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)

• French Wikipedia also calls him a "consultant". Irrelevant. Andrewa (talk) 22:49, 26 April 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

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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: move to Patrick Moore (consultant). Given the recent prior RM, and the overturning at move review, I've written a slightly longer closing statement.

Reading through the discussion, it is clear that there is an overwhelming consensus to move the article to a new title. Rereading the views of editors to voiced an opinion as to their prefered title (rather than opposing or just supporting without a clear preference), the consensus is to move the page to Patrick Moore (consultant), which is frequently listed as a "first choice", and is supported by the cited policy of WP:NPOV (as applied by WP:POVTITLE). If you have any questions about this close, feel free to ask me. (closed by non-admin page mover) Thanks, -- DannyS712 (talk) 19:41, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

---

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)--Relisting. B dash (talk) 04:45, 26 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)

  Just to clarify (and to make it a little easier on whoever closes this), I also support Patrick Moore (consultant). – bradv🍁 13:40, 24 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. Patrick Moore (consultant) is by far the best option. Patrick Moore (ecologist), which has since been suggested, is even worse than environmentalist, since it has never been true. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC) --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:16, 2 May 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)

The problem is that his common name is shared with some other people, this if is a way of disguising him. It may not be the best solution, it is the one that does not add (or remove) any contentious labels.Slatersteven (talk) 08:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. Pretty much 100% of this article is about him being an environmentalist. It's also explicitly supported by many sources [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29]. wumbolo ^^^ 21:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@Wumbolo: the source quality kind of takes a dive after those first two, don't you think? This looks like a page from John Stossel's book has been erroneously combined with a collection of historic photographs of Emanuel, Georgia. Nblund ^talk 16:23, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support all suggestions, probably in the order listed except I prefer Patrick Moore (activist) or Patrick Moore (consultant) to the other disambiguators in parentheses. Patrick Moore arguably was an environmentalist, but considering the length of time that has passed since then and how he has remained in the public eye, I wouldn't say that "environmentalist" is a sufficient defining adjective for him any more. Daß Wölf 23:00, 16 April 2019 (UTC) -- edited to update my preference on 20:25, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
  • P.S. Weakish support for "lobbyist" -- although he was technically a lobbyist for the environmentalists, the term is loaded. Daß Wölf 23:04, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
• Strong support Patrick A. Moore, Strong support Patrick Moore (consultant) Strong support Patrick Moore (industry spokesperson) As these best describe his current occupation and main activity of the last 40 years. Though he was once an environmentalist, as evidenced by his work for Greenpeace, his current work is diametrically opposed to that of most environmentalists, including what is at best climate skepticism, but likely most accurately described as climate denial, and his role as paid spokesperson for resource industries that often do great harm to the environment. If Wikipedia leaves the current categorization ("environmentalist"), it would be complicit in misleading Wikipedia users in implying that Moore is currently working to protect the environment. Godostoyke 04:56, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with others above regarding Moore's claim to notability, which heavily relies upon his past connection with an environmentalist org. Believe this is in line with Wikipedia's titling policy for precision and dabbing of article titles. As a past avid supporter of Greenpeace, I agree with Moore that they've gotten their heads too far up in the sky, and it's gotten cloudy up there. Still consider Moore an environmentalist of sorts because of his support for nuclear energy development, which I consider to have potential for significant improvement of our environment. Imagine where we might be if we did not fear nuclear energy due to the atomic-bomb scare and to some people's mishandling's that caused tragic accidents, and if we were not in such a deep rut as concerns our reliance on fossil fuels. Having great disdain for naysayers and fear mongers in the area of nuclear energy development, I applaud Moore's efforts. Still the very best qualifier for the topic of this article, "environmentalist" is my choice! Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  14:29, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

  The pro-nuclear-energy-therefore-environmentalist reasoning does not hold water. There are indeed environmentalists who favor nuclear energy because it is better than climate-changing fossil fuels. But Moore does not consider climate change a threat, so that can't be his motivation.

  The past-connection reasoning does hold water would hold water if he did not have newer, stronger notability as an enemy of environmentalism. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

  Moore doesn't consider the human cause of climate change to be a valid argument, nor does he think of climate change as something other than a natural and normal state of events for this planet. And he's not an enemy of environmentalism, he's the enemy of a growing number of fear-mongering, uninformed politically motivated, and unscientific so-called environmentalists who don't have a clue. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  22:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

  That is not a response to what I said. Just more anti-environmentalism rhetoric logically going nowhere. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:05, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

  Sorry if you view it that way, although I thought I was clear that neither Moore nor I am "anti-environmentalism". Patrick Moore is simply anti-pseudo-environmentalists who are politically motivated in their attempts to lobby for many wrong things that could actually harm the environment. That makes him a solid "environmentalist". Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  19:14, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't see why this was relisted. It looks closable and the longer it's open, the longer the page remains at a title which is unacceptable under P&G according to consensus from !votes here. Safrolic (talk) 18:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• No offense, but I call for patience because I don't see a firm consensus, and this article has been titled and disambiguated this way for at least 12 years, so a little while longer (or even a long while longer) won't hurt a thing. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  19:30, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support move to Patrick Moore (consultant). SarahSV ^(talk) 00:49, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
• All six listed alternatives are superior to "(environmentalist)" and especially to "(ecologist)". Probably "(consultant)" is the best: accurate, non-promotional and non-disparaging. --JBL (talk) 19:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support move to Patrick Moore (consultant). "(Environmentalist)" or "(ecologist)" are unsuitable. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Given his complicated and contradictory history relating to the environment, any disambiguator relating to that subject will be confusing and/or controversial and/or inaccurate. It looks like Patrick Moore (consultant) is probably the best option, but I have no objection if the close finds another alternative to have stronger support. Alsee (talk) 06:13, 5 May 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)

• Move to Patrick Moore (Greenpeace). I think we should ignore WP:NCPDAB and use this since it makes it 100% crystal clear who we're talking about and simply implies that he is/was associated with Greenpeace without any political commentary on what his role is/was. I don't see how any occupation can be WP:NPOV (except for something like "author", but that's not what he's most known for by any stretch). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:23, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • But he's not a Greenpeace! We disambiguate people by what they are, not what they're associated with. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
    • See #Concrete example 1 below. Andrewa (talk) 23:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

We now have two more proposals.

• Patrick Moore (Greenpeace) (see above)
• Patrick Moore (environmental scientist) (see below)

I think they both need discussion. But where should this take place? Andrewa (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd quite like to make a new heading, but that's still under (offer of) discussion at User talk:Andrewa#New sections.

But I've now been accused of raising those two other possibilities (actually I only raised one of them) only because I thought that Patrick Moore (ecologist) had no hope of consensus.

Just to clarify, I still support Patrick Moore (ecologist), and I think there's a chance of achieving consensus to move to it, and more of a chance than any other proposal to date. We may even have that already... that's up to the closer. The arguments against it and against the current article title seem identical (sometimes even word for word), so they tell us nothing about which to prefer. So if there are any valid arguments for preferring (ecologist), that's a case for moving to (ecologist). Or that's my reasoning. It's a shame the relevant discussion is so buried in personal attacks etc.. Andrewa (talk) 22:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Refocus

My proposal is an attempt to arrive at a consensus on a better disambiguator. I don't think we can hope for consensus on a perfect disambiguator.

The arguments opposing Patrick Moore (ecologist) so far seem to be exactly the same ones as those opposing the current Patrick Moore (environmentalist). Have I missed any? Are there any new ones that weren't already raised against {environmentalist)? Or any old ones against that existing name that haven't already been repeated here, against my proposal?

If so, all of that discussion misses the point. The question here is simply, is (ecologist) a better disambiguator than (environmentalist)? I think it is, based partly on his PhD and current work being at least arguably related to ecology, and nobody seems to have produced any argument that they're not at least a little bit relevant, they've just avoided the issue and called me lots of nasty names.

But nor have very many agreed, I admit! And they've done so quietly and politely and at first I missed them. Hence the section heading Refocus.

Does anyone wish to discuss the question at hand, either way? There are reasons for thinking ecologist is at least a little bit better. Are there others I've missed? And more to the point, are there any reasons for thinking it's any worse? Andrewa (talk) 00:35, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Name calling should be taken to your talk page. I'm sure nobody except the name callers want to see their personal attacks here. So, "ecologist" vs. "environmentalist", which is better and worse? I wouldn't call myself an "ecologist", mainly because that label seems to me to be reserved for someone who has studied ecology in a formal setting such as at university. I do however see myself as an environmentalist, because I do things to promote a better overall environment as well as better specific environments for people, as well as for plants and animals. I think Patrick Moore does, too, but on a much grander scale than myself. So while "ecologist" could be an acceptable qualifier for Moore, I think "environmentalist" is yet a little more apropos. But that's just me you, you... stir-things-upper!>) Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  12:02, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Ecologist is factually wrong, so no, it's not better, since it's factually incorrect. You keep conflating "ecologist" with other fields - your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is disruptive. Guettarda (talk) 15:33, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I confess I don't see your logic here. Others seem to think that environmentalist is also factually wrong, and I thought you were one of them. Am I wrong in this? Because if you were of this opinion, then Ecologist is factually wrong, so no, it's not better, since it's factually incorrect makes no sense at all, and I think that any competent student of first-year logic would agree with me on this. Andrewa (talk) 15:31, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I am also sick of this sophistry and willful misunderstanding. In this case, you have (I honestly can't see how) failed to see that Guettarda thinks two factually wrong disambiguators are equally unacceptable. You appear desperate to give Moore some kind of title which ascribes to him a level of reliability and expertise on his chosen field of lobbying that he simply does not have, and you're occupying the time of something like 6 editors with your never ending, specious arguments. You've completely failed to garner meaningful support for any of these options, because not one of them is as neutral or as accurate in describing his notability as the disambiguator you had removed from his article at move review, which a majority of people in the current move request have now specifically endorsed in their !votes for "not environmentalist". Whenever you realise that your current preferred alternative has no realistic shot, you toss out another equally unacceptable one and begin the cycle again. It's as if your goal at this point is to force a no consensus close. It is abundantly clear to me now why you didn't say in the move review what alternative proposal you were considering making. This is not behaviour we should expect from a sysop. Safrolic (talk) 19:47, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Some of this should be taken to User talk:andrewa#Working for consensus. Andrewa (talk) 01:42, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Just to be clear - my primary opposition to "environmentalist" stems from NPOV. Scroll up and you can read it. If you have a question based on the actual opinion I expressed, then by all means, ask me a follow-up. If you want to set up logic questions, please don't base them on strawman arguments. Your hypothetical first-year logic student would see right through you. Guettarda (talk) 20:13, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd make the same request... please be specific as to the faults you see in my logic. And take these behavioural questions to User talk:Andrewa#Behavioural issues at Talk Patrick Moore (environmentalist). Andrewa (talk) 23:45, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Please. This is not a train-your-discussion-skills-as-an-advocatus-diaboli sandbox, this is a discussion about improving the name of the article. Replacing a wrong name by another wrong name would be a waste of time. So, no, we should not refocus on your red herring and yll your sophisms, we should stay on topic.

And here I thought the Chewbacca defense would never appear in real life. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:36, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Please be specific. What red herring, for a start? Andrewa (talk) 23:36, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I completely agree with Safrolic's contribution above starting with "I am also sick of this sophistry". Pretty much all your writings are either irrelevant to the question at hand or just plain wrong, and now that this is obvious to everybody (possibly except you yourself), there is no need to dive into them in any detail any more. Everybody should just ignore you now. There is a large majority for changing the title, and the few who disagree do not have a leg to stand on. The fact that you have to stoop to the level you do speaks volumes. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:41, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

And I am heartily sick of these personal attacks. Please discuss behavioural issues on the appropriate talk pages. If you do not wish to reply to my arguments, nobody is forcing you to do so. The RM closer (I don't envy them) has the job of deciding whether they are valid, and you can help them by addressing the arguments if you are able to do so, and by not cluttering the discussion with comments that belong elsewhere (at best). Andrewa (talk) 09:29, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Re: cluttering the discussion, this requested move discussion is now approx 57kb. The votes total about 17kb. The rest of it, all sections started by you, now total just over 40kb. I also don't envy the closer. Safrolic (talk) 09:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Very interesting point, but I make the opposite conclusion. Discuss at User talk:andrewa#New sections. Andrewa (talk) 15:43, 29 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)

Only responding to the other language wikis one, because I'm pretty sure it's me you're referencing. My !vote is based on requiring a disambiguator that doesn't take a side on whether or not Moore is an environmentalist. The current version is unacceptable POV and a change is required on that basis alone. My personal preference is consultant over say, businessman or author, even though I'm fine with all three. It's misleading to call the reasoning for my personal preference among equally viable alternatives an argument for moving the page in the first place. Safrolic (talk) 22:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

If you agree that the mention of other language wikis is irrelevant, I'd suggest that you strike it thus from your !vote, to save the closer the trouble of considering it. Andrewa (talk) 22:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I do not agree; it is relevant to my personal preference for consultant over other reasonable NPOV alternatives, any of which I would support. Don't read things into my replies, or my !votes, that aren't there. Safrolic (talk) 22:25, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

But is your personal preference relevant in terms of WP:AT? Andrewa (talk) 00:51, 19 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)

Um, the issue is that we do have reliable sources calling Moore an ecologist. They're the same quality as sources which call him a co-founder of Greenpeace- mainstream journalists who took the things he says about himself at face value. It's the difference in both cases between what Moore says about himself to the media/what the media repeats, and what the primary sources we have access to tell us, that's the cause of these circular arguments. Ultimately, the closest we can come to appropriate language in both cases becomes "Moore says he is ____. The original document says ____." Safrolic (talk) 04:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Then, instead of inventing bad reasoning and refuting it, Andrewa should restrict himself to quoting those. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

If indeed I were just inventing straw men, then you would only need to agree that they were indeed bad arguments (as I think you just have, and have again below). And we would be in agreement. Perhaps we are? Andrewa (talk) 05:53, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

No, we are not. This is such a mess of bad logic it's difficult to tell where to begin. Somebody uses good reasoning, you misrepresent them by replacing it by your own bad reasoning, then saying it is bad. What would be the point of agreeing with you that the bad reasoning you invented was bad without pointing out that you invented it? --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree it is such a mess of bad logic it's difficult to tell where to begin. I've been trying to disentangle it, but obviously I've failed. So see the concrete examples below instead. Andrewa (talk) 00:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

To be even clearer: Those two are "bad reasoning" because of the "because", and the "because" is all your doing. You turned good reasoning into bad reasoning by misparaphrasing it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

you are saying that a forestry PhD is sort of an automatic ecology PhD... No. The main thing I'm saying that it's possible for a forestry PhD (as in, one granted to a student in the UBC Faculty of Forestry) to be a relevant qualification for an Ecologist. Do you disagree with that?

And I had already clarified that, quite explicitly: 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. [30] Andrewa (talk) 06:05, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Possibilities are not a foundation for naming articles. We do not call the article Patrick Moore (astronomer) because it is theoretically possible that he knows something about astronomy. You are moving further and further away from reality. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree that we should not call him an astronomer. But I think he's more of an ecologist than an astronomer, and I'd guess from the tone of that post that you'd agree with that at least. Andrewa (talk) 22:46, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Please stop fishing for agreements from me. The disambiguator we are looking for is not determined by the question "which one is better than 'astronomer'?", and it does not matter whether I agree with things that are not related to the question at hand. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

+1 Because he's either missing the point or being intentionally obtuse in order to push a point. For example, "his PhD isn't in Ecology, because it was issued by the department of Forestry". No; his PhD is not in Ecology because UBC is not accredited to grant "PhDs in Ecology" and we have no evidence that they ever have been. Honest question: do you even know how (Canadian) universities determine which degrees that they get to award and where the names come from? "He's not an ecologist, because he is a consultant" No; the argument is that "ecologist" is not the best descriptor for him because because: (1) there's no evidence his training is in Ecology, (2) I see no evidence that he has never been a practicing ecologist (i.e. a researcher); it appears as if he jumped into activism before he had even finished his degree and his thesis research was never published (there are no relevant entries for Patrick A. Moore on Scopus), (3) It is his activism and television appearances (related to industry consulting on the environment) that make him notable. It is certainly not any ecology-related work that he might have done that has made him notable. Bueller 007 (talk) 13:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Please assume good faith.

These other arguments may indeed be good (I'm not for the moment saying either way). But they are, by your own assertion, not the arguments I am criticising above.

Do you think that any of the arguments that I am criticising above are good ones? And if not (as it appears), what is the problem? Andrewa (talk) 05:47, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

The whole attempt is misguided. Trying to save parts of it does not help. If you want to argue against other people's reasoning, do just that: argue against their reasoning, as a response to their reasoning. This has nothing to do with improving the article, and it probably never had. EOD. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

If the arguments I am criticising are not being made anyway then just point that out, and my criticism of them should then be harmless and irrelevant. But there is no policy or guideline against the way I am trying to argue in this section, in fact I think policy supports it, misguided or not. I am attempting to discuss the content, not the contributor. You on the other hand are attacking me rather than my arguments, as I have raised on your talk page.

I know you don't like it. Just as many don't like the current disambiguator, and don't like my alternative suggestion any more than the current one. But that's no reason for rejecting them, and neither are any of the arguments I have actually criticised above. Andrewa (talk) 13:06, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

The first argument I criticised above, relating to other language wikis, has been resolved sort of. It seems agreed that it is not a good argument, and that it has indeed been raised. But it hasn't been withdrawn, which is a shame IMO.

The next easiest to dismiss is IMO the argument that I have paraphrased he's no more an ecologist than environmentalist. Does anyone wish to contend that this is either a good argument, or one that nobody is suggesting? (Preferably without further personal attacks.) Andrewa (talk) 13:06, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I would second the note that you should just state your argument and respond to people who made arguments you disagree with rather than trying to characterize what others are saying. We can all read. For my part: I don't think we need to make a definitive determination about Moore's essence. The question is really a matter finding a neutral and clear way distinguish him from others with the same name. Considering that he has never worked in academia of any sort, it seems unlikely that "ecologist" is a good descriptor. It would be akin to moving David Letterman to David Letterman (TV weatherman)- it's technically accurate that Letterman held that job, but it's not a great way to distinguish him. Nblund ^talk 16:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I would second the note that you should just state your argument and respond to people who made arguments you disagree with rather than trying to characterize what others are saying The place to give such advice is on my talk page. This page is for discussing the article.

Considering that he has never worked in academia of any sort, it seems unlikely that "ecologist" is a good descriptor. Not all ecologists are academics, any more than all chemists or geologists (etc) are academics. Andrewa (talk) 22:52, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

But most people who have articles with those words in their title are either in academia or are best known for their research and contributions to the field of ecology. Like I said: just because it's accurate doesn't mean it's the most useful descriptor. He's also Patrick Moore (carbon based life form). Nblund ^talk 14:01, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Interesting... neither of those persons are listed at List of ecologists (and that list was recently edited... but should it have been obsoleted by categories?), in fact nobody is listed there with the disambiguator (ecologist) so far as I can see. What I was investigating, of course, is: Do you need to be a researcher to be an ecologist? I'm skeptical. And even if so, Moore is still publishing work that is arguably ecological research. You don't need to work for a University to do research. Andrewa (talk) 00:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@Andrewa: And even if so, Moore is still publishing work that is arguably ecological research. When has Moore ever published work that is "ecological research"? Guettarda (talk) 14:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

See #Concrete example 2 below. Andrewa (talk) 23:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I did. You added something that's neither '"ecology" nor "research". You need to stop making false claims here. Guettarda (talk) 15:38, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Again: this is really beside the point for the article title question. For article titles the real consideration is "what's the thing that will make it easiest for readers to find his page?" Considering that we can't even determine whether or not he's an "ecologist", I suspect ecologist is not an especially useful way to distinguish him, even if we were to determine that it's completely accurate it still probably isn't a good way to distinguish him because it's not what he is best known for. Nblund ^talk 15:40, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Good point. But he's not just a (for example) consultant... his notability comes from his work (I hope I can at least call it that) in controversial areas of environmentalism and (dare I say it) ecology. So to me, the choice is between environmentalist, ecologist, or any other term we can come up with (but which I guess will stir up the same opposition) that is recognisable.. etc. The opposition to both of these seems to be on the basis that his current views are out of step with (dare I say it) mainstream environmentalism and ecology. That may make him a maverick or even a bad ecologist or environmentalist, but it doesn't mean he's not one or the other or both. Our article on Eddie the Eagle starts Michael Edwards (born 5 December 1963), known as "Eddie the Eagle", is an English ski-jumper.... He didn't jump again for 15 years after his Olympic debut, and was so bad at it that they changed the rules to prevent it from ever happening again. But he's still a ski-jumper. And Moore was and is an environmentalist, in terms of our article naming policy. But IMO arguably more of an ecologist. Andrewa (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I think that's over the top (again). I'm not trying to make any false claims. I'm trying to discuss. Discuss in that section. Andrewa (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

The claims you've made are untrue - you claimed he was publishing ecological research. I asked for evidence and you replied with something that was neither ecology nor research. Claiming that it was "ecological research" is false. AGF does not let you get away with making false claims. AGF requires me to consider that your problem is competence that than intentional disruption. But it doesn't change the fact that the claims you are making are false. The fact that you won't acknowledge the problems with your actions makes them more problematic. Guettarda (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Certainly some of what I've said is untrue. And I'm not alone in this, nor is it a bad thing. I (and others) have corrected what others have said, and they have corrected me. That's one thing discussion is for.

And the claim that it is ecological science was not mine. I have then concluded that, if it's ecological science, that it's logical to consider the work ecological research, and the person doing the work an ecological scientist, and more important for this RM, that this might therefore be a suitable disambiguator in terms of WP:AT. And you are free to disagree.

But you are not justified in concluding that my argument is in bad faith, and even if you wish to do so, here is not the place to make such accusations. Andrewa (talk) 15:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Concrete example 1

But he's not a Greenpeace! We disambiguate people by what they are, not what they're associated with. [31] False and irrelevant. Greenpeace would be a perfectly good disambiguator if we did not have better ones (but IMO we do). He was one of the core of Greenpeace when the term was first used, despite subsequent (understandable!) efforts to rewrite history and leave him out. He's as much a Greenpeace as a retired cricketer is still a cricketer for the purposes of disambiguation... we don't say retired cricketer, or perhaps even dead former cricketer, even if those descriptions are more accurate. We're just interested in the whole article name being recognizable, concise, natural, precise, and consistent (WP:AT of course) and in this context, precise just means that there's no other notable Patrick Moore (Greenpeace) (until and unless maybe one of the current board changes their name (;-> to torpedo that one). Andrewa (talk) 23:11, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

If there is to be an "environmentalist" in the title, it should be (former environmentalist). Without "former", it would be misleading. [32] I include this in this section (really I know it's another example) because it's exactly the same fallacy, and a far better example There are other problems with the post but that's the relevant one here. Andrewa (talk) 23:36, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Concrete example 2

And not (ecologist) because he has never worked as one and is not known for his expertise on ecology. [33] He is working as one right now. But many don't like his views! (And I don't agree with some of them either.) Andrewa (talk) 00:37, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@Andrewa:: He is working as one right now. What? Working as an ecologist? I haven't seen a single source that suggests Moore is working as an ecologist. I see policy advisor on climate and energy (not ecology). I see vice president of environment for Waterfurnace International manufacturing geothermal heat pumps (not ecology). I see co-chair [of]... the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, which promotes increased use of nuclear energy (not ecology). And I see a link to "Greenspirit Strategies, Moore's consultancy" (though I don't see him listed as part of "our team" on the company's website: Greenspirit Strategies Ltd. (GSL) is a firm whose sole focus is corporate social responsibility (CSR) development and sustainability communications. So again, not ecology.

You seem to be confusing ecology with environmentalism (which can either be a type of activism or a philosophical position), and a swath of inter-related fields that one might broadly call "environmental sciences" or "sustainability science", or something of the sort. The work Moore is doing is somewhere in the broad field of environmental consulting. Yes, the field employs people with training in ecology (and often has them work as ecologists). But it also employs engineers, oceanographers, pollution control people, lab techs, GIS specialists, sociologists, etc. Guettarda (talk) 12:23, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

This is absolutely correct. Use of the disambiguator "ecologist" is being promoted by someone who apparently does not even know what the term "Ecology" means (i.e., Andrewa). Moore's thesis (and presumably his training) is not an Ecology thesis; it is a study in environmental resource management. Unfortunately, "environmentalist" does not mean "environmental resource scientist", otherwise it would be a fine descriptor... But "environmentalist" carries baggage with it about one's ethics/values, and almost everyone in the environmental movement believes that Moore does not share those values. The disambiguator "ecologist" is inappropriate because it is false; the disambiguator "environmentalist" is inappropriate because it is POV-pushing. "Consultant" is the way to go because no one can say that this is not his job or what he is best known for. Bueller 007 (talk) 15:10, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Sticks and stones! Hopefully the readers will sort through the name-calling and examine the logic.

A question... is this PDF a paper in the topic area of ecology, or is it not? Andrewa (talk) 23:47, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I mean, technically, it's a piece of writing, and it's about an ecological issue, so you could call it a paper. But it's a paper he uploaded himself to his own website, basically a blog post. It's also a paper which doesn't cite most of its factual assertions, and includes in the citations it does have Breitbart, multiple climate change denial blogs (Watts Up With That? and Jo Nova, didn't check if the other ones had articles), and Wikipedia itself^lol. James Brown (ecologist), Charles F. Cooper (ecologist), Frances James (ecologist), Pierre Legendre (ecologist), and Howard Nelson (ecologist), all active or retired researchers, certainly wouldn't include content like this in their body of professional work. Safrolic (talk) 00:32, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

It may not meet the standards of a research journal, but it's a work in the field of ecology. Doesn't that mean that (whatever his qualifications) Moore is working as an ecologist? Now that doesn't make him an ecologist any more than my doing my own plumbing makes me a plumber. But it does make the claim that he has never worked as one... how to put it politely... well, someone recently also said that there is no such thing as the "Institute of Resource Ecology" at the University of British Columbia and there never has been (see #Institute of Resource Ecology of course), and this seems to a similar claim.

That's my point here. It's a shame we need to deal with such rubbish, but we do. Andrewa (talk) 01:31, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

@Andrewa: but it's a work in the field of ecology For starters, it's not "ecological research" because it's not research. It's a report, which is quite a distinct thing from research. It also isn't ecology - it's a 17-page article (not counting the cover page and references) that includes 2-3 paragraphs of what could be considered "ecological" content. Atmospheric science isn't ecology. Ocean chemistry isn't ecology. Palaeoclimatology isn't ecology. Arguably the content on CO2 fertilization (p. 12-13) is ecological, but the first section is biogeochemical and the last is about greenhouse management. But a tiny bit of ecological content does not make this ecology.

As I said before, this is environmental science. It's not ecology. Guettarda (talk) 15:27, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Then, would Patrick Moore (environmental scientist) be another possible article title? Andrewa (talk) 16:10, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

it's not research. It's a report, which is quite a distinct thing from research. I think you are clutching at straws here. It's a report in the most general sense, yes, but what it reports is research.

it's a 17-page article (not counting the cover page and references)... I think this is again clutching at straws. Yes, it could be called an article, and I guess many other things too. Many articles report research, including this one. Are you seriously claiming that this one is not research-based? Andrewa (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Andrewa - I don't know if this is a competence issue or whether you're being intentionally disruptive, but you really need to stop making misleading claims about what ecology is. If you honestly don't know, the ecology and environmental science articles might be a good place to start (with the obvious caveat that Wikipedia is Wikipedia, and all that). Guettarda (talk) 15:44, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

The question of disruption would be better discussed at User talk:Andrewa#Behavioural issues at Talk Patrick Moore (environmentalist).

I say again, would Patrick Moore (environmental scientist) be a better name? I confess it had not occurred to me, but if his current work is in this field it's an obvious contender. Andrewa (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

No, of course not, because what he's doing is environmental consulting, not science. So "Patrick Moore (environmental consultant)" would be the appropriate term in this case, or per WP:AT, the simpler "Patrick Moore (consultant)". Guettarda (talk) 17:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

But just a moment ago you said that the paper (which you call a report and an article) was in environmental science. Andrewa (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

So...are you saying that you aren't aware that writing reports in areas of environmental science is precisely one of the things that environmental consultants do? And if you don't know what ecologist do, you don't know what consultants do, and you apparently don't know what scientific research is...what the heck is the point you're trying to argue here? Guettarda (talk) 19:23, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying that at all. Please reply to the argument. You said this is environmental science. It's not ecology... Would you like to clarify that? Andrewa (talk) 09:18, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

You do not need to be a scientist to write about scientific material. Moore writing about something scientific does not make him a scientist. If he was famous for his peer-reviewed papers advancing the field of environmental science, that would be a different story. This is just several pages of mostly uncited copy about his perception of current understanding. It's something a consultant (who is lazy or very pressed for time) would write. Moore has never worked in a lab, he's never published in a peer-reviewed journal, he's never third thing to rhetorically complete this list. He's not a scientist. Safrolic (talk) 09:26, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

The question was, is the whatever-I'm-allowed-to-call-it environmental science as Guettarda stated above? I think I see what you're saying on the matter, but having been accused of bad paraphrasing several times now, I think it's reasonable to ask you to say explicitly whether you agree with that. Andrewa (talk) 11:50, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

No, not bad paraphrasing - you've been accused of making specious arguments, you've been accused to make false claims, and you've been accused to disruption. Not bad paraphrasing. Guettarda (talk) 12:10, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Glad to hear it! The bit about not bad paraphrasing that is. I don't think it's true but it's a nice thought. (;->

Now, do you agree that the whatever-I'm-allowed-to-call-it is environmental science? I think it would help Safrolic to clarify that. Of course if you've changed your mind, that's good too. We all make mistakes, and discussion is all about us all contributing our best and hopefully coming to a consensus as a result. Consensus is built by discussion. That's what these talk pages are for. Andrewa (talk) 16:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Please reply to the argument. What argument? You made a statement which reiterated what I said. And given that you have yet to address a number of questions (e.g., why you claimed that the paper was "ecological research" when it's neither) you have quite some nerve demanding responses to your "argument" that's not an argument. Guettarda (talk) 12:10, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I think that, if the paper is ecological science rather than ecology as you say above, then this is evidence that ecological scientist is a better disambiguator than ecologist. That's the argument. I'm not convinced that it's true, but I think it deserves discussion. Andrewa (talk) 16:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

As I already said, you can write about science without being a scientist. The fact that you think "clarifying" whether or not his blog post was indeed about science would "help" me shows you have (somehow) failed to understand the central point of my own argument, which I have now restated for you. This question is entirely irrelevant and you're wasting everyone's time. Safrolic (talk) 16:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

It's not a blog post. Disagree that the question is irrelevant, but if you think it is, you're quite entitled just to say that and not respond to it. Andrewa (talk) 16:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

He's not a scientist [34] - There's discussion above at #Environmentalist? on this very point, and I think it's an important one. Presumably, he was a scientist when he worked on his PhD. When did he cease to be one?

There's some reasoning but no evidence given in the post I cite above. It would be good to have evidence of the claims made. Andrewa (talk) 16:58, 29 April 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.

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,[35] but not a PhD in ecology.[36] 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: [37] (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 [38] 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 [39] (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)

(Update) add Cameron Carlyle, William Clark, Alathea Letaw. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:24, 19 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 [40] 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)

Forgive me but both thesis do not say "degree in ecology" in fact the only subject that seems to be mentioned (in brackets) is forestry. I think there is not enough evidence to say he has a degree in anything, just that he has a degree.Slatersteven (talk) 08:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Re "is that much at least agreed?" -- maybe only by me. We're facing a claim that Moore lied about having an ecology degree. That and the "no evidence" claims collapse unless Bondar and Maczak and Rothman also lied. So it would be a surprise if all agreed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

You'll do for a start! I think the lack of any other coherent response (I'm afraid I think the claim that there's no evidence that his degree is in anything is a bit bizarre) says a lot in itself.

We should just cite our sources and try to give them due weight, and if Moore claims to have a degree in Ecology it's hard to see how we can ignore that primary source. Andrewa (talk) 03:21, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

A possible compromise could be "a PhD in Ecology from the Faculty of Forestry, University of British Columbia". But that's a mouthful. feminist (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

That would be problematic, given the lack of ecological content in his Ph.D. Guettarda (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

You don't inherit subject-matter qualifications from your doctoral advisor or committee members. I had a plant anatomist on my committee, but that doesn't mean I can claim that my PhD is in plant anatomy. Guettarda (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Feminist: That would be problem-free but once again I may be the only editor agreeing. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

It seems agreed that Moore claims that his PhD is in Ecology, and that primary sources are sufficient for this to be included in the article... sourced of course. It seems possible that we have other sources that dispute this, and possibly (if they're notable, and without giving undue weight to his critics... the article is about him, not them) that they should be included too.

But the removal of the link to one of his PhD advisors seems quite impossible to justify. Andrewa (talk) 01:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Andrewa - what removal do you mean here? Guettarda (talk) 11:59, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

My bad! I was assuming from the discussion above that the edit under discussion had removed Hamish Kimmins completely. But it didn't, and I should have checked that and thought I had but obviously didn't. The edit just removed the phrase forest ecologist, and perhaps that part of it is justified... that needs further discussion IMO. Forest ecology is IMO a fairly good (and NPOV) term for one focus area of both Moore's PhD and Kimmins' expertise. But obviously, those who don't want Moore considered an ecologist don't like it. Andrewa (talk) 13:20, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

My unclear wording (the first sentence in this thread) caused that, sorry. You're suggesting that "PhD in Ecology" should be back in? With in-text attribution? To Moore alone, or to Moore and the secondary sources? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:26, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I think we should strongly consider putting forest ecology back in, particularly but not only where Kimmins is concerned, see his article and discuss at #Forest ecology below. Andrewa (talk) 14:36, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

From your reply to Richard Keatinge below, I gather you favour "PhD in ecology". Now five editors (I + you + feminist + slatersteven + richard keatinge) have favoured PhD in ecology or opposed both PhD in ecology and PhD in forestry, if I have understood what they wrote in this thread (I apologize if I have condensed lengthy opinions too much). That's enough to say there's no consensus for PhD in forestry, unless some editors haven't piped up yet. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Forest ecology

The fact that Hamish Kimmins is an expert in forest ecology seems relevant to Moore's claims to being an ecologist, and particularly to the relevance of his degree to Ecology. Shouldn't it be in the article? Andrewa (talk) 14:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

It seems inappropriate to describe his PhD as being "in" either Ecology or Forestry. To say that it was awarded by the Forestry department of UBC would be reasonable though perhaps a bit wordy. A one-sentence summary, perhaps along the lines of "His PhD concluded that existing mechanisms were not effectively preventing unacceptable heavy metal pollution in Rupert Inlet by mine tailings" would seem to provide enough unimpeachable information for the reader to decide what it actually was about. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

That's not the question I was asking at all, but it's similar IMO to many arguments above so I'll answer it explicitly to avoid being accused again of straw man tactics.

When I Google site:en.wikipedia.org "PhD in Ecology" I get 245 ghits, and the first few seem right on the money.

When I Google Moore "PhD in Ecology" I get 28,600 ghits, and the first few pages seem predominantly reliable secondary sources.

So, why is it inappropriate to describe his PhD as being "in" either Ecology or Forestry? Secondary sources seem to do exactly that, as does he (a primary source, but we are on thin ice to call him a liar). And for other individuals, so do we. Andrewa (talk) 23:21, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

The obvious supposition is that these sources simply took their descriptor ultimately from him. A few of them may have looked up the details and thought "oh well, pollution from mine tailings and ineffective regulation, I suppose that's something to do with ecology" and left it. Wikipedia should do better. Maybe two sentences: "His PhD studied heavy metal contamination in Rupert Inlet by mine tailings. It concluded that existing mechanisms were not effectively preventing unacceptable pollution." Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:31, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I admit this is tricky. The obvious supposition is that these sources simply took their descriptor ultimately from him. A few of them may have looked up the details and thought "oh well, pollution from mine tailings and ineffective regulation, I suppose that's something to do with ecology" and left it. Wikipedia should do better. That seems to be original research and while IMO there's room for it on a talk page (we want the material in our articles to be true, otherwise there's no point in it being verifiable), we need to be careful.

It is both true and verifiable that Kimmins is an expert in forest ecology, which is a branch of ecology. Is that fair enough, for a start? Andrewa (talk) 17:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Should Kimmins background be in the article? I don't know. How do you propose to discuss it, what sources would you use? We'd need to be wary of COAT, UNDUE and SYNTH, so I think this is something to discuss in specific terms, not vague general terms. Guettarda (talk) 11:56, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Why was Kimmins's background removed? The edit summary doesn't say. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:22, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I can't think of a good justification for including the background of Moore's PhD supervisor. Though it might help if RS could be found to describe its relevance to the subject of this article. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Moore claims to have a PhD in Ecology. That should be in the article. That he makes such a claim is an important, verifiable fact; It's a valid use of primary sources to include it. Is that fair enough for a start? Andrewa (talk) 17:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Sure, but only if you put it in as "Moore claims he has" and not "Moore has". Safrolic (talk) 18:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree. Any dissent on this? Andrewa (talk) 18:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Dissent. Violates WP:CLAIM guideline, perpetuates the suggestion that there's something unbelievable about this. But okay, make a concession and attribute: "According to Moore and The Vancouver Province and the National Post, Moore has a PhD in Ecology." with cites to Moore's page, the senate page, and the two newspapers. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:33, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Less argumentative, what about "describe" rather than "claim"; "Moore and newspapers have described his PhD as being in Ecology"? Suggests that other descriptions are possible, without actually suggesting any direct contradiction. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:42, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Progress. Maybe Moore has a PhD, (ref) undertaken when he was active in Greenpeace, (footnote) which he (ref), the US Senate (ref), and news sources (ref)(ref)(etc) describe as being in Ecology and which was supervised by a committee including two prominent ecologists. (footnote)(footnote) However Greenpeace (ref) and others (ref)(ref)(etc) now dispute his claim to having qualifications in ecology. Is that undue weight? It's all true, but does rely on some primary sources. Andrewa (talk) 22:31, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

No dissent about either of the above suggestions, although I doubt there are any reliable sources that dispute his claim to having qualifications in ecology, if that means PhD. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd go for Moore's PhD, (ref) undertaken when he was active in Greenpeace, (footnote) which he (ref), the US Senate (ref), and news sources (ref)(ref)(etc) describe as being in Ecology and which was supervised by a committee including two prominent ecologists. (footnote)(footnote). Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:30, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

The US Senate didn't say it, Mr Moore said in testimony to a Senate committee in 1974 that he'd been a PhD student in ecology in 1971. So it's more like "which he (ref to his page) (ref to his testimony), and news sources (ref)(ref)(etc.). The reason I regard it as significant is that the Americans say you could go to prison for five years if you lie to their Senate, so the claim that Mr Moore lied would imply that he was rather bold, especially considering how many people were around at the time who could have exposed him. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:11, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

To add to this, those news sources are likely just repeating what Moore told them. It's not like they had a properly-cited Wikipedia article to fact-check with, like journalists do now. Regarding his Senate testimony while a student, it's not exactly easy to check whether a person got a degree in a particular field (or one of us should just call them up), and it's much harder to fact-check whether someone is pursuing a degree in a field than it is to see if they obtained it. Courses can be applicable to multiple degrees. Heck, a person might even say they're something more immediately recognizable, or glamorous to a layperson than their actual degree indicates, without thinking of it as explicitly a lie. Safrolic (talk) 13:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

OK, so how about Moore's PhD was supervised by a committee including two prominent ecologists; in testimony to the US Senate, he described it as being "in Ecology". Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

This is still really tortured prose and reads as desperate to get the word ecologist in any way possible. Just stick to the facts; Moore describes himself as an ecologist, having received a doctorate degree from the Faculty of Forestry of UBC in 1974.[ref, ref] There's no need to include his Senate testimony, especially since it's not actually included anywhere else in the article. There's no need to include his supervisory committee- definitely not something we normally do, and veering into WP:UNDUE. Safrolic (talk) 16:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Quite. So, does the article now have a description of the PhD that commands consensus support? It certainly has mine. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Per Safrolic, I have removed the tortured prose that I introduced. With all respect to Peter Gulutzan, who removed it and then put it back in pending improvement, I really don't think we need it even if its accuracy is improved. Comments? Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I guess that means adding "in ecology", even with in-text attribution, lacks sufficient support. The PhD description is minimal now: name of university, date, thesis subject (unless I've missed something). Nobody has objected to that. For anything else, either mentioning ecology or mentioning forestry, there have been objections, so no consensus. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Institute of Resource Ecology

According to http://www.afoa.org/bios/bio_jq.htm his personal resume claims he has a Ph.D. in Ecology, Institute of Resource Ecology, University of British Columbia, 1974. A Google of "Institute of Resource Ecology" British Columbia -Moore gives me 4,540 ghits, the first few all look relevant.

We don't currently have an article at Institute of Resource Ecology, or even on resource ecology itself. Outline of ecology doesn't mention resource ecology (but it does forest ecology and links to it). Interesting. Andrewa (talk) 18:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

There is no such thing as the "Institute of Resource Ecology" at the University of British Columbia and there never has been. There was an Institute of Animal Resource Ecology (one of Moore's PhD supervisors used to be the head of it), but it is now the Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries.[41] Again, as I have mentioned above, this is an interdepartmental institute that until last year was not able to grant its own degrees. Students obtain degrees from the home department. (See here: [42]) As mentioned numerous times, UBC does not offer a PhD in Ecology and there is no evidence that they ever have. Bueller 007 (talk) 02:42, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

No, there was an IRE. Here's a newsletter from SFU with an obituary for the guy who was the Director of it during the time Moore was at UBC (pg26). The only missing link is showing Moore was actually in it and not just the faculty of forestry. I tried to find a connection between the two entities, but so far nothing. Shame he's dead or we could call him up and put the whole thing to rest. Safrolic (talk) 03:17, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Evidence that UBC granted PhDs in Ecology was shown earlier in this thread. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

There is no such thing as the "Institute of Resource Ecology" at the University of British Columbia and there never has been (my emphasis)... Presumably, you had some evidence of this? Can you remember what it was? Andrewa (talk) 00:26, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Ecology again

The reason I regard it as significant is that the Americans say you could go to prison for five years if you lie to their Senate, so the claim that Mr Moore lied would imply that he was rather bold, especially considering how many people were around at the time who could have exposed him. [43]

I missed that. It seems to be a good argument to me. If Greenpeace could falsify that claim in court, surely they would do so? Now that's wp:OR and doesn't belong in the article, but it might help to clarify what the true position is. Andrewa (talk) 01:46, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Please stop making new sections and put the stick down. This has been addressed several times. Safrolic (talk) 02:27, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I think I should reply to the edit summary Moore saying something about himself simply isn't a reliable source for anything besides "Moore says", regardless of where he said it. [44] Agree in this case (the principle is a bit sweeping, but agree in this case).

You seem to be raising behavioural issues. This is not the place for that. (I know, I've done it too.)

I start new sections only when I hope it will make the discussion clearer. For the same reasons, I try to obey the stringing conventions (even when I don't agree with them), use edit summaries as intended, avoid personal attacks, try to answer all questions that are asked of me, and try to avoid rantstyle in general. I wish others would follow this example. Andrewa (talk) 03:23, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Andrewa, thank you for noticing. I must issue a correction and apology about one detail in my argument: I mixed up the date of the PhD with the date of the senate hearing, which was many years later. We might as well close with the epitaph: there is no consensus for either ecology or forestry. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:29, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

There may not be a "consensus" but it is a simple fact that UBC **DOES NOT OFFER A PHD IN ECOLOGY**. Other universities do, but UBC does not. Here are the programs/degrees offered by the department from which Moore earned his degree: [45]. For those too lazy to click, there is one PhD program offered by this department, and it is "Doctor of Philosophy in Forestry (PhD)". For those who doubt that Moore's PhD is in Forestry and believe that it is in fact in Ecology, ask him to produce a copy of his parchment and see if the word "Ecology" appears. Otherwise, this debate is pointless. It may be acceptable to say that you have a PhD in Ecology informally (esp. if your degree is not about logging, etc. and you feel that "Forestry" is confusing/misleading) but there is zero evidence that this is the formal name of Moore's degree. Bueller 007 (talk) 02:24, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

it is a simple fact that UBC **DOES NOT OFFER A PHD IN ECOLOGY**. Other universities do, but UBC does not. Irrelevant. Universities are strange things. When I attended Macquarie University they only offered first degrees in "Arts"... you could study Chemistry or Geology there and (unlike some other Universities) you could have no "Arts" courses in your degree, but its formal name (see below) was still Arts.

there is zero evidence that this is the formal name of Moore's degree (my emphasis)... Perhaps not (see above), but there are several related primary sources that say it is a PhD in Ecology, and (so far) no reliable secondary source that says it is not. It may have many names. Things do. That's why we have redirects. Andrewa (talk) 17:26, 28 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)

You seem to be trying to say that, although his opinion is listed as one of six forms of climate change denial, he is not a climate change denier because it is just one of six.

Assuming that by "the taxonomy other", you mean "the other taxonomy", I saw no reason to use that. But it would also have worked. Are you now accusing me of not hitting you with everything I can use? If I pointed out every single mistake in your postings, I would be here all day.

I never heard of "mainstream climate change denial", and nobody wanted to call him a "mainstream climate change denier" in the first place. Pseudosciences usually do not have a mainstream because it is all random ideas that appeal to sloppy thinkers and reasoning that points to the direction people want it to.

I think the sentence should be put in the past tense. What Greenpeace said was exactly correct back then. But we cannot say it is not true anymore just because an non-reliable source (his own website) says he is now another flavor of denialist. He can switch to the next flavor tomorrow and keep the article "in the wrong" forever. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:08, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I am certainly not trying to say that he is not a climate change denier, because my views on whether or not he is a climate change denier are irrelevant (as are yours). This is a gross misrepresentation of what I am saying.

I am saying that his own views on climate change should be in the lead, rather than Greenpeace's views on his views.

We generally avoid using his own website because it is a primary source. (And we should similarly avoid using that of Greenpeace of course.) But both can be used for some purposes, according to the policy. Andrewa (talk) 21:53, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

My sentence starting with "You seem to be trying to say" was an attempt at making sense of your convoluted logic. So it was something else you were trying to say. OK. It was probably not important.

Climate change deniers are WP:FRINGE, so we should quote non-fringe sources on what they say. Greenpeace is one, Moore is not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I think it is very important, as is your persistent and unrepentant resort to personal attack.

Let me be sure I understand you.... we have primary sources that describe Moore's view on climate change, and Greenpeaces's view on Moore's view on climate change, and you are suggesting that it is correct to prefer the Greenpeace source to that of Moore in describing his views?

If that is a misrepresentation of your view I am truly sorry. I do not want to set up a straw man. But that seems to me to be exactly what you are arguing, and what the article currently does.

One of these sources is reliable so far as Moore's views are concerned. The other, on this specific matter, is controversial. And we are citing the wrong one. In the article we should probably cite both. Perhaps even in the lead! But if so, Moore's own statement should come first. The article is about him. Andrewa (talk) 13:39, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Instead of just giving a link to that page, you should actually read it. wp:primary source says, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." So, yes, I am saying the same thing the Wikipedia rules say, namely that secondary sources are preferable to primary sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:56, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Secondary sources are indeed preferred. But to say that Greenpeace is a secondary source on this matter is bizarre. Or have I misunderstood you? Andrewa (talk) 11:20, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

What I say about my views is a primary source. What you say about my views is a secondary source. Though not necessarily a reliable seondary source. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Could I inquire what change to the article's text is being proposed? If there is no such change, this wrangle is misplaced a best. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

You are right. I will now stop responding in this thread. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

You have every right to do so, but it's a shame that you give a blatant falsehood as the reason. See #The proposal below. (And you criticise my logic above!) Andrewa (talk) 22:55, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

What I say about my views is a primary source. What you say about my views is a secondary source. Though not necessarily a reliable seondary source. Maybe. I think that on this matter, Greenpeace should be seen as a primary source. But it's not important, because that site has been caught greenhanded falsifying history where Moore is concerned. Whether they are reliable is, as you sort of suggest, questionable (at least). Andrewa (talk) 00:09, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

The proposal

Could I inquire what change to the article's text is being proposed? [46] It is (still) proposed (by me) as follows:

According to his website his latest paper is The Positive Impact of Human CO2 Emissions on the Survival of Life on Earth... 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? (disputed and unimportant details cut at the ...)

Is anyone interested in discussing that? Andrewa (talk) 00:09, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I have added this paper to the lead. Safrolic (talk) 10:47, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Progress certainly. Andrewa (talk) 02:45, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

As of 2019, best known as Trumpian climate change denier

In 2019, post-Trump’s tweet and coverage of the figure in outlets like Breitbart, it appears to me that Moore is now best known for his climate denialism. Never before has the subject received so much attention, and it’s unlikely that he will again. Media coverage of Moore’s industry-friendly climate change denialism appears to be quite widespread. For example, here’s an article from ‘’Esquire’’ [47], and there are many more like it. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

This is how Wikipedia reasoning works: giving sources. If there is to be an "environmentalist" in the title, it should be (former environmentalist). Without "former", it would be misleading. But other options, such as (consultant), are still better. Not (ecologist) because we only have his own claim and some people who seem to think that ecology is infectious - an ecologist taught him forestry, so he is now an ecologist. And not (ecologist) because he has never worked as one and is not known for his expertise on ecology. And not (ecologist) because that word has an environmentalist connotation and would mislead readers. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

and not (ecologist) because that word has an environmentalist connotation and would mislead readers... That is certainly how the spin doctors see it! Greenpeace et al promote the idea that all environmentalists and all ecologists support their manifesto. But that's POV at best. Andrewa (talk) 23:53, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

As usual, your "reasoning" does not make sense. Please stop pretending to respond by going on tangents and instead respond by addressing the actual reasoning people use. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:12, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid I see this as the pot calling the kettle black. Andrewa (talk) 22:57, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

POV on environmentalism

I managed to just ignore most of the obviously pointed language, which was no more than I expected (one way or another0, but I can't bring myself to pass by something as ridiculous as "noting his advocacy for the felling of tropical rainforests and the planting of genetically engineered crops.[53] He has expressed his positive views of logging on the Greenspirit website". He works for a corporation that is involved in logging. Perhaps even logging of rainforests at times. But please point me to the case where he "advocated for the felling of tropical rainforests". The insinuation here is "this guy publically says we should just chop all the rainforests down!" This is exactly the kind of sensationalist BS it sounds like he was distancing himself from. I doubt he ever said anything in favor of logging rainforests. If he did, he was more likely denying that all logging in rainforests in inherently an evil, horrible thing. That is not the same as "advoating the felling of rainforests". It's like someone saying "to be honest, there have been benefitcial results from warfare", to have hit pieces printed up immediately accusing them of "advocating war" and saying "he likes war and wants to start another". They are NOT the same thing.

Next, advocating planting genetically engineered crops is not a sin. Perhaps Greenpeace and their ilk consider it to be horrible, but a GREAT many people, most of whom are NOT "paid advocates" see no harm and a great deal of good in geneticaly engineered food, and consider Greanpeaces campaign against them to be about as reasonable and helpful as antivaxxers in general. Many very smart people consider GMO crops to be a promising boon to mankind. It is not an "accusation" to say that a person adovates GMOs, although the way this is phrased it certainly sounds like one.

Last. "expressing positive views on logging" is also not a shameful sin. Like the last, most REALISTIC people, moderate people, those who aren't utter fanatics, consider logging a completly legitimate form of agricuture. There are certainly groups of people who hear "Rape of the Forest" when they hear the word "logging", but others take into account the fact that trees are a renewable crop, and paper is a very useful, biodegradable and renewable substance. Logging is NOT an evil thing. Poor logging practices are certainly considered generally harmful, but logging in itself is widely considered a positive thing. When done scientfically to mitigate harm, it is a neccesary adjunct to human life. "Accusing" someone of "expressing positive views on logging" is like "accusing" someone of expressing positive views on farming. Farming also has the potential to cause a great deal of harm, but most people aren't foolish enough to try for banning farming. Again, this is exactly the unreasonable and emotionally-tinged side of "environmentalism" that he was complaining about when he left, as far as I can tell. Only a Greenpeace person would "accuse" someone of "saying postive things about logging". I mean, hasn't he realized that all right-minded people have dismissed logging as an evil corporate scheme to rape nature and Kill The Animals? Ban Paper Products! It's the onlhy solution!

Which reminds me; I see above the debate about whether he is an "environmentalist". I was not aware that "environmentalist" had such a narrow definition, and that to qualify one had to agree with Greenpeace consensus on so many points. Who is the arbitratior of what "real" environmentalists are allowed to advocate for? How many points are you allowed to disagree on before your credentials as an true Environmentalist are stripped away? As far as *I* am concerened, a person who is an "environmentalist" is one who is concerned with the environment, and how it may be effected. There is no set definiton of what makes you a "true" environmentalist. A person could be convinced that cutting down 75% of the worlds forests, and paving over vast sections of coastline would be beneficial for the environment. He would still be an 'environmentalist", he would just be one who happens to disagree with most other environmentalists. It is a supreme egotism to declare for yourself that only people who think *thus* are TRUE environmentalists; obviously, WE are RIGHT and we are envirnomentalists, and therefore anyone who disagrees with our analysis is NOT an environmentalist. That's what comes of wearing your description as a badge of honor. Somewhat how people who are left of center desribe themselves as 'Liberals"....nbecause of course no one else could have liberal ideals. You can can him a "mistaken environmentalist", but you cannot claim it's some exclussive club that is only open to people who advocate for the Status Quo of nature. That's not what "environmentalist" means. You might call that "Environmental Conservatism". Moore could describe himself as a "environmental Progressive". Although his ideas would appear about as misguided and repellant to Environmental Conservatives as most "Progressive" ideas seem to Conservatives. I guess most Conservatives see most "Progressive" policies about as sure to cause disaster as Moore's ideas on the environment are.

Personally, I don't think it pays to reject all he says. Nulcear energy IS a legitimate clean energy alternative, even if Greenpeace dislikes it. Logging companies are actually one of the biggest conservators and stewards of forestland today. Who else has such a stock in protecting forests? And who's to say that global warming ISN'T potentially beneficial. Greenpeace wrigns their hands and says "but Scienence says it will kill off many species! And harm human societies!" It wouldn't be the first time many species have died off. I am of the opionion that nature can take car of herself, and wouldn't be much phased. Change in the environment would stimulate a new shift in the development of species, and life would go on. It has happened. Might it hurt human society? Sure. THAT'S why people are really against it, and because they are scared of the idea of the world changing. But I don't see how being negative as far as humans is concerned means that global warming cannot be a overall positive. I think he's speaking in the bigger picture. Even if it doesn't hurt humsns he is not the only person to point out the potential benefits from global warming. "Scientific consensus" still leaves many, many people who disagree, and they aren't all morons or in the pay of Evil Corporations.

Anyway, now I've gone off on a rant. I mostly just wanted to point out how ridiculous those statements were, and point out how many similar ones there are in the article. People haven't learned to just let the facts do the talking, they seem to find it impossible to resist editorialising and making sure that the readers draw the "right" conclusions (theirs) from the article.

Idumea47b (talk) 05:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Idumea47b. Can you please convert that comment into something shorter and readable. I don't see any actionable suggestions in there, but it's hard for me to tell because it's so long and dense. What changes are you suggesting to the article? Guettarda (talk) 10:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

You make some excellent points, and some of it does pertain to how Wikipedia can do better. While Wikipedia is not a democracy and a poll is not a head count, that's easier said than done, and many statements that should IMO have been ignored as pure I don't like it and/or personal attack seem to have held sway above, just by their weight of numbers.

But on the other hand, this is not the place to promote the opposite POV. Two wrongs do not make a right. Andrewa (talk) 04:50, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

The words "advocacy for the felling of tropical rainforests and the planting of genetically engineered crops" are almost exactly the words of the Guardian writer (Jon Henley) "advocating the felling of tropical rainforests and the planting of genetically engineered crops", they should have been in a direct quote. And they were. But then Nightscream made this change and added that Moore was "arguing against the theory that mankind was causing global warming", which Jon Henley did not say. So that part of the complaint looks valid; I haven't read the rest. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I looked for the text "arguing against the theory that mankind was causing global warming" in the diff you linked to, and my browser did not find it, even after I searched for mere fragments of it. Where in that version created by my edit does it appear? Nightscream (talk) 15:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)