Talk:Peter Gleick: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:58, 21 February 2012

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography Unassessed

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Peter Gleick admits fraudulently obtaining the Heartland Institute documents

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/-the-origin-of-the-heartl_b_1289669.html

--TS 01:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Revkin's report at NY Times: "Gleick has admitted to an act that leaves his reputation in ruins and threatens to undercut the cause he spent so much time pursuing." --Pete Tillman (talk) 01:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding it. I removed a reference to the incident from the lead on the grounds of recentism, but it may well belong there. I think the main problem is that the lead is a bit too big and sprawly to begin with. I'll probably feel happier about the lead position in a day or two when we can judge how big this affair is going to be. I used the term "fraudulent", and I assume there are legal implications, but I don't know US federal law on this. --TS 04:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Graun: "Climate scientist Peter Gleick admits he leaked Heartland Institute documents. Scott Mandia, co-founder of the Climate Science Rapid Response team, said "Peter Gleick, a scientist who is also a journalist, just used the same tricks that any investigative reporter uses to uncover the truth. He is the hero and Heartland remains the villain."

TIME: Climate Expert Peter Gleick Admits Deception in Obtaining Heartland Institute Papers. "[N]o reputable investigative reporter would be permitted to do what Gleick did. It’s almost certainly a firing offense." -- Bryan Walsh, Time Science, Ecocentric "blog"

I'm fine with that, Tony. Quite a... remarkable development. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 06:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scienceblogs.com: The Heartland Science Denial Documents and the Future of the Planet "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)[reply]

BLP

The current wording presents serious WP:BLP problems - calling it "fraud" when sources call it "deception" or "under false premises" is unacceptable. Guettarda (talk) 14:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 ::I'm fine with that, Tony. Quite a... remarkable development. Cheers, [[User:Tillman|Pete Tillman]] ([[User talk:Tillman|talk]]) 06:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
+* Scienceblogs.com: [http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/02/the_heartland_science_denial_d.php The Heartland Science Denial Documents and the Future of the Planet] "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 [[User:Shambala2011|Shambala2011]] ([[User talk:Shambala2011|talk]]) 14:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 ===BLP===