements from references - where no reference is stating it):

• source A which is about Gore effect says that C (date) had record cold [which is false]
• source B which is not about Gore effect says C (date) had record wind chill [which is probably correct]
• =(synthesis)=> C had record windchill which is the Gore effect.

About as classic a synthesis as is possible --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm...you may be right. Let me digest that for a bit. Thanks, Kim. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't that there's an issue with WP:SYN since we have sources which have connected Gore to the weather. In fact, this article wouldn't exist if there weren't already sources connecting Gore to the weather. Of course, you probably need a source to connect Gore to the weather on this articular day, but I think the opinion piece should suffice since you're not using it as a statement of fact, only to show that someone else has made the connection.

Assuming my analysis about WP:SYN is correct, the next objection that I would anticipate is WP:WEIGHT. The argument would go something like this: if no independent, third-party reliable sources have covered the Gore Effect for this particular instance, you are giving WP:UNDUE by mentioning it here.

Before I add any content to Wikipedia, particularly to a contentious topic area such as this, I try to anticipate in advance what objections I am likely to encounter and make sure that I am fully abiding by WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP and WP:RS. If I'm not sure I'm correctly following those policies, I won't even think about adding the content. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no syn here, the refs used above are there only to prove that it was indeed one of the coldest days in new york city per the article ref which hipocrite has changed, and heres another

Central New York's coldest day in eight years brought life to a frozen halt in parts of the region Wednesday as schools closed, cars jammed up on slick highways and others never made it out of their driveway. Why i have to go to all this trouble just to show it was unusally cold on the 15/01/04 is fucking stupid. The ref was fine for what was written and this is just plain disruptive behaviour mark nutley (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

"Central New York" is hundreds of miles from New York City. Hipocrite (talk) 22:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

New York City matched an 1893 record low for the day at minus 1 degree, according to the National Weather Service. The temperature was expected to rise to 18, but with a wind chill still below zeroCBS News

I think that Hipocrite is objecting to the claim that it was a "record" cold day and I can't say that I blame him. "Unusually" cold day might be acceptable. Hipocrite, do you have any objections if Mark change was "A global warming rally was held in New York City on an unusually cold day."? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I don`t care what he is objecting to he is wrong and needs to self revert. In New York, the record low temperature for Central Park was 1 above zero, tying the record set in 1893, the National Weather Service reported [4] mark nutley (talk) 22:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Which is a day after the event. (Friday was the 16th 2004) - the event was held on WednesdayThursday (according to your own ref below[5]). You are getting deeper and deeper into nonsense. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)corrected Wed => Thur, apparently the columnist was writing this on the 15th but for an audience on the 16th (thus the "yesterday") --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

And another from The Washington Times Former Vice President Al Gore delivered a speech on the theory of global warming yesterday, the coldest day in New York City in decades[6] full article mark nutley (talk) 22:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Another Opinion article - which is what you should avoid for factual information (btw. isn't this the same person). We know this information is wrong - since we know that there are at least 1 date within a decade that was colder, at least 2 within 2 decades, and at least 5 dates within 3 decades that were colder.[7] (since they were below 0°F) - we also know that the 1°F information is wrong[8]. Doh! --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Nb. according to the station data (station 305801) it was 9°F on Wednesday, 2°F on Thursday and 1°F on Friday (the above record) [9] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

This is an article about political satyre in form of a repeated urban legend. Its no use at all to do any sort of measurements or god beware ask for peer reveiewed material. Just not that the "coldest day on record was an alleged one, thats all need here. --Polentario (talk) 00:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

For christs sake, all the refs i have posted here say much the same thing, and that is it was one of the coldest days in NYC for ages. This proves the content in the article was correct and as hipocrite is not going to admit he was wrong and self revert then i`ll have to do it for him, absolutely pathetic mark nutley (talk) 07:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Housekeeping

If I might interject some housekeeping, why are these 2 identical talk sections not combined? The genesis of identical sections with identical OP's was apparently an error. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

True. But this area is so contentious that editing others' comments in any way potentially exposes one to sanctions, even to correct obvious errors such as this. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

(refactor)JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Misrepresenting the sources.

I have noticed that there have been a lot of edits that seem to be misrepresenting what the sources actually say on the basis that some element of the statement is not up to the standard of scientific fact. This is misguided in my opinion. These are examples of satirical humor not statements of scientific fact.

I have put the article back to a place which appears much better to me and clarified that these are examples of satirical humor.

Are there any rules here about misrepresenting what the sources actually say? --Rush's Algore (talk) 20:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

"Misrepresenting what the sources actually say" Please provide examples. Active Banana (talk) 20:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite seems to be addressing my concern by attributing the statements to who made them which seems fair enough to me. I was concerned that by treating these satirical examples as statements of scientific fact they were being changed to the point where the humor was being lost in my opinion. I think that this then misrepresents the sources both in terms of the actual text that is used (e.g. changing something like "one of the coldest days in history" to "a cold day") but also the emphasis that the source was making as part of the satirical humor. --Rush's Algore (talk) 21:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Its not really our job to make wanna-be commedians look more funny than they actually are. Active Banana (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

No but it is our job to use what the ref`s say, not what we want them to say mark nutley (talk) 22:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

At this point it's clear that "New User" Rush's Algore is just going to distort this article using cherry picked facts ("It was the coldest day ever.. wait, it was tied with the coldest January 16th ever!"). I've tagged the article based on this persistant problem and am now walking away. Hipocrite (talk) 00:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Um, I'm not sure what to say to this. You seemed to be adding unrelated material in an attempt to discredit the claims being made. All I did was find comparable unrelated material in an attempt to balance your material and demonstrate that the claims weren't merely a bunch of hot air. As I said below, all this unrelated material should probably just be left out which brings things back to where they began. I don't like the way the article has progressed much at this point. I think the examples should go back to the former list structure so as to highlight the individual instances. --Rush's Algore (talk) 03:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have thought about this and I owe Hipocrite a bit of an apology for this edit:

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=The_Gore_Effect&diff=367516709&oldid=367509887

In retrospect they make a valid point about the difference between being tied for the coldest January 15 ever and being one of the coldest days in the cities history ever. A more balanced version of the edit above would have left Hipocrite's point as well, so something to the effect of "While January 15 was tied with the record low for that day, even that does not technically qualify as being one of the coldest days in the city's history." while leaving both references in tact would have been better.

The point is now moot, however, as all of these additions have been removed as "SYN" and apparently properly so now that I have been made aware of that policy. Either way I wanted to publicly acknowledge my faux pas. --Rush's Algore (talk) 02:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Gore effect

There are at least four distinct uses of the phrase "Gore effect" - five if you count special effects.

• The effect that Gore had on Clinton's candidacy, both in terms of balancing the "character" issue, and as a source of cred with environmentalists. Largely pre-internet, poorly documented by Google searches; largely 1992 vintage
• The effect Gore had on Democrats by speaking up against Bush's wars.
• The effect the An Inconvenient Truth had
• This slur/joke/fallacious argument

If you look at coverage by reliable sources, this is probably the least notable. The only real third-party coverage of it is coverage calling the Lovely post horrible journalism.

We don't write articles about multiple topics. At the very least, we need some way of distinguishing which of these we're talking about, and then stick to that one. Guettarda (talk) 20:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

"this is probably the least notable." Second this motion. (and there are six uses - "gore effect" is some type of descriptor applied to women's fashions in the early-mid 1900's [10]) Active Banana (talk) 20:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that this article does a good job of distinguishing between them and picking one. Can you find citations for the other uses?--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. If there are other uses of the term they should be covered as well. --Rush's Algore (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The term the "gore effect" has also been applied to computer gaming, where "objects that have been shot down... change into flying body parts, blood and other gore". This tecnique was pioneered in Wolfenstein 3D.[11] TFD (talk) 21:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

[12] At least 4 or 5 of these sources from the 90's are talking about Al "Gore Effect"s having nothing to do with either of the "Gore Effect"s currently mentioned in the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Active Banana (talk • contribs) 12 June 2010

Off topic facts?

I see that Hipocrite is not only addressing my concern about misrepresenting the actual source content, but he seems to be trying to somehow rebut these satirical statements by introducing extraneous material that is not directly related to the topic of this article. I think that this material distracts from the existing presentation of the topic.

Are there any rules about going out and finding material that is unrelated to the article topic and adding it in for no direct purpose?

I have been reading through the tutorial that Guettarda quite helpfully placed on my talk page. On the tab covering citing sources there is a hyperlink to the policy on verifiability which has a see also section that points to this essay:

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Core_content_policies

There is a section in there about not doing any original research. Would this apply to the type of thing Hipocrite is doing to the examples in the section "Events described as instances of the Gore Effect"? --Rush's Algore (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above seems to indicate that there is some controversy on this point. Until the matter is resolved I will simply follow Hipocrite's lead and correct things as necessary using additional sources. If this type of editing is determined to be inappropriate we can remove my edits of this nature at that time along with Hipocrite's. --Rush's Algore (talk) 22:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

October 2009:

One of the facts introduced by Hipocrite relies on this source:

http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KMSN/2009/10/9/DailyHistory.html?req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA

which assumes both Madison, Wisconsin and October 9, 2009 as the appropriate place and date. Since the supplied source does not appear to be available on-line (or my Googling skills are sub-par which is definitely a possibility) I would like to know how Hipocrite determined that these were the appropriate parameters. Can you please provide an explanation? --Rush's Algore (talk) 23:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Seriously?

This is a silly article about a silly topic. Are we seriously disputing the POV? Anyway, Hipocrite, I don't believe you're supposed to tag and article and then walk away. You're supposed to stick around work out the POV issues. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what the dispute is about, but I did a quick skim of the article and toned down the language a bit. Hopefully, this helps. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

What is an appropriate NPOV approach to an article on what is essentially a satirical, POV motivated concept that has a demonstrable foothold in pop culture? I'd venture that most offerings thus far sound very much like carping or barking at the moon. JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Same thing as every other article. We're supposed to report back what reliable sources are saying about a topic without introducing our own bias into the mix. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Removed apparent OR

I've removed the following sentence from the article: "Published opinion on the "Gore Effect" concept has been predictably split." because it was unsourced. If there's a source for this statement, then by all means add it back in the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I was going to add a {fact} tag at first, but then it seemed to me to be unlikely that anyone's done that type of analysis on this silly topic. Of course, I could be wrong. This is a new article. There's no excuse for items not being sourced. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Random quote that has nothing to do with article's topic?

While I agree that this quote is sourced and is in the cited article, I have no idea what it has to do with this topic:[13]

D’Aleo. "We used to kid in forecasting that whenever we were very certain about a major forecast, it would wind up being so dead wrong that we’d be embarrassed. It certainly makes you think." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Removed and Grinch inserted instead. --Polentario (talk) 01:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

ClimateAudit is not a reliable source and I'm not sure what it has to do with this article's topic. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm are we talking about a blosphere phenomenom or not? Just try to read the sentence before. Same applies for the Tweed - a tweed itself neither a blog is a reliable source, however a tweed leading to several newspaper articles is a different story --Polentario (talk) 01:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I prefer to use third-party reliable sources and avoid opinion pieces unless that particular opinion has been referenced a third-party reliable source, in which case, I still reference the third~party source. I won't revert you but I wouldn't have added that edit either. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm a blog starting a controversy is mentionable - try Carrie Prejean for a start. --Polentario (talk) 02:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course blogs start controversies all the time but we are not here to be part of the echo chamber. Active Banana (talk) 02:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Nope. If such a gossip makes it into the Echo chamber without us or has an international echo in reliable sources, it can be mentioned. Thats the case. --Polentario (talk) 02:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

So what reliable source is talking about that comment? Active Banana (talk) 02:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I checked again your allegations. William the Conqueror might have ruled out to mention Climateaudit and to insert Realclimate as reliable source (ooough!) however National_Review#National_Review_Online got an entry as a reasonable conservative voice. PS I cut down on two thirds of the list items and inserted "Some alleged coincidences are either vague or plain hoaxes", waht you want - protect Al Gores right to hide his twitter blunders? Please ... --Polentario (talk) 03:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPA please. I want solid reliable third party sources about the topic of the article.Active Banana (talk) 04:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

"Coincidental"

Just a thought: To say any of this is "coincidental" implies that any of it was in some way unlikely. But at a basic level, how easy would it be to pick out one environmentalist who speaks at a lot of events who will have spoken on a lot of days when it was cold? We go by the reliable sources, of course, if this article is kept, but I think for this reason it is very unlikely that anyone but proponents of the phrase will call any of this "coincidental," and for the same reason that we would not ourselves use that term. Something at least to be aware of. Mackan79 (talk) 03:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Btw Wolfgang Pauli was quite into Jungs Synchronicity. Since were talking about an omnipresent millionaire, the coincidences with his speeches are rather likely. Its getting more intersting, when Gore is away :) --Polentario (talk) 03:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Media Matters

I would like to better understand why information unrelated to the article's topic in Media Matters is being allowed to remain in the article while other unrelated information has been deleted as "SYN" which for all the world appears to be just as relevant to the topic at hand? Why are two standards being applied? --Rush's Algore (talk) 04:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Some are gone because they jumped out at me as being the worst of the bad. I will take a look at Media Matters. Active Banana (talk) 04:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I assume this is the correct link http://mediamatters.org/research/200912180013 for that source. --Rush's Algore (talk) 04:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

If that was the source, it does not directly address the Gore Effect, nor any of the sources that are currently in the article, so it does also appear to be WP:SYN. Although if Hannity or Limbaugh or any of the others specifically identified used "Gore Effect" in those broadcasts, then it would be appropriate- IF Media Matters is taken to be a reliable source. But considering what low bar has been set for this article, it appears to be no worse than many of the others.Active Banana (talk) 04:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Lima

So, Cla68 added "May 2008 - Gore delivers a speech at a climate change conference in Lima, Peru" - Not in source given. He also adds "unseasonable." Also, not in source given. I guess fabricating things is not a problem? Hipocrite (talk) 04:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Not sure why you call it fabrication, but that aside, it's hard to find good information on this. I see a "Joint Communique" for a May 2008 conference in Lima involving the Council of the European Union.[14] It seems to address environmental issues, but probably could not accurately be described as a "climate change conference." I don't yet see if Gore participated to any extent, though that seems to be implied by the source Cla68 provided. I also see a report of a cold snap in Peru killing 70 children in July 2007, though of course not being in May that wouldn't seem to be the right one. I will say that much with these claims strikes me as lacking basic credibility for use in an encyclopedia article. Mackan79 (talk) 05:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess fabricating things is not a problem?

It can happen (and probably often does) when paraphrasing content. The provision of the citation is there for that reason and suggests a good-faith edit. Your ad hominem is both unwarranted and inciteful.

I substituted the original text with a quote that is representative of the source. JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

To clarify my bit of research, this source seems to suggest the 2008 summit focused on environmental issues including climate change, but I can't find anything about Al Gore being there. For my part I strongly suspect the majority of this is nonsense made up by people who did not intend to be taken seriously on their facts. Mackan79 (talk) 06:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

...this is nonsense made up by people who did not intend to be taken seriously on their facts.

Perhaps the understatement of the day...as they do not intend to be taken seriously on their premise. JakeInJoisey (talk) 06:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, maybe. If this were all to satirize people who claim every unusual weather event is proof or a result of global warming, then sure, touche. When people say it's evidence of God's sense of humor, though, it doesn't quite fit that joke. Are there reliable sources for the first idea? All the same, my thoughts are 1.) I'm not seeing how that kind of joke justifies an article where it isn't even explained, and 2.) in that case all statements of fact at least need to be carefully attributed and not presented as if we accept them at face value. The problem with our presentation (a lot of "background," not much else) is that is looks a lot like we're telling the joke rather than reporting on it. Mackan79 (talk) 07:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I am confused about the use of the term "effect", which implies causality, the theory that there is a relationship between an event (the cause) and a second event (the effect). Are they implying that Gore's speaking has an effect on the weather and if so is there any theory to explain it? Is it a physical or supernatural cause, or is the implication that causation is a myth? Could someone please provide a source where this is explained. TFD (talk) 07:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess you may need to read other similar cases like Murphy's law . --BozMo talk 07:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I concur that "causality" is appropriate and have added it. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Have you read the Wikipedia articles on the rhetorical techniques known as satire and irony? If not those would be a good place to start. If so then you simply seem to be incapable of getting "it" and I doubt that we will be able to explain "it" to you any better. --Rush's Algore (talk) 08:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Martenstein can be used as source for aligning Climatic corpses in Peru and the Gore effect. --Polentario (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

You guys know that gore does not actually have to be in a place right? Any climate change rally were the weather turns bad is attributed to the gore effect that`s kinda part of the joke mark nutley (talk) 14:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you cite specific sources that might broaden the definition? JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Broaden it how? As in gore does not need to be there for an unusal weather effect to be dubbed the gore effect? Look at the england ref, parliment debating a bill for global warming and london gets wacked by snow. Gore was not there, the whole joke is that bad weather happens at global warming events, look at the SA ref below gore was not there but the bad weather happened during a GW event so it naturally was blamed on the gore effect mark nutley (talk) 14:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The German community allowed me to use as well blogs and grey sources, since they accepted a general (including serious media) accepted character of a web phenomenen, comparably to Lolcat. We have e.g. as well [Salt lake City included, which doesnt talk at all about Gore. I assume we dont have so much problems, since a) the german WP funding is based partially on renewable resources subsidies, not on climate change nutters and b) the political divide is not so strong - Chancellor Merkel was responsible for Kyoto, not the greens and c) since we already have Pope and Margot Kässmann together, we dont need another religion. Back to your question - I mean is a superb source for the remote Gore effect you been requesting. As well the line about the dangereous "Tipper" point is very revealing. --Polentario (talk) 14:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Look at the england ref, parliment debating a bill for global warming and london gets wacked by snow. Gore was not there...

Thanks. I'm focusing on the introductory, defining text and your observation appears to be a valid one. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I did a smaller change to have a more generic view being possible. Try http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1869/Climate-Depot-Factsheet-on-the-Gore-Effect-Phenomenon as the clssical blog and http://www.cnsnews.com/PUBLIC/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=44320 as a real Gore effect (not mentioning the AL) effecting Pelosi. While something like http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3625277/Nine-months-after-the-Roswell-Incident-Al-Gore-was-born.-It-might-not-be-a-coincidence.html is accepted content in the de:Al Gore, we probably come into muddy waters here. :) Polentario (talk) 15:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Live Earth Litany

Would someone be so kind as to add this to the article.

Attendance at the the Live Earth concert in Johannesburg was low due to unseasonably cold weather and the first snowfall in 25 years, Les Jones of Rock Stars Against Live Earth said "The most likely cause of the cold weather? The Gore Effect, in which a visit by Al Gore to raise awareness of global warming causes cold." When Gore was going to testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on global climate change a Winter Weather Advisory was issued

I like the advertisements for cheap ammunition on Les Jones's blog site. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Reasonably priced ammo is always good. However the ref is from the new york times mark nutley (talk) 13:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Just for clarification (and being unfamiliar with the CC issue or its personalities), is Tobin Harshaw deemed to be in either CC camp or is he an independent observer? JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

No idea is he is warmist or sceptic. Looking at his column i reckon he likes to have a pop at everything :) But the sources are reliable right? mark nutley (talk) 14:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I was asking because of the recently added text citing Lovely's attribution of use as being restricted to "global warming skeptics".

As to their RS status, IMHO they are...but I'm not sure that editing by "talk proxy" is Wikipedia kosher. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

For me it is, i am under a restriction from adding content to an article unless the ref`s have been looked over by anther editor :) mark nutley (talk) 15:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

...unless the ref`s have been looked over by anther editor...

Then perhaps I'll yield the floor on that point for any further observations. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Na you say they are RS that`s good enough, i mean i know the yare but still need someone to give me the nod :) Thanks mark nutley (talk) 15:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

My edits above have again been removed from the article, would someone please explain why these two reliable sources keep getting removed? mark nutley (talk) 17:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Access to paid archive sources?

Does anyone have access to the following two sources to verify how "Gore Effect" is used? They came up in my google news search but the term is not in the free portion. Thanks! Active Banana (talk) 17:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• Hotels hop on the 'green' bandwagon Chicago Tribune Jul 22, 2007
• S.A. drivers could save cash by sharing cars and shaving costs San Antonio News Express August 16, 2008

I believe Cla68 has access to infotrac, ask him and i`m sure he will help you out mark nutley (talk) 17:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

It is important that every single source be meticulously verified, as I have found numerous misused sources so far. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Misused in what way Boris? I am fairly certain all the edits i have done were accurate quotes of the sources mark nutley (talk) 18:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say the edits were yours, but examples of references that don't support the attached text include [15][16][17] Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• Free version: "Hotels hop on the green bandwagon

--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!Active Banana (talk) 16:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The article seems to be a reprint (or the original) of the same content already referenced to the St Paul Pioneer Press. Active Banana (talk) 16:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Timeline

As ealry as 2004, Gore was critized as talking hot air in cold weather due to the 2004 ralley. I wonder wether the Gore effects of 2006 are to be seen as two sides of one medal. I doubt the positive effect is elder. --Polentario (talk) 17:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I had not looked at the dates of the sources, you are indeed correct. Active Banana (talk) 18:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

A little beside the point - the "positive" effect has been covered in the scholarly literature. It's pretty clearly the dominant use outside the righting echo chamber. Guettarda (talk) 19:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

This article is starting to become incoherent/poorly written

Since last night, this article has taken a rather unfortunate turn. Several sentences are garbled and don't make sense. I have the nagging urge to revert the last 20 hours of changes so at least the article is readable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

"starting to"? Active Banana (talk) 20:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, this article has never been a model of clarity. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Is it in the scope of procedure or WP:IAR to stubify, lock it down, and then build back up only by consensus? Active Banana (talk) 20:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

If you try it, I suspect the results will be comparable to sticking your face in a blender and pressing "liquefy." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. I restored the last coherent version by Short Brigade Harvester Boris. No one panic. Everyone's changes are stored in the page history. Just re-integrate them back into the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Twitter.....??

Why on Earth was this reinserted?

* In April 2010 Al Gore posted a Twitter message quoting a NOAA source which stated that April 2010 had the lowest snow cover on record; a National Review Blog mentioned 2 to 5 inch snowfalls in Colorado and Wyoming shortly afterward.

It is referenced to a blog notice (and a Gore twitter) - its just about as unnotable as (well - words really fail). There is not a shred of reliable sourcing in this. I fail to see even a glimmer of rationale for having this in the article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

It works well as an example and shows that mistaking weather for climate happens of either side of the barricade. I recommand Strange bedfellows: how late-night comedy turns democracy into a joke from Russell Leslie Peterson as explanation of the background. Peterson sees singled out events like the Dean scream being used to decide about personal fates and political issues. The book refers to another Gore-effect - the notorious repetition of the Al-Gore-I-invented-the-Internet misquote by late night had contributed to a narrative about Gore-the-exaggerator. Polentario (talk) 22:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Since its not reliably sourced - and it hasn't been picked up in any reliable sources - its simply clutter. You are dipping into the deep end of WP:OR by doing examples that aren't given by reliable 2ndry sources. This is not an Essay where you can simply pick and choose whatever you want - its an encyclopedia. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Since when is the National Review Online not a reliable source? Especially to serve as an example of the use of the Gore Effect as satire. We have already determined that the claim is accurate: that Gore actually did tweet this and that the next day Colorado and Wyoming were hit with heavy snowfall. Reliable publisher plus confirmation of the claim seems sufficient to me. --Rush's Algore (talk) 01:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be forgetting that there is actually living persons involved in this "satire" - which means that the standard of reliability is rather extremely much higher than regularly (BLP) (btw. a blog note such as that one - is never reliable). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you mean to say that there is not a shred of third-party reliable sourcing in this. Both of those sources are absolutely reliable as sources about themselves per WP:SPS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

In fact, we even have a WP:TWITTER shortcut. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

A. its non-notable (no 2nrdry sourcing). B. This is a BLP subject. C. The combination of sources to show what editors want instead of what 2ndry sources tell - is WP:OR. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The blog post in the NRO specifically mentions Gore Effect, Gore's twitter, and the snowfall so I dont think that OR is involved here. However, the fact that we are relying on the primary source of the NRO blog post making thinly veiled attacks about the credibility of a living person is a very valid concern. We are in no way using the blog as a source for information about itself. Active Banana (talk) 05:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

OH WAIT - it doesnt mention snow, it mentions the PREDICTION of snow. Wow, just wow the suggested content for this article is just getting worse and worse. Active Banana (talk) 05:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Original research and questionable relevance...

This paragraph:

Roy Blunt and James Inhofe then started to use the coincidence to criticize Gore and his efforts against Global Warming. Michael Daly criticized this as a mere delight in noting coincidences between events relating to his favorite subject and severe winter weather."

Could someone explain to me:

• what the relevance of the text about Gore saying Bush is a "moral coward" is to "Gore effect"?
• where the Inhofe thing comes from (ie where is it referenced? And what is the relevance to "Gore effect")?
• And finally where the Daly part connects to the previous?

I'm cutting it for now, as WP:SYN and as unsourced WP:BLP material. (seem to be an attack of some kind). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, sorry for this - seems to have been looking at an old revision - but strangely enough it still exists in a somewhat cut down version - so all the questions are still relevant for the existing paragraph.... So please explain - because to my eyes this is still unsourced and with questionable relevance (WP:SYN) ... --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there any objection to returning the following sourced content to replace the final paragraph of the lead section? Active Banana (talk) 04:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Other uses of the term "Gore Effect" or "Al Gore Effect" relate to describe the impact of Gore's 2006 film, An Inconvenient Truth, on the climate change debate, and related topics such as socially responsible investing, organizations making themselves appear more "green", and individuals selecting jobs in sustainable fields.

No objections from me. Because strangely enough (as i also pointed out in the AfD) - this actually is reliably sourced - to real articles. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't go that far, but I would say the material here is at least as well sourced as the rest, and indeed that more on this usage could easily be written. Here we have a long series of projects attributed to the positive "Gore effect." The article here uses it to say Gore is the single individual to have most changed the tone of the global warming debate. The New York Times has this usage in September 2006 here, which predates any of the "joke" usages that I can see (one isolated use by Tim Howard in 2004 refers to the negative effect of Gore's endorsement of Howard Dean). If we do keep this article, it may suggest that the article should really start with discussion of this first usage, which for that matter seems to offer significantly more to discuss. (I hope we don't keep the article, and actually I agree with the comment that the lack of any codified usage should weigh against retaining an article.) Mackan79 (talk) 09:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Statements should not be sourced to eleven unreliable sources, but should be sourced to one reliable source. TFD (talk) 11:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Time line wise one has to assume that the "serious Gore effect" since 2006 is a reaction to the "climate gore effect" in the blogosphere and grassroot media where Gore and weather puns exist since 2004. The urban dictionary has the right version on top since 2007. Now if we explain a slang expression by only accepting the sunday school book sources you end like explaining Jelly Roll Morton nickname with a preference for "Cherry Rolls" and not with regard to the use or size of his dick.Polentario (talk) 11:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not at all sure how one could "assume" that the use of the phrase by nut jobs in the blog-o-sphere attempting to attack Gore's credibility could have in any way "inspired" a reaction by real journalists around the world to use that same phrase in a completely different manner. It is a case of parallel evolution at best. Active Banana (talk) 12:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Any sourcing for that.? Polentario (talk) 14:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I had no intention of putting my statement into the article. I am simply pointing out that looking at the facts, logically I see no basis for your assumption.Active Banana (talk) 15:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You're assuming that the blogosphere discussed your meaning first, without any evidence? Please find something about this meaning before September 2006 if you believe it was being discussed. This isn't a pun, but besides that it seems odd to assume a satirical meaning would have predated a non-satirical meaning. Mackan79 (talk) 21:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Martenstein

A Gloss of Harald Martenstein in the German weekly Die Zeit describes the effect as Gores personal climate disaster. According Martenstein, the effect is either based on a scientifically proven local cooling occuring in Gores neighborhood or as well based on Good having humour.[27] The general use of the expression is, according Martenstein only half ironic, since the purported coincidences happen to often to be left out.

Keeping in touch

At least Martenstein should be sourced correctly. A Glosse (compare Gloss) is (in german) a sort of op ed dedicated to explain a word or occurrence in a satirical way. Polentario (talk) 14:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Where/how does Martenstein fit in / relate? Active Banana (talk) 14:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

a) This article b) this topic c) its a clear proof of international feedback on the climatic gore effect. The format of Martensteins text is as said a Gloss. Its trying to explain the climate expression in a respected newspaper. Questions? Polentario (talk) 14:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Text: A Gloss of Harald Martenstein in the German weekly Die Zeit describes the effect as Gores personal climate disaster. According Martenstein, the effect is either based on a scientifically proven local cooling occuring in Gores neighborhood or as well based on Good having humour. The general use of the expression is, according Martenstein only half ironic, since the purported coincidences happen to often to be left out.Polentario (talk) 14:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyone making a claim of "scientifically proven local cooling occuring in Gores neighborhood " is WP:FRINGE [edit self per BLP] whose claims should not be allowed anywhere near a Wikipedia article. Active Banana (talk) 15:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

As said its a Gloss. Ever heard of Hyperbole or Rhetorical device? Second I introduced Links to Syncronicity and the Pauli effect with some reasoning behind. Al fine about the acronym bashing about sourcing here, but neither Schopenhauer (The World as Will and Representation) nor Fichte not Carl Gustav Jung would agree with the positivism of the most narrow minded kind as put forward here. Polentario (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a BLP subject

People seem to have forgotten. I've cut swaths of the article that were either completely unsourced - or unreliably sourced. Blogs are not acceptable unless they are covered under the BLP exceptions (expert clause) - and none of these are!

The worst example i cut is covered above in #Original research and questionable relevance.... As well as the this - which is completely inexcusable under BLP. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Is it really? Please explain how? After quickly reviewing the policy you point to I don't understand how it is applicable here, and especially for the twitter content you keep removing. As I asked on my talk page, please explain how an accurate statement that Gore sent a specific tweet (which we know is true) violates BLP in any way. Please also explain how an accurate statement referencing an act of mother nature the following day (which we know is true) violates BLP in any way.

All this back and forth removal and restoring is getting no where so I suggest we just stop until we resolve the issue here. --Rush's Algore (talk) 03:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Blogs are not reliable sources to WP:BLP material - except in very limited circumstances (for instance blogs by experts, or blogs with a firm editorial control). I'm imploring that you actually sit down and read WP:BLP instead of skim it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand what the policy states. I disagree that it applies in this case. It has become evident that further discussion with you on this point will be fruitless. Is there some way that we can ask someone else who's correct? --Rush's Algore (talk) 03:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:DR.   — Jeff G. ツ 03:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Rush's Algore (talk) 03:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You may take it to the BLP noticeboard, but statements of fact cannot be sourced to editorials, particularly when for articles about living persons. TFD (talk) 03:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

This is not an article about a living person it is an article about an expression. BLP is not an issue here mark nutley (talk) 12:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

BLP is not an issue here.

"BLP" can, as I understand both the policy and spirit, be an issue in any article. However, I concur that it is mis-applied inre this article subject. Perhaps an RfC would be fruitful here.

I also question the Wikipedia propriety of titleing "talk" sections with contentious, arguable and conclusionary declarations of fact. Shall we, for balance, start another "talk" sub-section with "This is Not a BLP subject"? JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

How is a satirical joke based entirely on questioning the credibility of a living person NOT a BLP issue? Active Banana (talk) 12:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Reserving further comment on your premise (with which I take issue), lampooning the "credibility", via obvious satire, of a very public advocate for one side of a very public debate falls far short of transgressing both the letter and the spirit of BLP. It is simply a Wikipedia "bridge too far". Perhaps WP:THINSKINNED is in the offing. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I would say that the misunderstanding here is yours.... Its not the topic itself that is the problem - but the sourcing. BLP does not rule out criticism or humor or any other contentious material - it just demands that it is referenced more reliably than for non-BLP topics. Does that clear it up? (ie. its not about thinskinned'ness - find references that are acceptable by BLP standards, instead of using sub-par references that would have a hard time being considered reliable even on a regular non-BLP topic). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Its not the topic itself that is the problem - but the sourcing.

What is more problematical is your interjection of a personal non-sequitur into an ongoing colloquy on a particular point. While I have no qualms about addressing either Active Banana's comment or your own, please consider outdenting your comment for the sake of discussion continuity and, while you're at it, please consider amending this section title to reflect a less-conclusionary title. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Since i was addressing your comment - the indentation and continuity was entirely correct. If you find my comment confusing then i'd be happy to explain it... As for the section title - please see the template at the top of the talk-page (people seem to overlook it). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

If you find my comment confusing then i'd be happy to explain it

Hardly confusing. More like inconsiderate.

...please see the template at the top of the talk-page (people seem to overlook it).

The legitimacy of that undiscussed (that I can see) tag placement is currently under discussion. I'll defer further comment for the moment. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

If you do not think that BLP is an issue here, then remove all references to Al Gore and the issue disappears. TFD (talk) 12:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I am curious as to why you guys are not over at Bushism`s arguing about this? Or demanding it be deleted. All the sources there are op-eds and much the same as this article, yet not a peep from anyone. Banana, mate get a sense of humour, there is no questioning of credibility (not that gore actually has any) this is just an obvious name to have been given to bad weather at GW events. Again, this is an article about a phrase, an expression, it`s just a piece of satire! There is no blp issues as none of the sources actually are critical of Gore, at all, they just make a joke about the bloody weather mark nutley (talk) 13:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Because "Bushism's" are uninteresting to us? If the article is as asinine and badly sourced as this one - then it should go as well. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)And strangely enough, after taking a peep, i see at least 3 books covering the subject of "Bushism" - so your assertion that the sourcing is as bad as here is invented. At least that topic is notable. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I havent wondered over to the Bushisms article yet, 3million plus articles and you cant be everywhere. But I would be willing to bet that that article uses third party sources rather than basing all its content on primary uses in blog posts.Active Banana (talk) 13:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes kim, of course this article only has the one book ref after all. Do you not think this is what i meant? Both articles have the same kind of refs. AB Are all the sources in this article blogs then? methinks you are badly wrong mate mark nutley (talk) 13:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Try focusing on this article Mark - i don't care about what other stuff that might be bad elsewhere - one evil does not make another good. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Show me the third party sources talking about the topic - the phrase "Gore Effect" - rather than primary usage in blogs and opinion pieces. The only one I see is one passing mention in the Columbia Journalism Review calling the original usage "asinine". Active Banana (talk) 14:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The Baltimore Sun Article

Please note that this article:

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2010-01-08/news/bal-op.smith08jan08_1_climatic-research-unit-global-warming-climategate

is listed as a news article here:

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/keyword/climate-change/featured/5

--Rush's Algore (talk) 05:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Its clearly an opinion piece with a bad archiving tag. Although if you want to claim that that type of content is what passes for "news" in The Baltimore Sun, we can put that on the whole newspaper on the list of un-reliable sources. Active Banana (talk) 05:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not clear to me that it is an opinion piece since it is listed as a news item. You can't just ignore the facts in front of you. Provide some substantive proof and perhaps we will get somewhere. As it stands now the available evidence seems to be decidedly against you. --Rush's Algore (talk) 06:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

If the first line "This is a strange time for the promoters of apocalyptic global warming - oops, they now prefer "climate change" doesnt immediately signal to you that it is an opinion piece and not news, you should probably stop editing Wikipedia articles immediately. Active Banana (talk) 06:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually this statement of yours immediately signals to me that this is only your opinion. This is not substantive proof of anything. The item is directly listed as news. Come up with something that trumps that (no your personal interpretations of the source don't count) or accept the source as reliable ... especially for a quote from the author. --Rush's Algore (talk) 06:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

aparently this thing isnt working again. Active Banana (talk) 06:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

That's rather rude considering you are the one objecting based on no substantive evidence. I have provided mine. Where's yours? Also, please answer the question below. Another case of you making claims but not providing substantive support for them. --Rush's Algore (talk) 07:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Look at the very last lines of the article, where you will note that it is written by a columnist (not a journalist). Columnists write about news - but they are still opinion articles. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Active Banana seems to have deleted the Baltimore Sun piece which I believe is reliably sourced. He asserts that the source is demonstrably wrong but provides no evidence to substantiate his claim. Are people allowed to simply delete properly sourced material based on nothing but bald assertions? --Rush's Algore (talk) 06:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is a second source that connects Al Gore, the Gore Effect, and makes reference to "the record cold spell that had gripped the northern hemisphere": http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/terry-mccranns-column/copenfloppen-should-kill-ets/story-e6frfig6-1225812597087

and here is a handy Google news archive search which lists a number of source all discussing how the Northern Hemisphere was gripped by arctic chill in January, 2010: http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=the+record+cold+spell+that+had+gripped+the+northern+hemisphere&as_ldate=2010/01&as_hdate=2010/02

There's my evidence that the claim has not been made up. Where's you evidence that it is "demonstrably false"? --Rush's Algore (talk) 07:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference between a column and a news article, and the first is not acceptable as a source. Maybe someone will write an article about the use of the term but until that happens we have no reliable sources. TFD (talk) 08:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

All the sources i have inserted are reliable per wp:rs to say otherwise is pointless mark nutley (talk) 12:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Did you read this part "How reliable a source is, and the basis of its reliability, depends on the context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication" or "Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context" and this part "However, it is understood that even the most reputable news outlets occasionally contain errors. Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article is something that must be assessed on a case by case basis. When using news sources, care should be taken to distinguish opinion columns from news reporting." (emph added) or this part "Questionable sources are ... expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions" (emph added) or this "Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons" and this "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. These are reliable sources, depending on context, but when using them, it is better to attribute the material in the text to the author." (emph added))Active Banana (talk) 14:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)