Talk:Greenpeace/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Greenpeace. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.unep.org/PDF/OurPlanet/2007/sept/EN/ARTICLE8.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081203235907/http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/syngenta-agm to http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/syngenta-agm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101113173915/http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/golden-rice-is-a-technical-fai/ to http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/golden-rice-is-a-technical-fai

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Greenpeace. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110529153618/http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/climate/paula-bear-wheres-your-spill-response-plan-cairn-20110526 to http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/climate/paula-bear-wheres-your-spill-response-plan-cairn-20110526
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110609045410/http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/climate/update-arctic-pod-48-hours-and-going-strong-20110531 to http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/climate/update-arctic-pod-48-hours-and-going-strong-20110531
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101216191555/http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/about/greenpeace-gm-food-aid-and-zambia to http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/about/greenpeace-gm-food-aid-and-zambia

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

4.4 Climate and Energy - Cool IT Board - Use of "we"

The last paragraph in this section uses "we". Should it be modified to something like "The Leaderboard ranks the companies according to an overall score which is composed of rankings in three evaluated areas." ? -Tiffdmo14 (talk) 21:11, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Twitter and Moore

Per Talk:Patrick_Moore_(consultant)#Moore_is_encouraging_his_Twitter_followers_to_edit_this_page, Moore is encouraging his Twitter followers to make edits supporting his claim to be a founder of Greenpeace. This page may need semi-protection if edit warring over Moore / his status as founder continue.Dialectric (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Joan Baez

In the origins section it says the benefit concert was supported by Joan Baez, but as far as I can tell, sources list Joni Mitchell, Phil Ochs, Chilliwack (band), and James Taylor as performing. Looking at a Greenpeace blog], she donated a thousand dollars and connected Stowe with Mitchell? We may want to clarify that, once we find a reliable source. --tronvillain (talk) 22:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Ah, it's mentioned in Weyler's book: "Through his connections in the American disarmament community, he wrote to Joan Baez." --tronvillain (talk) 22:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Founders

The origins section currently says with several sources that there are several differing views even within Greenpeace and the early members about who are the founders, and several parties, like researchers and Greenpeace itself has said that the origins were loose and unclear. So I think that it is futile to try an list founders to the infobox as the actual situation seems to be very complex and messy.89.27.57.41 (talk) 18:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I removed the founders section from the infobox as there are so many differing views on who are the actual founders.Shubi (talk) 06:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Video with print evidence on founders. Ignore the opinion piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.22.30 (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Mischievous editing to remove Patrick Moore as co-founder.

Greenpeace was founded in 1971. For 48 years Patrick Moore has been known to be a co-founder of Greenpeace. Why has a mischievous editor removed Patrick Moore's name as a founder? Presumably the same editor is preventing reversion of the edit. Bougatsa42 (talk) 03:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Moore's role and how to describe it is currently being discussed on Talk:Patrick Moore (consultant). I suggest we keep the discussion there for clarity and to avoid having to repeatedly make similar statements. Once a resolution is reached on that page, we can apply the wording here as well.Dialectric (talk) 13:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

This is part of a movement of Greenpeace and sympathetic actors. I've added sources for the material. Buffs (talk) 18:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Be that as it may, we can't only add one side. NPOV says we need to include both sides. We certainly can't use a highly partisan blog that only supports one side. Guettarda (talk) 19:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Moore says he's a founder, Greenpeace says he wasn't. It doesn't matter to us who's right, unless there's overwhelming evidence once way or the other we present both sides. And FWIW, this is unacceptable

On March 17th, 2019 Greenpeace expunged all records of Dr. Patrick Moore's historical contributions (as a co-Founder) from the foundation's website and now lists only criticisms of him. Google followed suit and removed the activist from its list of the founders of Greenpeace.

• The first link is a complete misrepresentation - the Independent article is from 2014, so it can't be used to support claims about actions that happened in 2019
• The second and third links aren't to reliable sources. Guettarda (talk) 19:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

References

I recently removed edits which relied on the low-quality sources westernjournal.com and pjmedia.com. Neither of these are mentioned at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources, despite the edit summary which reverted my edit. Even if these sources were reliable, '‎Expunging Dr. Patrick Moore's Contributions' is not a neutral section title, and as I wrote on the Patrick Moore discussion page, the founders page is still available from Greenpeace as an archive: https://www.greenpeace.org/archive-international/en/about/history/founders/ Dialectric (talk) 20:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Source #1 sources his status as a Co-Founder, so it's legitimate AND a reliable source. The second is a reference to the site of the subject itself, specifically its search results. The #3 & 4 sites are indeed conservative criticism and have been labeled as such. Additional sources from WP:RS have been added. Buffs (talk) 16:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

As I wrote above, it would be better to contribute to the ongoing discussion on Talk:Patrick_Moore_(consultant) where work is being done to reach NPOV wording which could be used here once set, rather than edit war on this article. There are also numerous WP:RS that describe Moore as an early member, not a founder. Using just the Independent is Wikipedia:Cherrypicking. As with any disputed content, you should work to achieve consensus on this talk page rather than repeatedly edit the article to your preferred version.Dialectric (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Pretty unnecessarily hostile to call the requested changes "edit warring". There is no requirement to come to a consensus "before adding anything". I have no "preferred version". Every change I've made has either rephrased to address your/others' concern(s) or add/move sources. Your blanket "undo" of everything leaves nothing that anyone can adjust/address.

There are plenty of sources that effectively quote Greenpeace as saying he wasn't a founder and then regurgitate GP talking points/rationale. However, you're ignoring the references ADDED which include Greenpeace's own page on lookback which calls him a Founder. This looks like revisionist history and denying the past. Buffs (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

It's also a bit disingenuous to direct me elsewhere. I'm not seeing any discussion on the actions of Greenpeace, only on whether Moore was a founder or not. There IS no discussion on that topic. Buffs (talk) 18:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

So, let's start this over. What statements do you feel are inaccurate or unsupported?

Greenpeace has taken steps to remove all records of Co-Founder Dr. Patrick Moore's historical contributions from the foundation's active website and currently lists only their criticisms of him (with the exception of the site's archives).. As noted by Moore himself and several conservative sites, Google followed suit in March 2019 and removed the activist from its list of the founders of Greenpeace.

The latter sources are noted per WP:RSOPINION via "As noted by Moore himself and several conservative sites..."

If I'm missing something, let me know and I'll address it. Buffs (talk) 18:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

References

The Greenpeace site has no search results for ‘Bob Hunter’ or ‘Dorothy Metcalfe’, two original Don't Make A Wave Committee members. Would you say that Greenpeace “has taken steps to remove all records of Hunter and Metcalfe’s historical contributions’? The use of ‘erase’ suggests an active campaign by Greenpeace to remove Moore, which is not supported by reliable sources. Neither the BBC source nor the Independent source mention Greenpeace removing content, so these sources do not support the statement as written. This leaves only Greenpeace sources; making claims about Greenpeace’s motivations in this context are WP:OR.

Unless covered by reliable sources Google’s removal is not notable. Moore’s twitter post and low quality conservative sources do not meet this threshold. If you insist on using these sources, I suggest getting feedback at WP:RSN first.

We don't use honorifics per MOS:HONORIFIC. We avoid ‘noted’ per WP:SAID.Dialectric (talk) 18:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

These are important points. The sources need to support the assertions made - looking at sources and searches and drawing conclusions that aren't explicitly addressed in the source is a violation of WP:NOR. Guettarda (talk) 18:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Then let's start from the last sentence and work backwards:

1. "Co-Founder" is not an honorific or title of nobility, so WP:HONORIFIC doesn't apply. In the case of this statement, it is in direct contradiction of something that would be expected in their relationship.
2. Want to replace "noted" with "stated"? No problem here, but the meaning of the statement really doesn't change and it seems pedantic.
3. The sources are listed as an opinion, not specifically as facts as required by WP:RSOPINION. Readers can judge the weight to give to such statements/criticism. That they made such criticism is not debatable. Buffs (talk) 02:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Dr. is an honorific, more specifically covered by MOS:DOCTOR. That they made such criticism is not debatable. Whether this criticism is notable, on the other hand, is central to determining whether it should get coverage in the article. If there is no coverage in high quality RS sources, this content has no place in the article. The google stuff is especially tenuous here because it has very little to do with the subject of this article. If it had better sourcing, it might be reasonable to add to the Moore article.Dialectric (talk) 03:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

You're being highly pedantic and could have simply removed that title. I can see your point on the second sentence except there appears to be a widespread effort to remove Moore from Greenpeace's history. Gonna call it a night for now. Buffs (talk) 04:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Why was Patrick Moore removed from being listed as co-founder? It is widely known that he was its co-founder, not just a consultant or early participant. Just because Greenpeace removed him from mention on their site over ideological grounds does not change that fact. 129.130.18.193 (talk) 19:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Cool IT

I have deleted the cool IT section due to its terrible tone, lack of any non-fluff information, lack of proper citations, and lack of relevance. Toad02 (talk) 19:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Good edit. And this promotional material seems to have been added and deleted several times in the past. Andrewa (talk) 10:22, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2019

Patrick Moore was a co-founder of Greenpeache Elivasser (talk) 19:48, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

References

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. I see ongoing discussions both here and at Talk:Patrick Moore (consultant). ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 19:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

We do now have two secondary sources that use the term co-founder

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/116371259?searchTerm=greenpeace+co-founder

https://www.politico.com/story/2008/03/why-a-greenpeace-co-founder-went-nuclear-008835

https://www.politico.com/story/2008/03/why-a-greenpeace-co-founder-went-nuclear-008835?o=1 page two of the above

is it worth looking for more, I wonder? Andrewa (talk) 22:44, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Do those sources do original research into Patrick Moore, or are they simply adopting an epithet? Toad02 (talk) 13:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I have read them over, and it is clear that they are not actually researching Greenpeace's story. I admittedly don't know Wiki's policy, but it does not seem like they are going to provide reliable data. Toad02 (talk) 19:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Founders Dispute

Patrick Moore was removed as a co-founder and listed as an early member despite overwhelming evidence that Moore was acknowledged by Greenpeace as a co-founder for more than four decades. The edit appears to have been done on the strength of a single interview (per citation in article).

This change makes it appear that Wikipedia is a co-conspirator of a sort with politically motivated revisionist history. Evidence supports Moore as co-founder; saying otherwise abandons Wikipedia's commitment to neutrality.

104.137.44.37 (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Archena

The timing of the edit is suspect. Now Wikipedia being blamed for him being removed from google's list of greenpeace founders. 98.179.184.17 (talk) 22:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd strongly recommend reading the section "Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2019" from Patrick Moore's own page. My summary of it is this: Patrick Moore claims to be founder. Greenpeace denies this claim. Greenpeace used to call him a member of 'founders and early members' which does not necessarily mean he is a founder. Wikipedia should acknowledge that this is disputed, but should not give undo weight to either side. Toad02 (talk) 19:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

The main problem with the Founders section of this article is the extended (5 paragraphs!) discussion of an uninteresting and unimportant semantic point. It would benefit from being trimmed back, especially (but not exclusively) the back-and-forth about Moore. --JBL (talk) 16:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

The only mention of founders and early members that we have so far is https://web.archive.org/web/20070203080000/http://www.greenpeace.org/international/about/history/founders which is an archive of a Greenpeace page written after the split, and specifically written to poo-poo his claim to being a founder (recommended reading).

We also have other primary sources that show Greenpeace referring to Moore as one of their founders https://web.archive.org/web/20190514151336/https://www.greenpeace.org/southeastasia/tag/about-us/ https://web.archive.org/web/20090301164350/http://www.greenpeace.org:80/usa/about/history/the-founders (also recommended reading). Andrewa (talk) 00:39, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

None of those should be put on the page. This is not a forum, so please stop attempting to argue an opinion that cannot have an effect on the page.

If reasoning is needed for why those sources shouldn't be used, here it is. There are three sources, and they all have their own problems. 1) Could be considered early member. 2) Doesn't mention the word Moore. 3) Does not call him a founder explicitly. Toad02 (talk) 19:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm certainly not intending to argue an opinion that cannot have an effect on the page. I still think it should have an effect. But I've said my bit, and agree that it's a lost cause, so I'll drop it. Those last points seem to misunderstand the point I was trying to make, but I've said my piece. Andrewa (talk) 05:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia deserves some of the blame. We're not perfect, and never will be, and don't claim to be but we still have our uses.

What the discussion at Talk:Patrick Moore has established is that Moore was a founder by any sensible definition, and was acknowledged as one (regardless of definition) by Greenpeace until he and they parted ways.

But there is doubt as to whether or not we have have enough evidence to consider this verifiable to the level required to include these facts in that article. So the same would be true of this one. Andrewa (talk) 00:41, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

For the benefit of others: Andrewa writes What the discussion Talk:Patrick Moore has established ..., but the truth is that after many thousands of words spent on repetitive argumentation, Andrewa was unsuccessful in convincing anyone else to accept this position. --JBL (talk) 02:24, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Not true at all. This position has been challenged by three of the many contributors only, and others have accepted it or something even stronger both there and here. The unresolved question is not whether Greenpeace once considered him a founder, but whether we have or can find sources to justify including that fact in the article, and if not how we can give due weight to the current positions of Moore and Greenpeace regarding this question. And it's equally relevant to this article.

Perhaps we could think of creating a new article on the lines of Views of the relationship of Patrick Moore to Greenpeace. It seems encyclopedic. The problem is finding relevant secondary sources among the fog of POV primary sources that web searches tend to deliver. And as more and more news sources disappear behind paywalls, it's getting even more difficult. Andrewa (talk) 09:56, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with JBL; this consensus was not established on the talk page for Patrick Moore. I also think that, like on the talk page for Moore, it does not actually matter and should be dropped. Toad02 (talk) 13:06, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Agree that I should drop it. Disagree that it doesn't matter, but as I said above, for now at least it's a lost cause. Andrewa (talk) 05:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

There were three major events of founding Greenpeace International and Moore was there for the later two. Patrick Moore had been on the boat trip (1971) prior to the group formally changing the name to "Greenpeace Foundation" (1972). Patrick Moore was president (1977-1979) of the original Greenpeace Foundation at the time when Greenpeace International was incorporated (1979). After that change, Moore was therefore only president of Greenpeace Canada. Although he was not a founding member of the original group (the pre-1971), he was instrumental in the creation of Greenpeace International. "... on 14 October 1979, Greenpeace International came into existence." See also Greenpeace#Founders_and_founding_time_of_Greenpeace. I'm not advocating any specific changes but I just wanted to highlight the significant role Patrick Moore (consultant) had in the early years of what became Greenpeace International. No one should remove Moore from the Greenpeace history. What constitutes a founder, co-founder or not? Can you skip to the 'single campaign' group as the founding of the multiple foundations or acknowledge the significance of forming Greenpeace International? These definitions are vague and open to interpretation. I would say he was not a founder of the Greenpeace movement (1969-1971) but was a co-creator of Greenpeace International in 1979. tygrus (talk) 13:01, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Contradiction in terms? "renewable" used to describe "fossil gas"

a renewable electricity cooperative that supplied customers with fossil gas starting from 2011
Unless I'm mistaken, the general definition of "renewable" excludes "fossil gas", and so this is a tacit contradiction in terms and the burden of proof would require a verifiable source to explain how "fossil gas" can be renewable, otherwise "a renewable electricity cooperative" should be changed to something like "an electricity cooperative claiming to provide renewable energy" so that the text isn't making the claim itself. --RProgrammer (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)