Talk:Peter Gleick

message: * Scienceblogs.com: The Heartland Science Denial Documents and the Future of the Planet, by Greg Laden "Had Peter Gleick obtained these documents using certain methods, and had he been a journalist, he would be up for a Pulitzer prize for investigative reporting. Had he obtained the collaborating evidence of Heartland's unsavory strategies using a slightly different approach, he'd be fired by his editor. The thing is, Peter Gleick is not a journalist and it is absurd to hold him to "Journalistic Standards." Peter is like the rest of us: He knows enough about the science, the politics, and the economics surrounding the issue of Anthropogenic Climate Change to have been very frustrated with the mindless zombie-like hate filled denialist movement, bought and paid for by the corporations and individuals with the most to gain from ignoring the science, to have risked falling on his sword for the benefit of the next generation. Thank you Peter." - I hope editors can agree it is important to reflect competing views on Gleick's role in this rapidly unfolding scandal. I note this entry has been subject to vandalism, and this has been commented about on twitter Shambala2011 (talk) 14:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote from the blogger Mandia is, I believe, Undue. When the subject of the article apologizes expresses remorse for serious ethical lapse, the New York Times speaks of "ruined" career, Forbes speaks of theft, we can't just throw in a "he's a hero" quote from a partisan blogger.  It isn't balance. It seems the very definition of undue.Capitalismojo (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  So you believe the negative quote from one source is 'neutral' and therefore the positive quote from another is not? Sorry, neutrality does not go one way only. Either remove all criticism or praises or leave both sides. Besides you have to read between the lines in his apology. He had to say what he did. 77.241.109.84 (talk) 23:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Prof. Mandia's a prominent rep of a pretty large group -- see the Guardian article . Also see  (scroll down). --Pete Tillman (talk) 23:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

text: I fiddled with it a bit & am happier with the WP:Weight, but see what you think. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 00:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Support for Gleick, Scott Mandia quote

message: I was reading the comments about the theft of documents from Heartland, and I am disgusted by some editors. There has been a blatant attempt to wreck the reputation of the Heartland Institute, they are the victim here, not Peter Gleick. This was not a mistake, but an intentional act on his part, and whilst I am not suggesting going beyond what is reasonable, to err on the side of protecting Gleick's reputation is de facto to discriminate against the real victim. So, let's call a spade a spade. In no way what-so-ever does "his part in obtaining and releasing several private internal documents" in any way describe his intention to damage the reputation of Heartland by deception and fraud. It would be a bit like describing 911 as "their part in flying a plane without appropriate authorisation". There is a real victim here, please do not pretend otherwise. 81.106.237.60 (talk) 23:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heartland vs Gleick 

message: We had a  notice at the top of the "Heartland Institute incident" subsection, but user:Yellowdesk took it out, citing Template:Current#Guidelines. So I created a custom notice:
Feel free to copyedit/rewrite/revert this notice. Cheers, CWC 20:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I like this version a lot better. And it may help ordinary readers, as well as exciteable new editors....  Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 07:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Current event" notice 

message: Heres a statement dated Feb 22:
:“In a February 21 interview with the Wall Street Journal Online, I mistakenly stated The Heartland Institute has concluded Peter Gleick forged the climate strategy memo he released to DeSmog Blog, Think Progress, and other bloggers and Web sites. That is not the case. The document indeed is fake, as Heartland has previously stated. While many others have suggested Mr. Gleick is the likely author of that memo, Heartland’s investigation into the matter continues. We should have more information shortly. I regret the error.”
I'm too tired right now to work out how this should affect the article. CWC 23:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Since Bast is no longer mentioned by name in the article, and the decision has been made to not mention allegations Gleick forged the "Strategy Memo", it shouldn't affect the article at all. The article says only that the Heartland Institute alleges the "Strategy Memo" is a forgery, which is still true. --Yaush (talk) 03:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bast retracts part of WSJ video 

message: The lede contained a statement that Gleick joined the NSCE Board. This inclusion has two issues:
#The lede is supposed to be a summary of information contained in the body of the article, and that fact is not mentioned in the body.
# While the original release claims that he "has joined NCSE's board of directors" the update states that "Dr. Gleick will not be joining the NCSE board".
In view of the apparent fact that he never actually served on the board, this item doesn't really deserve to be in the lede, and arguably, doesn't deserve inclusion in the body, other than possibly as part of the fallout of the incident.
I propose removing the sentence from the lede. I am agnostic on whether some mention should be included in the discussion of the incident in the body, although lean toward yes. What do others think?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hearing no objection, I removed the statement from the lede, and added a sentence to the relevant section.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed change to lede - what should be done to body? 

message: There are now multiple reports that Gleick is on leave from the Pacific Insititute, e.g. Peter Gleick on leave from Pacific Institute over Heartland leak.  (Interestingly this article also provides sourcing for the claim that Gleick impersonated a Heartland board member, though the phrasing is cautious.)  Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  On leave from Pacific Institute 

message: An edit summarised as restore a category went much further, so I've undone it back to the consensus as above, and looked at restoring Category:Jewish American scientists. There's no mention of Jewishness in this article, though there is in his brother James Gleick's bio. I've no strong opinion on this, but a sourced mention would be good. . . dave souza, talk 14:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Our policy says "Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources.". Let's stick to that. Dougweller (talk) 14:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Category:Jewish American scientists

message: Is it time to remove "current event" ("Ambox") template on the Heartland section? Seems a little out-of-date itself at this point to me. A thought. Swliv (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: From the guy who added that box: yeah, it's not completely relevant right now. However ... I expect further controversy (eg., legal actions), so we'll probably want it (or something similar) in the future, so we might want to leave it there, rather than removing it and later adding it back. I don't care which, so I'll let someone else decide. CWC 02:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, both with removing it, and saving it for later, as I expect that the results of the investigations will provoke a bit more editing, but I have no idea when those will be completed and reported.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Current-event template

message: * Peter H. Gleick, China and Water. in The World's Water, 2008-2009; The Biennial Report on Freshwater Resources (Washington, D.C.; Island Press, 2009)
99.181.142.87 (talk) 08:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Include report 

message: Just a quick note for transparency: This is my page and I fully understand (I hope) the guidelines on editing it. So just a note that I inserted the URL for my personal webpage (which has biographical information, reference lists, and so on) in the references section. I leave it to others who are more expert Swliv? Pete Tillman? if this was done correctly. I have other problems with this page, but that's a separate conversation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by PGleick (talk • contribs) 18:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I briefly discussed edits of this kind with Dr Gleick at User talk:PGleick.  While I advised that in an ideal world he should avoid making any direct edits, I also indicated the circumstances under which edits were likely to provie relatively uncontroversial, into which category this recent edit certainly falls. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added web address 

message: As appropriate, would an editor please consider updating the section/sentences that currently read:
Gleick currently serves as the Institute's President,[33] but from July 2016 will serve as President Emeritus and Chief Scientist.[34][35]
This is now out of date. The proper text should be something along the lines of:
Gleick currently serves as President Emeritus and Chief Scientist of the Institute.
A new President, Jason Morrison, was appointed effective October 1, 2016. (Here is a reference to that change: http://pacinst.org/news/pacific-institute-names-jason-morrison-president/)
Also, the "Honors" section could be updated with:
•	2016 Named one of E&E Publishing “Nine Californians who play key roles in water policy” (reference: http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060030797)
•	2016 Named one of Water and Wastewater International’s top 10 Water Leaders (reference: http://www.waterworld.com/articles/wwi/print/volume-31/issue-1/headline/top-25-leaders.html)  
— Preceding unsigned comment added by PGleick (talk • contribs) 23:08, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: President change done.  Personally I don't consider the honours notable enough for inclusion (indeed the current list should probably be trimmed), but other views may differ. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:07, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  update please 

message: I don't think that one can justify leaving Heartland out of the lede for Gleick. Google him, it's always near the top. Many of us have never heard of him outside of that incident. This is arguably the most notable thing about him. MikeR613 (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede not mentioning the Heartland Incident 

message: A new book, Volume 9 of The World's Water, has been published.
Would an editor, as appropriate, please add this to the Books section. You can see there the format for previous books.
Two possible links are:
https://www.worldwater.org/ 
or
https://www.amazon.com/Worlds-Water-Report-Freshwater-Resources/dp/1983865885
Thank you for your consideration.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by PGleick (talk • contribs) 20:05, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  New book. Would an editor please add as appropriate? 

message: This article was recently edited in a way which did not conform to Wikipedia's style standards and used extremely biased sources to make unfounded statements attacking Gleick. Upon checking, the edits were made by a Wikipedia account purportedly belonging to Jim Lakely, vice president of the Heartland Institute, someone who is obviously not an impartial editor, given his organization's direct involvement with Gleick's controversy. 2601:547:900:AB10:F:A3D7:34AB:E463 (talk) 00:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: While I don't think it's fair to call the edits vandalism, they diverged from a consensus version discussed above, giving undue weight to Heartland Institute views and skewing the article to early accusations instead of showing the resolution properly as is required by WP:BLP policy. I've undone the changes, and given  a reminder about guidance on conflicts of interest, including the requirement for disclosure on talk pages. . . dave souza, talk 08:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, I add a few notes in support. 1) While there was much frenzied instant analysis, there was no real evidence against Gleick's claim that somebody sent him the strategy memo, whose PDF said it was scanned on an EPSON. As I was just completing a long analysis of Heartland for Desmog, including reading many articles and memos by Joseph Bast, it certainly seemed consistent with his writing, and info from the two long HI memos was consistent, as seen in the October update. 2) The real information was in the 2 long documents, the strategy memo had nothing new, so it was a red herring in any case. 3) The Atlantic is generally treated as WP:RS, but the Megan McArdle article linked by Jlakely was effectively a blog post, not in the printed magazine, so not the same review/editorial process, as was clear in this 2017 post.  See The Atlantic description of whether or not article is in magazine.  Also, she was (and is) married to Peter Suderman, an editor at Reason (magazine), whose publisher Reason Foundation was a Cosponsor of Heartland's 2012 climate conference a few months later, as per Desmog Heartland page. Heartland's Environment aned Climate News published articles by Reason Foundation's Kenneth Green and Joel Schwartz. See also this article, in 2012.  While such things do not prove bias on McArdle's part, it is a a relevant disclosure. JohnMashey (talk) 16:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism by VP of Heartland Institute