This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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

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

Agreed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Greenpeace's POV is at

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

They used to have a page at

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I get more than 2500 hits from Google books [1] and the first few all look highly relevant. So there is no problem with the GNG that I can see. Your thoughts?

True it was chartered for those initial protests, it wasn't bought, but it seems to have been renamed... The committee made good on Mr. Bohlen’s pledge. After Irving Stowe, a core member, organized a fund-raising concert in Vancouver with Joni Mitchell, James Taylor, Phil Ochs, and the Canadian rock band Chilliwack, the committee leased the halibut fishing vessel Phyllis Cormack, and, after renaming it Greenpeace, sailed to Alaska. [2] (Which is what our article says too, but the Boston Globe is a better source.) (;-> Andrewa ( talk) 02:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Here is a long NYT article on an escapade of the Phyllis Cormack in 1975 while under Greenpeace sponsorship. ^[1] The article makes clear the Phyllis Cormack remained in the commercial halibut fishery both before and after the 1975 Greenpeace charter. Methinks the Cormack deserves its own article. XavierItzm ( talk) 15:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

And here's a long transcript of a Public Radio International program on the 1971 Greenpeace charter, with plenty of background on the Phyllis Cormack. ^[2] Funnily enough, because it is a 1996 PRI program, Moore is cited as a founder. Of course, this is before he was airbrushed out of the pic. XavierItzm ( talk) 15:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moore is encouraging his Twitter followers to edit this page. [3] Be prepared for incoming POV edits. Bueller 007 ( talk) 16:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

It is not true. Wikipedia has not claimed in ages that he was a co-founder of Greenpeace. Don't forget that Patrick Moore was a substantial contributor to his own biography here. Wikipedia's past claims that he was a co-founder of Greenpeace come from Patrick Moore himself. For example, here is Patrick Moore himself changing Wikipedia's characterization of him as an "early member" to a "co-founder". [4] Bueller 007 ( talk) 18:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

The source cited for the claim by most recent edits is a PhD thesis about social movement organizations, focusing on Greenpeace. ^[1] I searched for mentions of Moore and found on page 190;

7.8 One Greenpeace: Working Globally to Create an Ecological Sensibility

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

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

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

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

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

I don't know that there's much of a difference between "one of the first members" and a "founding member". What's not easy to find a reliable source for is that he is a "co-founder". Snopes is considered a reliable source, and published this answer [ [5]] to the question, saying:

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

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

They then link to Moore's original application, [ [6]] hosted by Greenpeace, to the Don't Make A Wave committee to join the Greenpeace voyage. I feel like that's a pretty strong source/argument for saying he joined them, but maybe that's just my opinion. Safrolic ( talk) 22:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

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

[ [7]] Here is a scan of the incorporation document for the Don't Make A Wave Committee, hosted on the site of Beatty Street Publishing, which is a company associated with Greenspirit Strategies. As you can see, the incorporation of the committee is dated to Oct 5, 1970. [ [8]] Here is a scan of Moore's application letter to join the committee, with the committee's reply back to him. It's dated March 16th, 1971. Safrolic ( talk) 01:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

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

According to Moore [ [9]] among many other sources, the DWAWC is Greenpeace. They just changed their name.

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

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

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

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

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

^[1]== Patrick Moore is a Founder of Greenpeace ==

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

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

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

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

NPOV question

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moore has claimed to be a co-founder of Greenpeace. Greenpeace has denied the claim, as the organization already existed when he joined, and released his application letter to sail with the Don't Make A Wave Committee, the group's original name, on their first voyage. ^[2] Safrolic ( talk) 07:01, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Just thought I'd point out that the letter is an application to sail on the boat. It doesn't actually establish when he was first involved with the committee. His application might have indeed been the first involvement, but he seems to have become significantly involved before it became anything accurately described as "Greenpeace." You can see in Rex Wyler's Greenpeace that Moore was apparently the one they sent to assess the Phyllis Cormack as capable of making the voyage, then flew to Anchorage with Bohlen in May for Atomic Energy Commission hearings, and then of course eventually sailing on the boat. ^[3] And then apparently on 1 November 1971 "Jim Bohlen, Irving Stow, and Paul Cote met to wrap up the Don't Make A Wave Committee" where "They discussed Bob Hunter's proposal to keep the organization alive and rename it the Greepeace Foundation, but the idea raised controversy." Then finally "On January 21, the Don't Make A Wave CommitteeCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). resolved to change its name to the Greenpeace Foundation. The Metcalfes, the Hunters, Patrick Moore, Rod Marining, and others remained active. The Stowers and Bohlens withdrew but stayed in contact with the Metcalfes" and "On May 4, 1972, the Provincial Societies office in Victoria, British Columbia registered the name 'Greenpeace Foundation.'" There are some pretty good reasons why Greenpeace might have previously listed him on their website with their founders. -- tronvillain ( talk) 17:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and fascinating to report, that's in 2000!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trying again

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

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

Sigh, so I guess this is a thing. Fails WP:V. RS [10], [11], [12] say no. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 16:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I must stress that the fact that Patrick Moore was on the founding committee ( [13]), indisputably forever makes him the co-founder. Later being part of some controversy or dispute is never a valid reason to remove a persons claim to the title of co-founder . Segrov ( talk) 22:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Another verified founder, Paul Watson, has publicly confirmed Patrick Moore is a founding director of Greenpeace. ( [14]). Segrov ( talk) 22:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unfortunately, Snopes (which has been updated since I wrote that) is still perhaps at odds with what other sources say. We have several other sources that say Moore was a founder of Greenpeace. And we have a primary source [15] that describes his current views... and he now actually supports the thesis that climate change is happening and is partly caused by our CO2 emissions. (But he also thinks this may be a good thing!) The combustion of fossil fuels for energy to power human civilization has reversed the downward trend in CO2 and promises to bring it back to levels that are likely to foster a considerable increase in the growth rate and biomass of plants, including food crops and trees. Human emissions of CO2 have restored a balance to the global carbon cycle, thereby ensuring the long-term continuation of life on Earth. This extremely positive aspect of human CO2 emissions must be weighed against the unproven hypothesis that human CO2 emissions will cause a catastrophic warming of the climate in coming years.

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

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

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

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

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

I even assume that the IP who recently asked me Do you like Greenpeace so much, that you are ready to give up on your journalistic integrity to back their lies up? [16] was acting in good faith. But I think they're mistaken too.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reliability and relevance of sources

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