Talk:Patrick Moore (consultant)

Discussion on Patrick Moore and Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy

Is this the most blatantly POV article on the site, or is it me. I hardly think that an unmodified Disinfopedia article makes for a good Wiki article. It needs a serious rewrite. TDC 21:36, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

It's you ;) The article actually presents a lot of information. Please discuss before making such a big change, especially when you are deleting. I also happen to think it's an excellent article about a very interesting environmentalist, not of tree hugging ilk. In Moore's own words, he left Greenpeace and became a consultant because he was tired of the politics of confrontation. Vincent 23:53, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

With all due respect, after reading the article an individual would likely come away with the feeling that Moore has simply sold out to industry and turned into nuckle dragging fascist (well perhaps an overstatement), but you get the drift. While I do not deny that there is a great deal of information here and while I will accept at face value the statements given, the organization of these facts is very much not in line with WIKI NPOV http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_point_of_view.

A quick examples. One paragaph explaining Moore's views on GM foods and 5 paragraphs refuting his claims? Is this and articel on GM foods, or Patrick Moore.

This article is more of a hitpiece on Moore than an encyclopedia entry. I do agree that I should have talked about the changes before making them, but the article does need serious work and it has not had much activity. TDC 05:16, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

I rather like Moore myself and didn't feel the original article was an attack on him, but maybe you're right after all. And of course I agree you're entitled to do a major edit, it's wiki afterall, and maybe I overreacted because it came without a warning. (OK, OK, so I'm warned now.) Cheers Vincent 05:54, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Environmentalist?

I believe that it is misleading and inaccurate to characterize Patrick Moore as an "environmentalist." According to Wikipedia "In modern times, environmentalism is related to the environmental movement, which stresses the necessity for designation and maintenance of public land, roadless area conservation, waste management, recycling, regulation of industrial and other pollution, preservation of biodiversity, regulation of genetically engineered organisms, and prevention of a global climate crisis, as well as ozone depletion." Therefore, Patrick Moore cannot be an environmentalist. He is paid by the timber industry and the nuclear industry to lobby the public on their behalf, under the guise of environmentalism. He openly admits to receiving $$ from these interests, and his statements are patently anti-environmentalist. The term "environmentalist" should be removed from both the title of this article, and from the opening paragraph. - This unsigned comment was added by 68.49.97.205 on 22:29, 24 September 2006

Agreed. 68.49.97.205 02:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed.

Disagree. It is like comparing Gifford Pinchot and John Muir. Both are "environmrntalists". Pustelnik (talk) 03:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Disagree, Moore is an environmentalist because of his support for nuclear power. Nuclear power has the lowest impact on the environment among all sources of electricity and can deliver orders of magnitude greater power than "renewables". Moore uses science and math to enforce his position unlike the fringe anti-nuclear "environmentalists" who ridicule the industry over minute incidents (i.e. Vermont Yankee) that physically do not threaten the public. Moore probably joined CAS Energy because they have the power to actually do something meaningful about climate change by lobbying for more nuclear power plants. It is absurd to even think about addressing climate change without massive expansion of nuclear power and as a scientist, Moore recognizes this. Phenix00 (talk) 01:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Since leaving Greenpeace, he has in practice been a "public relations consultant" to clients some of whose interests were/are specifically "to counter advocacy by environmental groups" link. If his actual job description includes countering environmentalism, he cannot at the same time be an environmentalist, regardless of any claim that he is still an environmentalist. I recommend changing article title to: "Patrick Moore (public relations consultant)". Cjsks (talk) 05:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

He is co-founder of one of the world's largest environmentalist movements and has a Ph.D. in ecology. What else but an environmentalist could he be? He has opinions that differ from the mainstream. So what? Was Einstein not a scientist because he disliked Quantum Mechanics? Even if what you say is true - that he is being payed by the timber and nuclear industry - he is still an environmentalist. Just one working for the industry. And I see no evidence for this claim anyway. The article just says "As Chair of the Sustainable Forestry Committee of the Forest Alliance of BC, a group created by the forest industry[1], Moore leads the process of developing the "Principles of Sustainable Forestry" which have been adopted by a majority of the industry." Perhaps he did get payed as chair of this committee, but still that hardly makes him a spokesman for the timber industry. Diadem 11:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I do NOT agree, and if we go down this road we are going to have to change a lot of things on Wikipedia. Whether you AGREE with his views on the environment or not does not change the fact that he speaks on environmental concerns. Within the environmental movement there are many extremes, and there is no way one person could ever agree with anyone. Moore tries to (or at least seems to) find a balance between the environment and the needs of humanity (or maybe just the needs of his pocketbook, who can be sure?) as opposed to certain in the environmental movement who would take actions which would substantially reduce the ability of the humanity to feed itself, sentencing millions to a horrible death by starvation. For example, by the exact description above, nuclear energy helps with issues of greenhouse gases at the expense of other environmental concerns... he just sees it differently from you. "Regulation of" and "outlawing" things are not the same - and thus his discussions on GMO are valid points. Just because he tries to find diplomatic solutions rather than chaining himself to trees does not mean that he is not an environmentalist. And, just as a personal aside, grow a spine and sign your comments. --CokeBear 01:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, the person who wanted to remove the environmentalist verbiage seems to be really lost. It is not Wikipedia's job to decide who is and who is not an environmentalist. Moore is publicly known as an environmentalist, so he is one. Just because his views do not align with those of Greenpeace does not make him not an environmentalist. Greenpeace does not have an intellectual monopoly on environmentalism. If the OP feels so strongly about it then one could instead write "self considered environmentalist" - though I have the feeling the OP would object to even this, since his goal seems to be to discredit Moore with ad-hoc and guilt by association attacks, not write a factual article. Hvatum 05:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

"Agreed, the person who wanted to remove the environmentalist verbiage seems to be really lost. It is not Wikipedia's job to decide who is and who is not an environmentalist." This is as bogus as it gets. "It is not Wikipedia's job to decide who is and who is not an environmentalist." --- so Wikipedia decides that Patrick Moore is an environmentalist. Patrick Moore can be fairly characterized as a self described environmentalist ---Dagme (talk) 17:44, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Dagme, if you have thoughts on this article's title, you may want to discuss it in the much newer section at the bottom of this page.Dialectric (talk) 23:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Moore is a LOBBYIST, not an ENVIRONMENTALIST. He's verifiably employed by energy and lumber companies to influence public and political opinion AGAINST preserving the environment. Calling him an environmentalist is utterly inaccurate. 213.114.237.15 (talk) 13:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, because the definition of "environmentalist" is "not a lobbyist". (As you can probably tell, I found the above comment to be hilarious in its absurdity.) Marshaul (talk) 12:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I AGREE. Moore is a public relations consultant. His own biography states that he currently works in consultancy. Employment as an environmental consultant does not make a person an environmentalist. Here is the Wiktionary definition of the term environmentalist: One who advocates for the protection of the biosphere from misuse from human activity through such measures as ecosystem protection, waste reduction and pollution prevention. Patrick Moore's recent Major clients include APP, a company that is clearing Sumatran rainforest at an unprecedented rate and often in dubious circumstances. How can a person be an environmentalist and greenwash the destruction of one of the worlds richest bio-diversity hot-spots? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Popraxis (talk • contribs) 10:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Believe me, we've been around these houses a hundred times before. Moore and others believe firmly that he is still engaged in environmentalist work. The job of the article is not to make a political point or soapbox. The piece is carefully cited and well sourced in a more balanced way with a view to NPOV. See WP:SOAP. The consultancy Moore is engaged in clearly laid out and cited in the article. It speaks for itself. Span (talk) 19:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The (Environmentalist) note beside Moore's name needs go. It's dubious regardless (given that he's spent the past 30 years mostly working in/for industry), but it's also a clearly strategic/rhetorical, and therefore violates the objectivity inherent to Wikipedia. Any Googling of Moore's name shows that there's a back and forth to use or deny his Greenpeace association to support his current media appearances and agenda (Fox News, Heritage Foundation, etc.). Moreover, other unambiguous environmentalists (e.g., David Suzuki, John Muir, Bill McKibbin, Aldo Leopold, etc.) do not have any note beside their name. For the purpose of objectivity, this note needs to go. P.s. I am a PhD Geologist who teaches petroleum, so this isn't an agenda, it's just a statement of fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason loxton (talk • contribs) 19:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Environmentalist vs. PR consultant

Hello, at the moment, Patrick Moore is called an environmentalist. In de.wiki we had a longer [Diskussion:Patrick_Moore_(PR-Berater)#Zur_Personenstandsbezeichnung_.22PR-Berater.22_vs._.22Umweltaktivist.22 discussion] about this fact. At the end, we decided to call Moore a PR consultant. Even if Moore was an active member of Greenpeace Canada, it is just wrong to call ihm an environmentalist. In todays time, he is an active spokesmen for big companies. Different newspapers as e.g. Guardian, New York Times, time.com refer to this fact. After his years in Greenpeace Canada, he did an 180° turn and is now working against the environment. It is just wrong to call him environmentalist anymore. Somebody who is working for logging companies, who is denieing the climate change, working against Greenpeace and more, cannot be called an environmentalist. Therefore, I suggest to change the name of the article and to change the introductional sentence into: Patrick Moore is an former environmentalist and todays PR consultant or something similar. The Guardian is sumarizing it very good:

"So what do you do if your brand is turning toxic? You hire the Canadian public relations consultant Patrick Moore. Moore runs a company based in Vancouver called Greenspirit Strategies, which has developed "sustainability messaging" for logging, mining, lead-smelting, nuclear, biotech, fish-farming and plastics companies. He is a clever rhetorician, skilled at turning an argument round. He is seen by some environmentalists as the most brazen of the spin doctors they face. He has described clear-cut logging as "making clearings where new trees can grow in the sun". He has suggested that sea lice (which spread from farmed salmon to wild fish, often with devastating effects) are "good for wild salmon", as the fish can eat the larvae. He has justified gold-mining operations that have caused devastating spills of sodium cyanide by arguing that "cyanide is present in the environment and naturally available in many plant species". But his greatest asset to the companies he represents is this: Patrick Moore was one of the founders and leaders of Greenpeace." source

What is your opinion about it? Do you think, the article should be changed due to this circumstances? alkab 19:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I see that you changed the article. I have reverted. You used George Monbiot's Guardian blog for a claim of fact, and I believe this does not meet WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV or WP:BLPSOURCE requirements. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:08, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

For the use of environmentalist in the article title, there was discussion in 2015 on this page, found above. I proposed at that time a move to the title Patrick A. Moore, which leaves the issue of description to the article lede.Dialectric (talk) 14:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• French Wikipedia also calls him a "consultant". It's the right way to go. Bueller 007 (talk) 16:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 3 March 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. (Overturned per move review.) While closures as no consensus usually involve a relist, due to the length of the move review, and the fact that there is reasonable suspicion (raised at the move review) of meatpuppetry, I think a fresh RM is the best way to go. While it could be argued consensus existed to move the page, no consensus existed on which title to move it to. I will procedureally renominate and set out the options from the previous discussion. (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 13:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

---

Overturned closure.

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. The result of the move request was: Moved to Patrick Moore (consultant) (non-admin closure) Safrolic (talk) 01:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC) User Position Reason:CommonName Reason:Is enviro. Open to others? Options/comments RomanSpinner Oppose ✓ ✓ author, writer In ictu Octuli Oppose ✓ Snowfire Support ? not businessman :bloodofox: Support ✓ businessman, lobbyist SlaterSteven Support ✓ lobbyist TFD Support not an environmentalist Bueller007 Support ✓ businessman, consultant(pref). not lobbyist or PR consultant. (Discussion starter) Aquillion Support ✓ lobbyist(pref), businessman Dialectric Support initial preferred over job title Necrothesp Oppose ✓ ✓ Iffy★Chat Oppose ✓ ✓ ? "no opinion on other options" Andrewa Oppose ✓ Black Kite Support ✓ anything else, can't stay here DanielRigal Support ✓ anything else, can't stay here; environmentalist is factually inaccurate LuckyLouie Support ✓ not an environmentalist according to def'n tronvillain Oppose? ✓ ✓ consultant, environmental consultant would be acceptable kittyhawk2 Oppose ✓ ✓ ✓ not lobbyist or businessman- too ambiguous. sufficiently specific disambig would be okay. feminist Oppose ✓ JeremyDas Support ✓ advisor pref over consultant. Environmentalist not appropriate Vote totals Adding the votes is complicated. Overall, 11 people voted in favour of the proposal (leaving myself out), and 7 people voted against. However, most opposition centered around the proposal going against WP:COMMONNAME and WP:INITS. Only 4 people specifically supported the current title. Considerations Per LuckyLouie, the intro at Environmentalist says, "An environmentalist is a supporter of the goals of the environmental movement, "a political and ethical movement that seeks to improve and protect the quality of the natural environment through changes to environmentally harmful human activities". An environmentalist is engaged in or believes in the philosophy of environmentalism." Environmentalism in its intro says Environmentalism advocates the preservation, restoration and/or improvement of the natural environment and critical earth system elements or processes such as the climate, and may be referred to as a movement to control pollution or protect plant and animal diversity. Multiple sources in the article mention Moore's Climate Change denial and his support for various policies that achieve exactly the opposite of this description; eg., Logging, oil production, adaptation to global warming. Regardless of whether his views are encompassed within the environmental movement, and as per the votes, his environmental status is controversial, and it's therefore POV to title him as an environmentalist. Per WP:RMCL, a page should not be moved to a new name which goes against policies, regardless of how many vote in favour. This excludes the proposed name Patrick A. Moore. Other language wikis which have changed refer to him as PR-consultant (German) and consultant (French) Multiple proposed options were specifically opposed as being POV themselves (lobbyist, businessman, PR consultant). Further, some may be inaccurate. I'm not an admin and this is a non-admin closure (WP:RMNAC). Consensus on moving is clear from this discussion and the others in the past. Lack of consensus on which specific description to use is also clear. I believe I'm an uninvolved, experienced editor in good standing, though I have not done this before. WP:RMNAC specifies that NACs are not discouraged for requested moves, though it does say we should be cautious. Conclusion As per WP:THREEOUTCOMES, There are rare circumstances where multiple names have been proposed and no consensus arises out of any, except that it is determined that the current title should not host the article. In these difficult circumstances, the closer should pick the best title of the options available, and then be clear that while consensus has rejected the former title (and no request to bring it back should be made lightly), there is no consensus for the title actually chosen. If anyone objects to the closer's choice, they may make another move request immediately, hopefully to its final resting place. The options available are: Lobbyist, businessman, consultant, PR consultant, author, writer, nuclear energy advocate, and advisor. Of these, lobbyist, businessman, and PR consultant were specifically rejected by at least one person as POV or inaccurate. Author, writer, nuclear energy advocate, and advisor were only suggested by one person each (and personally, I think all four are somewhat inaccurate.) This leaves consultant, which was suggested by multiple people, including one otherwise opposed (tronvillain). Multiple other language wikis also use consultant. Accordingly, I'm going to proceed to move this page to Patrick Moore (consultant). At that point, if editors still want to we can have a new discussion to find if there's a consensus for another, specific disambiguator.

Discussion:

Patrick Moore (environmentalist) → Patrick A. Moore – This move has been suggested on the talk page, and is the only neutral name for the article. Calling Patrick Moore an "environmentalist" has been widely criticized on the talk page, and he is not considered to be an environmentalist by many other environmentalists. Other suggested replacements such as "Patrick Moore (PR Consultant)" are also POV pushing. "Patrick A. Moore" is neutral and would also be consistent with pages for other Patrick Moores including Patrick J. Moore, Patrick S. Moore, Patrick T. Moore, etc. Bueller 007 (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. The main title header of each {hndis} entry represents individual circumstances. Patrick J. Moore, Patrick S. Moore, Patrick T. Moore etc, may or may not have the middle initial as part of their respective WP:COMMONNAMES, but the putative environmentalist is not known as "Patrick A. Moore". His 2011 book, listed under the article's section header "Bibliography", Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist, uses the name "Patrick Moore", as do the covers of his other books. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. WP:COMMONNAME In ictu oculi (talk) 10:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• Then suggest a neutral alternative, because calling him an "environmentalist" is POV pushing. "Patrick Moore (businessman)"? "Businessman" is neutral and "Canadian businessman" is in fact how he is described in the lede. Bueller 007 (talk) 15:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I've moved the article to "Patrick Moore (businessman)" because "environmentalist" is obviously controversial and inappropriate, whereas "businessman" is indisputably accurate. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Despite the obviously uncontroversial nature of my move, it has been reverted by @SnowFire:. ([1]) I get that the subject of the article desires to be presented as an "environmentalist" over a lobbyist or businessman, but come on, people. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Procedural note: I reverted this. Please don't move an article in the middle of a RM when nobody has supported or even commented on your proposal. "Businessman" does not seem "indisputably accurate", his notability is in environmental movements, even if it's in doing it "wrong" according to many. "Businessman" seems to POV-push the idea that his views are simply because he's a paid shill rather than being legitimately at odds with other environmentalists. (EDIT: This was written before bloodofox's comment. Well, the above comment stands. The current article portrays him as a contrarian environmentalist who legit believes what he says and was writing books with subtitles "The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist" as recently as 2011. This is like saying Ayn Rand isn't a philosopher because she's wrong. A wrong & bad philosopher is still being a philosopher, though.) SnowFire (talk) 17:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh, please. While the article's subject is indisputably a businessman, it's obvious that calling the guy an environmentalist is nothing more than a smoke screen for his lobbying. Wikipedia isn't a promotion device for figures like this to present themselves as very concerned about the environment. No one is disputing that Ayn Rand is a philosopher—if you're going to muscle in to edit war, at least keep it on topic. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

It is not obvious to me. But denying that he was an environmentalist, and that this is the main (perhaps only) reason that we have an article on him at all, might well be considered a smokescreen, and a POV that parts of the environmental movement would be particularly keen to push. Andrewa (talk) 19:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. Andrewa (talk) 19:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support. Using a middle name if the disambiguator "environmentalist" is controversial seems the best fix to me. SnowFire (talk) 17:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

As I pointed out below, WP:INITS says "Adding given names, or their abbreviations, merely for disambiguation purposes (if that format of the name is not commonly used to refer to the person) is not advised." We use disambiguators, not middle initials that contradict WP:COMMONNAME. --tronvillain (talk) 22:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support. Either this or something else neutral like Patrick Moore (lobbyist) or Patrick Moore (businessman) is fine by me. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• Patrick Moore (consultant) is also a possibility. This is what the French Wikipedia uses. Bueller 007 (talk) 20:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support lobbyist, environmentalist has a meaning, and I am not sure he qualifies.Slatersteven (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support, either that or Patrick Moore (lobbyist), which I prefer. Patrick Moore (businessman) is a possibility, but I feel the article generally supports the idea that he's far more notable as a lobbyist than anything else - He is far more notable for his lobbying after leaving the environmental movement than for anything he did within it, so lobbyist should be his main title if we're going to use anything. Edit: Also, to the person who started the discussion - you should have probably gone for a WP:BOLD move to a clearly-neutral title first, which would have avoided the issue where Snowfire reverted above solely because an RM was in progress. I doubt anyone would have reverted in that case; doing things in that order is usually a good idea when the current title is (as in this case) plainly inappropriate, since it ensures the article isn't stuck at a non-neutral title for a month while discussions grind over where precisely to place it. --Aquillion (talk) 17:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• I would have, but it is impossible to move the page to the suggested title of Patrick A. Moore because the page is blocked from creation by anyone other than an admin. Bueller 007 (talk) 19:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support Moore is no longer an environmentalist as the term is normally understood. TFD (talk) 19:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. Since the subject of this discussion has his name on the covers of a number of books, either Patrick Moore (author) or Patrick Moore (writer) would be certainly accurate. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. I suggest that we avoid Patrick Moore (lobbyist). "Lobbyist" has a very specific meaning (it doesn't mean "shill", "advocate", or "spokesperson", which is what people seem to want to use it to mean). I can't find any evidence that he is actually a lobbyist (i.e., registered). Here is the only information I could find from the Canadian government suggesting that he was a lobbyist. The registration was short-lived and it has lapsed: [2]. Looking back at the Wikipedia page history, the statement that he is a "lobbyist" appears to have arisen from the false claim that he is a "Monsanto lobbyist", which was widely circulated after his infamous interview. I'm removing all unreferenced claims from the article that he is a lobbyist. "Advocate" or "proponent" are more appropriate. Overall, Patrick Moore (consultant) seems to be the best choice of article name, in my opinion. Bueller 007 (talk) 01:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support move to Patrick A. Moore. Using the middle initial effectively disambiguates the subject, and avoids wrangling over what job title to use. Looking through the refs available online, very few describe him as an 'environmentalist' with the exception of those written by Moore himself. Perhaps the most common descriptor is 'greenpeace co-founder' which is disputed by others who were involved in Greenpeace in its early years.Dialectric (talk) 03:11, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. We don't use middle initials in article titles if they are not commonly used. I see no problem with the current title. That's what he's best known for, whether it's controversial or not. Just because he's fallen out with the environmentalist movement does not cancel out the years he spent doing just what the disambiguator says he did. We disambiguate by what people are best known for, which is not necessarily what they do now or did last. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• He is best known for his constant opposition to most positions of the environmental movement, not as an "environmentalist" (i.e., a supporter of those positions). We should be neutral and avoid calling him an "environmentalist" in the article title, just as we should avoid calling him an "anti-environmentalist" in the article title. Let's name the article after what he does, not what he believes (which we can't know). "Consultant" is a better title than "environmentalist". Bueller 007 (talk) 18:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• So the president of Greenpeace Canada was never an environmentalist? Forgive me for saying that that appears to be a pretty POV position. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:43, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Forgive me for saying, but if you think I said that he was "never an environmentalist" then you need remedial reading lessons. The comment you are responding to specifically about what he is best known for. Keep rocking those strawman arguments though. Bueller 007 (talk) 14:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

"He is best known for his constant opposition to most positions of the environmental movement, not as an "environmentalist"." No, he's best-known as president of Greenpeace Canada, and therefore as an environmentalist. Unless Greenpeace Canada suddenly decided to have a non-environmentalist as president. May I suggest the necessity is for remedial understanding and logic lessons, not remedial reading lessons as you so politely suggested. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and Necrothesp. Natural disambiguators don't work well when when they're rarely or never used in reliable sources. No opinion on any of the other disambiguators proposed above. Iffy★Chat -- 13:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. Disclaimer: I'm a pro-nuclear-power environmentalist myself. Greenpeace (and others but that's the relevant organisation here) claim for obvious political reasons that all environmentalists are anti-nuclear, and Moore is a particular embarrassment as he was one of their founders (to the extent that these days they deny that they had any founders). But the term environmentalist is commonly and correctly applied to a wide range of views, whether they like it or not. Moore is best known for his support of the environmental movement and his continued involvement in environmental issues, so it's a perfectly good disambiguator. Andrewa (talk) 17:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

What sources are you looking at that describe Moore as an environmentalist? With one exception, all the sources I see in this article's refs that specifically use the word 'environmentalist' are written by Moore. Also, Greenpeace states they have 3 founders, not including Moore, according to their background information.Dialectric (talk) 18:14, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

They weren't hard to find, try a Google of "Patrick Moore" environmentalist -Wikipedia, discard the primary sources and you'll still get thousands. [3] This just for an example. But the point is more, whatever he may be these days, it's his time as an undoubted environmentalist that is most significant. Without that he might not even qualify for an article. Andrewa (talk) 06:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

How many of those sources are published by organizations that use his credentials as a supposed environmentalist to push a point of view? Bueller 007 (talk) 15:05, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Roughly the same number that deny his credentials as a (perhaps former) environmentalist to promote their point of view. But for the purposes of article names they may all still be reliable sources if they reflect current English usage. To cherry-pick the ones that reflect a POV is itself POV. Andrewa (talk) 19:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Moore is best known for being for anything the environmental movement is generally against, all the while backing industry-friendly talking points, many of them quite fringe. His dubious claims about his former Greenpeace involvement provide him cover to claim to be yet so concerned about the environment, especially when sources like Wikipedia claim he's an "environmentalist". Predictably, this is red meat for his intended audience: the petroleum industry, and America's right wing, such as Fox News and the Trump Administration (see Fox News articles like "Greenpeace co-founder tears into Ocasio-Cortez, Green New Deal: ‘Pompous little twit'"). :bloodofox: (talk) 01:15, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Fox News is I think a reliable source in terms of our naming conventions, is it not? Andrewa (talk) 19:55, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Wait, what "dubious claims" are these? His involvement with Greenpeace is well established. --tronvillain (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Pro-nuclear environmentalist a misnomer. It is a term used by people who defend nuclear power on the basis that it does not cause global warming or pollution, but otherwise have no interest in the environment. TFD (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Half true (=false). It is also used by people such as myself who have a great deal of interest in the environment. I'd also apply it to my father, a prominent nuclear engineer whom I helped build our first solar hot water service in 1962 (I was ten), and who had himself built his first wind turbine at a similar age. Andrewa (talk) 19:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I am aware that they often advocate other types of alternative energy, such as wind, solar and ethanol as "clean" energy. But otherwise they don't actually show any interest in the environment. I don't see btw anything about environmentalism on your website. TFD (talk) 20:02, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for reading my website! And we are all aware that environmentalist is a very politically charged term. I take it that you don't consider me to otherwise... show any interest in the environment? Andrewa (talk) 20:09, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I proposed use of "nuclear energy advocate" below. Some Nuclear energy advocates can be environmentalists. Some Nuclear energy advocates can also be NOT environmentalist. I think we do not need to struggle on whether he is an environmentalist. In my opinion, "environmentalist" is not good disambiguation tag and it can be replaced by a more specific disambiguation tag.--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 04:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree that we should not support right-wing views, but nor should we support the left. Andrewa (talk) 06:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support, or to any disambiguator except this one. It simply can't stay at this name, because it's basically false. He isn't currently an environmentalist, even if he was in the past. To give an example, imagine someone who was a Christian archbishop (and thus notable) but suddenly renounced their faith and became an outspoken atheist. Would you keep the disambiguator "(archbishop)". Of course you wouldn't, it's nonsense to think so. Black Kite (talk) 01:38, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  • If they were highly notable as an archbishop, and not as anything else, yes, of course we'd keep the disambiguator archbishop. Very good point, important issue, but I think you have it backwards. Andrewa (talk) 06:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The difference being that Patrick Moore became notable *after* having left Greenpeace. Bueller 007 (talk) 14:58, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Very important claim if true. I think that probably deserves a section of its own. See #Notability below when I write it. Andrewa (talk) 20:13, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Having taken a look back, I think it's clear that he was quite notable as an environmentalist. It would be possible to write an article on him using nothing but material covering the seventies and eighties. I'd go so far as to say that it's what he's most notable for, and that any publicity he gets now is produced by that prior notability. --tronvillain (talk) 22:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support. The proposed name is acceptable. Some of the other names proposed in the discussion might also be acceptable. The current name is absolutely unacceptable. It is highly POV and misleading, to the point of being a straight up factual inaccuracy. It absolutely requires correction to something neutral and uncontroversially correct. Using the middle initial seems like the easiest way to achieve this with no possibility of a POV creeping in, either intentionally or otherwise. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Isn't to deny that he was an environmentalist (and a highly notable one at that) even more POV? Andrewa (talk) 06:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  • No one is denying that he was an environmentalist. But it is POV pushing to put it in the title when neutral alternatives exist. Bueller 007 (talk) 14:58, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Nobody has proposed renaming the article to "Patrick Moore (former environmentalist)", "Patrick Moore (fake environmentalist)", or anything potentially POV like that, so this issue simply does not arise. The proposed new titles do not deny anything. They simply decline to make an assertion that is ambiguous and, at best, highly controversial. Not making an assertion is not the same as denying it. The article explains it all in detail. I don't think that there is any one word that can be added to the title that would give a valid summary of all this however I am 100% sure that if such a word does exist it is not "environmentalist". So, what is so bad about using the middle initial, like we do in a lot of other article titles? Surely his middle initial can't encode any POV, can it? Failing that, "Patrick Moore (businessman)" would be a perfectly acceptable alternative. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:01, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Because it's not commonly used. We only use middle initials in other article titles where they are commonly used. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

In that case "Patrick Moore (businessman)"? I'm not too fussed which exact option we go for but I do feel, much like Black Kite above, that the current name is utterly indefensible. It is blatantly and unacceptably POV. We have multiple acceptable options here. I am at a loss to understand why anybody would want to keep the existing name. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:43, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

It is POV pushing to change the disambiguator in order to distance his current views from those of the mainstream movement. He is and remains mainly notable because of his contribution as an (undisputed) environmentalist. Would we similarly change Ian Smith (New Zealand cricketer) because he's now a commentator rather than a player? Andrewa (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. I will point out that the controversy in this move proposal is exactly why the article should be moved. The claim that he is (or is most notable as) an environmentalist is controversial and Wikipedia should not take a stance on the issue. Patrick Moore (consultant) is neutral and NPOV; Patrick Moore (environmentalist) is not. Bueller 007 (talk) 15:05, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Exactly. Except that Patrick Moore (consultant) is POV, in that it reflects the POV that he is not mainly notable as a (perhaps former) environmentalist. So, we go for sources, and we do not cherry-pick them according to our personal POVs. Andrewa (talk) 20:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support An environmentalist is someone who supports the goals of the environmental movement. This individual does not. Identifying them using a parenthetical "environmentalist" in the title is misleading and contradicts cited WP:RS. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I oppose a move to Patrick A. Moore per WP:INITS, but something like "Patrick Moore (consultant)" or "Patrick Moore (environmental consultant)" would be reasonable. To clarify, what that guideline says is: "Adding given names, or their abbreviations, merely for disambiguation purposes (if that format of the name is not commonly used to refer to the person) is not advised." --tronvillain (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and Necrothesp. I also oppose putting lobbyist or businessman for disambiguation. The problem is lobbyist and businessman are quite ambiguous as well. However, if it is sufficiently specific (e.g. nuclear energy advocate) and if that is supported by enough evidence, I would support. I think "nuclear energy advocate" is much more specific for disambiguation than "environmentalist", which is now confusing. --Kittyhawk2 (talk) 04:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I would add that some users that is not native to US/Europe has difficulty to adopt middle name of other people, even their mother language is English. His Middle name is not commonly seen in newspaper as well. It is very difficult to search. The discussion should be focus on disambiguation tag. Let's find a better disambiguation tag. --Kittyhawk2 (talk) 04:21, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. We do not use uncommonly used names. feminist (talk) 08:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I agree that the title should be revised and I would recommend an advisor rather than consultant, it sounds for me more sexy and have more value added even though it means practically the same. However I would definitely avoid using the environmentalist.--Jeremydas (talk) 20:19, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support moving to Patrick A. Moore, or to Patrick Moore (consultant) as even though it's vague, it's NPOV. Comment that general opinion was shown in favour of moving the name in every discussion on this talk page so far, with several years to talk about it, and Move that this vote be closed and the action carried out. Safrolic (talk) 22:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

As out above, a move to Patrick A. Moore contradicts both WP:COMMONNAME and WP:INITS. --tronvillain (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

You're right - Further, [[4]] states, "Further, any move request that is out of keeping with naming conventions or is otherwise in conflict with applicable guideline and policy, unless there is a very good reason to ignore rules, should be closed without moving regardless of how many of the participants support it." There is further no strong consensus towards any other specific name. However, there is consensus that the current title is not appropriate. This scenario is covered under WP:THREEOUTCOMES, stating that the closer should pick the best title of the options available, make clear that there is no consensus for this specific title, and anyone may make a new move request immediately if the chosen title is not acceptable. I'm currently tallying up all the votes and opinions, and I'll put up a table in an hour or so with summary. Safrolic (talk) 23:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Non-admin closure

I've requested that User:Safrolic reopen the RM, but note that their user page reads Feel free to leave me a message, but I'll be slow getting back to you.

This is not suitable RM for even a highly experienced non-admin to close, and it appears to be the very first RM that this particular user has closed. Andrewa (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey Andrewa; as noted, there was no consensus after 8 days where to move to, but there was consensus that it should not remain at (environmentalist). WP:THREEOUTCOMES specifically mentions this scenario, saying;

There are rare circumstances where multiple names have been proposed and no consensus arises out of any, except that it is determined that the current title should not host the article. In these difficult circumstances, the closer should pick the best title of the options available, and then be clear that while consensus has rejected the former title (and no request to bring it back should be made lightly), there is no consensus for the title actually chosen. If anyone objects to the closer's choice, they may make another move request immediately, hopefully to its final resting place.

You're possibly right that I should not have been the closer, but I do think that the decision I made was the best one for the discussion to actually move forward. Consensus was clear that (environmentalist) was not the right choice. If you object to (consultant), could you make another move request, to a disambiguator you believe is more appropriate? If you feel that consensus was not reached to move away from (environmentalist), I won't be offended if you request a move review. Safrolic (talk) 00:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Let me be sure I understand... you think I'm possibly right that you should not have been the closer, but you'd prefer it went to move review?

I don't want to waste anyone's time with MR if there really is consensus to move. But see here on that. Andrewa (talk) 16:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Notability

I don't think anyone is disputing the notability of Moore. But the question is raised above whether or not he's chiefly notable because of his former connection with Greenpeace, or because of his subsequent activities, or both. I think that's a very important question. Watch this space. Andrewa (talk) 20:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

We don't currently have any sources dating from when Moore was active in Greenpeace.Dialectric (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

That may just be for lack of looking! Does anyone seriously doubt his role? See below if so! Andrewa (talk) 06:58, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Greenpeace's POV is at

https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/greenpeace-statement-on-patric/

They used to have a page at

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/about/history/the-founders

but it's now a 404. You can see an early version at

https://web.archive.org/web/20090301164350/http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/about/history/the-founders

If I do a Google on "Greenpeace founders" I get ten photos... and he's one of the ten. But Google's algorithm doesn't prove anything other than that some computer "thinks" that SOMEBODY thinks his activity in the early days was significant I guess.

Our article on Dorothy Stowe (and I suspect several others) currently states that she "co-founded" Greenpeace.

Greenpeace is of course a very media-oriented organisation. Their spin on founders seems to have gone from listing Moore as one of them (before his deciding that nuclear power was the only as yet successful strategy for reducing carbon emissions) to denying that they had any founders (immediately after chucking him out as a result) to now listing founders and leaving him out.

If secondary sources adopt this spin, then of course we do too. But only if they do. Andrewa (talk) 07:23, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

We have Greenpeace#Founders_and_founding_time_of_Greenpeace that already covers this, with references. The founders page is still available from Greenpeace as an archive: https://www.greenpeace.org/archive-international/en/about/history/founders/. What source shows Greenpeace "denying that they had any founders"?Dialectric (talk) 17:38, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

It was in the Wayback Machine somewhere I think, or even on one of Greenpeace's current pages, maybe a national one. Our own coverage of the early history is not too good, we don't seem to have an article on the Phyllis Cormack or even a redirect for example. She was renamed Greenpeace for that first voyage and among the crew of twelve were Moore and two others listed at https://www.greenpeace.org.au/about/how-it-all-began/ as representing Greenpeace. But our article on MV Greenpeace is about a later ship. I'm sure that the Phyllis Cormack by whatever name would pass the GNG and should be at least a redlink from Greenpeace (disambiguation).

But here's a start... http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/about/history/the-founders got a 404 when I first tried it just a day or two ago. It was there once, see https://web.archive.org/web/20121009041641/http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/history/the-founders/... but by 2012 it left Moore off the crew list! Their founders page now redirects to their home page rather than getting a 404 (page not found). Maybe they are watching this discussion? They would be mad not to!

https://www.greenpeace.org.au/about/how-it-all-began/ still lists him as a crewmember, but perhaps not for long. (;-> Andrewa (talk) 04:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

There's actually a lot about his early involvement with Greenpeace (opposition to whaling, seal hunting, oil tankers, various arrests, becoming one of the vice-presidents in 1976, becoming president in 1977, and then director of Greenpeace Canada in 1979, etc.) I'll try to add some of it tomorrow. One example would be this.--tronvillain (talk) 20:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Expanded the reference and text about him becoming president of Greenpeace in 1977. --tronvillain (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I don’t think theres much of an argument about chief notability... This is an article about an active person not a historical one. He left Greenpeace a long time ago and hasn’t been affiliated with them since, yet he has had a wildly successful career. A good analogue is the page for Paul Watson who is also much more notable for his post-Greenpeace activities. Theres also much the same discussion over whether Watson is a co-founder of Greenpeace on the talk page. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Disagree that there's not much of an argument about chief notability, if by that you mean that he's clearly more notable for his current activities than his previous ones.

The parallel with Paul Watson is obvious but there is an important difference. Post-Greenpeace, Watson has been newsworthy for many things. Moore, on the other hand, has just built a consultancy based on the fame from his Greenpeace connection. Andrewa (talk) 20:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

From what I can glean from the page Moore left Greenpeace in 1986 and didn’t start his consulting business until 2002. He seems to have gotten quite a bit done in the years in between even if his post Greenpeace career hasn’t been as illustrious as Watson’s (pigs will fly before Moore gets a show on Animal Planet). However, if you truly believe that "Moore, on the other hand, has just built a consultancy based on the fame from his Greenpeace connection” then you should be challenging the newsworthiness of a half dozen cited claims in the current version of the page. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 01:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

By From what I can glean from the page I assume you mean in the After Greenpeace section. I note that this lists his involvement in half a dozen interesting-sounding organisations but only one of them has a Wikilink to a Wikipedia article (The Heartland Institute. in the last paragraph)The arother ticles may be there, or they may be non-notable organisations. Either way agree that the Moore article needs other work.

But IMO it's a waste of time doing this while the article title is bowdlerised the way it now is. First things first. Or maybe it's just a waste of my time... you can't fight city hall, and many Wikipedians seem to have swallowed the Greenpeace spin, not surprisingly, we probably have a left-leaning demographic. Similarly I nearly gave up on NYRM and still wonder, although reason prevailed eventually, was it really worth it? It improved Wikipedia, but at what cost in effort that might have been better spent elsewhere?

I think probably the key point here so far as improving Wikipedia is concerned is your claim above This is an article about an active person not a historical one. Disagree. It's about a living person who is clearly notable historically, and arguably also notable for their current activities, and about whose historical significance there is a strong current controversy owing to his current activities. Andrewa (talk) 22:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Founder

Sigh, so I guess this is a thing. Fails WP:V. RS [5], [6], [7] say no. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

You're claiming that Greenpeace is an RS, which I believe is incorrect for this context, but if it is RS then Greenpeace said he was a co-founder (they erased that page later). Your other two "RS" sources are explicitly depending on the later Greenpeace statements, so they don't add credibility. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

The issue was naming him as "founder". Click on the diff I reverted. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Click on your reversion. You will find that you re-inserted a statement saying it is incorrect to refer to Moore as a "co-founder". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

He should not be introduced as a "businessman" first for reasons discussed in the move request, since it is just as controversial as introducing him as an environmentalist first. (It also subscribes to the frankly insulting view that anybody who disagrees with the official Greenpeace agenda must have done it for 30 pieces of silver; there exist pro-nuclear environmentalists.) I've restored the initial sentence from about ~6 months ago as a temporary measure; this is not an endorsement of that phrasing, but switching it to "businessman" is asking for trouble. The lede already covers Greenpeace's denunciation of Moore in the second paragraph, which is a better place for it than the first sentence which should be as bulletproof as possible. SnowFire (talk) 01:03, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I added industry consultant - this should probably be first since it is his primary current job and since it is the primary reason for his notability. Regardless of the specific ordering, we should acknowledge up front that he runs and environmental consultancy that promotes the nuclear and coal, among others. This isn't a claim made exclusively by Greenpeace (Wired, BBC) Nblund ^talk 03:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

We should be very careful here... BLP, obvious spin on both sides, citeogenesis risks, hard to tell just how independent what seem like secondary sources really are.

So, any statement on who the "founders" of Greenpeace are or were should scrupulously avoid using Wikipedia's voice. They should be of the form In 2003 Greenpeace said... with a reference to the primary source, and of course avoid basing any conclusion on this.

And trickier still, we need to be very careful about giving undue weight to one view or the other. But balance is possible, particularly if we discuss in good faith. Andrewa (talk) 20:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I must stress that the fact that Patrick Moore was on the founding committee ([8]), indisputably forever makes him the co-founder. Later being part of some controversy or dispute is never a valid reason to remove a persons claim to the title of co-founder . Segrov (talk) 22:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree. It's not a valid reason, but it is a powerful motivator if you disagree with the views he is currently promoting! Andrewa (talk) 01:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

That link puts him in a list of co-founders and first members. It cannot be used to say that he is specifically one or the other. The link also establishes the creation date on the committee as 1970, while elsewhere we have established concretely (unless anyone wants to dispute the veracity of his application letter) that he did not join until 1971. If a completely reputable org made a list with Cats and Famous Female World Leaders, and included Max, Tigger, Queen Elizabeth II and Snowbell, it'd still be a stretch to edit Lizzy's article to say she's a cat- even if she also claimed she was one. Safrolic (talk) 01:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Another verified founder, Paul Watson, has publicly confirmed Patrick Moore is a founding director of Greenpeace. ([9]). Segrov (talk) 22:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Good catch. That's a primary source of course, and I'm not sure how reliable Twitter is considered in any case. But very interesting.

Paul Watson also claims to be a founder, and our article currently calls him a co-founder of Greenpeace (in Wikipedia's voice, see it while it lasts) but also notes that Greenpeace dispute this, and they are currently not friends apparently! But Watson still seems to be universally considered an environmentalist, at least. Andrewa (talk) 14:12, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

There is a newsclipping from the Windsor Star on April 19, 1978 that names Bob Hunter and Patrick Moore as founders. This should settle things. Clipping found here: https://www.newspapers.com/image/503217891

From The Journal News (White Plains, NY - 04 Feb 2004): "Dr. Patrick Moore...A co-founder and former president of Greenpeace..." (https://www.newspapers.com/image/166615733/?terms=%22Patrick%2Bmoore%2Bhas%2Bbeen%2Ba%2Bleader%22)

The Vancouver Sun also names Patrick Moore and Bob Hunter as Founders: https://www.newspapers.com/image/496413641/?terms=Greenpeace (page 31) AnonElectricSheep (talk) 11:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

An archived copy of the Canberra Times lists him as a co-founder as well (https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/116371259?searchTerm=greenpeace+co-founder). Do we have consensus to add a mention of these sources in the article itself? Even if some people have disputed his role in the organization's founding/development since he left the organization (and this dispute could certainly be acknowledged in the article), it seems ridiculous to ignore credible sources from the 1970's and 1980's that indicate that he was a co-founder. Dionysus1886 (talk) 21 March 2019 —Preceding undated comment added 01:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

These seem to be reliable secondary sources. I'm going to revise my opinion above on using Wikipedia's voice... if these sources are cited, IMO we can and should say that he is a founder of Greenpeace. Greenpeace have handled this very badly, but we can't save them from themselves. If verifiable, encyclopedic information shows them in a bad light, we should not just leave this information out to avoid that.

The three newspapers.com sources are behind a paywall, so while they are technically verifiable we prefer ones that are freely accessible. We now have at least two that are free, New Scientist and Canberra Times (the latter on Trove).

But I'm not then sure what to do about Greenpeace's opinion. It seems necessary to state it too. But how, without taking sides? If it's sources that we regard as reliable versus Greenpeace, we have a dilemma. And that's not really our fault.

If we could find reliable secondary sources that state he's not a founder, that would mean we could say that sources vary, and cite both. But it seems unlikely. Any sources we find that do say this are likely to be Greenpeace supporters, and in this sense they are primary sources. Perhaps we should overlook this? I find it tricky, as I've said before. Andrewa (talk) 07:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to quote your reply earlier (which I loved, by the way) here; "We want our material to be verifiable, but we also want it to be true!" We have the original documents, and they're saying something else. Like [Snopes], another reliable secondary source, said, "attributing [Moore's] statements to a “Greenpeace co-founder” is factually inaccurate." We can both sides it, but we shouldn't use wikipedia's voice to say the opposite. Safrolic (talk) 07:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Snopes (which has been updated since I wrote that) is still perhaps at odds with what other sources say. We have several other sources that say Moore was a founder of Greenpeace. And we have a primary source [10] that describes his current views... and he now actually supports the thesis that climate change is happening and is partly caused by our CO2 emissions. (But he also thinks this may be a good thing!) The combustion of fossil fuels for energy to power human civilization has reversed the downward trend in CO2 and promises to bring it back to levels that are likely to foster a considerable increase in the growth rate and biomass of plants, including food crops and trees. Human emissions of CO2 have restored a balance to the global carbon cycle, thereby ensuring the long-term continuation of life on Earth. This extremely positive aspect of human CO2 emissions must be weighed against the unproven hypothesis that human CO2 emissions will cause a catastrophic warming of the climate in coming years.

When was Greenpeace founded? When they first started to use the name? When they first started to meet under another name? Both of those events took place before Moore was involved. Or was the first voyage of the Greenpeace part of the founding process? If so, then Moore is a founder, and that seems to be a common view expressed by sources, and not inconsistent with what Snopes says on very careful reading (which is why I said perhaps above). Mind you, Snopes is being continually updated... another reason to avoid depending on it too much. They currently cite a famous Trump tweet which does not represent Moore's current thinking at all.

So it's a bit tricky IMO. I think we need to assume that both sides may be more concerned with spin than with science. Andrewa (talk) 14:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to start at the bottom here. The Trump tweet they're referencing, from 10 days ago now, is a direct quote of Moore's statements in his appearance on Fox News, also 10 days ago. https://video.foxnews.com/v/6012997442001/?playlist_id=930909787001#sp=show-clips the quote begins at 1:31. Unless Moore has reinvented himself in the past week, this is his current thinking. As for Snopes being updated since it was first linked in these discussions, their corrections policy in their FAQ says, "Whenever we change the rating of a fact check (for any reason), correct or modify a substantive supporting fact (even if it does not affect the item’s overall rating), or add substantial new information to an existing article, those changes are noted and explained in an Update box at the foot of the article." There is no update box, so I think it's more likely that neither of us read it quickly enough; otherwise I certainly would have quoted it then. Regarding conflicting sources, I honestly trust Snopes, or any other factchecking organization, the most, then articles where the central topic is whether Moore is a co-founder, and popular/news media articles which simply introduce him as a co-founder in passing the least.

I also agree that both sides are probably concerned with spin, but want to point out that only one side is currently using a social media platform to call in followers to edit the page en masse. We're all acting in good faith here, but Moore is not, and sources published by him or his organizations suffer in credibility for it. Safrolic (talk) 20:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, we assume good faith, which doesn't mean we believe it in the face of evidence to the contrary but I have no evidence to the contrary. But we can in good faith still be wrong. I think you were wrong to close the recent related RM as you did, and that most of those who !voted were wrong to think that their opinions on whether he was an environmentalist were more relevant than Wikipedia policy. We move on where that is concerned!

I even assume that the IP who recently asked me Do you like Greenpeace so much, that you are ready to give up on your journalistic integrity to back their lies up? [11] was acting in good faith. But I think they're mistaken too.

And if Moore has been recruiting meatpuppets via Twitter, see #Moore is encouraging his Twitter followers to edit this page, all the relevant accounts should be blocked IMO. Not being a Twitter user I have not even investigated that, but hopefully some other admin has or will. I'd raise it at ANI, but there may be a problem with outing. Complicated! Andrewa (talk) 22:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

On the subject of good faith, I actually wanted to thank you for your edits over the past week. It's really been a proof in action of how universal acting in good faith is in this community. (And yikes, that is certainly a comment!) Thanks also for the policy links, there's a bunch of policies here I haven't read yet. Safrolic (talk) 23:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, see also wp:creed#bold and hang in there! But on the other hand, admins are responsible for having a fairly good knowledge of policies and guidelines, otherwise they should not be admins. When I became one, this was only expected when exercising admin powers, but now all admins are held to a higher standard of accountability whenever we edit. Which is why I still think that your non-admin close of the RM was not good. Andrewa (talk) 02:21, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Further on the subject of social media (only one side is currently using a social media platform to call in followers to edit the page en masse) that's an interesting question. I dislike fbook for many reasons but use it myself when there is no other option, and it has sometimes delivered, and I've learned enough to know that you could use it to recruit meatpuppets without leaving any public evidence, it's not even a difficult thing to do. Isn't Twitter the same? Is it that the Greenpeace POV pushers are not using these tactics, or is it just that they're better at it? Moore possibly doesn't even realise that meatpuppetry is policed here (many do not), otherwise surely he would have covered his tracks. Andrewa (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but I don't want to make the situation worse by undoing it. Is it possible for an uninvolved admin to weigh in, or to re-close the RM (with whatever decision they make), without re-opening it, or for the original participants to affirm the close with a strawpoll or something? I'm not sure what level is appropriate, and don't want to escalate anything higher than appropriate or re-open under these circumstances, but I do want to make sure it's gotten right.

It's possible to privately message people on twitter, but unless he were to protect his page from all non-followers there'd be no way to broadcast a message to the group without it being picked up. Greenpeace is under the same limitation; you can message a couple people privately or you can broadcast to everyone at once, but you can't broadcast to everyone privately. I've got no idea how to search for any mentions of Wikipedia by them across their media outlets, so I couldn't know if they have or haven't. It's possible that Moore doesn't know meatpuppetry isn't okay, but he is aware that he's not allowed to edit his own page, and he attempted to do just that a couple days ago, with his own account. A reasonable person might see the similarity between editing his own page and asking friends to edit it for him. Safrolic (talk) 02:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm still considering how and whether to further the article name thing... My thinking is still that the best thing would have been to re-open and for an uninvolved admin to close. But you have every right to refuse to do that.

It's now a bit late for MR, so the other possibility is a fresh RM, as you suggested at one stage. There are a couple of other disambiguators that weren't even raised last time and might be possible. Still wondering whether it's worth the trouble. Andrewa (talk) 04:28, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I suggested that in the close, and continue to suggest that. ;) The outcome I quoted specifically says "any editor may make a new request immediately." Given circumstances it might be better to wait for a little while, and perhaps finish the other ongoing discussions, but you've got just as much right to do it now. Safrolic (talk) 04:56, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Reliability and relevance of sources

I think this deserves a subsection. Watch this space. Andrewa (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Moore is encouraging his Twitter followers to edit this page

Moore is encouraging his Twitter followers to edit this page. [12] Be prepared for incoming POV edits. Bueller 007 (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

He claims that "edits to my Wikipedia biography are behind the reason I have been dropped as a Founder of Greenpeace." That could be true but the article should reflect reliable secondary sources regardless. TFD (talk) 16:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I reverted an edit by an unregistered user. At what point does it become reasonable to request temporary semiprotection?Safrolic (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

It is not true. Wikipedia has not claimed in ages that he was a co-founder of Greenpeace. Don't forget that Patrick Moore was a substantial contributor to his own biography here. Wikipedia's past claims that he was a co-founder of Greenpeace come from Patrick Moore himself. For example, here is Patrick Moore himself changing Wikipedia's characterization of him as an "early member" to a "co-founder". [13] Bueller 007 (talk) 18:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

The source cited for the claim by most recent edits is a PhD thesis about social movement organizations, focusing on Greenpeace. I searched for mentions of Moore and found on page 190;

7.8 One Greenpeace: Working Globally to Create an Ecological Sensibility

It was not until 1979 that this debate about organizational structure and decision-making processes would come to resolution as the result of an internal dispute. One of Greenpeace co-founders, Patrick Moore, an ecologist, was leading the Greenpeace Vancouver office, which under his leadership had launched a lawsuit against the San Francisco Greenpeace office about the use of the Greenpeace name and the distribution of its funds.

This claim itself isn't cited, but the thesis was successful. WP:Scholarship says,

Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources. Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by third parties. Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule. Some theses are later published in the form of scholarly monographs or peer reviewed articles, and, if available, these are usually preferable to the original thesis as sources. Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence.

Since it's very incidental to the thesis topic, and it's not cited, I don't know how reliable I'd consider it. Safrolic (talk) 19:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

It's easy to be find a reliable source e.g. New Scientist calls him a "founding member". It's also easy to find the contrary, especially from a period after Greenpeace started denying the claim. The article should have been neutral, and for a few days it wasn't (see previous thread). I don't agree with Bueller 007's suggestion that "past claims" that Moore was a co-founder come from Moore, that's not demonstrable for all edits. I also don't agree with Bueller 007's suggestion that Moore is a liar. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't know that there's much of a difference between "one of the first members" and a "founding member". What's not easy to find a reliable source for is that he is a "co-founder". Snopes is considered a reliable source, and published this answer [[14]] to the question, saying:

What's True: Patrick Moore was an early and influential member of Greenpeace who now espouses climate-skeptic views.

What's False: Greenpeace does not consider Moore a co-founder of the organization, and the entity that became Greenpeace existed prior to Moore being affiliated with that group.

They then link to Moore's original application, [[15]] hosted by Greenpeace, to the Don't Make A Wave committee to join the Greenpeace voyage. I feel like that's a pretty strong source/argument for saying he joined them, but maybe that's just my opinion. Safrolic (talk) 22:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

References

If your recent change simply quoting New Scientist survives, it doesn't matter if we don't agree whether a "founding member" is a "founder". As for the "liar" edit, I'll bring it to a separate thread after other things are discussed. And Greenpeace's quote of Moore's letter of 1971-03-16 is irrelevant, since Greenpeace began on 1971-09-15, once again it's easy to find a reliable source e.g. CTV. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

[[16]] Here is a scan of the incorporation document for the Don't Make A Wave Committee, hosted on the site of Beatty Street Publishing, which is a company associated with Greenspirit Strategies. As you can see, the incorporation of the committee is dated to Oct 5, 1970. [[17]] Here is a scan of Moore's application letter to join the committee, with the committee's reply back to him. It's dated March 16th, 1971. Safrolic (talk) 01:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes the Don't Make A Wave Committee existed before Greenpeace existed. But nobody in this discussion (or anywhere on this talk page as far as I can see) has said that Moore was a co-founder of the Don't Make A Wave Committee, so that's irrelevant. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

According to Moore [[18]] among many other sources, the DWAWC is Greenpeace. They just changed their name.

Part of the continuing debate about who was a founder and who was not has to do with the fact that the Don’t Make a Wave Committee was not called Greenpeace at first but evolved and changed its name to Greenpeace over time. - Moore

The role he's describing, someone who applied to join and showed up at the first meeting, is that of an early member, not a co-founder. 02:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Safrolic (talk • contribs)

Key word = "evolved". If australopithecus evolved into homo then at some point they get regarded as distinct and the name change reflects that, because australopithecus isn't homo. The same page whence you picked one sentence explains at length why it seems reasonable to call Mr Moore a co-founder of Greenpeace. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 12:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think there's much point in this line of discussion, since it really just amounts to primary source interpretation on our part. It's best to drop right and wrong and simply describe what both sides say. Guettarda (talk) 13:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll stand back for a while and see how the main thread "evolves". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

== Patrick Moore is a Founder of Greenpeace ==

It is not in dispute that Patrick Moore was involved with the "Don't Make a Wave" committee prior to the maiden voyage of Greenpeace to Amchitka to derail the nuclear testing there. Greenpeace’s own website listed Moore among its “founders and first members” before quietly removing it around 2007. It is obvious that Patrick Moore, clearly, was a founder of Greenpeace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jefflucky (talk • contribs) 19:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, how do you interpret the "first members" part of "founders and first members"? Greenpeace still does not deny that Moore was an influential early member of the organization. Only that he was not a founder. I am legitimately curious how you can interpret Moore being listed as among the "founder and first members" as a statement meaning that he must have been a "founder". Bueller 007 (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

If you read Bob Hunter's "The Greenpeace to Amchitka" (Published by Arsenal Pulp Press, Canada:ISBN Number: 1-55152-178-4)he describes his experience after the initial Greenpeace voyage and his involvement in the group saying, "The problem was that I’d joined. What exactly I’d joined was not yet clear – it was still being defined – but I had definitely stopped being on the outside looking in and was instead on the inside looking out." In other words, in Bob Hunter's own words, the Greenpeace organization was in its founding state yet being defined. Patrick Moore was on that voyage and involved in all the discussions about what the organization was and where in should head in its incipient stages. Even Bob Hunter admits the Greenpeace voyage and late developments were the "founding" events in which Patrick Moore was involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jefflucky (talk • contribs) 21:04, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

It's really interesting I think that the ship used for that first voyage was named Greenpeace for the voyage, and that we don't seem to have an article on the vessel, or even a mention of this at Greenpeace (disambiguation). Andrewa (talk) 23:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

NPOV question

So it's pretty clear that Moore considers himself a co-founder of Greenpeace, and that Greenpeace doesn't. Rather than debating it back and forth, is there any way to simply include both positions in the article? Obviously we can't that he is a co-founder, in Wikipedia's voice. But we should include his claims (and Greenpeace's rebuttal). How much to devote to each claim is something worth debating, per GEVAL. But I think that neither leaving those claims out entire, nor stating them as if they were undisputed facts, are really consistent with NPOV. Guettarda (talk) 22:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I think there is a path to a fully sourced passage on this. I'll give it a shot. Safrolic (talk) 22:52, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that he was as much a founder of Greenpeace as anyone was, and that Greenpeace have subsequently devoted some effort to diminishing any connection and continue to do so. But agree that we should not say any of that in Wikipedia's voice.

So agree that we should include both claims in the article, carefully phrased and sourced.

And we should also try to carefully balance the weight we give to his current and historical activities. That's the tricky bit. But if we get it right, the correct article title will follow. And not otherwise! Andrewa (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I have no complaints about this. We should not say "he is a founder of Greenpeace", just as we should not say "he is not a founder of Greenpeace". But if we state both points of view, that's 100% fair game, in my opinion. Bueller 007 (talk) 23:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I've made some changes to the Greenpeace section, could you two take a look? Safrolic (talk) 23:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Looks fine to me from what I know, but I don't think the edit warring is going to stop until there is a referenced statement right in the lede that says something like "Moore claims to be a co-founder of Greenpeace; however, Greenpeace has stated that he was only an (influential) early member not a founder of the organization" or similar. Present both points of view right up front. Even that probably won't stop the edit warring, to be honest. Bueller 007 (talk) 23:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't support putting a he-said-they-said in the lede normally, but this dispute between Moore and Greenpeace has been ongoing for a significant portion of his career. I wouldn't be opposed to putting both sides in. Leave out the connecting "however" or anything to that effect though, it's probably WP:SYNTH depending on sourcing. The Snopes article could be a good source for it. Safrolic (talk) 23:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. When someone's claim to fame rests partially on their claim of being a Greenpeace co-founder, it is probably worth mentioning in the lede (in a neutral manner) even if it is not necessarily true. As Moore himself has stated, who actually can or cannot be described as a Greenpeace founder is somewhat debatable. Feel free to insert something if you wish. The Snopes article looks like a fair reference that could be used as a counterpoint to his own claims. Bueller 007 (talk) 01:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I assume we're talking about https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/patrick-moore-climate-doubter/ and yes, it's an excellent page, it's a shame we can't just copy some of their text (but maybe they'd even agree to that with attribution?). Andrewa (talk) 02:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

From their FAQ: No. Using our material without our permission is copyright infringement, even if your site is noncommercial, and even if you give us credit. [...] You are welcome to link to any of our articles from your site, but you may not reproduce the content of our pages on your own site. I'm aware of the irony. Shame though! Safrolic (talk) 02:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

https://www.snopes.com/frequently-asked-questions/ Yes, we'd need to ask their permission for use of this specific text. The FAQ gives their reasons for this policy, and doesn't make any comment on whether permission has ever been or might be granted if requested. Perhaps we could make a case that the material is unlikely to change, and any effects on their revenues are likely to be positive... especially if in our footnote we state we have permission and give details of how we got it and verified it, showing to others how important we think it is to respect Snopes' copyright (and it is). Simpler to get consensus on our own wording if we can. Andrewa (talk) 04:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Moore has claimed to be a co-founder of Greenpeace. Greenpeace has denied the claim, as the organization already existed when he joined, and released his application letter to sail with the Don't Make A Wave Committee, the group's original name, on their first voyage. Safrolic (talk) 07:01, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

If we even cite Snopes, which seems a good source to me, we need to cite it accurately. The specific claim they investigate at https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/patrick-moore-climate-doubter/ is whether Patrick Moore, who once described anthropogenic climate change as “fake science” on the morning opinion program "Fox and Friends," co-founded the environmental action group Greenpeace. The rating is mixture... This rating indicates that a claim has significant elements of both truth and falsity to it such that it could not fairly be described by any other rating. Andrewa (talk) 08:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the truth part of the mixture is that he *was* an early and influential member of the group, and that he denies anthropogenic climate change. The false part is that he co-founded it, as it existed prior to him being there. Is there a good way to wedge "he got in on the ground floor" in there, or should it be written differently entirely? Safrolic (talk) 08:44, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

It looks reasonable to insert both claims in the article, it's fair. It should be only phrased and sourced very attentively. Moreover, in this very case the neutural postion will be kept. In a dispute, what is worth is the balance! And I agree, that the Snoops article is the best reference in this regard.--Jeremydas (talk) 11:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

But note that Snopes doesn't say in their own voice whether or not he was a Greenpeace founder. They just say that Greenpeace says he wasn't a founder. In theory that's what we try to do too. Andrewa (talk) 16:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The draft line I wrote doesn't say that Snopes said Moore is/isn't a founder. They did say, in their own voice, that the organization which would become Greenpeace already existed. I don't know if I see a conflict between your criticism and the draft line I wrote, but could you edit it? Safrolic (talk) 18:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Just thought I'd point out that the letter is an application to sail on the boat. It doesn't actually establish when he was first involved with the committee. His application might have indeed been the first involvement, but he seems to have become significantly involved before it became anything accurately described as "Greenpeace." You can see in Rex Wyler's Greenpeace that Moore was apparently the one they sent to assess the Phyllis Cormack as capable of making the voyage, then flew to Anchorage with Bohlen in May for Atomic Energy Commission hearings, and then of course eventually sailing on the boat. And then apparently on 1 November 1971 "Jim Bohlen, Irving Stow, and Paul Cote met to wrap up the Don't Make A Wave Committee" where "They discussed Bob Hunter's proposal to keep the organization alive and rename it the Greepeace Foundation, but the idea raised controversy." Then finally "On January 21, the Don't Make A Wave Committee resolved to change its name to the Greenpeace Foundation. The Metcalfes, the Hunters, Patrick Moore, Rod Marining, and others remained active. The Stowers and Bohlens withdrew but stayed in contact with the Metcalfes" and "On May 4, 1972, the Provincial Societies office in Victoria, British Columbia registered the name 'Greenpeace Foundation.'" There are some pretty good reasons why Greenpeace might have previously listed him on their website with their founders. --tronvillain (talk) 17:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Very well put. But IMO the main reason they listed him on their website was exactly the reason they took him off.. spin. He was (and is) an extremely articulate guy with a relevant degree. Once he gave their views support. Now he doesn't. Do they need any other reasons? Andrewa (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

This is 100% primary source interpretation, but I think if he was previously involved with the organization, the letter (in which he mentioned his strengths) would have included something about it. It also wouldn't have needed the basic introductions, like "I am a Graduate student at UBC in my 2nd year", and he would have been able to direct it to the actual person he meant to contact, instead of "Dear Sir". He wouldn't have needed to include something like "hope to hear from you", since he'd have heard from them before, and he wouldn't have needed to enclose his phone number if he had it. Now, none of these things are any kind of conclusive evidence, but taken together the letter does not read to me like someone writing to people he already knew. The other point to make is that it's fairly uncontroversial in terms of sourcing that the move to Greenpeace instead of DWAWC was a name change, not a new organization being founded.

Agreed with Andrewa though that the reason he was originally on the website (though, I take pains to point out, not specifically listed as a co-founder), was for spin, just as was the reason they took him off, and the reason he describes himself as a co-founder today. Safrolic (talk) 18:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it's a reasonable interpretation of the primary source that it was his first contact, which is why I said "His application might very well have been his first involvement" but either way it's probably unjustified interpretation of a primary source. Some of the rest of it seems worth adding though, since it and other sources establish that the Committee turns directly into Greenpeace (though it looks as if it was nearly the case that one ended and the other began), so only the initial committee members are strictly "founders", but also that he was one of the primary members when the choice was made to continue the group and actually call it Greenpeace. --tronvillain (talk) 20:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

If he calls himself a founder and Greenpeace deny the claim, then considering his profile that's encyclopedic information, and it would be legitimate to include both claims in the article even if only primary sources were available for verification. But we have secondary sources and should prefer them. That some people have drawn conclusion as to whether or not he was a founder from this particular letter is probably giving undue weight to it, and we run a grave risk of OR and/or POV if we try to assess their arguments and come out one way or another. Just say that he and Greenpeace have different views on whether he was a founder, and that some authorities go each way, and cite these authorities. Andrewa (talk) 07:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

References

If there are numerous news articles naming Robert Moore as Founder and Co-Founder of Greenpeace dating all the way back to 1978 and continuing to do so through the mid 2000's, is that not sufficient evidence to support the idea that despite the current falling out, Robert was in fact a founder? If we agree to simply leave out information (such as his role as Founder) as a compromise between editors of differing opinions, isn't that essentially supporting potential revision of history? I've found a dozen articles so far naming Moore as Founder or Co-founder (and an additional one naming him a Director). This, combined with the fact that Greenpeace itself named him a Founder until recently, should be enough to justify not immediately bowing to official statements from Greenpeace when its current founders are on bad terms with Moore himself. It looks, to me, that some of the editors here are taking the word of current-day Greenpeace (which is making an active effort to disavow Moore and scrub records/taint opinions of his contributions) over the word of numerous established news publications AND pre-2007 Greenpeace itself. Very confusing to me. AnonElectricSheep (talk) 12:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

(Robert? Do you mean Patrick?) It's hard to escape our own personal POVs, particularly when Saving the World. That's one reason we collaborate and seek consensus. And Wikipedians tend to be idealistic in my experience, which makes it all the harder. I certainly have POVs, but also the faith that NPOV material will end up furthering them (and maybe even saving the world), and I'm even keen to change my views if it doesn't. See wp:creed and wp:rantstyle for more on this. Andrewa (talk) 20:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

The Voyage of the Greenpeace

Curiouser and curiouser... we did once have a good stub article at Phyllis Cormack, it was created by User:Freaknob and you can now see it here. It was sourced and made a reasonable claim of notability, but they then blanked it and so it was then deleted. They have no other contributions. Andrewa (talk) 01:25, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

It was only chartered for those initial protests, it wasn't bought. Is there a good case for giving it its own article instead of folding a section for it out of Greenpeace? Safrolic (talk) 01:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

It could work either way, but if a section of another article IMO there should be a redirect from Phyllis Cormack and either way a line in the Greenpeace DAB (which I've just boldly created).

I get more than 2500 hits from Google books [19] and the first few all look highly relevant. So there is no problem with the GNG that I can see. Your thoughts?

True it was chartered for those initial protests, it wasn't bought, but it seems to have been renamed... The committee made good on Mr. Bohlen’s pledge. After Irving Stowe, a core member, organized a fund-raising concert in Vancouver with Joni Mitchell, James Taylor, Phil Ochs, and the Canadian rock band Chilliwack, the committee leased the halibut fishing vessel Phyllis Cormack, and, after renaming it Greenpeace, sailed to Alaska. [20] (Which is what our article says too, but the Boston Globe is a better source.) (;-> Andrewa (talk) 02:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Agreed on the redirect. I'm gonna defer to you on whether it's notable enough for its own article, or if it should just be an improvement to the Greenpeace article. Safrolic (talk) 02:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

It might even be the first time that the name Greenpeace was used publicly by the group. That bears further research IMO... research of secondary sources preferably, of course, as we're limited in the use we can make of primary sources. (Mind you we can make some use of primary sources.) Andrewa (talk) 04:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Here is a long NYT article on an escapade of the Phyllis Cormack in 1975 while under Greenpeace sponsorship. The article makes clear the Phyllis Cormack remained in the commercial halibut fishery both before and after the 1975 Greenpeace charter. Methinks the Cormack deserves its own article. XavierItzm (talk) 15:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

And here's a long transcript of a Public Radio International program on the 1971 Greenpeace charter, with plenty of background on the Phyllis Cormack. Funnily enough, because it is a 1996 PRI program, Moore is cited as a founder. Of course, this is before he was airbrushed out of the pic. XavierItzm (talk) 15:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Great catch. I suspect (maybe hope is too strong a word) that Greenpeace are doing themselves more harm by such tactics than anything Moore can do directly ever will. A great shame; I strongly support much of what they do. (And I certainly don't agree with everything Moore says either.) Truth has a nasty habit of bouncing back, but so has popular falsehood. There are still holocaust deniers too... oops, do I lose? Andrewa (talk) 16:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

As much as Moore's Twitter feed friends appreciate it, equating Moore's critics with Soviets isn't appropriate and will only veer this discussion off topic. Let's stick to constructive conversation over Trumpian dog whistles, please. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Also well put, timely reminder and to some extent mea culpa (but I'm not on Twitter at all unless they've added me without my knowledge). Andrewa (talk) 17:25, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I have created a new stub at Draft:Phyllis Cormack. I hope to soon move it to mainspace. Contributions welcome of course, and discussions on its talk page. Andrewa (talk) 08:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Timeline

What this article most needs IMO is a timeline of Moore's various epiphanies.

I first became aware of him as a pro-nuclear greenie (and not in those days a climate change denier). See

https://nature.berkeley.edu/er100/readings/Moore_2005.pdf

If the US is to meet its ever-increasing demands for energy while reducing the threat of climate change...

(that's in 2005 of course). We have a lot of references but if that one is there I've missed it... but I guess it's a primary source anyway.

We do have in the (long) references section an interview with Moore (also a primary source) where he has become also a climate change denier

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2000/may/21/activists.uknews

and fascinating to report, that's in 2000!

Curiouser and curiouser... but paid climate change deniers are not really notable just for being that, while a genuine pro-nuclear greenie still might be... particularly a past president of Greenpeace (Canada) with a relevant degree (whether or not he's a founder).

Of course we need secondary sources to provide this timeline, but even then it might be tricky... lists can be copyrighted, and a timeline is a sort of list perhaps? Do we allow primary sources for lists, because of this? Andrewa (talk) 16:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

while a genuine pro-nuclear greenie still might be - not really. There are plenty of people who push nuclear energy as an important tool in lowering carbon emissions. While a fair number of the people listed here aren't pro-enviro by a long shot, people like James Hansen, James Lovelock, George Monbiot and Peter H. Raven are without doubt. Guettarda (talk) 16:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Glad to hear it! In Australia they don't get a great deal of press I'm afraid... and as we have a great deal of Uranium and even more Thorium a nuclear renaissance would be good news for us... maybe that's why our press is not all that interested in reporting that particular bit of news.

But my point is more that Moore might have a certain amount of priority in promoting that particular view with green authority. And if so, that's possibly his second most notable contribution so far (perhaps after that first voyage of the Greenpeace).

I note that the article you cite currently features a prominent picture of Moore. Andrewa (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think Moore has a lot of credibility, given his association with notable anti-environmentalists. He holds a fairly unremarkable position on nuclear power - he's not even the only former leader of Greenpeace who holds that position. I wouldn't take the presence of his picture in that article as indicative of anything - his actions on Wikipedia (eg, being a major contributor here and his current actions on Twitter) are more than enough to muddy the water. Guettarda (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Michael Shellenberger is another prominent environmentalist whom, like Moore, advocates for nuclear power, Andrewa. XavierItzm (talk) 00:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I think anyone who judges his credibility by his viewpoint (eg climate change denial) is showing their own POV. And it's a challenge. His sources of funding are a valid reason to doubt his credibility. His views are not. Sometimes a minority view turns out to be correct. We call that progress. We once thought the earth was flat. Andrewa (talk) 01:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE is a well-supported guideline. So yeah, it's my POV, but it's also our operating framework. If you disagree with it, that's fine, but please don't scold me not agreeing with your position. (As for "we once thought the earth was flat", that's such an old trope that we actually have an article about it: Myth of the flat Earth.) Guettarda (talk) 18:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't intending to scold you or anyone else, but I can see how my comment sounded that way and apologise. I think comment on the content, not the contributor is an important principle.

And agree that wp:fringe is the principle here. That was exactly the point I was making, although I did not link to the guideline. Andrewa (talk) 23:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Trying again

As it's not just his activities and views that are notable, but how they have changed, would a timeline help? Or is there a better way to organise that material, and particularly to give it the appropriate weight and no more and no less?

http://ecosense.me/bio/ is a primary source but would be a good place to start. Andrewa (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Archiving the talk page

As the talk page is now 166kb, and lots of it is old and stale, and there's been much more activity in the past two weeks, I'm going to create an archive for the older discussions. I'm going to move only discussions in which the most recent comments are more than two years old, keeping the moved sections in chronological order. Feedback/problems, before I do that? I'll wait for at least a second opinion in any case, since I haven't done this before. Safrolic (talk) 19:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Safrolic, we have a bot for that! I set it up here - feel free to tweak as necessary. Bradv🍁 20:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Well thank you! Safrolic (talk) 09:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2019

Change "Patrick Albert Moore (born 1947) is a Canadian businessman" to "Patrick Albert Moore (born 1947) is a founder of Greenpeace, Canadian businessman Twittermouse (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Bradv🍁 22:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I support the proposed text. XavierItzm (talk) 00:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

We can't exactly pick one side over the other when there's no preponderance of sources that favour one side. We also can't say something in the lead that isn't the body of the article. Guettarda (talk) 00:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Moore's claimed role as founder of Greenpeace is obviously disputed, most notably by Greenpeace itself. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Disagree that Greenpeace itself is a reliable secondary source if that is what you're saying by most notably. On this specific issue, that is exactly what they are not. But agree that the claim is obviously disputed. There are good sources both ways. Andrewa (talk) 23:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The name change is a reasonable edit, as per MOS:FULLNAME. While that shouldn't be the article title since it's not commonly used, it's pretty standard to use the full name in the lede sentence. --tronvillain (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The issue is not the full name (which is already given). It's whether he should be listed as a founder of Greenpeace. This is in dispute. (Moore says he is; Greenpeace says he isn't.) It is somewhat debatable depending on how you define the "founding" of Greenpeace. (The organization already existed when Moore joined, but it was not called "Greenpeace" at that time. When it renamed itself to "Greenpeace", Moore *was* a member. So should Moore be described as a "founder of Greenpeace" or not?)

Therefore we should *not* directly state that he is a "founder", just as we should not directly state that he is a "*not* a cofounder" or that he "falsely claims to be a cofounder". That is POV pushing. But I think it is fair and appropriate in the lede to say that: (1) he was an early and influential member of Greenpeace (which no one disputes), (2) he considers himself to be a founder, (3) Greenpeace denies this. His claim to fame rests largely upon various organizations trotting him out as a founder of Greenpeace. Therefore, it seems remiss not to mention this in the lede even if it is disputed. At present, it seems like a disproportionate amount of the lede is about what Greenpeace thinks about Moore. The dispute about whether he is a founder should be added to the lede. In a neutral manner, of course. Bueller 007 (talk) 02:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

From above, I wrote this copy:

Moore has claimed to be a co-founder of Greenpeace. Greenpeace has denied the claim, as the organization already existed when he joined, and released his application letter to sail with the Don't Make A Wave Committee, the group's original name, on their first voyage."Snopes, FACT CHECK, Did Patrick Moore, a Doubter of Anthropogenic Climate Change, Co-Found Greenpeace?".

Anyone, please feel free to edit this as necessary or propose something else. Safrolic (talk) 02:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

If we're to put the case for Greenpeace, we should also put the case for Moore. He's not the only one who calls him a founder. New Scientist may not be the best source but I think it scrapes in as reliable and seems to be secondary, and calls him a founding member of Greenpeace. [21] Andrewa (talk) 10:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Of course I propose something else. The Snopes writer acknowledges he depends on greenpeace.org which is an SPS with a controversial statement, so Safrolic's proposal is one side that ultimately depends on a poor source (or maybe two, the Snopes writer also puts desmogblog among his references). Also WP:SAY says don't use the word "claim" if you're trying to be neutral. So I propose this, which mentions both sides but cites attributed statements from usually-reliable sources (plus Moore, which may be okay according to WP:BLPSELFPUB if it's not "unduly" self-serving and is really about Moore not "third parties"):

There is dispute whether Moore can be called a "co-founder" of Greenpeace. According to [citation needed] the original Greenpeace organization was a Vancouver-based group named The Don't Make A Wave Committee (that later was renamed Greenpeace), and Moore applied to join it in March 1971 after it already existed, so it is not logical to call him a co-founder. According to [The Vancouver Sun] the Committee was actually dissolved in 1972 and the Greenpeace Foundation was begun at a later date with different objectives. According to [CTV] the real beginning of Greenpeace was the voyage of the ship dubbed "Greenpeace" (on which Moore was a crew member), and according to [Moore] the voyage's crew members were described as the "founders of Greenpeace". According to [New Scientist] Moore was a "founding member", according to [The Independent] Moore was a "co-founder", according to [The Vancouver Province] Moore was a "founder". However, he was not the first president of The Greenpeace Foundation.

For the cite to The Vancouver Sun (January 15 1972 page 29) we should quote as part of the footnote: "Vancouver's most successful ad hoc group, The Don't Make A Wave Committee, has dissolved itself. ... In place of The Don't Make a Wave Committee a new organization with a broader program will be set up to be called the Greenpeace Foundation."

I do not support the semi-protected edit request since I believe the dispute doesn't belong in the lead. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

it's tricky... I don't support the request as it stands either. But something about Moore's early involvement with whatever it's called (Greenpeace themselves call it Greenpeace) [22] does belong in the lead. Snopes says that Greenpeace deny he was a founder, and we can cite them for that, and Greenpeace say he wasn't a founder, and it's legitimate use of a primary source to cite them as saying that, but neither of those can be cited as saying that he wasn't a founder. On the other hand he claims he was and so do some secondary sources. And Greenpeace in particular have shown themselves not to be a reliable source concerning his early involvement. Andrewa (talk) 18:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

It's fair to say that Greenpeace currently denies he was a founder, but it also isn't fair to imply that it has always been that way (see previous source). Buffs (talk) 18:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

What reference do you have for Greenpeace claiming that he is a founder? The one that most people point to is Greenpeace listing him among "Founders and early members". That is not necessarily a statement that he is a "founder" unless you ignore 75% of the words. Bueller 007 (talk) 19:00, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

True and important. Other sources have regarded him (and others, Bohlen for example) as one of the founders. Greenpeace have denied this and attempted by several tactics (eg removing him from the crew list and even denying that anything called Greenpeace existed at the time) to excise him from their history, but that's only since his views and theirs fissioned. Andrewa (talk) 19:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Greenpeace published this about Moore's application to join the Greenpeace mission: [23] How is that removing him from the mission's history? Bueller 007 (talk) 19:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

That wasn't. But removing him from the crew list of the boat called Greenpeace for the 1971 protest, which was done sometime before April 2009, does seem to be. Not to you? See Draft talk:Phyllis Cormack#Was Patrick Moore aboard on the voyage to Amchitka. They seem to have been caught green-handed. (;-> Andrewa (talk) 02:08, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't really think the opinions of New Scientist, etc. matter per se. The actual scenario is clear. Moore joined Organization A, which then renamed itself to Organization B. So is he a "founder" of Organization B or not? Honest opinion could go either way. Perhaps the most neutral way to phrase it is that

"Although Moore was an early and influential member of Greenpeace and is often stated to be a co-founder of Greenpeace,[insert a bunch of reliable references like New Scientist here] Greenpeace claims that Moore is not a co-founder because he joined the organization after it was founded.[insert Greenpeace, Snopes, etc. references here]"

Is everyone happy with that wording? Bueller 007 (talk) 18:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Not clear at all, because something called Greenpeace existed at the time of the voyage in question, and Moore, Jim Bohlen and Bill Darnell were all aboard representing whatever that was. Andrewa (talk) 19:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

And the Make a Wave Committee that became Greenpeace already existed before Moore joined. In either case, the statement above summarizes both points of view (that he was and was not a founder of Greenpeace) 100% accurately without inserting editor opinions about the matter. Bueller 007 (talk) 19:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Let's not forgot "verifiability, not truth" is the operational principle. Deciding the truth of whether Moore was a founder or not is interesting, but it isn't what this page is for, because we can't use our own deductions in the article. Guettarda (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree that we can't use material in the article just because we think it's true, however persuasive the evidence. But OR is OK on talk pages, because it would be a bit strange to allow material in the mainspace that we know to be untrue, however well sourced. That hardly improves Wikipedia. Andrewa (talk) 19:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

ISTM that at the time of the voyage, both the terms Greenpeace and Don't Make a Wave Committee were in use, and may even have been synonyms. Andrewa (talk) 19:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not seeing significant evidence of that. --tronvillain (talk) 21:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

The term Greenpeace was in use for the boat, starting at some point after the first meeting, but before the voyage. ""Somebody flashed two fingers as we were leaving the church basement and said "Peace!" Bill said "Let's make it a Green Peace.  And we all went Ommmmmmmm." " The term DWAWC was certainly in use before the first meeting, there's a letter from DWAWC inviting Moore to it. At some point prior to the official renaming they were likely synonymous. Regardless of at what point they became synonymous, Moore was definitely around for the coining of the term "Greenpeace", since it showed up before that first voyage and after that first meeting. He also was definitely not around when the group was founded, and if the two names were synonymous, that would be going even further to show that Greenpeace was not a new group. Safrolic (talk) 01:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I also support the text proposed by Peter Gulutzan. To his list of sources I would like to add Maclean's 6 December 1982: «Patrick Moore, 35, one of the founders of the original Greenpeace.» Cheers to all, XavierItzm (talk) 03:08, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Also support this. It may not be perfect but it is an enormous improvement. Andrewa (talk) 19:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I'll also support the proposal, with the following alteration: From According to [New Scientist] Moore was a "founding member", according to [The Independent] Moore was a "co-founder", according to [The Vancouver Province] Moore was a "founder". to According to [New Scientist] Moore was a "founding member", according to [The Independent] Moore was a "co-founder", and according to [GreenPeace] Moore was "one of the first members". If Moore's POV is being represented in the he-said-she-said one sentence before, the Greenpeace POV on what he is should be represented too. Also support Peter's stance that this shouldn't be in the lede because it's quite long. Safrolic (talk) 21:29, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I accept this if the other supporters (XavierItzm and Andrewa) don't object. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is specific proposed wording, but I have a problem with According to [New Scientist] Moore was a "founding member", according to [The Independent] Moore was a "co-founder", and according to [GreenPeace] Moore was "one of the first members". What this is doing is taking these examples, presenting them to readers, and using to show that Greenpeace is less than honest. That's both plain and simple OR and a violation of NPOV. It's also a problem because we're presenting passing mention of a fact as if it were a carefully researched statement.

We can describe usage - something like Moore has frequently described as a "co-founder" or "founder" of Greenpeace [with plenty of examples] but Greenpeace says [something different]. But we can't take sides in the argument. Regardless of what our personal beliefs are. Guettarda (talk) 23:44, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. Also, none of those sources are privy to any special information about the founding of Greenpeace and who can or cannot should be described as a founder. They are merely repeating what they've heard, so we should not cite them as if they are evidence of anything. They are only evidence of what he has been called, not what he is. In addition, they could be described as "outdated", since they were published before the recent spat raised some questions into whether or not Moore can be accurately described as a founder. In that sense, they are only evidence of what moore *has been called* by those sources in the past. IMO, there's not much value in that. That said, I do still think that the lede is biased against Moore and that information that he was an early member of Greenpeace who has often been described as a cofounder by hmself and others (although Greenpeace disagrees). Bueller 007 (talk) 12:49, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree we must avoid taking sides. I'm particularly tempted to promote the view (which is Moore's too of course) that Greenpeace have been less than honest. How we present the material we have but avoid doing this in Wikipedia's voice is tricky but not impossible.

I think that part of it is that in the article we should avoid using primary sources. But I also think it's good to refer to them here. We want our material to be verifiable, but we also want it to be true! To permit information which we know from primary sources to be untrue is gaming the system in the worst way. All hang in there. Andrewa (talk) 00:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Guettarda, I quoted sources' specific words to show there was a variety and to follow wp:attributepov, and Safrolic's extra words were explained as so "the Greenpeace POV on what he is should be represented too", which I interpreted as an appeal for wp:balance. I'm sure neither of us thought that would "show that Greenpeace is less than honest". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not seeing significant evidence of that... Significant evidence of what? That the term Greenpeace was in use? Really? It was the name (or some have said nickname) used by the crew for the boat... or do you need more significant evidence of that? That the term Don't Make a Wave Committee was in use? Really? Again, what evidence do you need? That they may have been synonyms? OK, note the may, so have you any evidence that they were not? Now IMO that evidence would be very significant, and I for one would like to see it. I'm sorry if that all seems confrontational, but I am struggling to make any sense of the comment.

For evidence that the terms were both in use and may even have been synonyms, see here (while it lasts... they may I guess decide to delete page 4, just as they did Moore from the crew list). Note the letterhead of page 4, which is their reply dated March 24 1971, features both GREENPEACE and DON"T MAKE A WAVE COMMITTEE (caps as per the letterhead). Now, your evidence...? Andrewa (talk) 00:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

References

We do not have consensus (my proposal came closest with four supporters including myself but that's not even a majority of the participants in this thread). Shall we give up, declare that WP:NOCONSENSUS applies, and so the article shouldn't mention whether Mr Moore is or is not a founder / co-founder / founding member? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 14 April 2019

Patrick Moore (environmentalist) → ? – This is a procedural nomination as a result of the move review and the resulting no consensus closure from the previous discussion. In that discussion, several alternatives with different amounts of support with varying argument strength were mooted. These were (including the original nomination):

• Patrick A. Moore
• Patrick Moore (lobbyist)
• Patrick Moore (businessman)
• Patrick Moore (consultant)
• Patrick Moore (author)
• Patrick Moore (writer).

Pinging previous participants.

Please include whether you support or oppose a move at all, and if you support a move, please state which of the options (or another one if you want) you prefer and why. I am neutral on this issue. SITH (talk) 13:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• support a move - Patrick Moore (lobbyist) or Patrick Moore (businessman), I am seeing a lot of dispute on talk and weblinks as to his primarily being well known as an environmentalist. Govindaharihari (talk) 14:05, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
• Patrick Moore (activist) – he is not an environmentalist in any sense of the word, and there was clear consensus for that in the last RM. I suggest "activist" as a compromise, but will also support pretty much any neutral alternative. – bradv🍁 14:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

  He's maybe the Christina Hoff Sommers of environmentalism, so I won't say not an environmentalist in any sense of the word, although it's probably not something he's primarily known for. feminist (talk) 15:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• Neutral and will not oppose any choice (other than Patrick A. Moore) that can achieve consensus. However, had I taken the time to post at the move review, I would have endorsed the very detailed and well-reasoned close as the most reasonable selection among those presented, especially since there does not seem to be unanimity for any other qualifier. As for the remaining options, even taking into account that Moore is not considered as an "environmentalist" by some/many/most, he was once an undisputed one and thus can still lay claim to the title. Although he has written a number of books, my suggestion of neutral alternatives "author" or "writer" did not attract any support, while "lobbyist" is likely to face a POV dispute and, along with "businessman" and "activist", seems somewhat off the mark, thus leaving the closer's choice of "consultant" as the most neutral and, seemingly most reasonable choice. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 15:04, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support either Patrick Moore (consultant) or the current title, oppose any other options. feminist (talk) 15:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

  I'd also support Patrick Moore (ecologist) per Andrewa below. feminist (talk) 09:38, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support The term environmentalist is misleading. TFD (talk) 16:11, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support, per my previous reasoning - either Patrick Moore (lobbyist), Patrick Moore (businessman), or Patrick A. Moore would be preferred, in order of preference, but I'd support any of these over the current name in a pinch. The article generally supports the idea that he's far more notable as a lobbyist than anything else; based on its sources, he attracted far more coverage for his lobbying after leaving the environmental movement than for anything he did within it, and even the sources in the Greenpeace / environmentalist section tend to be ones that cover him because he's a lobbyist now, so lobbyist should be his main title if we're going to use anything. Beyond that, since it is clear sources dispute his status as an environmentalist, putting it in the title (especially when, as here, we have many other good and completely-neutral options using descriptors that none of the sources object) is an unambiguous WP:POVTITLE violation. For clarity (because I feel the overturn of the previous result was mistaken in the sense that there was and is a clear consensus against the current title), strong opposition to the current title; while I've listed my preferences above, I specifically request that the closing admin count my comment as supporting any name, other than the current one, that could achieve consensus, and expressing opposition to the current one in strongest possible terms. The fact that this could now drag on for two months when a WP:BOLD move away from the current title before the RFC would have been unambiguously appropriate is absurd, and moving it back to a title that is clearly more objectionable and non-neutral than any of the alternatives in the RFC was a mistake. --Aquillion (talk) 17:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support lobbyist/consultant/anything but environmentalist - Moore may personally identify as an environmentalist, but I haven't found many instances where reliable sources describe him that way, and it's not primarily what he does. C-Span (could there be any dryer source?) appears to identify him according to his positions as Chair or co-Chair of various consulting/lobbying firms, so consultant/lobbyist seems like the best option here. Nblund ^talk 16:50, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose the move. He has a page mainly due to his environmental work of the past, his change of heart on certain aspects of those beliefs does not change that. He is what he is: Patrick Moore (environmentalist). An encyclopedia bases itself on referenced facts, and should not give in to groupthink. Regards, GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 17:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support anything but environmentalist, since it fails NPOV. He considers himself an environmentalist, certainly, so calling him that is not unreasonable, but he's also considered an anti-environmentalist. "Consultant" is a reasonable, neutral term. Lobbyist or businessman might be OK, but those are also slightly loaded terms. I suppose (b. 1947) is a neutral enough dab term as well, as is (Canadian). "Environmentalist" involves picking one side in a dispute, which Wikipedia should not do. Guettarda (talk) 18:11, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support. The page should be named after what he does (i.e., "consultant") because this is a statement of fact not subject to POV, not what he may or may not believe (i.e., "environmentalist" or "anti-environmentalist" or "former environmentalist"), which we can't know and shouldn't take a stance on. As mentioned elsewhere, "lobbyist" is factually incorrect; I believe that "PR consultant" is also incorrect... Simply "consultant" is best. Bueller 007 (talk) 18:34, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Every option above is better than environmentalist. Yes, he has been one, but now he is not. Calling him an environmentalist now would be denialist propaganda. Patrick Moore (activist) would fit his past as well as his present: he was a pro-environment activist, and now he is an anti-environment activist. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support consultant preferably, with support for any other neutral name. Consultant is the one used on other language wikis for him, and it's the one which most closely matches his current work. It's also the one that we've mostly non-controversially had for the last month here already. He is not an environmentalist, and that's a POV disambiguator, as it's a values-imputing statement (more detailed explanation in previous RM, my talk page, or the move review page). I'm sorry to all that my actions led my previous close to be overturned, and I continue to think it was the right close. Safrolic (talk) 19:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
• Strong support. Either "Patrick Moore (businessman)" or "Patrick Moore (consultant)" are good, neutral and accurate names which I am 100% happy to support. The other options above do not seem quite as good but they are all substantially better than the current name. Even "lobbyist", which is somewhat POV and is my least favoured option after the current name, would be an improvement. The current name is pretty much the worst name possible. It is indefensibly POV and grossly inaccurate/misleading. It absolutely has to be changed. I would support any of the other names above over that one! I strongly disapprove of the suggestion below ("ecologist") as that is pretty much just a synonym for the current inaccurate and POV name and does not address the problem at all. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
• Strong support. Either "Patrick Moore (businessman)" or "Patrick Moore (consultant)" or some similarly NPOV description of the article's subject. Echoing others above, "Environmentalist" is such a ludicrously misleading and POV title that it's amazing to me that we're still having this discussion. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support move. I thought this had been settled already. "Patrick Moore (businessman)" or "Patrick Moore (consultant)" are acceptable, and absolutely not "Patrick Moore (environmentalist)", as he's an "environmentalist" in the same way that Fred Phelps was a civil rights lawyer. --Calton | Talk 00:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think I said it quite clearly in the previous discussion. His most prominent role was as a Greenpeace official. "Environmentalist" is therefore a perfectly acceptable disambiguator. Whether he's split with Greenpeace since is utterly irrelevant to his main "claim to fame". That is the NPOV stance. Anything else would be pandering to what is essentially a political viewpoint of Greenpeace and their supporters and would therefore be highly POV. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:43, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
• Strong support Patrick A. Moore, seems to be to many hats to identify one clear area of notability. support Patrick Moore (lobbyist) Patrick Moore (businessman) Patrick Moore (consultant) As these seems to be what he is most noted for Neutral Patrick Moore (author) Patrick Moore (writer), its not what he does, its just a symptom of it.Slatersteven (talk) 08:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:INITS and WP:COMMONNAME are pretty clear that we need to use the most commonly-used form of his name, we can't just add in his middle initial. That's the reason the previous RM discussion got the results it did. Parentheses are all we've got to work with. Safrolic (talk) 08:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

• Move to Patrick Moore (ecologist) (or leave it as it is). He's as much an environmentalist as I am, and I consider myself one although non-notable, but my views while not in agreement with his would be equally unacceptable to Greenpeace. Consensus is for the closer to determine, but I think it's valid to observe that no consensus on retaining the existing environmentalist disambiguator is likely, and a no consensus close is to be avoided if possible. So let us try for a middle course that neither minimises nor promotes his credentials. There's no doubt he is an ecologist, his PhD was supervised by C. S. Holling and Hamish Kimmins. Andrewa (talk) 17:18, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Having adopted a neutral position above, I would revise it to reflect support for Patrick Moore (ecologist) per Andrewa. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 17:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

He's not an ecologist - there's no ecology in his dissertation - there's environmental policy, there's ecotoxicology, there's a little oceanography...but there's no ecology. Yes, Buzz Holling is an eminent ecologist, and Kimmkins (though I've never heard of him) appears to be an ecologist as well. But the very point of a PhD is to create new knowledge, not to be a clone of your advisor - I had a wildlife ecologist, a plant anatomist and a wetlands ecologist on my doctoral committee, but I'd never claim any expertise in those fields. (At the same time, one of the most influential people for my work wasn't actually on my committee.) Fifty years ago, when resource economics or ecotoxicology were still new fields, sure, they grew out of ecology and forestry departments, just like the first ecologists were the students of geographers, physiologists and anatomists. Guettarda (talk) 18:05, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment. Yes, his advisors were ecologists, but Moore's thesis appears to be largely an environmental policy document with little to no ecology in it. There is some water sampling at mines and some oceanography. The thesis is much closer to Environmental Resource Management (which--together with Mining--is often a part of Forestry departments, such as the one that granted Moore his degree) than it is to Ecology (usu. part of Biology/Zoology/Botany departments). I think you would have trouble convincing many working ecologists that "ecologist" is the best way to describe Patrick Moore on his Wikipedia page. Bueller 007 (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

There is no doubt he got a degree in 'ecology' (as others have noted, a much broader field back then), but that does not make him notable as an ecologist, any more than it makes me a lifeguard. Since graduating, he was an activist, then an executive, then a businessman, then a consultant, and now he's mostly a talking head. I would oppose this move because it's inaccurate in similar ways to 'environmentalist'. Safrolic (talk) 19:53, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Edit: His dissertation was for a doctorate of philosophy in the faculty of forestry. Not ecology. https://open.library.ubc.ca/cIRcle/collections/ubctheses/831/items/1.0103866 Safrolic (talk) 20:37, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Was there a faculty of ecology at the UBC at the time? Andrewa (talk) 01:05, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Kimmins was in the Faculty of Forestry in 1973 (JSTOR 1935567). Moore's degree was granted by the Faculty of Forestry. Moore's dissertation has no ecology, other than a bit of the lit review in chapter 3. Moore may consider himself an ecologist by training or by profession. That's fair. But there's no reason to throw out the independent sources (which say forestry) and replace them with things that Moore apparently said, especially since there's no way to tell whether he was speaking precisely, or colloquially. Guettarda (talk) 03:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I'll take that as a no. There was no faculty or department called ecology. Any PhD in ecology awarded at the time would have been in another department... such as forestry. Is that true?

Once we are agreed on that we can examine the thesis in detail. Andrewa (talk) 18:17, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Some arguments

I'm going to look here at some of the arguments above that are particularly invalid, and might be discarded without further discussion. Or if discussion is needed, this is a good place for it.

• X is used on other language wikis. Completely irrelevant, by long standing consensus.
• He's not an ecologist, because he is a consultant. The mind boggles.
• He's not an ecologist, because he denies climate change. Actually his latest paper supports climate change (see below) so this is complete rubbish. But even if he did, some scientists also deny climate change. This makes them unpopular, but it doesn't necessarily make them unscientific. We could find many other examples of this. But the point is, some environmentalists and some ecologists support (for example) nuclear power (including Moore). This makes them unpopular in their field, but it doesn't mean they're no longer part of that field. That's POV.
• he's no more an ecologist than environmentalist. In other words, his PhD counts for nothing in terms of academic credibility as an ecologist. That's a stretch. See much discussion on this elsewhere.
• his PhD isn't in Ecology, because it was issued by the department of Forestry. There does not appear to have been a department of Ecology at the time, so it's a bit hard to see how he could have registered his PhD candidacy with them. (;->

Moore... sorry, more... to follow (probably). Andrewa (talk) 19:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Why are you listing bad arguments nobody used?

The first one actually was used, and it is indeed not very relevant. But the wording was "Consultant is the one used on other language wikis for him, and it's the one which most closely matches his current work" - which is true, as well as good reasoning.

I cannot find the second or the third. Nobody drew a conclusion from either of those to "not an ecologist" or even "not an environmentalist".

Your attempt at refutation of the fourth does not make sense. You get a PhD for one field and not for all of them. A forestry PhD is not an automatic ecology PhD. That is obvious and not a stretch at all.

And the logic in the last one is really silly. By the same reasoning, everybody who got a degree in anything before degrees in computer science existed, now has a degree in computer science - since they didn't have a chance on getting one back then. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:51, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that contribution, and glad that you seem to agree that these are all bad arguments.

I think these are valid paraphrases of the arguments used. I paraphrase because I want to try to discuss the content, not the contributor, and also deal with several different contributions together. I'll think about whether I can do better on the second and third arguments.

But I don't agree that it's the one which most closely matches his current work is a good argument... it would be good if his previous work was not particularly notable and his current work was, but at the very least this needs to be established for the argument to be valid. But that's not nearly as obviously fallacious as the others I cite above.

Agree that A forestry PhD is not an automatic ecology PhD. That is obvious and not a stretch at all. (my emphasis) But I think your paraphrase is faulty here. Nobody is claiming that, and it would be (in your words) really silly to do so.

Strongly disagree that By the same reasoning, everybody who got a degree in anything before degrees in computer science existed, now has a degree in computer science - since they didn't have a chance on getting one back then. No, but anyone who studied Computing Science before degrees in computer science existed and graduated with a degree in Mathematics or Accountancy or even Linguistics (and people that I know of did all three) now has a relevant qualification. Don't they? Andrewa (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Inserting a "because" where there has been no logical connection in the original argument is not a paraphrase. It is a straw man. You are using one of the oldest tricks in the book. Doesn't work.

"I want to try to discuss the content, not the contributor" - The content of your own brain, yes. But not the content of anything else.

You said, "In other words, his PhD counts for nothing in terms of academic credibility as an ecologist", which means either that

• in your opinion, his forestry PhD does count "in terms of academic credibility as an ecologist", which means that yes, you are saying that a forestry PhD is sort of an automatic ecology PhD, making him an "ecologist",
• or your reasoning is going nowhere.

Since you are now saying the first possibility is untrue, your reasoning was going nowhere.

A "relevant qualification" is not enough to justify calling those non-computer-scientists "computer scientists", and a "relevant qualification" is not enough to justify calling Moore an "ecologist".

Reliable sources actually calling him an ecologist would be a justification. So, stop doing WP:OR. Even if it were allowed, you are bad at it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:32, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

PhD in Ecology or Forestry?

Bueller 007 made this edit changing PhD in "ecology" to degree in "forestry", and removing the information that Mr Moore was directed by "forest ecologist" Hamish Kimmins. So far the provided evidence indicates that the name of the UBC faculty was forestry. Mr Moore says the degree was "Ph.D. in Ecology, Institute of Resource Ecology, University of British Columbia, 1972", and testified at a US senate hearing that prior to that he was a "PhD student in ecology". As RSs for "ecology" I see Vancouver Province and National Post. Policy says poorly sourced additions (i.e. "forestry") are to be reverted immediately, but also says I shouldn't re-insert a claim that was removed on good-faith BLP grounds (i.e. "ecology") without seeking consensus. So I seek consensus. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Forestry is verifiable, since it's on the first page of his dissertation. Guettarda (talk) 19:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

It should be forestry. UBC offers a PhD in forestry,[24] but not a PhD in ecology.[25] That does not mean he was not a "student in ecology." Presumably some of what he studied involved ecology. One could even say that forestry is part of ecology, since ecology can be defined as the branch of biology that studies the interactions among organisms and their environment. TFD (talk) 19:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that "forestry is a branch of ecology" any more than "biology is a branch of ecology". Forest ecology programmes exist within some forestry departments, but there's plenty is forestry that's not ecological at all (a lot of wood science, obviously, but also a lot of silviculture). That said, I wouldn't fault Moore for calling himself an ecologist just because it degree is from a forestry department - I have "ecology" in my degree because I filled out a piece of paperwork to add that programme. (Granted, I had to do all the requirements too, but had I not submitted the paperwork my degree would not include that word, since ecology was part of an interdisciplinary programme; it wasn't the name of a department.) Guettarda (talk) 19:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

ecology was part of an interdisciplinary programme; it wasn't the name of a department... (my emphasis) Exactly. Andrewa (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

His PhD is unquestionably in Forestry, as shown by his dissertation itself. (Forestry departments often conduct environmental management research projects that are unrelated to forestry, as is the case in Moore's thesis.) And even if you feel that it would be misleading to say that your degree is in "Forestry" when it had nothing to do with cutting down trees, you don't just get to make up your own degree name and say you have a "PhD in Ecology" instead... As far as I can tell, there is no evidence that a "PhD in Ecology" is something that UBC has ever been accredited to offer, so this should not even be up for debate. Bueller 007 (talk) 20:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

It is false that "forestry is verifiable" or that his PhD is "unquestionably in Forestry, as shown by his dissertation itself." That is the name of the faculty. Nowhere has any evidence been shown that in the 1970s the faculty never offered degrees that had a different name from the faculty name, which is a common practice. But I won't push to get this corrected if consensus is to leave it, which seems the case so far. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Please stop making false claims. It is verifiable what department issued his degree. You're being disruptive here. Please stop. Guettarda (talk) 00:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Conduct accusations against me do not belong on this forum, try WP:ANI. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Verifiable but of doubtful relevance. As I asked above, was there a department of ecology at the time? Andrewa (talk) 01:17, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I have started bios for a number of UBC ecology profs. I have never seen a "Department of Ecology"... (Always "Department of Zoology".) As far as I can tell, UBC does not issue PhDs in Ecology and they never have. Moore says he obtained his PhD in Ecology from UBC's Institute of Animal Resource Ecology (now the Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries). However, this institute is just a collection of research labs, which does not run its own degree programs, and I see no evidence that it ever has... Students graduate with degrees in Zoology or Oceanography, etc. corresponding to the department in which they are students: [26] (but in 2018 it looks like the Institute was granted degree-granting authority in Fisheries/Oceans.) Although it might be acceptable for Moore to say he has a "PhD in Ecology" casually because "PhD in Forestry" does not really describe his research topic well, I don't see any evidence that his degree is officially in Ecology. All signs point to Forestry, including the dissertation, which specifically says "Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Forestry". Bueller 007 (talk) 02:23, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me that both Ecology and Forestry are accurate. Is that not possible? Andrewa (talk) 18:58, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

There is no evidence that UBC has ever offered a PhD in Ecology, and no evidence that he received such a degree in the official documentation we have from UBC, so it seems quite unlikely and as if you're stretching to make "PhD in Ecology" fit. Short of Moore producing a parchment that says "PhD in Ecology" on it, we have good reason to be highly skeptical of this. (Again, there is no evidence that a UBC PhD in Ecology degree exists.) Personally, I assume that "PhD in Ecology" is just Moore's shorthand way of saying that his PhD research was "Ecology-related" because when people hear "PhD in Forestry" they don't think about researching oceanography or water pollution in mines... They think about cutting down trees. But officially, Moore's degree should be described on Wikipedia as a "PhD in Forestry" (as per UBC) until there is evidence to the contrary. If you want to qualify this by specifying that his research was in environmental resource management related to pollution from mines, then go for it. Bueller 007 (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

There is no evidence that UBC has ever offered a PhD in Ecology... Exactly. But so what? The question here is simply, would the PhD they did award be regarded as a relevant qualification for an ecologist? Andrewa (talk) 20:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Update: But discussion below indicates that UBC has indeed awarded PhDs in ecology, so presumably they offered them. Andrewa (talk) 03:37, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

The edit to which you refer [27] was on 3 March, six minutes before the same user raised the first RM. So it was in order but, in view of the subsequent controversy, unfortunate. Yes, we now need to discuss here. And there are some very tricky BLP issues. He calls himself an ecologist, and it seems to me there's a reasonable basis for this claim. So if we dispute it we need very strong evidence. Andrewa (talk) 01:17, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

You're confusing "ecologist" (a profession) with the separate question of what he has a Ph.D. in. His Ph.D. was granted by the Forestry department, so he has a Ph.D. in forestry. He isn't a forester - that's a separate professional designation. I have a Ph.D. in ecology - that's a verifiable fact. If I call myself "an ecologist by training" that's also a verifiable fact. If I call myself an ecologist I'm on slightly shakier ground, because I'm not working professionally in the field of ecology. I'll still do it - I feel a strong attachment to that identity - but that doesn't make it true.

Moore has a verifiable Ph.D. issued by a forestry department. He doesn't have a Ph.D. issued by an ecology department or programme. Based on his acknowledgements, you can infer that Kimmins was probably his doctoral advisor, and that Buzz Holling provided at least some of the funding and "guidance". Pickard, Goldberg, Wellwood, Lucas and Franson are acknowledged as "other members of [his] committee". None of them are ecologists. Holling may or may not have been on his committee - I'd lean towards "probably", but even without him that's a six-person committee, which is huge. Guettarda (talk) 03:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Please do not personalise this. Discuss the content, not the contributor. I am confusing nothing, but even if I am, respond to my arguments rather than accusing me of confusing. Now, one argument is that his PhD is relevant here. It makes ecologist a better name than environmentalist. Is this wrong?

Another argument is that his work is not and never was in ecology. This is clearly wrong. We can call most professions by many names. There are other names for what he does, but that doesn't make this one wrong. He is and was an ecologist, among other things. Andrewa (talk) 18:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion, it is not appropriate to call Moore an ecologist as his primary descriptor, and I am rather sure that most professional ecologists would agree. I would not have a problem with "ecologist" if it could be shown that his PhD is actually in "Ecology" (or if he were notable for doing any ecological research at all). But we have no evidence of that, so I feel that putting "Ecologist" in his descriptor is like giving credentials to Moore that we are not authorized to give. Bueller 007 (talk) 20:17, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion, it is not appropriate to disqualify this disambiguator just because of personal opinions... either ours or our opinions of what others might feel.

What evidence would be acceptable that his PhD is actually in "Ecology" (or if he were notable for doing any ecological research at all)? I'm not convinced that this is a necessary condition for being an ecologist, you don't need to be a researcher in a field in order to be a worker in it. But if we can establish he's a researcher too, that's even better evidence. Andrewa (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Are PHd's not named?Slatersteven (talk) 08:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Not normally - you are awarded the degree of "doctor of philosophy" by some unit of a degree-granting institution. You need to do enough work to satisfy your committee that you're worthy of joining their ranks. Guettarda (talk) 10:46, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I disagree that they are not normally named. My parchment directly says on it "Doctor of Philosophy in [Subject]". That's standard from Canadian universities from what I've seen. However, the department has to be authorized/credentialed to issue such a degree, and often the name of the degree is simply named after the department... (E.g., the Zoology department offers a "PhD in Zoology"). But you can't just make up your own degree name. Which is why in the absence of evidence that a "PhD in Ecology" ever existed at UBC, we should stick with "PhD in Forestry", since this is the academic unit that granted Moore his PhD. Bueller 007 (talk) 20:17, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I've never taken mine out of the envelope it was mailed to me in, but I meant a specific subject area (like "community ecology" in my case) rather than an issuing department or program ("plant biology" and "ecology and evolutionary biology"). Departments are vast entities, and are many people who got the same degree as me (at least the first half of it) with whom I have no graduate-level overlap in coursework or research experience (beyond the department seminar we were all required to take 2-3 times). Guettarda (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

They are often named. Some current examples from a few minutes googling: Queen's Faculty of Health Sciences offers PhD in Aging and Health (plus many others). UBC Faculty of Applied Science offers PhD in Mining Engineering. U of A Faculty of Agricultural, Life and Environmental Sciences offers PhD in Wildlife Ecology and Management. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Often but not always. It's claimed above that There is no evidence that UBC has ever offered a PhD in Ecology [28] (I invite you to read the whole post, I don't want to cite it unfairly). But this doesn't mean that they had no graduates in this area. Andrewa (talk) 20:16, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Carin Bondar and Laurie Marczak and Lorne Rothman are all said to have ecology PhDs from UBC. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to say that UBC never offered a PhD in ecology. And it's entirely possible for someone to get a PhD in ecology from the forestry department - Bondar's and Marczak's PhDs are both from the Forestry department and clearly ecological. Rothman's is from the Zoology department and is arguably ecology.

In the end though, I'd feel much more comfortable labelling any of those by the department that awarded the degree. "My degree is in [x]" is a matter of self-identification - I can say I have a PhD in plant biology, botany, ecology, plant ecology, or community ecology and be telling the truth. But all I can prove is the names of the department, and the program, that jointly issued my degree. Not that I'm notable, but if I were, I'd expect the verifiable information to be in the infobox, not the things I say about myself. Guettarda (talk) 21:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I think we've started playing with words here. It seems that it's verifiable that UBC has awarded PhD degrees in ecology to candidates in the Faculty of Forestry. Leaving for the moment the question of whether those candidates included Moore, is that much at least agreed?

But before we discuss this particular degree, I hope everyone will read at least the title pages of his thesis [29] and preferably at least skim its contents. Because, there are some equally strange claims above about it. Andrewa (talk) 02:59, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

His view on climate change

Article lead currently reads in part According to Greenpeace, he is "a paid spokesman for the nuclear industry, the logging industry, and genetic engineering industry" and is an outspoken proponent of nuclear energy and skeptical of human activity as the main cause for global warming. (my emphasis)

The relevant section contains no references newer than 2014, and most are 2007 or earlier.

Moore's views have changed significantly in the last three years, let alone the last ten! According to his website his latest paper is The Positive Impact of Human CO2 Emissions on the Survival of Life on Earth and appears to disagree on all points with mainstream climate change denial.

I'm very involved in various discussions here and don't want to update the page without consensus here. But surely, this view on climate change is the one that should be credited to him in the lead, rather than Greenpeace's view of his views, as currently? Andrewa (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Instead of just linking the article climate change denial, you should actually read it. As one of the forms climate change denial takes, listed under "Taxonomy of climate change denial", is: "Even if the current and future projected human effects on Earth's climate are not negligible, the changes are generally going to be good for us."

That is Moore's position, which makes him a denialist. It does not matter much that he switched from one form of denialism to another, as denialists do not care about truth - they care about regulations. They reject them, and the reason why they reject them is a secondary detail to them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Another personal attack and readers would be justified in going no further!

Yes, that's there and I did read it. It's one of several competing taxonomies, two described there in detail, and this one lists six varieties of which you cite one. The taxonomy other has only three and they include Impact sceptics/deniers (who think global warming is harmless or even beneficial). I'm curious as to why you didn't cite that one, as you read the article so thoroughly. (;->

But do you really think that Moore represents mainstream climate change denial? Fair enough if so. I'll leave it to readers to judge.

But more to the point, do you really think that the article is OK as is? And if not, do you agree with my proposed (very general at this point) changes? Or do you have any better suggestions? Andrewa (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

After the Trump tweets and widespread coverage from his comments regarding AOC (particularly via outlets like Fox News and Breitbart), the article's subject is arguably best known as a climate change denialist in 2019. His is a typical 'industry friendly' position in these circles. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Even if that were true (no comment on that for the moment, I think it's irrelevant anyway), would it justify our having Greenpeace's description of his position on climate change before any mention of his actual current position?

That would seem to me to be inexcusable even if Greenpeace were accurately presenting his current position. And that accuracy seems at least doubtful, which makes it a bit bizarre. Andrewa (talk) 03:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)