Jump to content

Talk:Patrick Moore (consultant)/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

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):

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)
@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)
  • 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)


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)

We now have two more proposals.

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. [7] 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. [8] 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. [9] 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. [10] 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 itselflol. 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 [11] - 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Patrick_Moore_(consultant)/Archive_4&oldid=1072970327"