Talk:Patrick Moore/Archive 1

Nottingham Connection
Here in Nottingham (UK) I researched a local amateur astronomer named Thomas Bush (1839-1928) who spent much of his life building telescopes. To be brief, his biggest telescope was a 24 inch reflector that was set up at Fredrick Hanbury's private observatory in East Grinsted. It was still in use in 1927. Bush died in 1928, the telescope was dismantled. At the end of that year a young Patrick Moore took over this observatory on Hanbury's invite. He saw Bush's telescope there, and still owns Bush's observational log book, and many photographs of the site.

May I add the subject Thomas W. Bush to site as an extention to Patrick Moore's page? I do have two old photo's of Bush with his 24 inch telescope at Hanbury's East Grinsted observatory, but I am unable to upload them!

Richard Pearson richard_pearson2@yahoo.co.uk.


 * By all means. What trouble are you having uploading the pictures? Mintguy (T)

External link
I reinstated the external link to the "Patrick Moore plays the Xylophone" flash animation. It's consistently one of the top ten results for a Google search for "Patrick Moore" (depending on the exact search terms -- it's #3 for "Patrick Moore UK"), and is in fact the reason I came here to look him up. Assuming I'm not unique, the flash animation may be the way many non-UK residents come to hear of this fascinating gentleman. I myself intend no disrespect, and the animation itself doesn't appear to do so either, although not being British myself I admit it's possible I'm missing some subtle bit of inuendo. Saucepan 18:59, 26 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't think it is in any way deragatory: initially I removed it because it is non-encyclopedic. By now it no longer is, as indeed the Flash animation for 'Patrick Moore' is 6th in Google, and 'Patrick Moore UK' was 2nd just now. Anárion 07:38, 27 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Indeed. I looked him up just after watching that Flash animation. So I think this matters at least deserves a poll.--Baka toroi 03:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Patrick Moore - ecentricity and authorship
Apart from the monocle Patrick is well recognised by British TV audiences for his bushy (and fairly straggly) eyebrows and the way they tend to waggle around. Very distracting at times.

He has some other Science Fiction titles to his credit, although I suspect he'd rather forget about them. "World of Mists" (Frederic Muller, 1956) and the earlier "Quest of the Spaceways" are very much childrens adventure books and hopelessly outdated by more recent astronomy and space science. Despite that they are an interesting record of opinions at the time.

PATRICK MOORE PLAYS THE XYLOPHONE
 * Yes, we know -- the article says so! -- Arwel 15:32, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-Patrick! -Thenickdude 14:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * One-Two-Three-Four, Patrick Moore on the floor! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.146.222 (talk) 02:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

"Eccentricity"
This article is far too obsessed with Moore's eccentricity, one-off media appearances and other trvia, and not interested enough in his work.

I wholeheartedly agree. The section on his political views skews the article. OK I dont like his politics either but for 30 years I happily admired and followed his work without knowledge of his extreme Right Wing views. That hero worship ended when I read his autobiography. Nevertheless one must look past that one facet to an individual who has a tremendous raport with young people and infectious enthusiasm. PM is certainly one of the most important figures in popular astronomy in the UK and his huge body of work and positive service to popular astronomy surely outweighs his eccentricities? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.111.75 (talk) 00:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * They only skew your view if you strongly disagree with his politics. Clearly his political views are important to him, and cannot be ignored as he was actually the chairman of a political party. He spent a fair few chapters of his autobiography banging on about politics. Besides, his eccentricities are partly what have made him so popular.--EchetusXe 13:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

'amateur astronomer'
After being paid for some fifty years to present a show on astronomy, after haven written countless books, and so on and so forth.. is he to be considered an 'amateur'? -- Coop 01:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * He has never been paid to be an astronomer, but worked as an educator/presenter/author etc. so the answer must be yes he is an amateur astronomer but he is a professional broadcaster and author etc.. Dabbler 02:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a compelling argument, but as he actually performs astronomy in order to present (rather than just presenting other people's astronomy - like a commentator) I feel the line is a bit blurry, but nevermind. I guess the comparison might be with, say, gardeners on gardening shows.. even if all they do are the TV shows they're still professional gardeners.. or, not..? :) Anyway, minor point, but it just stood out for me. -- Coop 16:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The usual distinction for a professional, as opposed to an amateur, is that you are paid to do the work. In this case Moore is the quintessential amateur in that he does/did his astronomy for love of it and would probably have always done it regardless of lack of payment, but he has found a way of making money from his hobby by being paid to write and present about it. Dabbler 17:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ask any professional astronomer -- he is an amateur astronomer even if he is paid for his broadcasting. He teaches amateur astronomy (what you can do with an amateur telescope) and doesn't do astronomy research. Is a school gym teacher a professional footballer just becease they are paid to teach football lessons to amateurs? I don't think so. Rnt20 12:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup
I actually gave rationale for cleanup on Cleanup, probably should have copied here too. This article just has a series of disconnected little fragments of information which flow very poorly. It needs reformatted into proper sections and paragraphs. Could do with a lot more information and a few sources, too. NicM 12:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC).
 * The tag you used says that the rationale is on the Talk Page. There was no rationale on the Talk Page. I have a silly question, why instead of just going around announcing there is work to be done, don't you actually make an effort to reformat the article yourself? Perhaps you could even research the information required and provide your sources. I wonder what you think is missing? You know your own standards better than us, if you can't do the work, perhaps more instructions for the working peons would be helpful. Dabbler 14:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I have spent a lot of time cleaning up articles in the past but I'm afraid I don't have time to do this one right now. Tagging it (so it goes in a cleanup category) means that perhaps someone else interested in cleanup with more free time or more knowledge may like to look at it. If you don't understand how the article is lacking, perhaps you may like to sample some of the articles at WP:FA and see the difference in format and flow. The main problem is that the article reads very choppily, a list of facts rather than an encylopedia article, particularly the biography section. I would start with a long paragraph about his youth and the War, and then a long one about the astronomy and TV show, then a paragraph covering the other interests, ie his novels, right-wing views and musical interests. Perhaps a paragraph about acting in the middle if there is enough to say (that likely should be discussed in biography rather than popular culture). Missing stuff... oh, whatever you can find, i don't know enough about him and the article is too unstructured to really say what is missing, but there is just not enough... it needs more about why, when, how did he do all these things the article mentions, stuff to flesh out the article from a list of statements to a serious biographical entry: you may want to take a look at the biography section of some of the featured articles, eg George Fox.
 * By the way, the tag did not say to present rationale on the talk page when I first placed it, merely that cleanup should be discussed there by anyone who had an interest in doing it. NicM 17:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC).


 * I had a go with my mop and bucket. See what y'all think. The Singing Badger 18:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright, I've done some more cleanup, removed a lot of uninteresting or contextless stuff and combined and moved a lot of stuff about to try and beef it up a bit (and cut down on the number of paragraphs with just "In 1970 Moore did this. In 2001 he was awarded that." stuff) and tried to group stuff together a bit. It still needs more content and context on a lot of stuff (eg, would be nice to know more about his politics and life, eg, and when and why he became interested in xylophone, if he ever said, how he met Brian May etc). NicM 19:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC).

Alan Moore Connection
Is there a source other than Alan's appearance on the Culture Show? It strikes me as something you might put in a script as an in-joke to your artist considering the subject matter. I just don't think it's something to be taken at face value. Stx 22:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Patrick Moore plays the Xylophone
should this be added back, as it is the 3rd result in Google, when searching for Patrick Moore UK Stormscape 08:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * YES! lol! Thats how I even heard of him from here in the US. Its funny as heck, a good link to put in at least! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.249.209 (talk) 02:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Added Operetta link.
I´ve placed a reference to one of the referenced operettas mentioned in the article. Is there a better way to tie those facts up? --Seanbert 21:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Not an amateur
Patrick Moore is a pre Apollo mapper of the moon, has made numerous astronomical discoveries, has written numerous books about astronomy (published by real publishers, not vanity ones). He has hosted a very long running scientific TV programme dedicated to astronomy. You cannot seriously suggest someone who has done all that is an "amateur". He even has an asteroid named after him. Further, many of his services to astronomy he has been paid for. He is a professional by all definitions of the word. Perhaps he hasn't done much recently, but he's 80 .... Dontdoit 00:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * However, Patrick Moore himself claims to be an amateur astronomer. See the first video clip on this website. Patrick Moore the amateur astronomer speaks He is not paid to do astronomy but to write books, present television shows. Dabbler 01:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with nearly all of what you say, Dontdoit, but you misunderstand the meaning of amateur astronomy. It is a completely different discipline from that of the professional astronomer, and is nothing to do with whether, or not, the practitioner is paid. Amateur astronomy involves a different kind of study of the heavens, and Patrick Moore is a recognised and respected expert in this field - as a former amateur astronomer myself I know a little about it. Moore was also president of the British Astronomical Association (which claims to be the voice of amateur astronomy in the UK). I hope this clears this matter up. – Agendum 10:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not convinced that being former president of an (admittedly influential) amateur astronomical society defines him as amateur. Nevertheless, I am in favour of the amateur designation. As Agendum says, professional astronomy is a very different discipline and Moore lacks any qualifications for such a career - e.g. a Ph.D for starters. It is true that his work (especially pre-spaceflight Moon mapping) has been used by professionals, but that is one of the joys of amateur astronomers: we can make a useful contribution to the science. Variable star observations and comet discoveries are prime examples of this. PDAWSON3 (talk) 20:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

This is all rather amusing stuff! I have known Patrick as a friend for over fifty years. He cherishes his amateur status. Wilberfalse (talk) 19:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Monster Raving Loony Party
I'm sure Patrick was a long time member of the OMRLP. I seem to remember him mentioning it during an interview once, stating that when the Loonies took power he would be Chancellor (as it would be too sensible for him to be Minister of Science). Does anyone else remember this? Deadlock 14:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Never mind, there's a bit about it on the MRLP web page Deadlock 14:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No. He may have said this, but he started his own (very short lived) rather right-wing party. It didn't last long. Agendum 23:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Discoverer of Mare Orientale?
Did I understand correctly in a recent episode of The Sky at Night that Patrick Moore is the discoverer of Mare Orientale, even before the USSR could photograph it, thanks to the Moon's wobble? If so, that is worth a mention. DirkvdM 09:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it correct to refer to Queen guitarist Brian May as 'Dr' Brian May? Please see below (from Brian May's entry on Wiki)

"[Brian] went on to study at the prestigious Imperial College London departments of Physics and Mathematics, and was part way through a Ph.D. programme at Imperial College, studying reflected light from interstellar dust and the velocity of dust in the plane of the Solar System, when Queen became successful. He abandoned his astronomy doctorate - temporarily, as it later turned out - but did co-author two scientific research papers: MgI Emission in the Night-Sky Spectrum[6] and An Investigation of the Motion of Zodiacal Dust Particles (Part I),[7] which were based on Brian's observations in Tenerife. As of 2007, he is working on the updating and completion of his Ph.D.[8] He was awarded the honorary degree of Doctor of Science (D.Sc.) in November 2002 by the University of Hertfordshire, although it is not typically customary in the United Kingdom for honorary doctors to be called "Doctor"

On women at the BBC
Is it worth covering his remarks on this topic? They are reported on the Times and BBC websites for 8 May 2007. LookerOn 10:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)LookerOn

Cricket
No mention of his interest in cricket. Anyone care to contribute? Mark 1 August 2008 —Preceding undated comment was added at 07:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Physical characteristics
Is Sir Patrick's unusual physical size suitable material for wikipedia? My former physics teacher claimed he was 6'8" tall, and that coupled with his broad-boned build is surely noteworthy,

I've added it anyway, others can remove it if they think it's inappropriate.

- Meltingpot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.137.152.183 (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * We need a better reference than your former physics teacher. My personal recollection is that while he is tall, he certainly wasn't as big as 6' 8". Dabbler 00:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I met Patrick Moore some years ago - I'm average height for a man, so if he was 6' 8" he would have towered over me - he's not that tall. Autarch (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The BBC obituary gives his height as "six foot three". Autarch (talk) 18:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Hoaxes and books published as R.T.Fishall
No mention of Patrick Moore's books published under the pseudonym of R.T.Fishall? I have a copy of one of them, 'Bureaucrats: How to Annoy Them'.

Allegedly Patrick Moore has also been involved in organising certain UFO hoaxes. Anyone got any more information on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.5.134.81 (talk) 23:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I too have a copy of: "Bureaucrats: How to annoy them" - the real name of author is Willie Rushton: the wiki reference [removed] was in error, I am certain that the late Ned Sherrin (who was never known to have misquoted anyone, nor opened his mouth to utter the smallest detail of any story in error) can be relied upon, per this entry: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kidtonian (talk • contribs) 20:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Indeed, see "Books illustrated by Rushton" at Willie Rushton (Sidgwick & Jackson, 1981). Martinevans123 (talk) 21:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

UKIP plaguarism
Thought editors here might be interested to know the UKIP website has been using this page as inspiration... I would say that if he supports UKIP, that should be put here, but this article just consists of this Wikipedia page, so it's hardly a reliable source. YeshuaDavid •  Talk  • 21:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

East Sussex Astronomical Society
20091004 I have added a reference to the East Sussex Astronomical Society. It is not vandalism. I cannot see why Dabbler has removed it. I have reinstrated it. Sallen2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sallen2006 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed it because I considered it to be a relatively unimportant fact about Moore. I never suggested that it was vandalism. Dabbler (talk) 00:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I see. It is not unimportant to the East Sussex Astronomical Society.  He does not often lend his name in this way and the Society was  delighted when he accepted the invitation to be the Society's Hononary President.  I am not aware that he has done this with any other Astronomical Society.  Also the entry on the wiki article on East Sussex Astronomical Society now links back to Sir Patrick Moore.  So can this entry stay?  Sallen2006 (talk) 05:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I won't remove it but I can speak only for myself. Dabbler (talk) 17:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

early novels
I'm sure that as a schoolboy in the 1950s I can remember reading one of Sir Patricks novels about two young men who went to a planet called Vontor?

He had them use a telescope that seeme very close to the later invention of the CCD attachment for telescopes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.93.199.155 (talk) 12:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

BAFTA and knighthood
Certain external sources with differing reliability have said that the aforementioned awards were presnted to him in 2001 and not 2000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.194.21.147 (talk) 15:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * BAFTA was 2002. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Family
Does Moore have a family? Wife? Children? Partner? Companion? Friend with benefits? Anything? Ischium (talk) 23:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Never mind. I found what I was looking for in the Early life section. I had looked for it, naturally enough, in the Personal life section. Ischium (talk) 00:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * As a result, I've abolished the misleading Personal life section and merged it with the Other interests one, leaving the Honours & appointments to the end. Some tidying to be done, perhaps... Rothorpe (talk) 00:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Patrick Moore: when retiring?
The great question facing the programme is, as he approaches 90, when Sir Patrick retires, who will take over? Brian May could do it as main presenter with Chris Lintott as deputy. Other strong contenders are Brian Cox, Carol Vorderman, Kate Humble, Kathy Sykes and Dan Snow. Who would you suggest as a likely replacement? Remember, they need the personality to carry the show which would also need to locate to a new centre such as the RO, Greenwich or Leicester Space Centre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.65.102 (talk) 13:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The question is beyond the scope of the article. We don't speculate about the future. Rivertorch (talk) 18:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Patrick Moore asked Dr John Mason MBE on several occasions, throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, if he would be willing to take over The Sky at Night when the time came. John Mason was the co-editor of Patrick Moore's Yearbook of Astronomy for 10 years, a regular guest on The Sky at Night, as well as being a well known speaker in his own right. 80.42.234.86 (talk) 20:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Broken link
The link to sirpatrickmoore.com leads to a broken (and I think no longer updated) page Chrislintott (talk) 14:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like a server error, may not be fixed until the holidays are over. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response; it's still broken. I'd fix it myself if there wasn't potential conflict of interest Chrislintott (talk) 09:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, seen as the guy who maintains the sirpatrickmoore website seems to have either fallen into a black hole or picked the wrong side in the Threapleton Holmes B civil war, I changed the link to the biography page, as both the Home and News pages are not working.--EchetusXe 10:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Wright brothers/Neil Armstrong
Is it worth mentioning that he is probably the only person ever to have met both the first pilot of a sustained powered aeroplane and the first man to walk on the moon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.52.196 (talk) 12:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * He mentions that in his autobiography, though I don't think he said he is the only one to have done so.--EchetusXe 13:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Even if he made that claim, I'd be a little bit skeptical. We'd need an independent source. Rivertorch (talk) 15:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I've definitely heard him say this in interview. Whether he is the only person to have met both, I'm not sure. I think it's an interesting and notable point. (OP, not signed in) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.52.196 (talk) 08:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The article already mentions his claim from his Autobiography of meeting Orville Wright and as the BBC's astronomy and space presenter, it would be highly likely that he met Neil Armstrong. However, there is no cited claim by Moore, or anyone else that I know of, that he is the only person to have ever met both these individuals. in fact I would consider it highly unlikely that was the case. Dabbler (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's an interesting factoid—just the sort of thing that gives color to Wikipedia articles. But consider the word factoid: it can mean "a brief or trivial item of news or information" (so far so good, for our purposes), but it can also mean "an assumption or speculation that is reported or repeated so often that it becomes accepted as fact" (and it's completely unacceptable for any Wikipedia article to contribute to such a state of affairs). That's why the verifiability policy cannot be sidestepped. But even if it could be established that he made such a claim, we're left with another problem, namely the claim's implausibility. Orville Wright lived to 1948 and was hardly a recluse. While it's not impossible, it seems quite improbable that only one person met both him and Armstrong. So, at best, we risk repeating an erroneous claim that in all probability was made in good faith but could make Mr. Moore look foolish. Misspeak once and be forever tainted by Wikipedia's long memory? I don't think that's a good idea. Rivertorch (talk) 19:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I looked in page 30 of his book and he said he spoke with Wright for half an hour. He wrote "It is rather sobering to reflect that Orville Wright and Neil Armstrong could have met. They never did, but their lives overlapped." Makes no claim of being the only one to meet them both.--EchetusXe 20:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * When Buzz Aldrin presented a BAFTA award to Patrick Moore (year unknown), Buzz said that Patrick Moore had met all of the people who had been to the Moon and Orville Wright. 80.42.238.188 (talk) 23:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * (BAFTA was 2002). Martinevans123 (talk) 23:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Images
Surely the article would be better illustrated with a few related images? As is, all it has is a somewhat unsympathetic picture of the man himself. I'd love to go about rectifying this problem, but my wikipedia experience consists of a couple of minor edits about a year ago, and as a result I'm not entirely sure how the commons system works. BADGERY THING (talk) 13:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * We're limited in the images we can use, as they must be free. We can't upload an image on condition of fair use either, because we have one free image. I will have a search for some available images. -- Hazhk Talk to me 15:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

BST
Why has a death occurring in winter been recorded in BST? Mike Shepherd (talk) 13:37, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You might ask the BBC or the people who issued the statement. Wikipedia just links to the story as a reference. we don't know. Dabbler (talk) 13:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Mare Orientale
If Moore did name Mare Orientale, he certainly was not the first person to call it so. See [http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/2007JBAA..117..129B/0000129.000.html Mare Orientale: The Eastern Sea in the west - Discovery and nomenclature. Baum, R. & Whitaker, E. A., Journal of the British Astronomical Association, vol.117, no.3, p.129-135. 2007JBAA..117..129B] Perhaps he was influential in getting the name officially adopted by the IAU in 1970, I don't know. I shall remove the claim as well as the statement that Moore made it. BTW, how very nice to be able to read such a very good article at a time when many people are remembering back over many years. Thincat (talk) 18:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Someone has restored the sentences and rewritten them more satisfactorily. However, so far as I can see, even Franz did not discover the crater, but he did properly describe it and call it "Mare Orientale". Perhaps that counts as discovery. I'll leave others to sort this out. I think the matter is too abstruse to belong in a general biography which is why I removed the text. The article Mare Orientale is fine. Thincat (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In science, merely being the first person to find something does not make you the "discoverer". Many people had seen apples fall from trees but it was Isaac Newton who developed the theory of gravity. Having examples of Moore's abstruse scientific work puts a new dimension on someone who has often been thought of just as a populariser and eccentric. Dabbler (talk) 12:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Transient lunar phenomenon
Also, Moore was credited with the discovery of the transient lunar phenomenon, describing the short-lived glowing areas on the lunar surface in 1968.


 * This reads as if the first instance of this phenomenon occurred in 1968, and it was Moore who spotted it. That's complete bollocks.  There have been 100-ish sightings, going back at least as far as 1178.  Moore may have given the phenomenon a name in 1968, but that's all.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  19:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Or maybe he discovered that particular instance of it. Either way, the writing needs work.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  19:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * OK I changed it to 'Moore described the short-lived glowing areas on the lunar surface, known as transient lunar phenomenon, in 1968.'--EchetusXe 23:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Cambridge University
How can this be described as his alma mater when he didn't even go there? (He turned down a place). Poshseagull (talk) 08:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Original Research
Can we get sources to all those facts which are currently cited to a Moore book? I don't think him being notable gives us the ability to use his own writings as evidence of his accomplishments. &#9760; Travis McCrea (T)(C) 09:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And in this you are of course entirely wrong, however ask and you shall receive, which cite should be replaced? Darkness Shines (talk) 00:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Template:Primary sources and Template:One source do seem to apply, especially as there must be a ton of obituary material out there. I've refrained from tagging the article as it's been through GA and is currently linked from the Main Page, but I encourage editors to reduce the reliance upon Moore's autobiography. Modest Genius talk 13:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I took that the common sense approach that the best person to approach for accurate information on the life of Patrick Moore was Patrick Moore himself. I felt him to be a trustworthy individual, and I had no reason to distrust any of the claims made in his books, none of which were controversial. The Mare Orientale and transient lunar phenomenon seems to be controversial. Perhaps that is my fault, in the book he claims to have named them but not to have been the first to observe them. They are pretty obscure scientific matters, but if I gave the impression that he was taking credit for something he didn't do then I apologize.--EchetusXe 16:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have access to the book, could you check the citation? The ISBN refers to a book about Stanley Matthews, for instance.  Mr Stephen (talk) 18:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, well spotted. I must have copied the citation template from the Stanley Matthews article and then not updated the ISBN field.--EchetusXe 22:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

homosexuals
Can anyone confirm the bit about him saying homosexuals spread AIDS in his autobiography? I can't find anything matching this using Google Book preview. I'm not sure if the search will search the entire book - http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=kfA0AQAAIAAJ&q=homosexuals#search_anchor. The phrase about "Adam and Steve" does not seem characteristic to me. JAC Esquire (talk) 04:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Page 223.--EchetusXe 09:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

UFOS and Vontor
Patrick Moore mentioned on one of his programmes that he started a UFO hoax by falsely claiming that he'd seen one at a certain time and place. He reckoned that at least 50 people later claimed to have seen the same but non-existant UFO.

I also seem to remember a series of science fiction novels for the younger reader including the story of the trip to Vontor. The telescopic viewing device in the spaceship seemed to be based on the electron microscope rather than the CCD instrument. AT Kunene (talk) 08:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Royal Air Force service
Going through the London Gazette for details of Moore's World War II service, I get the following. Nowhere can I find the information about Moore being granted the rank of Flight Lieutenant. Can anyone cross-check with his autobiography? Greenshed (talk) 23:50, 12 December 2012‎ (UTC)


 * States that Moore was granted an emergency probationary commission in the General Duties Branch (i.e. commissioned aircrew) of the RAF Volunteer Reserve, being raised from the rank of Leading Aircraftman to Pilot Officer on 2 June 1944.
 * States that Moore was promoted to Flying Officer (war substantive) on 2 Dec 1944.
 * States that Moore relinquished his commission on 24 November 1945 as a Flying Officer.
 * States that Moore was granted the rank of Acting Pilot Officer on 13 June 1946 in the Training Branch of the RAF.
 * States that Moore resigned his commission in the rank of Pilot Officer.
 * He does not mention any details of his service in his autobiography. The Flight Lieutenant fact was there before I turned it into a good article. In fact, the information was added by an IP seven years ago. No one appears to have challenged it in that time and all of his obituaries mention him reaching the rank of Flight Lieutenant so I hope its true!--EchetusXe 10:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I changed it to simply state the fact that he became an officer.--EchetusXe 21:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

See also the thread on this page http://www.rafcommands.com/forum/showthread.php?14023-The-Late-Great-Sir-Patrick-Moore-RAF-Service-Questions Looks as though the claim of lying about his age might be a self-myth. 81.151.206.150 (talk) 11:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Your diligence here, EchetusXe, has not gone unnoticed. But how strange that all those obituaries will never be updated. Although, of course, we could always try here? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The rank of Flight Lieutenant is mentioned at 'The only good Kraut is a dead Kraut,' Sir Patrick Moore says in The Telegraph earlier this year; it is also at  Mr Stephen (talk) 22:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * (even) The Telegraph says "It is rumoured he performed remarkable heroics as a young Flight Lieutenant, with a distinguished career in intelligence, all as yet unconfirmed by Sir Patrick himself." Martinevans123 (talk) 22:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * (.. have not yet found the courage to try and see exactly what the Sunday Mirror said. Presumably not available on-line?) Martinevans123 (talk) 11:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

After some looking at Google Book Search it turns out that Moore himself stated that he reached the rank of flight lieutenant. See:
 * http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=D7M0Rgc1ONAC&pg=PT7&dq=%22Sir+Patrick+moore%22+RAF&hl=en&sa=X&ei=eB3LUN7JFoeP0AXPt4GwDA&ved=0CFUQ6AEwBQ

Patrick Moore's Astronomy: Teach Yourself, p. vii ISBN 978-1444103137. Greenshed (talk) 12:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * No evidence but it was not unusual for officers in the Air Training Corps to be a temporary acting Flt Lt, which would have been his last "rank" albeit only acting. MilborneOne (talk) 13:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * We're talking Bomber Command here? I would have thought Cranwell would almost certainly have his records, which could be requested. But really not sure who next of kin would be to allow any request. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Greenshed's LG extract show he left the "real" RAF as a Flying Officer in November 1945. The later service is with the RAFVR(T) which is to do with running the air training corps or more probably the officer cadet corps at the school he taught at. It was this later duty that he probably became an temporary acting Flt Lt, nothing to do with Bomber Command. MilborneOne (talk) 15:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's pretty unlikey that Cranwell will have Moore's service record. The College library does have some copies of World War II records lodged with the Air Historical Branch so its just posible that something might turn up. If Martinevans123 wants to try and get Moore's service record (a worthy ambition) then the National Archives would be a good place to start. See http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/records/looking-for-person/officerroyalairforce.htm Greenshed (talk) 16:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Martinevans123 feels he's not really that worthy. But he thinks that the way that sentence currently appears in the article might still lead most people to assume Moore was a Flt Lt in the RAF. Many thanks for the info. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC) (p.s just caught Murray Lachlan Young's marvellous little poetic tribute to Moore, on Radios 4's Last Word - I do hope it eventually appears in print: )
 * I think we need to be careful not to engage in original research here. Moore's own words were "I joined the RAF as a navigator with Bomber Command (Flight-Lieutenant)" so unless we have concrete evidence to the contrary (the London Gazette evidence is suggestive but not conclusive and it can often be incomplete) then I think we can stick with some form of words which associates Bomber Command and Flight Lieutenant. Greenshed (talk) 21:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * RAF records show that he enlisted in or after Dec 1941 and left in 1947 with the rank of PIlot Officer. Moore's claims of lying about his age to get in and rising to the rank of Flight Lieutenant need verification. http://www.rafcommands.com/forum/showthread.php?14023-The-Late-Great-Sir-Patrick-Moore-RAF-Service-Questions 81.151.206.150 (talk) 11:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that an independent publisher has reproduced Moore's words is verifiable evidence. Additionally, (a) we need to be sure that the Patrick Alfred Moore in the London Gazette is the same man as Sir Patrick Moore (I am pretty sure - I used a ref in the main article - but there were over one million people serving in the RAF at any one time during World War II) and (b) the London Gazette evidence hardly rules out Moore spending some time in the acting rank of Flt Lt.  Anyway why would he lie about his rank?  It is not as if he was claiming to be an air chief marshal when in fact he was only a pilot officer? That said some more concrete evidence would be no bad thing and I personally would like to know what squadron he served on and what aircraft type he performed his navigator duties etc.  Greenshed (talk) 22:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Alas, Greenshed, the fact that someone has said something in their autobiography does not automatically make it true. 81.151.206.150 (talk) 11:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * - Apart from the fact that we deal in verifiability not truth, no one has actually presented any evidence that he did not hold the rank of Flt Lt. The idea that Moore only held VRT Flt Lt rank is interesting but again there is no evidence.  If we had contratadictory evidence then we would either describe the conflict or omit it entirely.  The WP is not The Truth but it should be a structured collection of verifiable facts. Greenshed (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That forum thread is a good idea. I think what MilborneOne has said about Air Training Corps and temporary acting ranks is vey sensible. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

One alternative is to add something like "This has not been verified with an official or independent source". Alternatively someone could ask all the obituary writers whether they were using Moore's autobiography as a source or have some other independent source for their statements that Patrick Moore was a Flight Lieutenant.Dabbler (talk) 00:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If a reliable source says that Moore's promotion is in some way doubtful then we can cite that. There is a difference between an official source not stating Moore's promotion and our inability to find the promotion record.  Otherwise stating something that we think we've worked out would be original research. Greenshed (talk) 21:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems the claim is based on Moore's autobiography without any confirmation quoted from any other source. The discrepancy between the official record and Moore's own writings indicates that perhaps the claim should be deleted because Morore's autobiography annot be considered a Reliable Source. Many of the obituaries seem to have included that claim, but its hard to tell if they have their own independent sourcves or are just repeating Wikipedia and/or Moore. Dabbler (talk) 18:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The statement is cited from:
 * Moore, Patrick (2010). Patrick Moore's Astronomy. London: Hachette UK. p. vii. ISBN 978-1-4441-0313-7.
 * Other sources are:
 * http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20657939
 * http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9238579/The-only-good-Kraut-is-a-dead-Kraut-Sir-Patrick-Moore-says.html
 * http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10525469
 * http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/sir-patrick-moore-in-tune-with-music-of-the-spheres-2198463.html
 * Broadsheet newspapers are considered reliable sources and we do not know what research the authors of the articles did. Additionally some seem too ready to dismiss Moore's own words. When Moore put the statement that he rose to the rank of flt lt into the public domain it inevitably invited scrutiny from journalists, researchers, his former comrades and even Wikipedia editors.  Lying might be uncovered and bring discredit and as I have indicated above the records in the London Gazette cannot be seen as consituting a discrepancy anyway. Greenshed (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The obituary in the Telegraph says the following: “At the end of 1941 he joined the RAF to train for aircrew duties, and during 1943 left for Canada for training as a navigator. He was commissioned in June 1944 and completed his training at a bomber conversion unit at Lossiemouth in northern Scotland but, due to epilepsy, was declared medically unfit for further flying duties. He spent some time in the RAF’s training branch before leaving the Service in 1947. From 1952 he had made his living as a freelance writer.“ So why not quote that? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/science-obituaries/9732840/Sir-Patrick-Moore.html 85.210.18.63 (talk) 11:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Patrick’s contribution to the Moon programme
While Patrick Moore was undoubtedly a dedicated and highly experienced lunar observer, his claims that his Moon mapping was used in the US and Russian space programmes are, it seems, self-imagineering. Chuck Wood, who was part of NASA’s pre-Apollo mapping of the Moon, has specifically denied Moore’s involvement. On his Lunar Picture of the Day site he writes: “Those preparing for Apollo forgot Moore, partly because he championed volcanism as the origin of lunar craters, and because a new more quantitative and less observational approach was required” http://lpod.wikispaces.com/December+10,+2012 And on the H-ASTRO discussion list, Soviet astronomer Alexander Gurshtein has posted: “Sir Patrick Moore was valued very much in the former Soviet Union. Some of his books were translated from English into Russian. But never his lunar maps were used for space photos interpretation. By the way, he visited Moscow. I know this for sure because he interviewed me for his TV show.” Nonetheless, as Wood correctly notes, Patrick’s books on the Moon inspired many, and I was one. Ian Ridpath — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.25.244 (talk) 17:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no idea how important Moore's maps were to the moon landings, but Eugene Cernan said to Moore in a televised interview We studied, er, due to a great deal of your work of course, on er, on the mapping of the moon, er, we studied the area we were gonna land so well, that I really believe I knew it - at least from the air, from above - as well as I know my own back yard. If you have access to the BBC iPlayer you can watch "Sir Patrick Moore: Astronomer, Broadcaster and Eccentric" and it's at about 9:00.  Mr Stephen (talk) 18:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Very possibly Cernan just believed what he was told by Moore, as many did. Anyway, NASA used Lunar Orbiter pictures for planning the Apollo landings. Ground-based observations were nowhere near detailed enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.30.113 (talk) 10:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Film and television appearances
Do we really need a long list of personal appearances (as himself) on talk and quiz programmes, fairly standard fair for a tv personality and the individual appearances are not particularly notable (unless somebody has a reliable references to the contrary). MilborneOne (talk) 18:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

With respect to Sir Patrick's Air Force service: when he was the subject of an episode of "This is your life" many years ago, we learned of him saving a  bomber crew member's life by throwing him out the aicraft when he was unable to "bale-out" by himself (I can't remember how the man came to open his chute). The crew member arrived at the show and shook hands with Sir Patrick. Was this just another mystery about his war service? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.7.168 (talk) 11:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Recent additions
Would Derek Parker explain why he thinks his wife's book warrants a mention in the lede? And how about actually giving a valid reference? Darkness Shines (talk) 04:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Pseudonym R. T. Fis(c)hall
I recall Moore relating in the title chapter of his book Can You Speak Venusian? that he encountered a representative of the Aetherius Society when its journal Cosmic Voice was tricked into printing a spoof article submitted under that name. Moore denied having anything to do with this hoax. Did he borrow the pseudonym from the orginal hoaxer (who also adopted the names N. Ormuss, E. Ratic and Egon Spunrass), or is this a belated confession? -- Alan Peakall 12:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That explains a lot! Indeed, Patrick had nothing to do with authorship of "Bureaucrats: How to Annoy Them" - The pseudonym R.T.Fishall was used by Willie Rushton
 * So I have removed the erroneous references to this book; the source reference must be incorrect. Ned Sherrin was a stickler for accuracy, and, for example, dismissive of Stephen Fry for oft failing in this respect - I am sure the above reference is true: Willie Rushton was both author and illustrator of this funny tome.

Ned Sherrin may have been a stickler for accuracy, but he would seem to have been wrong about R. T. Fishall being Willie Rushton. I have never seen Bureaucrats: How to Annoy Them, but the back cover of the only other book credited to Fishall, The Twitmarsh File, clearly identifies Patrick Moore as the author of both volumes. Furthermore, in his autobiography, 80 Not Out, Moore writes that he "created the author R. T. Fishall."

Alderbourne (talk) 22:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Girlfriend 'Lorna'
"only romance ended when his fiancée Lorna, a nurse, was killed in London in 1943 by a bomb which struck her ambulance"

The CWGC 'Register of Civilian War Deaths' shows no 'Lorna' of a suitable age dying in 1943; further nurses are generally identified as such and there is no 'Lorna' nurse dying in 1943.

Either he changed the name, or she never existed.

109.144.226.239 (talk) 22:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well firstly a linkable reference would be needed to show this, and even then it would probably fall under original research and could not be included in the article (the discovery of there being "no 'Lorna' of a suitable age dying in 1943" is your own research). We have to go off information from Moore's autobiography and third party sources. I think there is an issue in this article with an over-reliance on 'first-party' sources (his autobiography). However the issue you're raising would need to be sourced to a news article or other reference which questions the existence/identity of his fiancee. -- Hazhk Talk to me 21:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Well it is the 'Jimmy Saville problem' isn't it - so eminent and such a national treasure that no one is going to say he was a liar 6 months after his death. Actually it is perfectly clear to me that he enjoyed making things up - Cedric Allingham for example. Very convenient to explain the somewhat sensitive matter of never marrying or having a partner by producing a dead fiancee. 109.144.224.135 (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Lorna might have been her middle name. Lorna might not have been of a "suitable age". Lorna might have been a trainee nurse etc etc.--EchetusXe 10:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe Moore said she was aged 20 when she died in 1943, sometimes described as in a bombing raid and sometimes more exactly when a bomb hit an ambulance she was driving. Just to note that the CWGC Register of Civilian War Deaths is mentioned but she could have been in the military. MilborneOne (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

As somebody who grew up reading Patrick Moore's books and watching his monthly Sky at Night program and who later had the pleasure of meeting the man himself on many occasions, I too have often wondered about his Lorna – wanted to know a bit more about her, to see her photograph even. But attempts on my part to identify her in online genealogical databases have always proved futile. And I could hardly have asked him.

I do, however, remember him being asked about her in a live television interview many years ago. Either he was the greatest actor Britain had ever had or his fiancée had been a real flesh-and-blood woman whose tragic early death still affected him greatly, for the emotion written on his face was clearly genuine. For a moment I feared he was going to break down in tears. I think it extremely insulting to his character and memory to suggest he invented her. And while it is true he had a love of hoaxing, that does not equate with dishonesty.

For what it's worth, five years ago I learnt that the first girl I ever fell in love with had been dead 20 years, which upset me terribly. She was only 26. Like the mysterious Lorna, she was a nurse at the time of her death. Now, I would not be at all pleased with anybody who suggested I had invented her! And, no, one does not need to experience something like this to appreciate how it feels: I didn't.

Alderbourne (talk) 19:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I would agree with your sentiments, it would just be nice to know more about her and tell her story. MilborneOne (talk) 20:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Jewish Ancestry
It seems likely that Sir Patrick Moore was of Jewish descent – one quarter German Jewish to be precise. A little online sleuthing on my part in genealogical databases has established that his paternal grandmother was one Célina Emilie Moore, née Trachsel, which is an Ashkenazic surname. She was born in Berlin in either 1854 or 1855 and died in London in 1941, aged 86. The 1911 census describes her as a naturalised British subject. Her husband was a Scot by the name of William Roger Caldwell Moore.

Alderbourne (talk) 21:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

BBC Schools documentary - title required
In the 1960s Moore narrated a BBC Schools science documentary, purporting to be the voice of a Martian astronomer presenting a programme about whether the mysterious planet Earth might support life. At the end of the programme a Martian space probe sent back a picture of Stonehenge. If more firm information about this programme can be found it should be added to his filmography. Lee M (talk) 02:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Automatic archiving of this page
This Talk page seems to be growing steadily, so I propose to set up automatic archiving next week to control its size unless there are any objections. Dabbler (talk) 16:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Described as a 'legend' in the intro
The intro described Moore as "an English legend" in the spot where the profession would normally go. Robin Hood is an English legend; Sir Patrick was real. I've changed "English legend" to "English astronomer." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winter Maiden (talk • contribs) 19:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That was, as I'm sure you probably guessed, affectionate vandalism. I've changed back to the original "amateur astronomer". -- Hazhk Talk to me 19:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The lead puts as much weight/space into his political views and xylophone playing as his astronomy: this is WP:UNDUE and is misleading. He was famous first and foremost for his astronomy.  No mention made in the lead of the fact that NASA used his moon charts, Eugene Cernan told Moore, when being interviewed by him, that he has studied his work etc ... 86.133.51.163 (talk) 21:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, if for the last 50-ish years he made his living from astronomy, he can't really be called an amateur astronomer, can he? He's a self-taught astronomer, without a degree in the subject, but he certainly wasn't an amateur. 86.133.51.163 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 21:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * He made his living from presenting television programmes and writing books on astronomy, not from conducting scientific research at universities. I would just have the article say 'astronomer', but Moore was always insistent and very proud of his amateur status.--EchetusXe 21:37, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The term "amateur astronomer" has a very precise definition. It is used to define those who, rather than obtaining a degree or other qualification before making astronomy their profession in a university, observatory or other institution, instead make observations from their own small telescope at home. They can make a valid and often notable contribution to lunar, planetary or stellar observation in this way, linking with other amateur observers through organisations such as the British Astronomical Association, This was what Patrick Moore did for many decades, becoming an expert on lunar observation. He also wrote extensively on the subject, but his income from his works would not necessarily make him a professional astronomer. – Agendum (talk) 21:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The term amateur is important because astronomy is one of the few areas of science in which an amateur can make significant contributions. I believe Sir Patrick was keen to point this out too, as an encouragement to people to take up astronomy. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 01:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Despite the protestations of others to the contrary, it strikes me as the height of absurdity to label Sir Patrick Moore an amateur astronomer. Might not "nonprofessional astronomer" be a more appropriate term?

Terrian Blondeau (talk) 14:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The term "amateur astronomer" is defined as a non-professional astronomer and is the most usual term in citations. So what is the problem? Dabbler (talk) 16:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

"The difference between an amateur and a professional is the difference between a wife and a prostitute: the former does it out of love, the latter for money." I was under the impression that Schopenhauer or some other intellectual colossus said that, but cannot trace the quotation or anything like it either in my collection of the German philosopher's works or online. I think I must have said it.

Sir Patrick Moore was an amateur astronomer and, as indicated by others on this page, prided himself on being such. The word amateur does not necessarily imply a lack of experience or competence. Indeed, he was probably more knowledgeable about astronomy than many a professional.

I should perhaps add that amateur is derived from the Latin amator, meaning "lover."

Alderbourne (talk) 17:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

But since amateur can imply a lack of experience or competence, would it not be better to call Sir Patrick Moore a nonprofessional astronomer?

Terrian Blondeau (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * While amateur can be used in that manner with other nouns, amateur astronomer is a well-known and reliably sourced term which does not have that meaning. Can you find a reliable source anywhere which describes Sir Patrick, or any other amateur astronomer, as a "non-professional astronomer"? If you can then you could add it to the article but not replace the reliably sourced term amateur astronomer. Dabbler (talk) 16:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

It is always stimulating to debate with somebody of your intellectual acumen, Terrian Blondeau.

Alderbourne (talk) 18:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Fan Book
Recently User: Mobberley added a book title to the article written by a Martin Mobberley called It Came from Outer Space, Wearing an RAF Blazer: A fan's biography of Sir Patrick Moore. I removed this as it appeared to be an obvious conflict of interest to me. User:Alderbourne reverted my edit with no further explanation, so I removed it again. User:Alderbourne has since contacted me by email to state that Mobberley is a well known amateur astronomer in the UK and therefore his book should be listed. I believe that under WP:COI I was correct to remove it the first time but I am not familiar with the current British astronomical scene to know whether this book should be included. I open the topic for further discussion. Dabbler (talk) 11:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for responding. As I said in my email, Martin Mobberley is a figure of note in the world of British amateur astronomy, was president of the British Astronomical Association from 1997 to 1999 and has written eight books on astronomy for the prestigious publishing firm of Springer. His forthcoming biography of Sir Patrick Moore will be his ninth for them. As I also said, this book will, according to their website, be 620 pages long and include 110 illustrations. It is the product of ten years of research. It is surely worth mentioning in the article.


 * Alderbourne (talk) 21:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * If it doesnt exist yet how can it be used as a source/reference or even further reading, at least wait until it is published and then see if it contains anything relevant. MilborneOne (talk) 09:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Anything relevant? I believe you are being facetious. I have restored the reference, this time with "forthcoming" in parentheses. If you want to reverse the edit, so be it. I will abide by whatever you decide.


 * Alderbourne (talk) 06:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * All that User:MilborneOne was saying, and it is definitely not a facetious point, is that as the book has not yet been published, we have no idea as to its quality and relevance to Patrick Moore, just assumptions and guesswork on your part. While it could perhaps be a masterpiece full of interesting new information about its subject, it could also be the worst book ever written and full of incorrect material and poorly written. As Patrick Moore, himself, often used to say about some astronomical phenomenon, "We just don't know". Dabbler (talk) 07:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Mobberley's book is now out and nails many of the self-myths that Patrick put around, such as the fiancee and joining up under-age, so start editing, guys.81.178.183.82 (talk) 12:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Substantial Edit?
The 'fan book' noted above, Martin Mobberley's It Came From Outer Space Wearing An RAF Blazer has now been published. Although less formal in tone than many biographies, it is extensively researched and the author (who worked with Sir Patrick Moore for many years) makes extensive efforts to research the truth behind many of the anecdotes Moore told about himself. Mobberley establishes very clearly that many of the details about Moore's life cited in this article are at best embellished or undocumented, and in many cases demonstrably untrue. Moore's story about his fiancée, for instance, was almost certainly concocted long after WW2, and records show that he left the RAF as a Flying Officer with no evidence that he ever flew over Germany.

The question is how to approach this in the article. I don't think it should boldly state details about Moore's life that have been shown to very likely be untrue, or at the very least it should caveat any such assertions. At the same time I appreciate that Mobberley's book, however well-researched it appears to be, is a single source. I would suggest one of two approaches:

(a) Rewrite each disputed element presenting Mobberley's interpretation as the version supported by evidence; or

(b) Note for each such element that Moore's account is now questioned, and have a separate section summarising Mobberley's conclusions.

Sjbradshaw (talk) 22:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that approach (a) is a better way so that people don't relegate the new info to a unread section. Perhaps a short sentence or two suggesting the theme that Patrick Moore may have embellished or made false statements in his autobiography, which is also pretty well the sole source for many of the claims which have subsequently been repeated elsewhere giving them a possibly spurious credibility. Dabbler (talk) 01:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)