Talk:Patrick Moore (consultant)/Archive 5

PhD in Ecology or Forestry?
Bueller 007 made this edit changing PhD in "ecology" to degree in "forestry", and removing the information that Mr Moore was directed by "forest ecologist" Hamish Kimmins. So far the provided evidence indicates that the name of the UBC faculty was forestry. Mr Moore says the degree was "Ph.D. in Ecology, Institute of Resource Ecology, University of British Columbia, 1972", and testified at a US senate hearing that prior to that he was a "PhD student in ecology". As RSs for "ecology" I see Vancouver Province and National Post. Policy says poorly sourced additions (i.e. "forestry") are to be reverted immediately, but also says I shouldn't re-insert a claim that was removed on good-faith BLP grounds (i.e. "ecology") without seeking consensus. So I seek consensus. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Forestry is verifiable, since it's on the first page of his dissertation. Guettarda (talk) 19:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)


 * It should be forestry. UBC offers a PhD in forestry, but not a PhD in ecology. That does not mean he was not a "student in ecology." Presumably some of what he studied involved ecology. One could even say that forestry is part of ecology, since ecology can be defined as the branch of biology that studies the interactions among organisms and their environment. TFD (talk) 19:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say that "forestry is a branch of ecology" any more than "biology is a branch of ecology". Forest ecology programmes exist within some forestry departments, but there's plenty is forestry that's not ecological at all (a lot of wood science, obviously, but also a lot of silviculture). That said, I wouldn't fault Moore for calling himself an ecologist just because it degree is from a forestry department - I have "ecology" in my degree because I filled out a piece of paperwork to add that programme. (Granted, I had to do all the requirements too, but had I not submitted the paperwork my degree would not include that word, since ecology was part of an interdisciplinary programme; it wasn't the name of a department.) Guettarda (talk) 19:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * ecology was part of an interdisciplinary programme; it wasn't the name of a department... (my emphasis) Exactly. Andrewa (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * His PhD is unquestionably in Forestry, as shown by his dissertation itself. (Forestry departments often conduct environmental management research projects that are unrelated to forestry, as is the case in Moore's thesis.)  And even if you feel that it would be misleading to say that your degree is in "Forestry" when it had nothing to do with cutting down trees, you don't just get to make up your own degree name and say you have a "PhD in Ecology" instead...  As far as I can tell, there is no evidence that a "PhD in Ecology" is something that UBC has ever been accredited to offer, so this should not even be up for debate. Bueller 007 (talk) 20:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It is false that "forestry is verifiable" or that his PhD is "unquestionably in Forestry, as shown by his dissertation itself." That is the name of the faculty. Nowhere has any evidence been shown that in the 1970s the faculty never offered degrees that had a different name from the faculty name, which is a common practice. But I won't push to get this corrected if consensus is to leave it, which seems the case so far. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Please stop making false claims. It is verifiable what department issued his degree. You're being disruptive here. Please stop. Guettarda (talk) 00:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Conduct accusations against me do not belong on this forum, try WP:ANI. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Verifiable but of doubtful relevance. As I asked above, was there a department of ecology at the time? Andrewa (talk) 01:17, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I have started bios for a number of UBC ecology profs. I have never seen a "Department of Ecology"...  (Always "Department of Zoology".)  As far as I can tell, UBC does not issue PhDs in Ecology and they never have.  Moore says he obtained his PhD in Ecology from UBC's Institute of Animal Resource Ecology (now the Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries).  However, this institute is just a collection of research labs, which does not run its own degree programs, and I see no evidence that it ever has... Students graduate with degrees in Zoology or Oceanography, etc. corresponding to the department in which they are students:  (but in 2018 it looks like the Institute was granted degree-granting authority in Fisheries/Oceans.) Although it might be acceptable for Moore to say he has a "PhD in Ecology" casually because "PhD in Forestry" does not really describe his research topic well, I don't see any evidence that his degree is officially in Ecology.  All signs point to Forestry, including the dissertation, which specifically says "Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Forestry".  Bueller 007 (talk) 02:23, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that both Ecology and Forestry are accurate. Is that not possible? Andrewa (talk) 18:58, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence that UBC has ever offered a PhD in Ecology, and no evidence that he received such a degree in the official documentation we have from UBC, so it seems quite unlikely and as if you're stretching to make "PhD in Ecology" fit. Short of Moore producing a parchment that says "PhD in Ecology" on it, we have good reason to be highly skeptical of this. (Again, there is no evidence that a UBC PhD in Ecology degree exists.)  Personally, I assume that "PhD in Ecology" is just Moore's shorthand way of saying that his PhD research was "Ecology-related" because when people hear "PhD in Forestry" they don't think about researching oceanography or water pollution in mines... They think about cutting down trees.  But officially, Moore's degree should be described on Wikipedia as a "PhD in Forestry" (as per UBC) until there is evidence to the contrary. If you want to qualify this by specifying that his research was in environmental resource management related to pollution from mines, then go for it.  Bueller 007 (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence that UBC has ever offered a PhD in Ecology... Exactly. But so what? The question here is simply, would the PhD they did award be regarded as a relevant qualification for an ecologist? Andrewa (talk) 20:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Update: But discussion below indicates that UBC has indeed awarded PhDs in ecology, so presumably they offered them. Andrewa (talk) 03:37, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The edit to which you refer was on 3 March, six minutes before the same user raised the first RM. So it was in order but, in view of the subsequent controversy, unfortunate. Yes, we now need to discuss here. And there are some very tricky BLP issues. He calls himself an ecologist, and it seems to me there's a reasonable basis for this claim. So if we dispute it we need very strong evidence. Andrewa (talk) 01:17, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You're confusing "ecologist" (a profession) with the separate question of what he has a Ph.D. in. His Ph.D. was granted by the Forestry department, so he has a Ph.D. in forestry. He isn't a forester - that's a separate professional designation. I have a Ph.D. in ecology - that's a verifiable fact. If I call myself "an ecologist by training" that's also a verifiable fact. If I call myself an ecologist I'm on slightly shakier ground, because I'm not working professionally in the field of ecology. I'll still do it - I feel a strong attachment to that identity - but that doesn't make it true.
 * Moore has a verifiable Ph.D. issued by a forestry department. He doesn't have a Ph.D. issued by an ecology department or programme. Based on his acknowledgements, you can infer that Kimmins was probably his doctoral advisor, and that Buzz Holling provided at least some of the funding and "guidance". Pickard, Goldberg, Wellwood, Lucas and Franson are acknowledged as "other members of [his] committee". None of them are ecologists. Holling may or may not have been on his committee - I'd lean towards "probably", but even without him that's a six-person committee, which is huge. Guettarda (talk) 03:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Please do not personalise this. Discuss the content, not the contributor. I am confusing nothing, but even if I am, respond to my arguments rather than accusing me of confusing. Now, one argument is that his PhD is relevant here. It makes ecologist a better name than environmentalist. Is this wrong?
 * Another argument is that his work is not and never was in ecology. This is clearly wrong. We can call most professions by many names. There are other names for what he does, but that doesn't make this one wrong. He is and was an ecologist, among other things. Andrewa (talk) 18:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, it is not appropriate to call Moore an ecologist as his primary descriptor, and I am rather sure that most professional ecologists would agree. I would not have a problem with "ecologist" if it could be shown that his PhD is actually in "Ecology" (or if he were notable for doing any ecological research at all).  But we have no evidence of that, so I feel that putting "Ecologist" in his descriptor is like giving credentials to Moore that we are not authorized to give. Bueller 007 (talk) 20:17, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, it is not appropriate to disqualify this disambiguator just because of personal opinions... either ours or our opinions of what others might feel.
 * What evidence would be acceptable that his PhD is actually in "Ecology" (or if he were notable for doing any ecological research at all)? I'm not convinced that this is a necessary condition for being an ecologist, you don't need to be a researcher in a field in order to be a worker in it. But if we can establish he's a researcher too, that's even better evidence. Andrewa (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Are PHd's not named?Slatersteven (talk) 08:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Not normally - you are awarded the degree of "doctor of philosophy" by some unit of a degree-granting institution. You need to do enough work to satisfy your committee that you're worthy of joining their ranks. Guettarda (talk) 10:46, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree that they are not normally named. My parchment directly says on it "Doctor of Philosophy in [Subject]".  That's standard from Canadian universities from what I've seen.  However, the department has to be authorized/credentialed to issue such a degree, and often the name of the degree is simply named after the department...  (E.g., the Zoology department offers a "PhD in Zoology").  But you can't just make up your own degree name.  Which is why in the absence of evidence that a "PhD in Ecology" ever existed at UBC, we should stick with "PhD in Forestry", since this is the academic unit that granted Moore his PhD. Bueller 007 (talk) 20:17, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it, I've never taken mine out of the envelope it was mailed to me in, but I meant a specific subject area (like "community ecology" in my case) rather than an issuing department or program ("plant biology" and "ecology and evolutionary biology"). Departments are vast entities, and are many people who got the same degree as me (at least the first half of it) with whom I have no graduate-level overlap in coursework or research experience (beyond the department seminar we were all required to take 2-3 times). Guettarda (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * They are often named. Some current examples from a few minutes googling: Queen's Faculty of Health Sciences offers PhD in Aging and Health (plus many others). UBC Faculty of Applied Science offers PhD in Mining Engineering. U of A Faculty of Agricultural, Life and Environmental Sciences offers PhD in Wildlife Ecology and Management. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Often but not always. It's claimed above that There is no evidence that UBC has ever offered a PhD in Ecology (I invite you to read the whole post, I don't want to cite it unfairly). But this doesn't mean that they had no graduates in this area. Andrewa (talk) 20:16, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Carin Bondar and Laurie Marczak and Lorne Rothman are all said to have ecology PhDs from UBC. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * (Update) add Cameron Carlyle, William Clark, Alathea Letaw. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's fair to say that UBC never offered a PhD in ecology. And it's entirely possible for someone to get a PhD in ecology from the forestry department - Bondar's and Marczak's PhDs are both from the Forestry department and clearly ecological. Rothman's is from the Zoology department and is arguably ecology.
 * In the end though, I'd feel much more comfortable labelling any of those by the department that awarded the degree. "My degree is in [x]" is a matter of self-identification - I can say I have a PhD in plant biology, botany, ecology, plant ecology, or community ecology and be telling the truth. But all I can prove is the names of the department, and the program, that jointly issued my degree. Not that I'm notable, but if I were, I'd expect the verifiable information to be in the infobox, not the things I say about myself. Guettarda (talk) 21:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I think we've started playing with words here. It seems that it's verifiable that UBC has awarded PhD degrees in ecology to candidates in the Faculty of Forestry. Leaving for the moment the question of whether those candidates included Moore, is that much at least agreed?

But before we discuss this particular degree, I hope everyone will read at least the title pages of his thesis and preferably at least skim its contents. Because, there are some equally strange claims above about it. Andrewa (talk) 02:59, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Forgive me but both thesis do not say "degree in ecology" in fact the only subject that seems to be mentioned (in brackets) is forestry. I think there is not enough evidence to say he has a degree in anything, just that he has a degree.Slatersteven (talk) 08:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Re "is that much at least agreed?" -- maybe only by me. We're facing a claim that Moore lied about having an ecology degree. That and the "no evidence" claims collapse unless Bondar and Maczak and Rothman also lied. So it would be a surprise if all agreed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You'll do for a start! I think the lack of any other coherent response (I'm afraid I think the claim that there's no evidence that his degree is in anything is a bit bizarre) says a lot in itself.
 * We should just cite our sources and try to give them due weight, and if Moore claims to have a degree in Ecology it's hard to see how we can ignore that primary source. Andrewa (talk) 03:21, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

A possible compromise could be "a PhD in Ecology from the Faculty of Forestry, University of British Columbia". But that's a mouthful. feminist (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That would be problematic, given the lack of ecological content in his Ph.D. Guettarda (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You don't inherit subject-matter qualifications from your doctoral advisor or committee members. I had a plant anatomist on my committee, but that doesn't mean I can claim that my PhD is in plant anatomy. Guettarda (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Feminist: That would be problem-free but once again I may be the only editor agreeing. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

It seems agreed that Moore claims that his PhD is in Ecology, and that primary sources are sufficient for this to be included in the article... sourced of course. It seems possible that we have other sources that dispute this, and possibly (if they're notable, and without giving undue weight to his critics... the article is about him, not them) that they should be included too.

But the removal of the link to one of his PhD advisors seems quite impossible to justify. Andrewa (talk) 01:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * - what removal do you mean here? Guettarda (talk) 11:59, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * My bad! I was assuming from the discussion above that the edit under discussion had removed Hamish Kimmins completely. But it didn't, and I should have checked that and thought I had but obviously didn't. The edit just removed the phrase forest ecologist, and perhaps that part of it is justified... that needs further discussion IMO. Forest ecology is IMO a fairly good (and NPOV) term for one focus area of both Moore's PhD and Kimmins' expertise. But obviously, those who don't want Moore considered an ecologist don't like it. Andrewa (talk) 13:20, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * My unclear wording (the first sentence in this thread) caused that, sorry. You're suggesting that "PhD in Ecology" should be back in? With in-text attribution? To Moore alone, or to Moore and the secondary sources? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:26, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we should strongly consider putting forest ecology back in, particularly but not only where Kimmins is concerned, see his article and discuss at below. Andrewa (talk) 14:36, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * From your reply to Richard Keatinge below, I gather you favour "PhD in ecology". Now five editors (I + you + feminist + slatersteven + richard keatinge) have favoured PhD in ecology or opposed both PhD in ecology and PhD in forestry, if I have understood what they wrote in this thread (I apologize if I have condensed lengthy opinions too much). That's enough to say there's no consensus for PhD in forestry, unless some editors haven't piped up yet. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Forest ecology
The fact that Hamish Kimmins is an expert in forest ecology seems relevant to Moore's claims to being an ecologist, and particularly to the relevance of his degree to Ecology. Shouldn't it be in the article? Andrewa (talk) 14:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)


 * It seems inappropriate to describe his PhD as being "in" either Ecology or Forestry. To say that it was awarded by the Forestry department of UBC would be reasonable though perhaps a bit wordy. A one-sentence summary, perhaps along the lines of "His PhD concluded that existing mechanisms were not effectively preventing unacceptable heavy metal pollution in Rupert Inlet by mine tailings" would seem to provide enough unimpeachable information for the reader to decide what it actually was about. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not the question I was asking at all, but it's similar IMO to many arguments above so I'll answer it explicitly to avoid being accused again of straw man tactics.
 * When I Google site:en.wikipedia.org "PhD in Ecology" I get 245 ghits, and the first few seem right on the money.
 * When I Google Moore "PhD in Ecology" I get 28,600 ghits, and the first few pages seem predominantly reliable secondary sources.
 * So, why is it inappropriate to describe his PhD as being "in" either Ecology or Forestry? Secondary sources seem to do exactly that, as does he (a primary source, but we are on thin ice to call him a liar). And for other individuals, so do we. Andrewa (talk) 23:21, 19 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The obvious supposition is that these sources simply took their descriptor ultimately from him. A few of them may have looked up the details and thought "oh well, pollution from mine tailings and ineffective regulation, I suppose that's something to do with ecology" and left it. Wikipedia should do better. Maybe two sentences: "His PhD studied heavy metal contamination in Rupert Inlet by mine tailings. It concluded that existing mechanisms were not effectively preventing unacceptable pollution." Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:31, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I admit this is tricky. The obvious supposition is that these sources simply took their descriptor ultimately from him. A few of them may have looked up the details and thought "oh well, pollution from mine tailings and ineffective regulation, I suppose that's something to do with ecology" and left it. Wikipedia should do better. That seems to be original research and while IMO there's room for it on a talk page (we want the material in our articles to be true, otherwise there's no point in it being verifiable), we need to be careful.
 * It is both true and verifiable that Kimmins is an expert in forest ecology, which is a branch of ecology. Is that fair enough, for a start? Andrewa (talk) 17:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Should Kimmins background be in the article? I don't know. How do you propose to discuss it, what sources would you use? We'd need to be wary of COAT, UNDUE and SYNTH, so I think this is something to discuss in specific terms, not vague general terms. Guettarda (talk) 11:56, 20 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Why was Kimmins's background removed? The edit summary doesn't say. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:22, 20 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I can't think of a good justification for including the background of Moore's PhD supervisor. Though it might help if RS could be found to describe its relevance to the subject of this article. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Moore claims to have a PhD in Ecology. That should be in the article. That he makes such a claim is an important, verifiable fact; It's a valid use of primary sources to include it. Is that fair enough for a start? Andrewa (talk) 17:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, but only if you put it in as "Moore claims he has" and not "Moore has". Safrolic (talk) 18:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree. Any dissent on this? Andrewa (talk) 18:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Dissent. Violates WP:CLAIM guideline, perpetuates the suggestion that there's something unbelievable about this. But okay, make a concession and attribute: "According to Moore and The Vancouver Province and the National Post, Moore has a PhD in Ecology." with cites to Moore's page, the senate page, and the two newspapers. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:33, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Less argumentative, what about "describe" rather than "claim"; "Moore and newspapers have described his PhD as being in Ecology"? Suggests that other descriptions are possible, without actually suggesting any direct contradiction. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:42, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Progress. Maybe Moore has a PhD, (ref) undertaken when he was active in Greenpeace, (footnote) which he (ref), the US Senate (ref), and news sources (ref)(ref)(etc) describe as being in Ecology and which was supervised by a committee including two prominent ecologists. (footnote)(footnote) However Greenpeace (ref) and others (ref)(ref)(etc) now dispute his claim to having qualifications in ecology. Is that undue weight? It's all true, but does rely on some primary sources. Andrewa (talk) 22:31, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No dissent about either of the above suggestions, although I doubt there are any reliable sources that dispute his claim to having qualifications in ecology, if that means PhD. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I'd go for Moore's PhD, (ref) undertaken when he was active in Greenpeace, (footnote) which he (ref), the US Senate (ref), and news sources (ref)(ref)(etc) describe as being in Ecology and which was supervised by a committee including two prominent ecologists. (footnote)(footnote). Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:30, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The US Senate didn't say it, Mr Moore said in testimony to a Senate committee in 1974 that he'd been a PhD student in ecology in 1971. So it's more like "which he (ref to his page) (ref to his testimony), and news sources (ref)(ref)(etc.). The reason I regard it as significant is that the Americans say you could go to prison for five years if you lie to their Senate, so the claim that Mr Moore lied would imply that he was rather bold, especially considering how many people were around at the time who could have exposed him. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:11, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * To add to this, those news sources are likely just repeating what Moore told them. It's not like they had a properly-cited Wikipedia article to fact-check with, like journalists do now. Regarding his Senate testimony while a student, it's not exactly easy to check whether a person got a degree in a particular field (or one of us should just call them up), and it's much harder to fact-check whether someone is pursuing a degree in a field than it is to see if they obtained it. Courses can be applicable to multiple degrees. Heck, a person might even say they're something more immediately recognizable, or glamorous to a layperson than their actual degree indicates, without thinking of it as explicitly a lie. Safrolic (talk) 13:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, so how about Moore's PhD was supervised by a committee including two prominent ecologists; in testimony to the US Senate, he described it as being "in Ecology". Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This is still really tortured prose and reads as desperate to get the word ecologist in any way possible. Just stick to the facts; Moore describes himself as an ecologist, having received a doctorate degree from the Faculty of Forestry of UBC in 1974.[ref, ref] There's no need to include his Senate testimony, especially since it's not actually included anywhere else in the article. There's no need to include his supervisory committee- definitely not something we normally do, and veering into WP:UNDUE. Safrolic (talk) 16:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Quite. So, does the article now have a description of the PhD that commands consensus support? It certainly has mine. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Per Safrolic, I have removed the tortured prose that I introduced. With all respect to Peter Gulutzan, who removed it and then put it back in pending improvement, I really don't think we need it even if its accuracy is improved. Comments? Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess that means adding "in ecology", even with in-text attribution, lacks sufficient support. The PhD description is minimal now: name of university, date, thesis subject (unless I've missed something). Nobody has objected to that. For anything else, either mentioning ecology or mentioning forestry, there have been objections, so no consensus. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Consensus is assessed by considering the arguments, not whether anyone objects. At least some of the arguments attempting to discredit Moore's claim to have a PhD in ecology appear to be themselves based on false claims. I notice for example that the claim that There is no such thing as the "Institute of Resource Ecology" at the University of British Columbia and there never has been  has not been backed up by any source whatsoever, despite a source having been provided as evidence that there was one (I think it was the obituary of one of its directors) and several polite requests to the contributor of this claim.
 * Such arguments should clearly be discarded, even without considering the history of Greenpeace's blatant lie concerning Moore's presence on the first Greenpeace-sponsored voyage of the Phyllis Cormack. And when that and BLP are taken into account, it's IMO completely unacceptable to have any hint that Wikipedia does not consider Moore to be an ecologist as he claims. We should not take a side either way of course. But that's very tricky. Andrewa (talk) 16:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * We have established that his degree is from the Faculty of Forestry. We've established that there was a thing called the Institute of Resource Ecology, at UBC during the time he attended. We have not established that the two overlapped or that he was part of the latter. Relying on his self-published material, or on secondary sources which themselves rely on his self-published material, would be introducing bias into the article. There isn't any way around that; we must have some non-Moore chain of evidence linking Moore to the IRE, or at the very least some Moore-supplied original documentation backing up his claim. Moore, if you're reading this, and you have that documentation, please feel free to post it on Twitter and link to it here. Safrolic (talk) 17:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That's an excellent suggestion.
 * Moore, if you're reading this, please do give it a go. Yes, I know it's hard to respect a website that took I forget how many days and talk page posts to eventually decide that your own website was to be preferred to Greenpeace's as a reliable source for your own current views, but we do have our uses and we do (most of us) honestly want to give you and your qualifications, background and views due weight and, dare I say it, report them all accurately. See also wp:creed, and I hope you may find yourself agreeing with it. Best.
 * I suspect what would most encourage him is if we could spell out clearly what documentation would help and how. Personally I of course think that we already have ample evidence that the terms environmentalist and ecologist both apply validly to Moore, but that's been rejected. And worse still, we had a comment a while back saying that no PhD is in anything at all.
 * So, can we for a start have consensus that UBC did offer PhDs in ecology at some stage at least? Because unless we do, I think we're just inviting Moore to waste his time, frankly. Andrewa (talk) 19:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Any such comment is asinine, as many PhD parchments say "PhD in ..." right on the thing. I've been suggesting for a while that people ask Moore for a scanned version of his parchment. Still no takers? He has a "Contact" form on his website and he's active on Twitter. Don't bother asking him through the Wikipedia talk page.  Bueller 007 (talk) 22:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Can we post on his twitter page, or something? (I assume that's a more efficient way of getting his attention)
 * Do we have any actual evidence that he has a PhD, besides him saying so? Toad02 (talk) 19:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * We have his doctoral thesis, accepted and archived by UBC. It's for Doctor of Philosphy in the Faculty of Forestry. Safrolic (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * UBC doesn't offer "PhDs in Ecology". They never have.  What you will see on his parchment is exactly the same thing you will see on his dissertation.  It will say that he has a PhD that was granted by the Faculty of Forestry.  His parchment will not say it was "in" Forestry, and it will not say that it was "in" Ecology.  In the same way that someone might informally say "I have a PhD in Mass Spectrometry" when their degree is actually a "PhD in Chemistry" or a "PhD from Department of Chemistry", Moore is simply stating what he believes to have been his research speciality.  But it's not the formal name of the degree. If you're going to call it a PhD "in" anything on the Wikipedia page (which suggests that it is the formal title of his degree), it makes sense to call it "PhD in [name of the program you were enrolled in]". However, I don't see any problem with our current approach of simply naming the Faculty that granted him his degree and describing his research topic.  Bueller 007 (talk) 22:11, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I also think our current approach (as slightly modified by Bueller 007 today) is okay. If anyone wants to change the "Ph.D." abbeviation to what the Wikipedia Manual of Style suggests, I suppose that would be okay too. But encouraging a BLP subject to join the discussion sounds like a one-sided invitation, if we did so then for neutrality we'd have to invite critics too, which I fear could lead to chaos. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Peter Gulutzan. There appears to be a strong consensus for this, and I repeat my comment from above that anyone who disagrees with this consensus should not repeat variations on the same arguments over and over again but should either (1) accept that consensus is against their position or (2) start an RfC on a well-formed question. --JBL (talk) 10:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Institute of Resource Ecology
According to http://www.afoa.org/bios/bio_jq.htm his personal resume claims he has a Ph.D. in Ecology, Institute of Resource Ecology, University of British Columbia, 1974. A Google of "Institute of Resource Ecology" British Columbia -Moore gives me 4,540 ghits, the first few all look relevant.

We don't currently have an article at Institute of Resource Ecology, or even on resource ecology itself. Outline of ecology doesn't mention resource ecology (but it does forest ecology and links to it). Interesting. Andrewa (talk) 18:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as the "Institute of Resource Ecology" at the University of British Columbia and there never has been. There was an Institute of Animal Resource Ecology (one of Moore's PhD supervisors used to be the head of it), but it is now the Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries. Again, as I have mentioned above, this is an interdepartmental institute that until last year was not able to grant its own degrees. Students obtain degrees from the home department. (See here: ) As mentioned numerous times, UBC does not offer a PhD in Ecology and there is no evidence that they ever have. Bueller 007 (talk) 02:42, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No, there was an IRE. Here's a newsletter from SFU with an obituary for the guy who was the Director of it during the time Moore was at UBC (pg26). The only missing link is showing Moore was actually in it and not just the faculty of forestry. I tried to find a connection between the two entities, but so far nothing. Shame he's dead or we could call him up and put the whole thing to rest. Safrolic (talk) 03:17, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I finally got around to checking that source... yep, At U.B.C., he was Director of the Institute of Resource Ecology from 1973 to 1979. ( (my emphasis) Moore's PhD was awarded in 1974. Good catch. Andrewa (talk) 04:04, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Evidence that UBC granted PhDs in Ecology was shown earlier in this thread. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as the "Institute of Resource Ecology" at the University of British Columbia and there never has been (my emphasis)... Presumably, you had some evidence of this? Can you remember what it was? Andrewa (talk) 00:26, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Ecology again
The reason I regard it as significant is that the Americans say you could go to prison for five years if you lie to their Senate, so the claim that Mr Moore lied would imply that he was rather bold, especially considering how many people were around at the time who could have exposed him.

I missed that. It seems to be a good argument to me. If Greenpeace could falsify that claim in court, surely they would do so? Now that's wp:OR and doesn't belong in the article, but it might help to clarify what the true position is. Andrewa (talk) 01:46, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Please stop making new sections and put the stick down. This has been addressed several times. Safrolic (talk) 02:27, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think I should reply to the edit summary Moore saying something about himself simply isn't a reliable source for anything besides "Moore says", regardless of where he said it. Agree in this case (the principle is a bit sweeping, but agree in this case).
 * You seem to be raising behavioural issues. This is not the place for that. (I know, I've done it too.)
 * I start new sections only when I hope it will make the discussion clearer. For the same reasons, I try to obey the stringing conventions (even when I don't agree with them), use edit summaries as intended, avoid personal attacks, try to answer all questions that are asked of me, and try to avoid rantstyle in general. I wish others would follow this example. Andrewa (talk) 03:23, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Andrewa, thank you for noticing. I must issue a correction and apology about one detail in my argument: I mixed up the date of the PhD with the date of the senate hearing, which was many years later. We might as well close with the epitaph: there is no consensus for either ecology or forestry. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:29, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There may not be a "consensus" but it is a simple fact that UBC **DOES NOT OFFER A PHD IN ECOLOGY**. Other universities do, but UBC does not.  Here are the programs/degrees offered by the department from which Moore earned his degree: . For those too lazy to click, there is one PhD program offered by this department, and it is "Doctor of Philosophy in Forestry (PhD)".  For those who doubt that Moore's PhD is in Forestry and believe that it is in fact in Ecology, ask him to produce a copy of his parchment and see if the word "Ecology" appears.  Otherwise, this debate is pointless. It may be acceptable to say that you have a PhD in Ecology informally (esp. if your degree is not about logging, etc. and you feel that "Forestry" is confusing/misleading) but there is zero evidence that this is the formal name of Moore's degree. Bueller 007 (talk) 02:24, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

''it is a simple fact that UBC **DOES NOT OFFER A PHD IN ECOLOGY**. Other universities do, but UBC does not.'' Irrelevant. Universities are strange things. When I attended Macquarie University they only offered first degrees in "Arts"... you could study Chemistry or Geology there and (unlike some other Universities) you could have no "Arts" courses in your degree, but its formal name (see below) was still Arts. there is zero evidence that this is the formal name of Moore's degree (my emphasis)... Perhaps not (see above), but there are several related primary sources that say it is a PhD in Ecology, and (so far) no reliable secondary source that says it is not. It may have many names. Things do. That's why we have redirects. Andrewa (talk) 17:26, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

POV on environmentalism
I managed to just ignore most of the obviously pointed language, which was no more than I expected (one way or another0, but I can't bring myself to pass by something as ridiculous as "noting his advocacy for the felling of tropical rainforests and the planting of genetically engineered crops.[53] He has expressed his positive views of logging on the Greenspirit website". He works for a corporation that is involved in logging. Perhaps even logging of rainforests at times. But please point me to the case where he "advocated for the felling of tropical rainforests". The insinuation here is "this guy publically says we should just chop all the rainforests down!" This is exactly the kind of sensationalist BS it sounds like he was distancing himself from. I doubt he ever said anything in favor of logging rainforests. If he did, he was more likely denying that all logging in rainforests in inherently an evil, horrible thing. That is not the same as "advoating the felling of rainforests". It's like someone saying "to be honest, there have been benefitcial results from warfare", to have hit pieces printed up immediately accusing them of "advocating war" and saying "he likes war and wants to start another". They are NOT the same thing.

Next, advocating planting genetically engineered crops is not a sin. Perhaps Greenpeace and their ilk consider it to be horrible, but a GREAT many people, most of whom are NOT "paid advocates" see no harm and a great deal of good in geneticaly engineered food, and consider Greanpeaces campaign against them to be about as reasonable and helpful as antivaxxers in general. Many very smart people consider GMO crops to be a promising boon to mankind. It is not an "accusation" to say that a person adovates GMOs, although the way this is phrased it certainly sounds like one.

Last. "expressing positive views on logging" is also not a shameful sin. Like the last, most REALISTIC people, moderate people, those who aren't utter fanatics, consider logging a completly legitimate form of agricuture. There are certainly groups of people who hear "Rape of the Forest" when they hear the word "logging", but others take into account the fact that trees are a renewable crop, and paper is a very useful, biodegradable and renewable substance. Logging is NOT an evil thing. Poor logging practices are certainly considered generally harmful, but logging in itself is widely considered a positive thing. When done scientfically to mitigate harm, it is a neccesary adjunct to human life. "Accusing" someone of "expressing positive views on logging" is like "accusing" someone of expressing positive views on farming. Farming also has the potential to cause a great deal of harm, but most people aren't foolish enough to try for banning farming. Again, this is exactly the unreasonable and emotionally-tinged side of "environmentalism" that he was complaining about when he left, as far as I can tell. Only a Greenpeace person would "accuse" someone of "saying postive things about logging". I mean, hasn't he realized that all right-minded people have dismissed logging as an evil corporate scheme to rape nature and Kill The Animals? Ban Paper Products! It's the onlhy solution!

Which reminds me; I see above the debate about whether he is an "environmentalist". I was not aware that "environmentalist" had such a narrow definition, and that to qualify one had to agree with Greenpeace consensus on so many points. Who is the arbitratior of what "real" environmentalists are allowed to advocate for? How many points are you allowed to disagree on before your credentials as an true Environmentalist are stripped away? As far as *I* am concerened, a person who is an "environmentalist" is one who is concerned with the environment, and how it may be effected. There is no set definiton of what makes you a "true" environmentalist. A person could be convinced that cutting down 75% of the worlds forests, and paving over vast sections of coastline would be beneficial for the environment. He would still be an 'environmentalist", he would just be one who happens to disagree with most other environmentalists. It is a supreme egotism to declare for yourself that only people who think *thus* are TRUE environmentalists; obviously, WE are RIGHT and we are envirnomentalists, and therefore anyone who disagrees with our analysis is NOT an environmentalist. That's what comes of wearing your description as a badge of honor. Somewhat how people who are left of center desribe themselves as 'Liberals"....nbecause of course no one else could have liberal ideals. You can can him a "mistaken environmentalist", but you cannot claim it's some exclussive club that is only open to people who advocate for the Status Quo of nature. That's not what "environmentalist" means. You might call that "Environmental Conservatism". Moore could describe himself as a "environmental Progressive". Although his ideas would appear about as misguided and repellant to Environmental Conservatives as most "Progressive" ideas seem to Conservatives. I guess most Conservatives see most "Progressive" policies about as sure to cause disaster as Moore's ideas on the environment are.

Personally, I don't think it pays to reject all he says. Nulcear energy IS a legitimate clean energy alternative, even if Greenpeace dislikes it. Logging companies are actually one of the biggest conservators and stewards of forestland today. Who else has such a stock in protecting forests? And who's to say that global warming ISN'T potentially beneficial. Greenpeace wrigns their hands and says "but Scienence says it will kill off many species! And harm human societies!" It wouldn't be the first time many species have died off. I am of the opionion that nature can take car of herself, and wouldn't be much phased. Change in the environment would stimulate a new shift in the development of species, and life would go on. It has happened. Might it hurt human society? Sure. THAT'S why people are really against it, and because they are scared of the idea of the world changing. But I don't see how being negative as far as humans is concerned means that global warming cannot be a overall positive. I think he's speaking in the bigger picture. Even if it doesn't hurt humsns he is not the only person to point out the potential benefits from global warming. "Scientific consensus" still leaves many, many people who disagree, and they aren't all morons or in the pay of Evil Corporations.

Anyway, now I've gone off on a rant. I mostly just wanted to point out how ridiculous those statements were, and point out how many similar ones there are in the article. People haven't learned to just let the facts do the talking, they seem to find it impossible to resist editorialising and making sure that the readers draw the "right" conclusions (theirs) from the article.

Idumea47b (talk) 05:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi . Can you please convert that comment into something shorter and readable. I don't see any actionable suggestions in there, but it's hard for me to tell because it's so long and dense. What changes are you suggesting to the article? Guettarda (talk) 10:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You make some excellent points, and some of it does pertain to how Wikipedia can do better. While Wikipedia is not a democracy and a poll is not a head count, that's easier said than done, and many statements that should IMO have been ignored as pure I don't like it and/or personal attack seem to have held sway above, just by their weight of numbers.


 * But on the other hand, this is not the place to promote the opposite POV. Two wrongs do not make a right. Andrewa (talk) 04:50, 10 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The words "advocacy for the felling of tropical rainforests and the planting of genetically engineered crops" are almost exactly the words of the Guardian writer (Jon Henley) "advocating the felling of tropical rainforests and the planting of genetically engineered crops", they should have been in a direct quote. And they were. But then Nightscream made this change and added that Moore was "arguing against the theory that mankind was causing global warming", which Jon Henley did not say. So that part of the complaint looks valid; I haven't read the rest. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I looked for the text "arguing against the theory that mankind was causing global warming" in the diff you linked to, and my browser did not find it, even after I searched for mere fragments of it. Where in that version created by my edit does it appear? Nightscream (talk) 15:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry. Your edit added "In 2007 The Guardian reported on his writings to the Royal Society against the idea that mankind was causing global warming, and his advocacy for the felling of tropical rainforests and the planting of genetically engineered crops." replacing the earlier blockquote of Henley: "he wrote last year to the Royal Society arguing there was "no scientific proof" that mankind was causing global warming; and he is on record advocating the felling of tropical rainforests and the planting of genetically engineered crops." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:19, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Just noting that the original title of this section was Rubbish, and has now been changed to POV on environmentalism. This is in general not a good thing IMO, but I'm not suggesting changing it back, just wanting to note this so future edit summaries will make sense. Andrewa (talk) 19:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I have fixed the technical problems with the improper use of template:collapse above, so show now works for those who want it.

I was actually thinking of hatting it or similar myself, but couldn't (and still can't) find quite the right approach. Whether or not you agree with (or Moore), some of what they say is relevant to improving the article IMO. This (as fixed) is as good an approach as any I can come up with.

We can (and I well may) take up any relevant points below. The collapse is not ideal, nor is the comment (which is not mine of course) that there's Nothing actionable. But neither was leaving the longish and mainly off-topic post as it was. Andrewa (talk) 21:33, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

During the collapsed discussion above, two editors (Idumea47b and I) have objected about the sentence beginning "In 2007 the Guardian reported". So far I know that: (a) the words "against the theory that mankind was causing global warming" poorly reflect what the Guardian writer said (the word "theory" replaced "idea" at some time but it doesn't matter); (b) "advocacy for the felling of tropical rainforests and the planting of genetically engineered crops" was a direct quote (except for two letters) so removal of the quote/unquote signal was unjustified -- violating WP:PARAPHRASE is trivial because it has essay status but MOS:QUOTE = "recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words" is a guideline that should have been followed; (c) in fact it appears to be a misquote of a misquote, since Mr Moore says says he wrote the Royal Society that "there is no scientific proof of causation between the human-induced increase in atmospheric CO2 and the recent global warming trend...". So WP:RS ("To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted") was violated, with a result that is not true. Do Nightscream or other editors wish to defend the sentence? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:10, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Nobody has defended. I made this edit to restore quoting around the Guardian quote and remove what it didn't say. Joel B. Lewis: I believe your collapsing and removing of another editor's posts in this thread are not compatible with WP:TALKO and I object. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Per WP:TALKO, If a discussion goes off-topic ... editors may hide it using the templates and or similar templates.... It is common to simply delete ... comments or discussion clearly about the article subject itself instead of its treatment in the article. "Off-topic" here is relative to this: The purpose of an article's talk page ... is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article.  If Andrewa decides to write something that is substantive or on-topic, you can be sure I won't touch it.
 * On the substantive question, the source says [Moore] wrote last year to the Royal Society arguing there was "no scientific proof" that mankind was causing global warming and it's not really clear to me why you think this doesn't support his writings for the Royal Society arguing against the theory that mankind was causing global warming, except for the erroneous "for" instead of "to". But I don't see that it matters much either way: it's not a great source and the whole section suffers from "here is this thing he wrote" (which both supporters and detractors tend to like, but which makes for not much of encyclopedic value).
 * By the way, linking to a user's contributions page does not have the effect of creating a ping, which I assume was your intent, and it will also not be useful to future readers trying to decipher what edits of mine you're talking about. You could try  instead (to ping), or link to a particular diff (to explain to others).  --JBL (talk) 22:22, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:TALKO then says these templates should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors (I give a permalink as it's had some recent edits, but that's the current version). That's why I objected to your moving some of my comments into the collapsed area  and attempted to discuss it  on your talk page (I respect your decision to close the discussion there however, and don't think it would improve Wikipedia to escalate).
 * Note especially that I did not object to the collapsing of the original ramble... to the contrary, I both supported and fixed it! . I'm objecting to the further use of it by an involved party in an attempt to unilaterally close discussion. Andrewa (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Re wp:talko: You've read it, you've read that I objected, and now you've involved yourself by commenting on the issue. Re ping: you assumed wrong. Re the issue: Mr Moore has said the theory is not proven which is what the Guardian acknowledged, and what Wikipedia acknowledged until Nightscream edited. I considered simply reverting to the original wording but it's unnecessary because we already have a fuller statement from a later date, i.e. "telling the US Senate in 2014 that there was no proof increasing carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere due to human activity is responsible for global warming." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There's no doubt IMO that Moore has expressed these views in the past... he's changed his views before. The (substantive and relevant) questions are what he believes now, and how his views have changed over the years. In seeking sources for this, we need to be aware of the Greenpeace smokescreen that surrounded his break with the organisation, and try not to ourselves become part of it. (You wouldn't think I had to say that, but remember that several editors here have wished to prefer the primary source of the Greenpeace site to that of Moore's own website in verifying his current views! The mind boggles.) Andrewa (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Does anyone object to me creating a new subsection of this section, to raise and discuss any relevant points made in the original post? Andrewa (talk) 17:14, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Nobody objected, but IMO the relevant points made have all now been taken up in other sections. Andrewa (talk) 19:11, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Repudiations of his arguments
I'm going to go through the article and find the places where it simply refutes his arguments, and delete those because I think they're irrelevant. We don't need to be reminded that climate change is real when discussing that he thinks it isn't. If this is improper editing, feel free to revert my changed before we discuss them (I won't tag that as edit warring or whatever), as I am not entirely confidant this is the right move. Toad02 (talk) 13:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I am going to leave in things that directly pertain to him. For example, in Global Climate Change Denial, it talks about a certain group that rated his ideas as false, and that should be left in because it's actually about him. In the introduction, it simply stated that his ideas were wrong, so I deleted that. Toad02 (talk) 13:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey Toad02, welcome! Check out WP:FRINGE, as it's applicable to coverage of climate change denial. NPOV actually requires us not to present fringe/discredited theories as valid. Safrolic (talk) 14:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I've re-read fringe and I agree with you entirely. Sorry for the inconvenience. Toad02 (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC).
 * How about Patrick Moore (Greenpeace co-founder)? No-one is disputing he was that, at least ... Rpot2 (talk) 09:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think a lot of people are disputing that, including Greenpeace itself. I believe there is something earlier on this talk page about that topic specifically (though it might be collapsed). I realize your comment might be going right over my head right now, and if so... whoops. Toad02 (talk) 13:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Whether he can be called a co-founder is in thread "Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2019", which is not closed. Whether the article title should be changed was in "Requested move 14 April 2019", which is closed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, must have missed that it was disputed: I'd only read that Greenpeace had disassociated itself from his current views, and missed that it denies his (disputed, it seems, claim of) co-founding it Rpot2 (talk) 00:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I actually think that the section global climate change denial lacks proper repudiations of his arguments. We agree that that is a fringe position, and it has these objections in the lead, but they are missing for the more complete section of his beliefs. I personally don't have any sources of the same quality as in the lead, so I don't think I can make this edit correctly.Toad02 (talk) 13:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and build what you're thinking of with the lead's sources to back you up. I'll come in later and source what you put down. Safrolic (talk) 17:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, the section is terrible and needs much less "here's this thing he said" and much more of what's actually true. --JBL (talk) 10:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I've made some improvement, but lack citations. 3rd paragraph of climate change denial still needs FRINGE work. Are his views on nuclear energy and GMO's truly considered FRINGE? Toad02 (talk) 19:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I've reverted my edit. I agree that it violates WP:BLP. If Safrolic wants to fix it (which I would love), he can see the edits I made in history. Toad02 (talk) 14:00, 18 July 2019 (UTC)