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 have recently been downgraded to a "consultant". That is a rather general appellation. It could mean nearly anything. As an academic with a PhD in Ecology and an Honorary Degree as a Doctor of Science I am an ecologist and have been for nearly 50 years. I was designated by Greenpeace as the ecologist for the first campaign against US hydrogen bomb tests in Alaska. (I can verify this) I was possibly the first person in Canada to obtain a PhD in ecology (1972). It was granted by the Institute of Resource Ecology at the University of British Columbia. As an independent ecologist, never in the direct employ of any institution, one of my main functions was and is as a public speaker at conferences and other public events. At all these venues I am free to speak my mind without any influence from my sponsors. Secondly, and now mainly retired from, I have advised government and industry on environmental science and policy. In all cases I have been free to give my best advice. I have never worked with anyone who told me what to say. In other words I am not a PR agent or "sold out" as so many of my detractors contend. So I am either an "ecologist" or I am an "environmental consultant" or perhaps an "environmental campaigner". I prefer ecologist as I am primarily a scientist. At the present time I am Chair of the CO2 Coalition based in Arlington Virginia. Our board is by invitation and it is composed of some of the top scientists, engineers, and economists in North America. What do i need to do further? Can I edit my profession myself? I am not familiar with this process. -- Pmoore2222 ( talk) 07:10, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• @ Pmoore2222: Tell us what your profession is here and provide a source to support it. I don't doubt your assertions, but let me give you an example. At this webpage, you are noted as being a member of the board. That's a verifiable source that we can use to support that claim. However, it does not show that you are the chair of that board. Right now, there's no mention of the CO2 Coalition in this article. It would be nice to add, but I'd like to add it with sources to accurately support your position with that organization. In general, I'll reassert what I've said before; if there is something inaccurate in this article that is not supported by reliable, secondary sources please tell us and we will likely remove it. Understand; if it's supported by reliable, secondary sources we can't sanitize the article of such information in many cases. It might be an odd concept, but here at Wikipedia we follow the principle of Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 14:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

As you can see from the archived thread Requested move 3 March 2019 many editors disagreed that the article title should be "Patrick Moore (environmentalist)", which I think is close to "Patrick Moore (ecologist)". As you can see from the archived thread PhD in Ecology or Forestry? there was discussion about whether the degree was in ecology, the result was "no consensus" which means the article does not state, which at least is neutral. I'm guessing that most opinions have not changed since those recent discussions. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 15:10, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi @ Pmoore2222: and thanks for your contributions.

IMO renaming the article is a lost cause. The current title is correct by Wikipedia's standards.

But as suggested above, provide reliable secondary sources that state that you are an "ecologist" and perhaps even "environmentalist". That information can then be added to the article. Andrewa ( talk) 22:48, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Is this the most blatantly POV article on the site, or is it me. I hardly think that an unmodified Disinfopedia article makes for a good Wiki article. It needs a serious rewrite. TDC 21:36, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

It's you ;) The article actually presents a lot of information. Please discuss before making such a big change, especially when you are deleting. I also happen to think it's an excellent article about a very interesting environmentalist, not of tree hugging ilk. In Moore's own words, he left Greenpeace and became a consultant because he was tired of the politics of confrontation. Vincent 23:53, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

With all due respect, after reading the article an individual would likely come away with the feeling that Moore has simply sold out to industry and turned into nuckle dragging fascist (well perhaps an overstatement), but you get the drift. While I do not deny that there is a great deal of information here and while I will accept at face value the statements given, the organization of these facts is very much not in line with WIKI NPOV http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_point_of_view.

A quick examples. One paragaph explaining Moore's views on GM foods and 5 paragraphs refuting his claims? Is this and articel on GM foods, or Patrick Moore.

This article is more of a hitpiece on Moore than an encyclopedia entry. I do agree that I should have talked about the changes before making them, but the article does need serious work and it has not had much activity. TDC 05:16, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

I rather like Moore myself and didn't feel the original article was an attack on him, but maybe you're right after all. And of course I agree you're entitled to do a major edit, it's wiki afterall, and maybe I overreacted because it came without a warning. (OK, OK, so I'm warned now.) Cheers Vincent 05:54, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The article was once far worse, and it's been a battle to improve it, see Talk:Patrick Moore (consultant)/Archive 3#His view on climate change. At least now we cite his own views, rather than just Greenpeace's views on his views. Yes, seriously! Andrewa ( talk) 00:54, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I have ample proof that Greenpeace recognized me as a co-founder on nearly all its international websites until February 2007, when I was erased. In addition Greenpeace UK still has a website up that recognizes the founders were the people who sailed on the first campaign against US H-Bomb test in Alaska in 1971. There is no contest that I was on that boat, Here is a quote from their website: "Greenpeace was founded in 1971 by a small group of concerned individuals, who set sail to Amchitka island off the coast of Alaska to try and stop a US nuclear weapons test. Their old fishing boat was called “The Greenpeace”." No doubt this is an oversight as I have been erased everywhere else. https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/about-greenpeace/ I would like to share the archival screenshots I have taken over the year to prove to you that the removal of my name from the founders is historical revisionism. What should I do? When I try to upload images it says I must own the copyright. How cam one own the copyright to web pages from the WayBack Machine? -- Pmoore2222 ( talk) 07:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• @ Pmoore2222: Unfortunately, the https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/about-greenpeace/ link does not mention your name. So, it can't be used (by itself) to verify this status. Understand; I'm not saying you're not a founder. The simple fact is that at Wikipedia with biographies of living people we need to be able to verify contested claims. I'm sure you can understand the logic of this; if we didn't insist on this, then anyone could put anything on an article and simply declare it's true, and we'd have no way of contesting it. This works both ways; in this case, without a verifiable source to support you being a founder of Greenpeace, we can't add it into the article. But it also means that if there is something in the article that you know is wrong and it is not supported by a reliable source, then we can remove it. So, a good starting point might be for you to look over the article and find assertions about you that you know are false and are not supported by such sources.
• The contents of the Wayback Machine are, by and large, copyrighted to the respective agencies that created the content in the first place. A screenshot uploaded here would not be acceptable. However, if you have a direct link to a webpage on the Wayback Machine that shows you as a founder of Greenpeace, by all means please post it here! We can use that as a source. It's a primary source, and we prefer secondary sources, but we can and do use primary sources. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 14:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

As you can see from the archived thread Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2019 there was no agreement whether to state or deny that Patrick Moore was a founder or co-founder. In a later thread (October 2019) Greenpeace's description of Moore being in the lede In a later thread Semi-protected edit request: Updated discussion starting 11th July 2019 at least three editors (versus one) apparently supported the insertion of ("Moore describes himself as a founding member of Greenpeace,[23] but the organization denies this claim.[24]"). Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 15:27, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Screenshots are probably not acceptable, but the URLs can certainly be used, and some limited use of primary sources is acceptable. The article already documents that you were a crewmember on the 1971 voyage of the Phyllis Cormack. The facts that you were listed on the crew list as one of the three representing Greenpeace on that occasion, and that Greenpeace once described this voyage as ...our founders set sail..., can be supported from primary sources such as the independent archive of their website IMO. But strictly, to claim on the basis of these facts that Greenpeace once described you as a founder might be interpretation, and therefore original research. In most of Wikipedia it would probably be accepted as a trivial piece of logic, but this is a problematical article.

I'd suggest that "Moore describes himself as a founding member of Greenpeace, as has the organisation itself in the past, but it has since denied this claim" would be the most informative and accurate. But to be encyclopedic it needs to be backed up by references of course. And secondary sources will be a lot harder to challenge.

Is there a better wording? And/or, can this be sourced? Andrewa ( talk) 18:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Is this single sentence really worthy of being a subsection? It seems odd to classify this as one of his "views" on par with energy, climate change, and GMOs. Bueller 007 ( talk) 00:04, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

The cited article does not show "extreme" or irreversible damage. It makes no such claims at all. Therefore, I am removing that language for going against WP:NPOV and being unjustified. -- Doctorx0079 ( talk) 14:20, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, that's obviously wrong: e.g., a direct quote is "Climate change is likely to lead to some irreversible impacts." Try again? -- JBL ( talk) 21:20, 18 June 2021 (UTC)