Jump to content

Talk:Patrick Moore (consultant)/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 7

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
"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)

  • 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)
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 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)
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)
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)
  • 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.

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)

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? [5] 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’’ [6], 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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Patrick_Moore_(consultant)/Archive_3&oldid=906662784"