Talk:Gore effect

DISPUTE - There's this 800# Gorilla...

...running amok in this article. It's going to require identification, focus, discussion (more than likely within some Wikipedia venue superior to this article "talk") and resolution with subsequent article oversight before this article can ever attain any sense of stability.

That "Gorilla" is the postulate that the 2 represented "subjects" of this treatment are the same "subjects" for the purposes of hosting article content related to each within a single Wikipedia article.

The postulate is, IMHO, factually wrong, contrived, strained, harmful to (if not preclusive of) the composition of a credible treatment of "Gore Effect (satire)" (or either use for that matter), inherently disruptive to an orderly composition process and unsustainable under any rational examination for validity.

IMHO, the argument is strong, on multiple levels, for the creation of individual treatments of each "use" being advanced but,...first things first.

Hipocrite suggested "disambiguation" as an alternative but it was objected to as having "POV fork" considerations. "Forks", by Wikipedia definition, relate to individual treatments of the "same subject". If another treatment is not related to the "same subject", then "POV fork" becomes moot and 2 individual treatments are viable. I'd suggest we get on with this debate and get this resolved.

Are the 2 "uses" being advanced the "same subject"? JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

No they are actually separate subjects. One (this article) is about The Gore effect, whic hdeals with bad weather at events about AGW. The other is The Al Gore Effect, which is about gore telling everyone about global warming mark nutley (talk) 14:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The humorous, ironic phrase has a different history and is treated differently and used for different purposes than the phrase that uses the same words for the unironic journalists' cliche. The first phrase has caught the attention of reliable sources who discuss it. The second phrase, as far as I can tell, has never been discussed as a subject by any reliable sources. The first phrase is the name of a recurring joke. The second phrase is simply another way of saying that another prominent public office-holder has influence, and as soon as we try to describe that subject, we find ourselves repeating information that other articles cover better. The first phrase is properly the subject of a Wikipedia article because it has the required sourcing, as has been ratified by an AfD. The second phrase hasn't been shown to have any of that. There may be more examples of usage in the second phrase, but by itself that doesn't mean that phrase is fit to be a Wikipedia article, much less this Wikipedia article. It is fine to mention the second subject in the article about the first subject, because they are somewhat related. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 14:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• Emphatic No - (from an earlier discussion) The "title" is "Gore Effect". Where a single use of a term or phrase is recognized, a "title" might be legitimately said to reflect a "subject" as well. Where there are 2 or more uses of the phrase or term recognized (or advanced), then the "subject" of the term MUST be defined by the content its use relates to as is assuredly the understanding in colloquial use. They may share a common "title" and tangentially relate to a common element, but they are, by no means, the same "subject". It is almost self-evident. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

In response to Polentario...

a) youre right...

I'm unclear what your comment refers to. If, by that, you are offering an opinion on this question (which I think you are), then I'd suggest you state your opinion here.

b) are they still necessary? I doubt it.

I can only speak to the issue related to this dispute tag and, thus far, no one supporting the referenced postulate has seen fit to comment...which is fine. However, after some reasonable length of time for comment has passed (perhaps a week?), it is reasonable to interpret the lack of opinion in support of the postulate as deference to the position of those who have elected to comment. IOW, rejection of the postulate could then be legitimately held as a consensus opinion and I would remove my tag. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Given the opinions expressed above and with no voiced opposition having thus far been offered, there appears to exist a consensus that the 2 "uses" of "Gore Effect" are not the "same subject" for the purposes of any subsequent editorial considerations. On that basis, I am removing the {{dispute}} tag and consider this issue to be resolved. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

No there is no such consensus - and that is readily determined by reading the next talk page topics. For myself - this particular topic was ignored, because it was a) strangely written b) begging the question c) completely ignored other views. You got 2 answers - from the same 2 people who have already stated their positions - and none from those who you know disagree. Beware - here be horse carcasses. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm satisfied that the 3 responses to the question "Are the 2 'uses' being advanced the 'same subject'?" reflect a negative consensus of those who have elected to respond and, on that basis, I have removed the tag. Your observation that no consensus exists will be considerably enhanced if and when you elect to respond to the question as stated. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

You have gotten the views from several editors in other sections - but apparently you chose to ignore them. Sorry, but you are beating the deceased equine .... and rather hard. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Very well. As you suggest there is no consensus, I am restoring the dispute tag until some consensus resolution is established. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Introduction - cont'd (2)

The second sentence currently reads...

The phrase has been used as well to describe Gore's impact in raising global warming as a public issue.

May I suggest, as a "copyedit" alternative...

The phrase has also been employed in works related to Al Gore's prominence and influence as a leading advocate for global warming awareness and concerns.

Just IMHO, but I think it reads a bit better. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Amending suggested text to incorporate "related"...

The phrase has also been employed in works addressing Al Gore's prominence and influence as a leading advocate for global warming awareness and related concerns.

JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

PLease reinsert Al Gore and the environment and Global warming controversy as discussed meters above. BR Polentario (talk) 16:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Polentario, I'm not quite sure what you are suggesting nor am I clear as to what discussion you are referring to. Can you be more explicit? JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Some yards above on this page, we have been discussing the "See also" Paragraph. Al Gore and the environment and Global warming controversy had been integrated into the entry, Hipocrit has erased em. I will reintroduce those links. OK? Polentario (talk) 09:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it again - after going through each and every reference. Your text is not supported by any of the references, since not a single one of these "mock" Gore. None of them are about controversy either. In fact all of them are attributing the Gore effect as something positive. In other words: Text was completely unsupported by references. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Apparently you realized that the text was unsupported - so you just removed the refs[1]. So now we have a text claiming that Gore is "mocked" without any reliable sources to support it. Do you think that is allowed? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I couldnt care less. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Gore_Effect#See_also.2C_any_objections is to be regarded. Polentario (talk) 09:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I surely hope that you could "care less" - because agreeing that wikilinks should be added to the text - isn't the same as inserting text that is 100% unsupported by references - or inserting text about a WP:BLP being "mocked" which is completely unreferenced. Perhaps you should try to "care"? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: I will remove this as a rather clear BLP violation, unless you provide some reliable source that supports the text, and do remember that it has to be due weight as well, since this is a rather strong statement so any ole' opinion article wont do. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I see that Hipocrite has removed it - i suggest that it isn't readded unless referenced. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

(undent) after many ecs - I removed it coincidentally. If I had noticed I could have just reverted, I would have. In addition to being unsourced, it was also untrue. Further, the second paragraph was not in english - it had an extra "as such" thrown in there without meaning. Hipocrite (talk) 10:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

It appears that in the sequence of edits related to Polentario's revision, the second sentence (noted above) which had previously been acceptable, has been relegated to a subsequent paragraph comprised of that single sentence. Perhaps this was unintentional and as there appears to be no opinion as to my suggested copyedit of the second sentence as it previously existed, without further objection as to it's content, I will re-insert it as an improvement to the earlier existing text and re-create the single opening paragraph...

The "Gore Effect" is a humorous concept suggesting a causal relationship between observed or unseasonably cold weather phenomena and global warming associated events, with particular emphasis on events associated with appearances of former U.S. Vice President and Nobel Peace Prize recipient Al Gore. The phrase has also been employed in works addressing Al Gore's prominence and influence as a leading advocate for global warming awareness and related concerns.

JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Upon further re-consideration, "prominence" and "leading advocate" are redundant, arriving at...

The "Gore Effect" is a humorous concept suggesting a causal relationship between observed or unseasonably cold weather phenomena and global warming associated events, with particular emphasis on events associated with appearances of former U.S. Vice President and Nobel Peace Prize recipient Al Gore. The phrase has also been employed in works addressing Al Gore's influence as a leading advocate for global warming awareness and related concerns.

JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

That works for me jake, how about everyone else? mark nutley (talk) 18:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Well i added your version jake but verbal reverted it out for some reason mark nutley (talk) 07:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not a good edit as it removes relevant text, and minimises one use of the phrase. Verbal chat 07:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

So a drive by revert then, given the current other usage in the lede is The phrase has been used as well to describe Gore's impact in raising global warming as a public issue and jakes version is The phrase has also been employed in works addressing Al Gore's influence as a leading advocate for global warming awareness and related concerns Which is longer and better written, thoughts on this please? mark nutley (talk) 07:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Well i added your version jake but verbal reverted it out for some reason

This process is a simple one...and there is no rush in making a determination if it is supported by consensus. Until others elect to chime in, perhaps Verbal could elaborate and clarify just what "relevant text" is, in his opinion, removed and which "use" was "minimised" by the suggested edit. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

With Verbal not replying i think we may s well put this back in, it does not minimise anything and is written better than the current lede mark nutley (talk) 11:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. "to describe Gore's impact in raising global warming as a public issue." should not be removed/minimised or conflated with other uses. Verbal chat 11:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Strongly disagree? Yikes. This strikes me as much ado about nothing. "Gore's impact in raising global warming as a public issue" is the equivalent of "global warming awareness" nor is it "conflated" with "other issues". In fact, the proposed text suggests an even more expansive "influence" into "related concerns". JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree "global warming awareness" is not the same as "raising global warming as a public issue". You can be very aware - and still not see it as a public issue, the two things are not mutually exclusive. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

{outdent}Very well. While, IMHO, suggesting that a prospective reader of this article on a satirical jibe at "global warming" needs to be "informed" that this is a "public issue" may border on condescension, perhaps the following will satisfy...

The "Gore Effect" is a humorous concept suggesting a causal relationship between observed or unseasonably cold weather phenomena and global warming associated events, with particular emphasis on events associated with appearances of former U.S. Vice President and Nobel Peace Prize recipient Al Gore. The phrase has also been employed in works addressing Al Gore's influence as a leading advocate for global warming awareness as a public issue and other related concerns.

JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Polentario, inre your...
I will reintroduce those links. OK?
First, while I agree that Wikipedia both encourages and prefers incorporation of "see also" content into the article itself, it is, as I understand it, neither mandatory nor preclusive as to other considerations.
Second, I believe your suggested content, even assuming that it might be incorporated in a manner satisfying both Wikipedia WP:V considerations AND editorial consensus, the content is already adequately referenced by the thus far acceptable (I assume) existing text.
In the future, prior to inserting substantive revision(s) to the existing text, please post your suggested edits here for discussion towards reaching consensus acceptability. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Without further objection, I will shortly incorporate the above suggested text into the article. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

People already objected above. Asking the same question again and not getting further response, when this thread is no longer very active, does not mean those editors no longer object. Verbal chat 08:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

People already objected above.

And the suggested text was modified in response to those objections...with no response in return. What, specifically, do you now object to in the modified text as currently comprised? JakeInJoisey (talk) 10:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Refactoring archive pages

Kslotte (talk · contribs) recently refactored the archive pages. If there is consensus, and it's verified that any links to the moved sections were correct, it may be reasonable. Otherwise, it should be reverted.

I haven't checked whether links were broken. Yet. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Made archive 1 and 2 into a reasonable size of about 100kB. No links are broken. Implemented auto-archiving for threads that haven't been edited for 10 days. I assume this is OK? --Kslotte (talk) 22:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems OK. Archives 1 and 2 were originally manually created, and I recall no specific reason for choosing one or the other except that Archive 1 was created first. The archiving suggestion seems to be still live here at #request for archiving. I have no objection to autoarchiving, but I really don't see a consensus for or against. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It appears that many of the prior contributing editors may now be principals in the CC arbcom discussion currently underway which may be impacting their consideration here. Until the results of the arbcom are finalized, perhaps the archive time criteria needs to be changed to indefinite. As it is now, many of the previously discussed issues remain unresolved and those prior discussions should be readily accessible, not archived. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Considering this further, until this question is resolved, I'm increasing the "count" to 20. If I understand the parameters correctly, the addition of another section will archive an ongoing (though not currently very active) dispute after 10 days of inactivity. Someone please correct me if my understanding is incorrect. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The disputed tag

The article is currently tagged as having disputes over the factual accuracy of the article. Is there a section where this is being discussed (I can't seem to figure out where)? If not can someone please summarize the specific concerns with diffs, please? --TheNeutralityDoctor (talk) 02:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The rationale for the {{dispute}} tag is contained in the designated dispute section, DISPUTE - There's this 800# Gorilla.... I'm unsure who or for what reason the {{POV}} tag was placed. JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It appears that the {{POV}} tag was applied by User:Verbal here. As there appears to be no active talk section designated to address resolution of this dispute per Wikipedia guidelines for dispute resolution, I am removing the tag and advising User:Verbal. If he or any other editor wishes to re-instate the tag, please establish a designated "dispute" topic stating the basis for the tag insertion to facilitate dispute resolution. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Nearly every section on this page is addressing the POV issue. Verbal chat 17:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI the initiatiator of this section User:TheNeutralityDoctor (known to this page prior to a name change requested by an admin, [2] as User:Rush's Algore ) has been identified as a sock puppet of BANNED editor User:GoRight. see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/GoRight/Archive#30_June_2010. Active Banana (talk) 02:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

DISPUTE - PoV, yet again

Apparently JiJ insists on a section header for any tag. The PoV problem in this article is clear - it provides undue weight to half of the article - there is an assumption that the article is about the satire, with the effect as the secondary topic, when, at the very least, they need equal weighting. I previously made edits that reflected this - they were reverted. I am willing to discuss any compromise that anyone would like to make to have this article reflect the prominance of each in reliable sources. Hipocrite (talk) 14:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Apparently JiJ insists on a section header for any tag.

I'm unsure why you choose to frame an attempt to employ recommended Wikipedia process for dispute resolution as some personal "insistence" on my part, but so be it. In that regard, it also suggests that the word "Dispute" be integrated into the section title to facilitate both identification and resolution. I'm adding it to the section title as per the Wikipedia recommendation which you are, of course, free to revert if you, for some reason, object. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Agree that coverage of only one use of the term is POV and not reflective of the usage in reliable sources. Active Banana (talk) 14:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The article is about the satire, that is what it went up for afd on, they most certainly do not need equal weighting at all mark nutley (talk) 14:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

And again, while the initial article that was nominated for AfD may have been a POV slanted partial coverage of the term, during most of the AfD process the article that editors considered contained multiple reliable sources about different uses of the term, and many of the more reliable sources were in fact about uses other than the "humorous" use. Stop with your non-sense. Active Banana (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Again. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

No you are again wrong, as pointed out before, other uses were inserted 00:24, 15 June 2010 (near as i can make out given the state of the history) AFD closes 08:10, 16 June 2010, so for one day the other usage was in the article, tell me again were you get during most of the AfD process the article that editors considered contained multiple reliable sources about different uses of the term as it obviously wrong mark nutley (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Mark, The 9th of June version contains the sentence[3]: Previously, the "Al Gore Effect" was sometimes used to describe the impact of Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth, on the climate change debate - and it was discussed on talk in a sepearate section on the 11th of June[4] - so your description is incorrect. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Mark, what % of the AFD 7 days would the other use need to have been present for them to have been there for "most" of the AfD process? Hipocrite (talk) 15:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

What`s the best part of a week? I would say 5 days to be considered most, or 4 minimum what would you call the best part of 7 days? mark nutley (talk) 15:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The AfD was opened on June 9. This version of the article from June 9 contains at least 3 sources of alternate uses. [5] - so something close to 99% Active Banana (talk) 15:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The information was added to the article first 00:56, 9 June 2010. The article was nominated for deletion at 07:49, 9 June 2010, so the information was there for 104% of the AFD. Hipocrite (talk) 15:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

@AB Your diff shows no instances of the other usage that i can see, @ Hipocrite, [6] as of this diff it is not there, 01:23, 9 June 2010 you may want to recalculate your % mark nutley (talk) 16:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

While it is, IMHO, irrelevant to the issue in dispute, what contributors to the AfD considered to be the subject of the article in making their personal determinations cannot be inferred or implied by anything other than the content of their comments in response (see amended comment below JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)) to the framing of the issue as stated in the original AfD...

This article is fundamentally unencyclopedic: it is a dictionary definition of ideological trivia comparable to "Teleprompter President" and all the Bush/chimp jokes - Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It is simply not a topic substantial enough to warrant coverage in a serious, respectable reference work. The page is ultimately an attack page; although the polemic of the original version has been cleaned up, it's little more than a list of quotes supporting an Urban Dictionary-style definition of a particular line of political invective. The fact that the page has been deleted so many times before should indicate that it does not have a hope of being a suitable subject for Wikipedia. This kind of thing is more suited to Uncyclopedia than Wikipedia.

There is no mention of "other uses" either in the AfD language itself or the AfD determination. To suggest that, at the moment of their comments, AfD contributors were cognizant of the exact sourcing and content currently incorporated into an actively evolving article is simply an unsustainable assertion both in logic and fact. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Upon further consideration, I am amending my original comment to correct an oversight and to read as follows...

(amended text)...what contributors to the AfD considered to be the subject of the article in making their personal determinations cannot be inferred or implied by anything other than the content of their comments in response to either other contributor comments and/or to the framing of the issue as stated in the original AfD...JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Any opinions of AfD commentors that were not "cognizant of the exact sourcing and content" should not have been considered in the closing! Active Banana (talk) 16:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Contributors to an AfD discussion are understood to have read the article, and checked the references. (whether it is correct or not). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Upon further consideration, I am amending my original comment to correct an oversight and to read as follows...

...what contributors to the AfD considered to be the subject of the article in making their personal determinations cannot be inferred or implied by anything other than the content of their comments in response to either other contributor comments and/or to the framing of the issue as stated in the original AfD... JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The only thing that you can infer from the AfD - is that the article shouldn't be deleted. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

No we can infer from AFD based on the !votes cast that the article was about the satirical aspect of the gore effect, that much is obvious mark nutley (talk) 17:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

That the article "shouldn't be deleted" is the AfD determination, not an inference. That the "determination" suggests parity between an unremarked upon, unspecified "other use", in either the AfD declaration or determination, is an inference. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

@MN: I'm still not quite sure what you're trying to state here (despite the amended text). While AfD editor comments can certainly suggest that an AfD determination should be predicated on some consideration other than what is stated in the AfD submission, barring recognition of "other" considerations by the closing examiner or re-submission of a re-stated AfD, then the AfD, as submitted, and the closing examiner's comments can only be used in identifying the "subject" of the article on which the determination was based. Is that what you mean? JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes sorry, i am currently a tad stressed at another editor closing a thread on the RS noticeboard which had not been resolved so my mind is elsewere mark nutley (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Previously, the "Al Gore Effect" was sometimes used to describe the impact of Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth, on the climate change debate.

I have lost any ability to WP:AGF in your editing of this topic. Active Banana (talk) 16:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I am willing to discuss any compromise that anyone would like to make to have this article reflect the prominance of each in reliable sources. Hipocrite
I'd suggest that you already have the "compromise" you seek. IMHO, there's a strong case to be made for establishing "other uses" as irrelevant to this article. As the suggested text now reflects, an accommodation is already being made in deference to what I (and several other editors) deem to be an unsustainable assertion that the "subjects" of "Gore Effect" and "other uses" are identical. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I suggested splitting this article into two articles, as you may recall. Perhaps you are confusing who you are attempting to compromise with? Hipocrite (talk) 19:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation (which you previously suggested) is irrelevant to (and would make moot) any question of "prominence". Your current POV objection (and offer of "compromise") is predicated on the acceptance of an already made "compromise"...which is, in turn, reflected in the recognition of "other uses" in both the current and suggested lede. What you appear to be pressing for, again, is for parity of the 2 uses in this article. That is simply unacceptable on multiple levels and already argued to a fare-thee-well in many of the preceding discussions.

As to your suggestion of "disambiguation", critical to the viability of such an alternative is a consensus determination as to the postulate that "Gore Effect" is the "same subject" as "other uses". In an attempt to reach a consensus determination on that issue, you were a no-show. Rather curious that you would elect to refrain from commenting on an assertion being advanced as an obstacle to your own suggestion. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

If you can't explain things in ways people can understand, don't be surprised when they ignore you. That's why I'm not responding to the above - it dosen't make any sense. It's a lot of words, but it's not at all clear what you're saying. Try again. Hipocrite (talk) 19:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll be happy to assist. Which word/phrase/concept is giving you difficulty? JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The entire thing. I think you make assumptions about what I do and do not believe. Allow me to summarize what I do believe for you. I believe that "Gore Effect" has two meanings - one is the satire, the other is the effect Gore had on public perceptions of climate change. Both meanings may or may not be wikipedia-notable seperately, while they are proven wikipedia-notable together (per AFD). I believe that this article (not so-much the lede, currently) provides undue weight to one of the two meanings. I have attempted/suggested multiple solutions to this - my first attempt was to place two top-level headers - creating two major divisions in the aritlce - one being satire, the other being effect on public perception of climate change. You can see that edit here, but reversion was requested atUser_talk:Hipocrite/06/2010#edit_request, and while I requested that O2R discuss his request, he failed to do so. I also suggested splitting the article in two, as you may remember, but that was also rejected. Given that I appeared to be the only individual offering solutions, I decided that any further attempt to offer solutions was futile, and instead decided that I would tag the article and wait for someone else to offer a solution, or acquiesse to either of mine. There you go! Hipocrite (talk) 20:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe that "Gore Effect" has two meanings - one is the satire, the other is the effect Gore had on public perceptions of climate change.

And other editors, for the purposes of this article, strongly assert otherwise. I have provided what I believe to be a credible argument evidencing support for that contention in the closing determination of the AfD...the only objective Wikipedia-process consideration that is thus far citable. Your position, OTOH, is purportedly supported by what one editor has rather astutely identified as a "snowclone" construct...a rather common and convenient literary turn of phrase. Even within those cited "other uses", the use of the phrase refers to a multitude of different subjects and is predominantly incidental to the subject of the source.

Suppose we start with that one. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I can start by dissuading you of something - you appear to think that AFD rulings are applicable to some sort of content argument. This is wrong. Please ask the closer if his close of the AFD can be used to argue that the article should look like X as opposed to Y. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 20:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I've been reading this, not with interest especially, but I feel I should say I agree with Hipocrite, Kim and Active Banana if that helps establish anything. The AfD in no way limits the content of this article. RS strongly assert that the Gore effect has multiple meanings. Verbal chat 20:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

...you appear to think that AFD rulings are applicable to some sort of content argument. This is wrong.

What's "wrong" is your mis-characterization of my position. I believe that THIS AfD found that Wikipedia criteria warranting the existence of a Wikipedia article addressing the satirical "Gore Effect" were sufficiently demonstrated, independent of any other suggested "uses"...either in the AfD submission or in the AfD closing determination. Furthermore...

Please ask the closer if his close of the AFD can be used to argue that the article should look like X as opposed to Y.

Asked and answered (multiple times in this discussion). That question has already been posed to the examiner...and he has, thus far, elected not to elaborate. I've no intent to badger him further into submission...nor do I believe it is necessary. When first queried as to this question, he did offer the following observation (emphasis mine)...

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

1. "Yes---", he did take those purported "uses" into consideration.

2. He made no mention of those purported "other uses" in his closing. They were, therefore, of no consequence worth citing in reaching his determination.

3. Were these "other uses" to be incorporated in this article, the appropriate (and expected) place would be The_Gore_Effect#Other_use_of_the_phrase.

You can spin that as you will, but his position appears to be rather clear as to any alleged parity of the 2 uses e.g. your apparent, sought for "compromise". JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no spin required. The closer has stated that ensuring the proper inclusion and proportionalaity is up to the articles editors. We can broaden the discussion through an RfC if you want. Active Banana (talk) 04:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Excessive cites?

The current number of cites supporting the defining sentence are, IMHO, excessive and detrimental to both the appearance and readability of the lede. Perhaps the list should be pared down to 3 or 4 of the most representative? JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

NO. Active Banana (talk) 00:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Jake. Or at the very least, they should be bunched. --Yopienso (talk) 08:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC) [Stricken by me July 6. --Yopienso (talk) 03:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)]

I disagree with jake. Until the issues above are resolved they should remain. Verbal chat 08:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no need for all those ref`s in the lede as what is in the lede is supported in the content below, see wp:lead The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article It does without all those ref`s in there mark nutley (talk) 09:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately they seem to be required until the POV issues are addressed. I'm glad you switched to the correct spelling of lead ;) Verbal chat 11:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:LEDE also says "The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited. ... there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations". Give the reams and reams and reams of discussions on this talk page, the content of this lede is clearly controversial. Active Banana (talk) 12:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

If the problem is aesthetics, just put all the sources into a single footnote with each separated by a semi-colon. That will take care of it. Cla68 (talk) 23:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, the purpose of cites in a lede is to advise the reader on the existence of supporting sources for what might be challengeable within the article content. 2 or 3 of those cited for the first sentence should be more than adequate. JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

No longer having any reason to even fake an assumption of good faith: This is no more than a run around attempt to remove evidence that the use of the term by reliable sources is in no way limited to the "satirical" usage that is being pushed as the primary focus of the article in contravention of WP:UNDUE. THERE WILL BE NO CONSENSUS FOR THIS REQUEST. Active Banana (talk) 01:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Active, please take it easy. If you want all the citations to remain, just do as I suggest and combine them all into a single footnote. That's what I do in most of the articles I submit for FAC. Cla68 (talk) 01:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

If someone can apprise me of just how paring the sources for the first sentence "...remove(s) evidence that the use of the term by reliable sources is in no way limited to the 'satirical' usage...", I'd be most appreciative. I have no idea what he's talking about. JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Notes # 2-10 don't support the lede but relate to other uses of the term "the Gore effect" and even "the gore effect." They should be deleted, shouldn't they? --Yopienso (talk) 03:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Notes # 2-10...should be deleted, shouldn't they?

Yikes! Perhaps I'm not seeing the forest for the trees here, but the lede only requires minimal citation for the purpose of alerting the reader that the lede content is supported by at least (but not limited to) those cites in the main body of the article. We now have 10 cites for the content "...with particular emphasis on events associated with appearances of former U.S. Vice President and Nobel Peace Prize recipient Al Gore." That nuts!

What am I missing here? This appears to be quite simple and should be uncontroversial.

JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that certain editors are determined to make a point that "the Gore effect" (as well as "gore effect") can refer to something other than the humor alluded to by Marciano and Bolt. If that is correct, the attempt is altogether wrong, since that information should be included later in the article if included at all. (My strong opinion is that it has no place unless it is very lightly weighted.) Some of that info is already in the last section under Gore's impact on public awareness of global warming issues.

I struck my comment agreeing with you, Jake, because I realized the refs need to be evaluated before being deleted or bunched. It's not a case of a redundancy of notes: nine of the ten have nothing to do with what they supposedly serve as sources for, so they should be gotten rid of or relegated as a footnote in themselves to the bottom of the article. --Yopienso (talk) 04:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it is that there are wikipedia editors who want to ensure the WP:UNDUE is followed and that the article represents the usage of the term in roughtly the same proportions as the reliable sources do. Active Banana (talk) 04:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Paring the cites to a representative few that source the content in the lede as it exists is irrelevant to your argument. All the sourcing currently contained in the article is not impacted one iota by not being cited in the lede.

I struck my comment agreeing with you, Jake, because I realized the refs need to be evaluated before being deleted or bunched.

Yopienso, paring the number of citations in the lede does NOT delete them from the ARTICLE (at least it shouldn't, as the citations should all be incorporated already). Nor do I agree with...

...nine of the ten have nothing to do with what they supposedly serve as sources for...

The citatations should all support the text...

"...with particular emphasis on events associated with appearances of former U.S. Vice President and Nobel Peace Prize recipient Al Gore."

I believe they all do BUT, if they don't, then they shouldn't be citing that text anyway.

I just don't get this issue. It should be a no brainer. What am I missing here? JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)