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.

This edit request to Patrick Moore (consultant) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "Patrick Albert Moore (born 1947) is a Canadian businessman" to "Patrick Albert Moore (born 1947) is a founder of Greenpeace, Canadian businessman Twittermouse ( talk) 21:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{ edit semi-protected}} template. Bradv 🍁 22:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I support the proposed text. XavierItzm ( talk) 00:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

We can't exactly pick one side over the other when there's no preponderance of sources that favour one side. We also can't say something in the lead that isn't the body of the article. Guettarda ( talk) 00:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Moore's claimed role as founder of Greenpeace is obviously disputed, most notably by Greenpeace itself. :bloodofox: ( talk) 03:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Disagree that Greenpeace itself is a reliable secondary source if that is what you're saying by most notably. On this specific issue, that is exactly what they are not. But agree that the claim is obviously disputed. There are good sources both ways. Andrewa ( talk) 23:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The name change is a reasonable edit, as per MOS:FULLNAME. While that shouldn't be the article title since it's not commonly used, it's pretty standard to use the full name in the lede sentence. -- tronvillain ( talk) 16:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The issue is not the full name (which is already given). It's whether he should be listed as a founder of Greenpeace. This is in dispute. (Moore says he is; Greenpeace says he isn't.) It is somewhat debatable depending on how you define the "founding" of Greenpeace. (The organization already existed when Moore joined, but it was not called "Greenpeace" at that time. When it renamed itself to "Greenpeace", Moore *was* a member. So should Moore be described as a "founder of Greenpeace" or not?)

Therefore we should *not* directly state that he is a "founder", just as we should not directly state that he is a "*not* a cofounder" or that he "falsely claims to be a cofounder". That is POV pushing. But I think it is fair and appropriate in the lede to say that: (1) he was an early and influential member of Greenpeace (which no one disputes), (2) he considers himself to be a founder, (3) Greenpeace denies this. His claim to fame rests largely upon various organizations trotting him out as a founder of Greenpeace. Therefore, it seems remiss not to mention this in the lede even if it is disputed. At present, it seems like a disproportionate amount of the lede is about what Greenpeace thinks about Moore. The dispute about whether he is a founder should be added to the lede. In a neutral manner, of course. Bueller 007 ( talk) 02:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

From above, I wrote this copy:

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. "Snopes, FACT CHECK, Did Patrick Moore, a Doubter of Anthropogenic Climate Change, Co-Found Greenpeace?".

Anyone, please feel free to edit this as necessary or propose something else. Safrolic ( talk) 02:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

If we're to put the case for Greenpeace, we should also put the case for Moore. He's not the only one who calls him a founder. New Scientist may not be the best source but I think it scrapes in as reliable and seems to be secondary, and calls him a founding member of Greenpeace. [1] Andrewa ( talk) 10:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Of course I propose something else. The Snopes writer acknowledges he depends on greenpeace.org which is an SPS with a controversial statement, so Safrolic's proposal is one side that ultimately depends on a poor source (or maybe two, the Snopes writer also puts desmogblog among his references). Also WP:SAY says don't use the word "claim" if you're trying to be neutral. So I propose this, which mentions both sides but cites attributed statements from usually-reliable sources (plus Moore, which may be okay according to WP:BLPSELFPUB if it's not "unduly" self-serving and is really about Moore not "third parties"):

There is dispute whether Moore can be called a "co-founder" of Greenpeace. According to [citation needed] the original Greenpeace organization was a Vancouver-based group named The Don't Make A Wave Committee (that later was renamed Greenpeace), and Moore applied to join it in March 1971 after it already existed, so it is not logical to call him a co-founder. According to [The Vancouver Sun] the Committee was actually dissolved in 1972 and the Greenpeace Foundation was begun at a later date with different objectives. According to [CTV] the real beginning of Greenpeace was the voyage of the ship dubbed "Greenpeace" (on which Moore was a crew member), and according to [Moore] the voyage's crew members were described as the "founders of Greenpeace". According to [New Scientist] Moore was a "founding member", according to [The Independent] Moore was a "co-founder", according to [The Vancouver Province] Moore was a "founder". However, he was not the first president of The Greenpeace Foundation.

For the cite to The Vancouver Sun (January 15 1972 page 29) we should quote as part of the footnote: "Vancouver's most successful ad hoc group, The Don't Make A Wave Committee, has dissolved itself. ... In place of The Don't Make a Wave Committee a new organization with a broader program will be set up to be called the Greenpeace Foundation."

I do not support the semi-protected edit request since I believe the dispute doesn't belong in the lead. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 16:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

it's tricky... I don't support the request as it stands either. But something about Moore's early involvement with whatever it's called (Greenpeace themselves call it Greenpeace) [2] does belong in the lead. Snopes says that Greenpeace deny he was a founder, and we can cite them for that, and Greenpeace say he wasn't a founder, and it's legitimate use of a primary source to cite them as saying that, but neither of those can be cited as saying that he wasn't a founder. On the other hand he claims he was and so do some secondary sources. And Greenpeace in particular have shown themselves not to be a reliable source concerning his early involvement. Andrewa ( talk) 18:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

It's fair to say that Greenpeace currently denies he was a founder, but it also isn't fair to imply that it has always been that way (see previous source). Buffs ( talk) 18:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

What reference do you have for Greenpeace claiming that he is a founder? The one that most people point to is Greenpeace listing him among "Founders and early members". That is not necessarily a statement that he is a "founder" unless you ignore 75% of the words. Bueller 007 ( talk) 19:00, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

True and important. Other sources have regarded him (and others, Bohlen for example) as one of the founders. Greenpeace have denied this and attempted by several tactics (eg removing him from the crew list and even denying that anything called Greenpeace existed at the time) to excise him from their history, but that's only since his views and theirs fissioned. Andrewa ( talk) 19:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Greenpeace published this about Moore's application to join the Greenpeace mission: [3] How is that removing him from the mission's history? Bueller 007 ( talk) 19:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

That wasn't. But removing him from the crew list of the boat called Greenpeace for the 1971 protest, which was done sometime before April 2009, does seem to be. Not to you? See Draft talk:Phyllis Cormack#Was Patrick Moore aboard on the voyage to Amchitka. They seem to have been caught green-handed. (;-> Andrewa ( talk) 02:08, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't really think the opinions of New Scientist, etc. matter per se. The actual scenario is clear. Moore joined Organization A, which then renamed itself to Organization B. So is he a "founder" of Organization B or not? Honest opinion could go either way. Perhaps the most neutral way to phrase it is that

"Although Moore was an early and influential member of Greenpeace and is often stated to be a co-founder of Greenpeace,[insert a bunch of reliable references like New Scientist here] Greenpeace claims that Moore is not a co-founder because he joined the organization after it was founded.[insert Greenpeace, Snopes, etc. references here]"

Is everyone happy with that wording? Bueller 007 ( talk) 18:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Not clear at all, because something called Greenpeace existed at the time of the voyage in question, and Moore, Jim Bohlen and Bill Darnell were all aboard representing whatever that was. Andrewa ( talk) 19:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

And the Make a Wave Committee that became Greenpeace already existed before Moore joined. In either case, the statement above summarizes both points of view (that he was and was not a founder of Greenpeace) 100% accurately without inserting editor opinions about the matter. Bueller 007 ( talk) 19:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Let's not forgot "verifiability, not truth" is the operational principle. Deciding the truth of whether Moore was a founder or not is interesting, but it isn't what this page is for, because we can't use our own deductions in the article. Guettarda ( talk) 19:15, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree that we can't use material in the article just because we think it's true, however persuasive the evidence. But OR is OK on talk pages, because it would be a bit strange to allow material in the mainspace that we know to be untrue, however well sourced. That hardly improves Wikipedia. Andrewa ( talk) 19:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

ISTM that at the time of the voyage, both the terms Greenpeace and Don't Make a Wave Committee were in use, and may even have been synonyms. Andrewa ( talk) 19:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not seeing significant evidence of that. -- tronvillain ( talk) 21:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

The term Greenpeace was in use for the boat, starting at some point after the first meeting, but before the voyage. ""Somebody flashed two fingers as we were leaving the church basement and said "Peace!" Bill said "Let's make it a Green Peace.  And we all went Ommmmmmmm." " The term DWAWC was certainly in use before the first meeting, there's a letter from DWAWC inviting Moore to it. At some point prior to the official renaming they were likely synonymous. Regardless of at what point they became synonymous, Moore was definitely around for the coining of the term "Greenpeace", since it showed up before that first voyage and after that first meeting. He also was definitely not around when the group was founded, and if the two names were synonymous, that would be going even further to show that Greenpeace was not a new group. Safrolic ( talk) 01:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I also support the text proposed by Peter Gulutzan. To his list of sources I would like to add Maclean's 6 December 1982: «Patrick Moore, 35, one of the founders of the original Greenpeace.» ^[1] Cheers to all, XavierItzm ( talk) 03:08, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Also support this. It may not be perfect but it is an enormous improvement. Andrewa ( talk) 19:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I'll also support the proposal, with the following alteration: From According to [New Scientist] Moore was a "founding member", according to [The Independent] Moore was a "co-founder", according to [The Vancouver Province] Moore was a "founder". to According to [New Scientist] Moore was a "founding member", according to [The Independent] Moore was a "co-founder", and according to [GreenPeace] Moore was "one of the first members". If Moore's POV is being represented in the he-said-she-said one sentence before, the Greenpeace POV on what he is should be represented too. Also support Peter's stance that this shouldn't be in the lede because it's quite long. Safrolic ( talk) 21:29, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I accept this if the other supporters (XavierItzm and Andrewa) don't object. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 22:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is specific proposed wording, but I have a problem with According to [New Scientist] Moore was a "founding member", according to [The Independent] Moore was a "co-founder", and according to [GreenPeace] Moore was "one of the first members". What this is doing is taking these examples, presenting them to readers, and using to show that Greenpeace is less than honest. That's both plain and simple OR and a violation of NPOV. It's also a problem because we're presenting passing mention of a fact as if it were a carefully researched statement.

We can describe usage - something like Moore has frequently described as a "co-founder" or "founder" of Greenpeace [with plenty of examples] but Greenpeace says [something different]. But we can't take sides in the argument. Regardless of what our personal beliefs are. Guettarda ( talk) 23:44, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. Also, none of those sources are privy to any special information about the founding of Greenpeace and who can or cannot should be described as a founder. They are merely repeating what they've heard, so we should not cite them as if they are evidence of anything. They are only evidence of what he has been called, not what he is. In addition, they could be described as "outdated", since they were published before the recent spat raised some questions into whether or not Moore can be accurately described as a founder. In that sense, they are only evidence of what moore *has been called* by those sources in the past. IMO, there's not much value in that. That said, I do still think that the lede is biased against Moore and that information that he was an early member of Greenpeace who has often been described as a cofounder by hmself and others (although Greenpeace disagrees). Bueller 007 ( talk) 12:49, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree we must avoid taking sides. I'm particularly tempted to promote the view (which is Moore's too of course) that Greenpeace have been less than honest. How we present the material we have but avoid doing this in Wikipedia's voice is tricky but not impossible.

I think that part of it is that in the article we should avoid using primary sources. But I also think it's good to refer to them here. We want our material to be verifiable, but we also want it to be true! To permit information which we know from primary sources to be untrue is gaming the system in the worst way. All hang in there. Andrewa ( talk) 00:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Guettarda, I quoted sources' specific words to show there was a variety and to follow wp:attributepov, and Safrolic's extra words were explained as so "the Greenpeace POV on what he is should be represented too", which I interpreted as an appeal for wp:balance. I'm sure neither of us thought that would "show that Greenpeace is less than honest". Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 14:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not seeing significant evidence of that... Significant evidence of what? That the term Greenpeace was in use? Really? It was the name (or some have said nickname) used by the crew for the boat... or do you need more significant evidence of that? That the term Don't Make a Wave Committee was in use? Really? Again, what evidence do you need? That they may have been synonyms? OK, note the may, so have you any evidence that they were not? Now IMO that evidence would be very significant, and I for one would like to see it. I'm sorry if that all seems confrontational, but I am struggling to make any sense of the comment.

For evidence that the terms were both in use and may even have been synonyms, see here (while it lasts... they may I guess decide to delete page 4, just as they did Moore from the crew list). Note the letterhead of page 4, which is their reply dated March 24 1971, features both GREENPEACE and DON"T MAKE A WAVE COMMITTEE (caps as per the letterhead). Now, your evidence...? Andrewa ( talk) 00:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

We do not have consensus (my proposal came closest with four supporters including myself but that's not even a majority of the participants in this thread). Shall we give up, declare that WP:NOCONSENSUS applies, and so the article shouldn't mention whether Mr Moore is or is not a founder / co-founder / founding member? Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 14:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

We don't need to article to declare if he truly was the cofounder or not. We can write a section saying he claims so and this is why, but greenpeace says he wasnt and this is why. As long as we put verifiable sources and both sides of this contentious and disputed debate on the page (while acknowledging that it is an ongoing argument) then it seems fine. I don't think that we, as editors, should be evaluating which side of that argument is right or wrong, especially because neither side really seems like a fringe position. Toad02 ( talk) 15:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request: Updated discussion starting 11th July 2019

UPDATE: Despite getting no support for the above suggestion, Toad02 made a controversial insertion about co-founding (referring to a statement by Moore and a statement by Greenpeace), I reverted pointing to this thread and the fact that there is no consensus, User:Bloodofox reverted me saying the Toad002 insertion is more sensible. I remind both of them that Mr Moore is alive so WP:BLP applies and consensus was mandatory. I request both of them to read this thread and see that others have struggled to come up with acceptable wording, by proposing rather than by forcing. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 17:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but what I put was something different than the above thread. This thread was disputing the reality of the situation, and I simply said that there was controversy around the truth. This was backed up with verifiable sources, is consistent with WP:BLP, and did not do anything that was in opposition to any comment on this talk page. Toad02 ( talk) 18:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I would also argue that my edit was more consistent with the consensus of the above discussion than the previous version. Toad02 ( talk) 18:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

That "something different than the above thread" statement is not correct. Read again, proposed in the above thread ... "Moore has claimed to be a co-founder of Greenpeace. Greenpeace has denied the claim ..." That's almost precisely the same as the edit you made. There were objections because (a) it implied that Moore's statement was all there was for one side (read "He's not the only one who calls him a founder") (b) it accepted Greenpeace's current position as RS for the other side (read "an SPS with a controversial statement"). So what you inserted had been objected to. And the re-insertion is definitely not "consistent with WP:BLP", read WP:BLPSPS and WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE among other things. One detail, though -- I see now that you removed a cite to New Scientist, I am not saying that removal was against WP:BLP or against consensus. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 19:02, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I would disagree that this is a real violation of WP:BLPSPS as it is simply being used to determine what sides make what claims. I may be misinterpreting this guideline (I'm rather new to these rules and don't have a ton of firsthand experience, sorry). I'm sure I could find different citations if you believe strongly that it is needed. I'm sorry if I misinterpreted that quote that you put; I assumed it was the editors arguing about the reality of the situation and not potential drafts. That being said, I would disagree that my edit has the same issues. It does not give weight to either side (as the prior, similar version did), it simply states that there is a dispute. Toad02 ( talk) 19:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Addendum to my last post: I have looked over WP:BLPSPS and the use of Patrick Moore's book is certainly valid. I would also argue that the use of Greenpeace's website as evidence of what Greenpeace thinks is valid, as per Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works. Toad02 ( talk) 19:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Further evidence of the validity of Greenpeace as a source can be seen in citations 11,12 (a and c),22,28, and 29 (at the time I am writing this, it may change), which are all published by Greenpeace and have not been considered a violation of WP:BLPSPS by the community. They are all being used in a similar manner to what I am using my Greenpeace citation for. Toad02 ( talk) 18:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

The dispute is re what Toad02 inserted: "Moore describes himself as a founding member of Greenpeace,[24] but the organization denies this claim.[12]" citing Moore and Greenpeace. Bloodofox supports, I oppose and claim consensus is required. I ping the thread's other participants: Twittermouse Bradv XavierItzm Guettarda Andrewa tronvillain Bueller 007 Safrolic Buffs. Any of you support or oppose? Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 19:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

While I agree that we should open this discussion up to more editors and that consensus would be preferable, I disagree that consensus is required for my edit to remain (I think consensus would be needed to revert). Why do you think consensus is required? Toad02 ( talk) 19:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I would also like if you could address the arguments I raise (or at least the ones you find most relevant or flawed) because, as it stands, I don't fully understand your concern. I see some of the issues raised in the thread, but I believe that my edit is compliant with it. Toad02 ( talk) 20:05, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Consensus is required for the reason that I already gave, WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. The arguments that you raised were matters that I had already disputed, when there's no budging then repeating won't help. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 23:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

But this isn't a revert. This is a correction of a flawed, previous version. As I said specifically before, I have changed this so there is no evaluation of the argument, thereby giving weight to one side. We can't determine or argue which side is correct (as the previous version you claim I'm reverting to did), but we can point out the objective fact that this is disputed. Toad02 ( talk) 23:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I've said that repetition is pointless but sometimes we're forced to do pointless things. Of course you didn't revert -- I did. Of course the previous version with the New Scientist sentence could be regarded as bad -- I already said I'm not saying that its removal was against BLP or against consensus. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 23:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah ok. I'm sorry, but I really don't see this as a repetition, but I think I understand what you're saying now. Toad02 ( talk) 13:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

What exactly do you object to? What phrasing are you proposing? Buffs ( talk) 20:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I object to the sentence. My grounds were that a balanced sentence distorts by leaving out that there are RSs that support Moore but none have been found that support Greenpeace except ones that are obviously mere quotes of Greenpeace (remember WP:DUE requires that we use in proportion to the prevalence of reliable sources), that WP:BLPSPS means leave Greenpeace out (WP:BLPSPS wouldn't apply to Moore but there would never be a consensus for leaving in Moore's statement alone). I do not propose different phrasing at this time; I did so earlier but it did not get consensus. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 23:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Could you add a sentence or phrase saying that Moore's claim is backed up by certain sources. Something along the lines of, "Moore claims that he was a founding member of Greenpeace, and this was reported on by numerous newspapers. Greenpeace denies these claims, although their website used to consider him a "founding member"". Toad02 ( talk) 23:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

This suggested text is completely unacceptable. #1, it is irrelevant that "numerous newspapers" have reported on it. They are merely repeating what they have heard and it has no impact on the veracity of the claim. #2, Greenpeace's website never described him as a "founding member". They listed him among a group of individuals desribed as "co-founders and early members". Greenpeace's website did not specify which of the listed individuals were the "co-founders" and which were the "early members". That said, I do not have a problem with the insertion of your original text, "Moore describes himself as a founding member of Greenpeace,[24] but the organization denies this claim.[12]" This to me seems accurate and balanced. Bueller 007 ( talk) 16:41, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping.

My problem is that any searches I do for reliable secondary sources are drowned in a sea of primary sources.

It's verifiable that Greenpeace formerly described Moore as one of their founders, and when last I looked a few of their pages still did (but they are no doubt busily changing this, so see it while it lasts). It's verifiable that he was on the initial voyage of the Greenpeace, one of the three explicitly representing Greenpeace as it was at the time, and was later airbrushed from the crew list but is now back in (again, last I looked he was anyway). But all of that is only verifiable from primary sources as far as I can see. It would be great to be proven wrong!

But if we can boil those down to simple statements of fact, eliminating interpretation, then in the face of a lack of secondary sources it's justifiable to use the primary sources.

And what would even constitute a reliable secondary source on this? Anyone writing on the subject is likely to have a strong POV. Self included! Andrewa ( talk) 21:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

We know there are some secondary sources that are generally considered reliable but in this context some editors won't find them acceptable. If WP:BLP says that means we should fall back on poor sources, so be it. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 23:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree that sources aren't fully reliable if we're trying to determine what actually happened or if one position qualifies as fringe, but there are valid sources saying that this is a debate, which is why I made the edit I did. Toad02 ( talk) 23:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I would hope we could come to consensus that whether or not he is or was a founder of Greenpeace is disputed, and that neither view should be in any way expressed in Wikipedia's voice. But even that seems too hard. At present I'm afraid a reader would be justified in concluding that Wikipedia is POV on a number of issues. And not just this one. Hang in there. Andrewa ( talk) 04:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that as it stands, it's clear that neither view is Wikipedia's voice (although it's totally possible that there's a non-explicit POV that I'm missing). Who is disagreeing that it is disputed? I see users like Safrolic arguing that one side of the dispute is wrong, but I don't see anyone who does not agree that there is a dispute (this question isn't for rhetorical purposes. I realize that it comes off that way, but I am legitimately curious who disagrees). Toad02 ( talk) 13:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

The organization which changed its name to Greenpeace existed before the initial voyage. We have the original documentation clearly showing that Moore applied to join it. He cannot have founded it if he had to apply to join it. Safrolic ( talk) 03:52, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

That is interpretation, and highly controversial interpretation. Moore has AFAIK never claimed that he single-handedly founded Greenpeace. All he or Greenpeace have ever said is that he was one of the founders. So, where do you draw the line? Greenpeace now want to draw the line before he was involved, and he doesn't. Is anyone surprised? Both views should be reported and the sources cited (and including the various views expressed by Greenpeace themselves over the years IMO). Neither should be expressed in Wikipedia's voice. Andrewa ( talk) 04:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I haven't done research into the exact specifics, so this might be a stupid question. Is the factual evidence of what happened when disputed, or just that status as "founder"? Toad02 ( talk) 13:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes the facts are disputed, if you want to do research you could start with the comments in this thread. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 23:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

It's impossible to figure out where to add a comment in this mess of a thread. The current version of the sentence (with "describes himself as ... the organization denies ...") is clear, to the point, and appropriately sourced. It describes the salient details of the question clearly and in a NPOV way. -- JBL ( talk) 22:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I've been having the same problem. I think the (undisputed!) fact that Greenpeace themselves formerly described him as a founder should get a mention too. (And they still do on some of their pages but probably not for long so no point in adding that.) Andrewa ( talk) 04:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

This is absolutely not undisputed. Greenpeace listed him as being among The Don't Make A Wave Committee's "founders and first members". [4] They didn't specify which he was. An "first member" is not a "founder" or a "founding member". If a "first member" was the same thing as a founder, then they wouldn't need to say "founders and first members"; they'd just say "founders". Bueller 007 ( talk) 02:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I believe it's clear that Bloodofox and Bueller 007 and JBL support Toad02's insertion = "Moore describes himself as a founding member of Greenpeace,[24] but the organization denies this claim.[12]" citing Moore and Greenpeace. I am the only editor who clearly opposes. If it stays this way for a while (I think a week is enough) then continued opposition is pointless and anyone can close this thread. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 23:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Greenpeace's page

Currently, the Greenpeace page says "Because Patrick Moore was among the crew of the first protest voyage and the beginning of the journey is often referred as the birthday of Greenpeace, Moore also considers himself one of the founders." The talk page seems to lack any serious, critical analysis of this sentence. I believe saying this has been considered a violation of NPOV on this talk page. It may be out of place to put it on this talk page, but some of you may want to put your opinions there. Toad02 ( talk) 15:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I think it's an excellent and relevant point and find. The Greenpeace pages have been a bit of a moving target (as have been Moore's!) but we can and should request an archive of it at the Wayback Machine if we want to use it as a (primary) source.

NPOV means being fair to both Moore and Greenpeace... maybe fair is not the right word, the goal is not justice but accuracy, but I can't find a better one. Andrewa ( talk) 20:49, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Anyone who wants to discuss this should do so in the appropriate place, as Toad02 suggested. -- JBL ( talk) 21:25, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Agree, and thanks for that link. But it is also relevant to this article, so that wikilink (and this section) also belongs here (as Toad02 also seems to believe!). Andrewa ( talk) 22:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

My blunder above... I assumed you meant a Greenpeace site rather than our article and didn't check the link (or even notice it was a wikilink not an external one) obviously. Struck out the resultant nonsense! Andrewa ( talk) 22:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I would just like to express my support for User:Joel B. Lewis's revert , and would prefer if User:RokknRoul would discuss this on the talk instead of engaging in an edit war. Toad02 ( talk) 13:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Prove me wrong: I just added the mans views on climate change.( talk) 18:00, 23 July 2019

According to Moore; "the climate is always changing, it always has". ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by RokknRoul ( talk • contribs) 13:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

This is a pretty clear WP:CIR case, not really anything to talk about. As I've mentioned above and in edit summaries, the section needs much less direct quotation of fringe POV, and Moore's views should be more clearly labeled as such. -- JBL ( talk) 14:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree that although the information added by RokknRoul is technically correct, I agree that it is unnecessary. It repeats the information in paragraph three. I also agree that this section needs to indicate that Moore's position is fringe, and would appreciate someone wihth good sources adding this (I could simply copy what exists in the top and reword, but that's about it). Toad02 ( talk) 15:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay, but RokknRoul made two changes, and I support the second change: restoring the section heading to "Global climate change". 81.109.152.217 added "Denial" to the section heading on June 1 without explaining why. It looks like a bad summary of the section. Anybody object to reverting 81.109.152.217's insertion? Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 15:07, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I support the current heading, as it clearly marks Moore's opinions as fringe. Toad02 ( talk) 15:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Only one objection, so no consensus for 81.109.152.217|81.109.152.217's insertion. I reverted. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 13:58, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Didn't realise we were doing a poll here. I also thought this was a clear case of CIR. wp:fringe requires us to frame these fringe arguments for what they are, and give due weight and context to both them and the scientific consenses they deny. "(Global) Climate change denial" should be the title of the subsection. Safrolic ( talk) 18:32, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea how this comment is supposed to relate to the idea of consensus; I will revert you and perhaps you can take the opportunity to clarify. -- JBL ( talk) 14:41, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea what your comment about having no idea means. A consensus is required for a contentious insertion that had 0 cites. If RokknRoul has left the field and nobody else cares to dispute, you'll probably have it at least locally. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 14:42, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

It wasn't a contentious insertion, as nobody contended it when it was inserted. An editor who wasn't around until two months later taking issue with it doesn't retroactively make the original edit contentious. And Moore's position of climate change denial is well-cited in the section, where cites are supposed to go. Safrolic ( talk) 11:07, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the section is cited well enough and that the current title adheres to wp:fringe better. I do not agree that no consensus was established around the old edit. I do not understand the argument for rephrasing it, probably because it hasn't been voiced. Toad02 ( talk) 13:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I also think RokknRoul's argument that the word "denial" is often connected to the holocaust is absurd. It's a used in many common terms, and is used very often to describe those who do not believe in climate change. Toad02 ( talk) 13:25, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

It's a fairly commonly-encountered argument, albeit one that's incorrect. They're probably making the claim in good faith. It's the edit-warring that's problematic. Guettarda ( talk) 18:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh ok. Sorry for my strong language, but I agree that it is incorrect. Toad02 ( talk) 18:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Man Made?

I believe that the term denial certainly you should be used, but I've re-read the section and propose that we say "man made global climate change denial." Moore doesn't actually deny climate change, just that it's man made and that it's bad. Toad02 ( talk) 16:58, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Bad idea. Climate change denial has several forms, one of which is denial of the cause. All are called climate change denial. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 17:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh ya. You're right. Toad02 ( talk) 17:53, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

At no point in the sources indicated did I read that Moore had "(mocked) her autism." It's a purely subjective statement, serving as a reverse ad hominem attack (suggesting that a grown man of fine repute would mock a child for something outside of her control is character assassination.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrendanDHarris ( talk • contribs) 15:00, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the choice of the word "mocking", but he did call her autism a "mental disorder" which, of course, it isn't. So the attack on "something outside her control" is there. Guettarda ( talk) 16:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

BrendanDHarris Do you have a suggestion for alternate wording? It's critically important that we don't give credence to his false claim that autism is a "mental disorder". Calling it mockery actually minimises how serious his comments are. Guettarda ( talk) 16:16, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Guettarda But the information found at " /info/en/?search=List_of_mental_disorders" would corroborate his claim. I still think that the "mental disorder" wording is regrettable, as "(pervasive) developmental disorder" is more accurate.

Your thinking that his wording is regrettable is quite irrelevant to this. Whether or not you agree with his characterization of her autism as a mental disorder is neither here nor there. He has not "mocked" her autism. Given how bad this accusation is, I'm not bothering to tag this with a {{reference needed}}, I'm just removing it. VdSV9• ♫ 23:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I recently moved part of the content of the page from the lead to the criticism section and got reverted. My edit summary referred to WP:BLPBALANCE, and quoting the relevant passage from the policy: Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone.

The way it currently stands, we have the accusations from a primary source being quoted verbatim. Unless I'm misreading or misinterpreting something, that's exactly what the policy says is not supposed to happen.

The edit summary from the revert by @ Nblund: said The lead section should reflect prominent controversies, and controversies over his role in Greenpeace and his environmentalist bona fides are widely covered. I don't disagree with that, but that doesn't mean we get to ignore BLPBALANCE. Put up a secondary source regarding prominent controversies and his environmentalist bona fides. But the way it stands right now goes clearly against BLP policy. I urge Nblund to replace that section in the lede with whatever criticism they find appropriate, as long as it is sourced to reliable secondary sources.

Or explain to me why we should ignore policy in this case.

Regards, VdSV9• ♫ 00:09, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Greenpeace's statement is cited by Snopes, among several others. We could replace the citation to Greenpeace with the Snopes citation, but that seems somewhat arbitrary. Nblund ^talk 00:13, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

It would me more appropriate to use something from a newspaper or a magazine article, instead of a fact-checking website. That would make the citation more notable, like an actual journalistic reportage found it meaningful enough to mention it. VdSV9• ♫ 03:34, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@ Nblund: yes, it would be good to switch the primary source for Snopes, which is a reliable secondary source. -- JBL ( talk) 11:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

The first quote that's in the lead ("paid spokesman for the nuclear industry" etc.) does not appear in the Snopes article, so it makes no sense to suggest Snopes as a secondary source. Even if it did appear in the Snopes article, its use would violate WP:RS ("To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted."). But I agree that moving Greenpeace's criticism to a criticism section would be appropriate, according to WP:LEAD the lead should summarize controversies, not go into detail about criticisms. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 14:33, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

The first part of the text probably doesn't need to be attributed to Greenpeace at all, its just a statement of fact backed by other reliable sources. Newsweek, the Independent, and CNN quote similar statements from Greenpeace. They don't all specify the same stuff, but all three make it clear that he is an industry spokesman who Greenpeace disavows. Citing his role in the organization in the lead, without citing the fact that the organization disavows him seems like a problem. Nblund ^talk 14:50, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Citing his role in the organization in the lead, without citing the fact that the organization disavows him seems like a problem. Yes. I think the precise details of how this is communicated can be flexible, but a key portion of this bio is the tension between his earlier affiliation and later positions; a clear quote from GP is part of a good summary of this situation. — JBL ( talk) 15:38, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Just to clarify something, here. Looks like I didn't express myself very well. I am not suggesting that new references are needed to back up the text that is currently in the lede. I'm saying that the lead should have the criticism, but that specific text is inappropriate. Note that I urged Nblund to replace that section in the lead with some other criticism, etc. Not to replace the reference and keep the text. Maybe something along the lines of "Greenpeace has, on several occasions, disavowed Moore and denied claims about him being a co-founder of the movement. ref Newsweek, ref Independent, ref CNN." What do yall think?
About Peter Gulutzan's comment: If we use the quotes without referencing primary sources, we fail to abide by WP:RS. If we use the primary sources, we fail BLP. I say we get rid of the quotes and focus on what the secondary sources are saying. VdSV9• ♫ 02:02, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I saw that earlier you merely moved the criticism from the lead to the criticism section, but now apparently moving is not your main concern. I suppose that saying "Moore has no current link to Greenpeace and does not share their environmentalist views." is well enough backed by sources that could be cited in the lead. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 13:57, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. I made a smaller move than the one I am proposing. I might be wrong here, but I feel quoting criticism from a primary source like that, even if has been quoted by a secondary RS, is inappropriate per BLP. As the presence of the (in my view) offending quote was especially grievous being in the lead, I made a quick edit moving it down before proposing further changes. And I wouldn't mind so much it being elsewhere, tbh. As for the wording you proposed, I think his not having current links and not sharing their views is already well established in the lead. The more specific controversy/criticism here, which I agree should be maintained, just worded and referenced differently, is Greenpeace's repudiation of Moore. VdSV9• ♫ 15:23, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

There's nothing in the reliable sourcing guideline that prohibits using a secondary source for a quote. If there were a serious question about WP:V, then we have the primary source to provide further support. I don't necessarily have a problem with paraphrasing Greenpeace, but I'm not sure your proposed text is a good paraphrase, and I don't see a policy based reason for eschewing a quote here. Nblund ^talk 14:02, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't call my proposed text a paraphrase, I wouldn't even call it a proposed text. And I agree it's not a good text, I was just giving an example "along the lines" of what I think should be done: summarizing the information from sources. VdSV9• ♫ 15:23, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

It is true that WP:RS does not "prohibit" using a secondary source for a quote, it merely says it is "best" to quote the original, but in a BLP doing the best thing is important ("make sure to get the article right" etc.). In any case a source that's merely quoting a source doesn't fit the WP:SECONDARY requirement, it's just a copy of the primary. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 23:47, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

By that logic all quotations would be prohibited in the lead of a BLP. I'm not averse to paraphrasing as long as it communicates the same idea, but Greenpeace's position here is due for inclusion. Nblund ^talk 15:10, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:LINKSINACHAIN is just an explanatory supplement so it has no authoritative force, but perhaps it expresses the point better than I did. I don't see that the logic that I used means no quotes are allowed in any lead, but in this case I thought VdSV9's original attempt (to move the Greenpeace quote to a controversies section) was an improvement. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 23:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

The first sentence says Morre ia an "industry consultant." I suggest we explain which industries he has consulted for and that this work includes advocacy. An article in the Independent phrases it: "Mr Moore is a public relations consultant who has worked across a number of industries, from mining to nuclear energy and biotechnology defence." [5] The current wording suggests that his employment is a matter of opinion or that there is something wrong with it. Moore works for the nuclear industry as a spokesman. That's a fact, not an opinion or controversy. TFD ( talk) 17:11, 3 October 2019 (UTC)