The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. (Overturned per move review.) While closures as no consensus usually involve a relist, due to the length of the move review, and the fact that there is reasonable suspicion (raised at the move review) of meatpuppetry, I think a fresh RM is the best way to go. While it could be argued consensus existed to move the page, no consensus existed on which title to move it to. I will procedureally renominate and set out the options from the previous discussion. ( closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 13:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion:

Patrick Moore (environmentalist) → Patrick A. Moore – This move has been suggested on the talk page, and is the only neutral name for the article. Calling Patrick Moore an "environmentalist" has been widely criticized on the talk page, and he is not considered to be an environmentalist by many other environmentalists. Other suggested replacements such as "Patrick Moore (PR Consultant)" are also POV pushing. "Patrick A. Moore" is neutral and would also be consistent with pages for other Patrick Moores including Patrick J. Moore, Patrick S. Moore, Patrick T. Moore, etc. Bueller 007 ( talk) 23:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. The main title header of each {hndis} entry represents individual circumstances. Patrick J. Moore, Patrick S. Moore, Patrick T. Moore etc, may or may not have the middle initial as part of their respective WP:COMMONNAMES, but the putative environmentalist is not known as "Patrick A. Moore". His 2011 book, listed under the article's section header "Bibliography", Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist, uses the name "Patrick Moore", as do the covers of his other books. — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. WP:COMMONNAME In ictu oculi ( talk) 10:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• Then suggest a neutral alternative, because calling him an "environmentalist" is POV pushing. "Patrick Moore (businessman)"? "Businessman" is neutral and "Canadian businessman" is in fact how he is described in the lede. Bueller 007 ( talk) 15:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I've moved the article to "Patrick Moore (businessman)" because "environmentalist" is obviously controversial and inappropriate, whereas "businessman" is indisputably accurate. :bloodofox: ( talk) 17:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Despite the obviously uncontroversial nature of my move, it has been reverted by @ SnowFire:. ( [1]) I get that the subject of the article desires to be presented as an "environmentalist" over a lobbyist or businessman, but come on, people. :bloodofox: ( talk) 17:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Procedural note: I reverted this. Please don't move an article in the middle of a RM when nobody has supported or even commented on your proposal. "Businessman" does not seem "indisputably accurate", his notability is in environmental movements, even if it's in doing it "wrong" according to many. "Businessman" seems to POV-push the idea that his views are simply because he's a paid shill rather than being legitimately at odds with other environmentalists. (EDIT: This was written before bloodofox's comment. Well, the above comment stands. The current article portrays him as a contrarian environmentalist who legit believes what he says and was writing books with subtitles "The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist" as recently as 2011. This is like saying Ayn Rand isn't a philosopher because she's wrong. A wrong & bad philosopher is still being a philosopher, though.) SnowFire ( talk) 17:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh, please. While the article's subject is indisputably a businessman, it's obvious that calling the guy an environmentalist is nothing more than a smoke screen for his lobbying. Wikipedia isn't a promotion device for figures like this to present themselves as very concerned about the environment. No one is disputing that Ayn Rand is a philosopher—if you're going to muscle in to edit war, at least keep it on topic. :bloodofox: ( talk) 17:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

It is not obvious to me. But denying that he was an environmentalist, and that this is the main (perhaps only) reason that we have an article on him at all, might well be considered a smokescreen, and a POV that parts of the environmental movement would be particularly keen to push. Andrewa ( talk) 19:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. Andrewa ( talk) 19:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support. Using a middle name if the disambiguator "environmentalist" is controversial seems the best fix to me. SnowFire ( talk) 17:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

As I pointed out below, WP:INITS says "Adding given names, or their abbreviations, merely for disambiguation purposes (if that format of the name is not commonly used to refer to the person) is not advised." We use disambiguators, not middle initials that contradict WP:COMMONNAME. -- tronvillain ( talk) 22:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support. Either this or something else neutral like Patrick Moore (lobbyist) or Patrick Moore (businessman) is fine by me. :bloodofox: ( talk) 17:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• Patrick Moore (consultant) is also a possibility. This is what the French Wikipedia uses. Bueller 007 ( talk) 20:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support lobbyist, environmentalist has a meaning, and I am not sure he qualifies. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:49, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support, either that or Patrick Moore (lobbyist), which I prefer. Patrick Moore (businessman) is a possibility, but I feel the article generally supports the idea that he's far more notable as a lobbyist than anything else - He is far more notable for his lobbying after leaving the environmental movement than for anything he did within it, so lobbyist should be his main title if we're going to use anything. Edit: Also, to the person who started the discussion - you should have probably gone for a WP:BOLD move to a clearly-neutral title first, which would have avoided the issue where Snowfire reverted above solely because an RM was in progress. I doubt anyone would have reverted in that case; doing things in that order is usually a good idea when the current title is (as in this case) plainly inappropriate, since it ensures the article isn't stuck at a non-neutral title for a month while discussions grind over where precisely to place it. -- Aquillion ( talk) 17:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• I would have, but it is impossible to move the page to the suggested title of Patrick A. Moore because the page is blocked from creation by anyone other than an admin. Bueller 007 ( talk) 19:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support Moore is no longer an environmentalist as the term is normally understood. TFD ( talk) 19:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. Since the subject of this discussion has his name on the covers of a number of books, either Patrick Moore (author) or Patrick Moore (writer) would be certainly accurate. — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. I suggest that we avoid Patrick Moore (lobbyist). "Lobbyist" has a very specific meaning (it doesn't mean "shill", "advocate", or "spokesperson", which is what people seem to want to use it to mean). I can't find any evidence that he is actually a lobbyist (i.e., registered). Here is the only information I could find from the Canadian government suggesting that he was a lobbyist. The registration was short-lived and it has lapsed: [2]. Looking back at the Wikipedia page history, the statement that he is a "lobbyist" appears to have arisen from the false claim that he is a "Monsanto lobbyist", which was widely circulated after his infamous interview. I'm removing all unreferenced claims from the article that he is a lobbyist. "Advocate" or "proponent" are more appropriate. Overall, Patrick Moore (consultant) seems to be the best choice of article name, in my opinion. Bueller 007 ( talk) 01:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support move to Patrick A. Moore. Using the middle initial effectively disambiguates the subject, and avoids wrangling over what job title to use. Looking through the refs available online, very few describe him as an 'environmentalist' with the exception of those written by Moore himself. Perhaps the most common descriptor is 'greenpeace co-founder' which is disputed by others who were involved in Greenpeace in its early years. Dialectric ( talk) 03:11, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. We don't use middle initials in article titles if they are not commonly used. I see no problem with the current title. That's what he's best known for, whether it's controversial or not. Just because he's fallen out with the environmentalist movement does not cancel out the years he spent doing just what the disambiguator says he did. We disambiguate by what people are best known for, which is not necessarily what they do now or did last. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• He is best known for his constant opposition to most positions of the environmental movement, not as an "environmentalist" (i.e., a supporter of those positions). We should be neutral and avoid calling him an "environmentalist" in the article title, just as we should avoid calling him an "anti-environmentalist" in the article title. Let's name the article after what he does, not what he believes (which we can't know). "Consultant" is a better title than "environmentalist". Bueller 007 ( talk) 18:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• So the president of Greenpeace Canada was never an environmentalist? Forgive me for saying that that appears to be a pretty POV position. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:43, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Forgive me for saying, but if you think I said that he was "never an environmentalist" then you need remedial reading lessons. The comment you are responding to specifically about what he is best known for. Keep rocking those strawman arguments though. Bueller 007 ( talk) 14:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

"He is best known for his constant opposition to most positions of the environmental movement, not as an "environmentalist"." No, he's best-known as president of Greenpeace Canada, and therefore as an environmentalist. Unless Greenpeace Canada suddenly decided to have a non-environmentalist as president. May I suggest the necessity is for remedial understanding and logic lessons, not remedial reading lessons as you so politely suggested. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 11:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and Necrothesp. Natural disambiguators don't work well when when they're rarely or never used in reliable sources. No opinion on any of the other disambiguators proposed above. Iffy★ Chat -- 13:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. Disclaimer: I'm a pro-nuclear-power environmentalist myself. Greenpeace (and others but that's the relevant organisation here) claim for obvious political reasons that all environmentalists are anti-nuclear, and Moore is a particular embarrassment as he was one of their founders (to the extent that these days they deny that they had any founders). But the term environmentalist is commonly and correctly applied to a wide range of views, whether they like it or not. Moore is best known for his support of the environmental movement and his continued involvement in environmental issues, so it's a perfectly good disambiguator. Andrewa ( talk) 17:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

What sources are you looking at that describe Moore as an environmentalist? With one exception, all the sources I see in this article's refs that specifically use the word 'environmentalist' are written by Moore. Also, Greenpeace states they have 3 founders, not including Moore, according to their background information. Dialectric ( talk) 18:14, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

They weren't hard to find, try a Google of "Patrick Moore" environmentalist -Wikipedia, discard the primary sources and you'll still get thousands. [3] This just for an example. But the point is more, whatever he may be these days, it's his time as an undoubted environmentalist that is most significant. Without that he might not even qualify for an article. Andrewa ( talk) 06:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

How many of those sources are published by organizations that use his credentials as a supposed environmentalist to push a point of view? Bueller 007 ( talk) 15:05, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Roughly the same number that deny his credentials as a (perhaps former) environmentalist to promote their point of view. But for the purposes of article names they may all still be reliable sources if they reflect current English usage. To cherry-pick the ones that reflect a POV is itself POV. Andrewa ( talk) 19:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Moore is best known for being for anything the environmental movement is generally against, all the while backing industry-friendly talking points, many of them quite fringe. His dubious claims about his former Greenpeace involvement provide him cover to claim to be yet so concerned about the environment, especially when sources like Wikipedia claim he's an "environmentalist". Predictably, this is red meat for his intended audience: the petroleum industry, and America's right wing, such as Fox News and the Trump Administration (see Fox News articles like " Greenpeace co-founder tears into Ocasio-Cortez, Green New Deal: ‘Pompous little twit'"). :bloodofox: ( talk) 01:15, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Fox News is I think a reliable source in terms of our naming conventions, is it not? Andrewa ( talk) 19:55, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Wait, what "dubious claims" are these? His involvement with Greenpeace is well established. -- tronvillain ( talk) 20:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Pro-nuclear environmentalist a misnomer. It is a term used by people who defend nuclear power on the basis that it does not cause global warming or pollution, but otherwise have no interest in the environment. TFD ( talk) 16:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Half true (=false). It is also used by people such as myself who have a great deal of interest in the environment. I'd also apply it to my father, a prominent nuclear engineer whom I helped build our first solar hot water service in 1962 (I was ten), and who had himself built his first wind turbine at a similar age. Andrewa ( talk) 19:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I am aware that they often advocate other types of alternative energy, such as wind, solar and ethanol as "clean" energy. But otherwise they don't actually show any interest in the environment. I don't see btw anything about environmentalism on your website. TFD ( talk) 20:02, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for reading my website! And we are all aware that environmentalist is a very politically charged term. I take it that you don't consider me to otherwise... show any interest in the environment? Andrewa ( talk) 20:09, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I proposed use of "nuclear energy advocate" below. Some Nuclear energy advocates can be environmentalists. Some Nuclear energy advocates can also be NOT environmentalist. I think we do not need to struggle on whether he is an environmentalist. In my opinion, "environmentalist" is not good disambiguation tag and it can be replaced by a more specific disambiguation tag.-- Kittyhawk2 ( talk) 04:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree that we should not support right-wing views, but nor should we support the left. Andrewa ( talk) 06:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support, or to any disambiguator except this one. It simply can't stay at this name, because it's basically false. He isn't currently an environmentalist, even if he was in the past. To give an example, imagine someone who was a Christian archbishop (and thus notable) but suddenly renounced their faith and became an outspoken atheist. Would you keep the disambiguator "(archbishop)". Of course you wouldn't, it's nonsense to think so. Black Kite (talk) 01:38, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  • If they were highly notable as an archbishop, and not as anything else, yes, of course we'd keep the disambiguator archbishop. Very good point, important issue, but I think you have it backwards. Andrewa ( talk) 06:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The difference being that Patrick Moore became notable *after* having left Greenpeace. Bueller 007 ( talk) 14:58, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Very important claim if true. I think that probably deserves a section of its own. See #Notability below when I write it. Andrewa ( talk) 20:13, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Having taken a look back, I think it's clear that he was quite notable as an environmentalist. It would be possible to write an article on him using nothing but material covering the seventies and eighties. I'd go so far as to say that it's what he's most notable for, and that any publicity he gets now is produced by that prior notability. -- tronvillain ( talk) 22:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support. The proposed name is acceptable. Some of the other names proposed in the discussion might also be acceptable. The current name is absolutely unacceptable. It is highly POV and misleading, to the point of being a straight up factual inaccuracy. It absolutely requires correction to something neutral and uncontroversially correct. Using the middle initial seems like the easiest way to achieve this with no possibility of a POV creeping in, either intentionally or otherwise. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 01:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Isn't to deny that he was an environmentalist (and a highly notable one at that) even more POV? Andrewa ( talk) 06:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  • No one is denying that he was an environmentalist. But it is POV pushing to put it in the title when neutral alternatives exist. Bueller 007 ( talk) 14:58, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Nobody has proposed renaming the article to "Patrick Moore (former environmentalist)", "Patrick Moore (fake environmentalist)", or anything potentially POV like that, so this issue simply does not arise. The proposed new titles do not deny anything. They simply decline to make an assertion that is ambiguous and, at best, highly controversial. Not making an assertion is not the same as denying it. The article explains it all in detail. I don't think that there is any one word that can be added to the title that would give a valid summary of all this however I am 100% sure that if such a word does exist it is not "environmentalist". So, what is so bad about using the middle initial, like we do in a lot of other article titles? Surely his middle initial can't encode any POV, can it? Failing that, "Patrick Moore (businessman)" would be a perfectly acceptable alternative. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 14:01, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Because it's not commonly used. We only use middle initials in other article titles where they are commonly used. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

In that case "Patrick Moore (businessman)"? I'm not too fussed which exact option we go for but I do feel, much like Black Kite above, that the current name is utterly indefensible. It is blatantly and unacceptably POV. We have multiple acceptable options here. I am at a loss to understand why anybody would want to keep the existing name. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 14:43, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

It is POV pushing to change the disambiguator in order to distance his current views from those of the mainstream movement. He is and remains mainly notable because of his contribution as an (undisputed) environmentalist. Would we similarly change Ian Smith (New Zealand cricketer) because he's now a commentator rather than a player? Andrewa ( talk) 19:54, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. I will point out that the controversy in this move proposal is exactly why the article should be moved. The claim that he is (or is most notable as) an environmentalist is controversial and Wikipedia should not take a stance on the issue. Patrick Moore (consultant) is neutral and NPOV; Patrick Moore (environmentalist) is not. Bueller 007 ( talk) 15:05, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Exactly. Except that Patrick Moore (consultant) is POV, in that it reflects the POV that he is not mainly notable as a (perhaps former) environmentalist. So, we go for sources, and we do not cherry-pick them according to our personal POVs. Andrewa ( talk) 20:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support An environmentalist is someone who supports the goals of the environmental movement. This individual does not. Identifying them using a parenthetical "environmentalist" in the title is misleading and contradicts cited WP:RS. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 15:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I oppose a move to Patrick A. Moore per WP:INITS, but something like "Patrick Moore (consultant)" or "Patrick Moore (environmental consultant)" would be reasonable. To clarify, what that guideline says is: "Adding given names, or their abbreviations, merely for disambiguation purposes (if that format of the name is not commonly used to refer to the person) is not advised." -- tronvillain ( talk) 19:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and Necrothesp. I also oppose putting lobbyist or businessman for disambiguation. The problem is lobbyist and businessman are quite ambiguous as well. However, if it is sufficiently specific (e.g. nuclear energy advocate) and if that is supported by enough evidence, I would support. I think "nuclear energy advocate" is much more specific for disambiguation than "environmentalist", which is now confusing. -- Kittyhawk2 ( talk) 04:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I would add that some users that is not native to US/Europe has difficulty to adopt middle name of other people, even their mother language is English. His Middle name is not commonly seen in newspaper as well. It is very difficult to search. The discussion should be focus on disambiguation tag. Let's find a better disambiguation tag. -- Kittyhawk2 ( talk) 04:21, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. We do not use uncommonly used names. feminist ( talk) 08:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I agree that the title should be revised and I would recommend an advisor rather than consultant, it sounds for me more sexy and have more value added even though it means practically the same. However I would definitely avoid using the environmentalist.-- Jeremydas ( talk) 20:19, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support moving to Patrick A. Moore, or to Patrick Moore (consultant) as even though it's vague, it's NPOV. Comment that general opinion was shown in favour of moving the name in every discussion on this talk page so far, with several years to talk about it, and Move that this vote be closed and the action carried out. Safrolic ( talk) 22:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

As out above, a move to Patrick A. Moore contradicts both WP:COMMONNAME and WP:INITS. -- tronvillain ( talk) 22:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

You're right - Further, [ [4]] states, "Further, any move request that is out of keeping with naming conventions or is otherwise in conflict with applicable guideline and policy, unless there is a very good reason to ignore rules, should be closed without moving regardless of how many of the participants support it." There is further no strong consensus towards any other specific name. However, there is consensus that the current title is not appropriate. This scenario is covered under WP:THREEOUTCOMES, stating that the closer should pick the best title of the options available, make clear that there is no consensus for this specific title, and anyone may make a new move request immediately if the chosen title is not acceptable. I'm currently tallying up all the votes and opinions, and I'll put up a table in an hour or so with summary. Safrolic ( talk) 23:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Non-admin closure

I've requested that User:Safrolic reopen the RM, but note that their user page reads Feel free to leave me a message, but I'll be slow getting back to you.

This is not suitable RM for even a highly experienced non-admin to close, and it appears to be the very first RM that this particular user has closed. Andrewa ( talk) 20:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey Andrewa; as noted, there was no consensus after 8 days where to move to, but there was consensus that it should not remain at (environmentalist). WP:THREEOUTCOMES specifically mentions this scenario, saying;

There are rare circumstances where multiple names have been proposed and no consensus arises out of any, except that it is determined that the current title should not host the article. In these difficult circumstances, the closer should pick the best title of the options available, and then be clear that while consensus has rejected the former title (and no request to bring it back should be made lightly), there is no consensus for the title actually chosen. If anyone objects to the closer's choice, they may make another move request immediately, hopefully to its final resting place.

You're possibly right that I should not have been the closer, but I do think that the decision I made was the best one for the discussion to actually move forward. Consensus was clear that (environmentalist) was not the right choice. If you object to (consultant), could you make another move request, to a disambiguator you believe is more appropriate? If you feel that consensus was not reached to move away from (environmentalist), I won't be offended if you request a move review. Safrolic ( talk) 00:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Let me be sure I understand... you think I'm possibly right that you should not have been the closer, but you'd prefer it went to move review?

I don't want to waste anyone's time with MR if there really is consensus to move. But see here on that. Andrewa ( talk) 16:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.