Talk:Peter Gleick

Peter Gleick admits deceptively 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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

• Forbes: "Peter Gleick Admits to Stealing Heartland Documents" (headline)

• FoxNews: "Climate scientist admits stealing docs from conservative think tank" http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/02/21/climate-scientist-admits-stealing-docs-from-conservative-think-tank/?test=latestnews — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.194.29 (talk) 14:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

NPR: Climate Scientist Admits To Lying, Leaking Documents — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.46.241.77 (talk) 03:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I absolutely think someone should remove the word "disgrace" from the lede. Sgerbic (talk) 02:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I suppose you're right - not supported by the source. Guettarda (talk) 03:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

References

Support for Gleick, Scott Mandia quote

• 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)
• It is nuts to include this blog as a source. Aside from that, what the blog says is ridiculous: Nothing in Gleick's confession makes the memo more credible. It remains a completely unsourced piece of paper, even if (as seems more likely) Gleick didn't write it himself. MikeR613 (talk) 15:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• It was a poor source, but we urgently need something like it to balance things up a bit. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't see what needs to be balanced. There may be a few partisans who think it's great what he did. I doubt they will appear in acceptable sources. Gavin Schmidt has already said: "Schadenfreude is a cheap thrill: fun but ephemeral. Gleick's actions were completely irresponsible and while the information uncovered was interesting (if unsurprising), it in no way justified his actions. There is an integrity required to do science (and talk about it credibly), and he has unfortunately failed this test. The public discussion on this issue will be much the poorer for this - both directly because this event is (yet) another reason not to have a serious discussion, but also indirectly because his voice as an advocate of science, once powerful, has now been diminished. - gavin" - http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/02/free-speech-and-academic-freedom/comment-page-7/#comment-228387. I imagine most sensible people will follow his lead. MikeR613 (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• • • Whatever you think personally there are people supporting Gleick, and that fact should be reported if reliable sources can be found. How about this comment by Scott Mandia in the Guardian: "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. He will have many people lining up to support him." Peter Gleick, a water and climate analyst, says he was blinded by his frustrations with ongoing attacks on climate science? Jonathan A Jones (talk)

• "Gleick apology over Heartland leak stirs ethics debate among climate scientists", by Suzanne Goldenberg. The Guardian. This article supports Jonathan A Jones' argument above -- though I can't find a good pullquote to post. The Scott Mandia quote mentioned just above appears to be typical of this viewpoint. -Pete Tillman (talk) 19:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

Prof. Mandia's a prominent rep of a pretty large group -- see the Guardian article [1]. Also see [2] (scroll down). --Pete Tillman (talk) 23:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

---

• Now that the Mandia quote is in the article, it looks unbalanced to me. And/or WP:UNDUE, community college guy vs. NY Times. I wonder if we should hold off on such things for a few days? If we do use it, we probably should also use the TIME quote ("firing offense"), which amounts to a rebuttal. But that kinda opens the Op-ed can of worms. What do others think? Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 00:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

Editorial license is acceptable. We decide how to phrase things as long as we are accurate. See Fraud Law & Legal Definition. --Wattsfan (talk) 20:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Specifically, "Fraud is generally defined in the law as an intentional misrepresentation of material existing fact made by one person to another with knowledge of its falsity and for the purpose of inducing the other person to act, and upon which the other person relies with resulting injury or damage." In this instance "material existing fact" = "his claimed identity". --Wattsfan (talk) 20:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

It's a BLP issue - we shouldn't use the word 'fraud'. If anyone intends to add it to the article I strongly they suggest they take it up at WP:BLPN first. If of course it becomes a word frequently used in reliable sources then we can quote them. Dougweller (talk) 20:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Banning the word "fraud" is the way to doublespeak and 1984. Sad, really, that anyone would want to ban the word, like Guettarda or Dougweller propose.

We're pretty careful here to stick to what the reliable sources say -- which is what the editors above are pointing out.

Thank you. I thought Wattsfan responded rather directly and substantively above and I will not rehash his arguments.70.46.241.77 (talk) 12:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

And, in Megan McArdle's latest column, she speculates that Gleick might "risk a wire-fraud conviction" with his deception. Worth a read, a very amusing (and sharp!) writer.

Could you please sign your posts? It's the pen-squiggle icon on the toolbar, or just four ~s. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 05:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I read the McArdle article early last evening. Very thorough. I haven't been bothering signing as I do not have an account and prefer not to have one, and as my IP is shared with an entire 37-story building, sooner or later someone else will be using the same signature knowingly or unknowingly. 70.46.241.77 (talk) 12:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

We should neither ban the word "fraud" nor use it cavalierly. If used as part of a quote from a solid RS, we should be on solid ground. OTOH, if we infer it from RS material, we have to be very careful to make sure it is not synthesis or OR. While I am personally convinced by those who have examined the issue, my personal convictions aren't sufficient to warrant the use of the word outside of a quote in an article. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Please note that when McArdle uses the term "fraud" in "risk a wire-fraud conviction" she is NOT referring to the alleged fake document, she is referring to his alleged deception in obtaining the valid documents. She does go on to to point out a number of uncomfortable facts which point to Gleick as the author, but she stops short of assertion he is the author. We cannot connect the dots. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Storm alert

This accusation has been withdrawn.

In the press statement the Heartland Institute released Monday, HI president Joe Bast strongly hinted that he believed Dr Gleick forged the fake strategy memo. Now Bast has made that charge explicit in an interview with the WSJ (video only). An excerpt: "[Gleick] read those documents, concluded that there was no smoking gun in them, and then forged a two-page memo". (BTW, I oppose putting that accusation in the article unless/until we get a better source than that video.) I therefore expect to see new editors wanting to put negative claims in the article that contravene WP:RS and WP:BLP. It will be important to keep high-impact words and phrases out of the article unless used in a reliable source, as others have said above. Cheers, CWC 14:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC) I've just tidied up the article. I replaced the phrase "false pretenses" with "unethical means", on the theory that the latter is justified by PG's 2012-02-20 HuffPo apology. I also changed the description of the HI documents dispersion to use a long quote (really a series of quotes) from that apology. Please check my work. CWC 14:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC) I concur that we should avoid statements that Gleick is the author, even in quotes. that's a serious charge, and deserves very solid sourcing; IMO, a video comment by Bast is not sufficient.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC) I put in the McArdle link before I saw this discussion; sorry. However, I think this rises to the level of solid sourcing, at least in the sense that it solidly demonstrates there is a significant body of opinion that Glieck wrote the 'Strategy Memo'. McArdle is not a climate skeptic and she is aware of the seriousness of the accusation. --Yaush (talk) 18:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC) I've removed it as an opinion piece not significant to Gleick's bio. Speculation about who produced the document are premature, better sourcing needed. My first thought was that it was partisan, that may be inaccurate but the other points stand. . dave souza, talk 18:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC) The Atlantic is a serious venue and McArdle is a serious journalist, who is by no means a climate change skeptic. I think the accusation is serious at this point. --Yaush (talk) 18:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC) Having looked over her piece more carefully, I fully accept that she's a serious journalist, but consider that your summary grossly misrepresented what she says. She raised questions, rather than "published suspicions". This is a BLP, and vague speculation shouldn't be made out to be more significant than it is. . . . dave souza, talk 19:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC) I totally reject Dave's edit summary " non-significant partisan political opinion" but I support the removal. McArdle is careful with her words, and it is a bit too far to say that she "has published suspicions that Glieck himself forged the 'Strategy Memo' " as Dave points out, she raises good questions. I suspect that we will have more solid answers in a day or two, so let's not get ahead of ourselves. @Yaush - I view your edit as perfectly good faith, but given the sensitive nature, and the high likelihood that events will unfold shortly, I support the removal.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC) @ Sphilbrick, I'll accept that McArtle isn't partisan in this instance, but the summary of her article gave a rather partisan impression. I'm sure Yaush made the edit in good faith, but as you point out McArtle's article is much more subtle and nuanced. Agree that events will no doubt unfold, superseding such speculation. . . dave souza, talk 21:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC) Agree, but note that it's McArdle, not McArtle. Her latest article The Most Surprising Heartland Fact: Not the Leaks, but the Leaker is still taking much the same line. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC) She is not a climate change skeptic, but her political views seem very close to those of the Heartland Institute. Dougweller (talk) 21:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC) McCardle is being appropriately cautious about voicing her obvious suspicions of who the forger is, and so should we. I'm very impressed with her journalistic chops -- she's one of the few journos who's actually digging behind the scenes and doing some independent investigation. Let's hope the Atlantic has her do a full article on the Gleick-Heartland affair down the line, when it's more sorted out. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Heartland vs Gleick

WP:BLP applies to talk pages, not just articles. Oh, and let's not forget WP:SOAP
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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)

Heartland Institute incident

The "Heartland Institute incident" section had a number of major problems. The first is that it launched right into Gleick's statement without providing the reader with any context. I have tried to remedy that my linking to a section on the leaked memos. After all, most people have no idea what this flap is about. It's still likely to be confusing to the average reader, but at least there's a link that might help them figure out what's going on.

Secondly, more than a third of the article (based on characters of readable prose) was about the Heartland incident. That despite the fact that there was almost nothing about the significance of the leaked documents. And much of that was a lengthy quote from Joe Bast who, after all, isn't a neutral party here. All in all, there were serious WP:COATRACK issues with the article.

I have tried to make it a bit cleared what the issue is, and to make it a bit less disproportionate. It still needs a lot of work, but hopefully it's a step at least in the direction of basic WP:BLP compliance...WP:UNDUE is probably too far a bridge at this moment, but I hope in their excitement editors will try to keep focus on the fact that we're trying to write an encyclopaedia here. Guettarda (talk) 05:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

With the exception of the use of the word "leak" this text looks good to me. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm also concerned about the use of the word "leak". Peter Gleick has no standing within Heartland, so it is inaccurate and misleading to describe his action as a "leak". I propose "theft", which appears to be what he's broadly confessed to. Nikon tog (talk) 20:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

"Theft" would be highly problematic without a source saying this. I also don't like using the word in cases like this where the item taken from the victim has been copied rather than removed. In the second instance "the leak" could perhaps be replaced by "the unauthorized release"? The first sentence is more difficult, but I'm not sure that this sentence serves much purpose, and it might be simplest just to delete it? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Good points. I've just changed the first sentence in the "Heartland Institute incident" section to:

On February 20, 2012, Gleick announced he was responsible for the unauthorized distribution of documents from the Heartland Institute in mid-February.

(By just saying "documents from" the H.I. we avoid the issue of whether one of the docs Gleick distributed was forged.)

What do other editors think? CWC 00:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Not bad, but one of the documents distributed by Gleick wasn't from the HI, so the wording still needs work.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Yet another Guardian article from Suzanne Goldenberg: Scientist who lied to obtain Heartland documents faces fight to save job. Developments at the Pacific Institute, but probably best to monitor these rather than act on them immediately. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

And now Nature is weighing in: Over the line: Dishonesty, however tempting, is the wrong way to tackle climate sceptics. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I edited the sentence about the "two-page 'Strategy Memo'," but it seems a bit tangential. Maybe it should be removed to avoid coatracking. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Washington Times is getting excitable: EDITORIAL: Global warming’s desperate caper, Climate scientist’s theft of Heartland document backfires. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The Washington Times is not a reliable source--unless our standards have fallen somewhat. The Washington Times has dabbled in conspiracy theories of the "X is a secret Muslim" type--no doubt to the amusement of our historian descendants in distant centuries hence, piecing together just how to describe the history of this crazy epoch. --TS 11:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up; it did seem a little over excited... Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Hob Gadling. You reverted two changes I made. One contained additional information from the sources already used in the same paragraph (Guardian article and board statement) and you reverted this as "possibly unreferenced". It was not unreferenced; it used the same references as were already used for the same paragraph. The other cited a timeline attributed to Heartland and you reverted it on the grounds that heartland is not reliable. Is your complaint that it was insufficiently explicitly attributed to Heartland, or that Heartland's claims about a sequence of events that involved Heartland need to be entirely excluded? 2603:7080:78F0:620:745D:3EC6:FA5C:6630 (talk) 15:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

you reverted this as "possibly unreferenced" I did not call anything "possibly unreferenced".

Is your complaint that it was insufficiently explicitly attributed to Heartland No. When I said that Heartland is an unreliable source, I meant that Heartland is an unreliable source. They lie about climate change, they probably lie about other things. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your response.

Regarding the first, the change shows in the changelog as "Tags: Reverted possible unreferenced addition to BLP". It might be that this tag came about in some other was besides your tagging it as such. I am not that familiar with how Wikipedia works. In any case, what was the basis for your decision to revert?

Regarding the second, the source is not offered to prove the truth of anything, but rather to describe Heartland's claims, just like the reference to Gleick's Huffington Post article or his institute's board's statements. Is describing Heartland's claims inherently objectionable? 2603:7080:78F0:620:745D:3EC6:FA5C:6630 (talk) 17:21, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

the change shows in the changelog Not my change. One of the changes I reverted.

what was the basis for your decision to revert? I gave an edit summary. When an editor does three edits, I look at the difference between before and after, then check whether it was an improvement. It was not.

the source is not offered to prove the truth of anything That does not matter. Heartland is not reliable for anything except maybe their own opinion. Their statements about what happened are not their opinion. It is likely cherrypicked, like all statements by denialists. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Disturbing you do not care about proof. Wiki only cites The Guardian as a source for Gleick being cleared based on the opinion of the Institute he works for and has a stake in (conflict of interest much). This only highlights the unreliability of Wikipedia in these matters. Not to mention you show your cognitive biases on your sleeve as well.

Before you start vomiting ad hominems, no I do not deny climate change. 155.69.169.66 (talk) 08:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Your opinions about climate change are not relevant. The rules of Wikipedia say which sources are reliable and which are not. The Guardian is a reliable source and Heartland is not. That is how it is. If you want to change that, go to the Talk page of WP:RSP and give reasoning for your opinion that is good enough to convince people. If you want different rules, you need to work on a different online encyclopedia with different rules. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Before you go to RSP, you should check the archives if your desired change has already been discussed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

The IP above just inserted their opinion into Criticism of Wikipedia, sourced to a well-known dubious site. Also not how this works. I reverted it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Selective List of Honors, NCSE appointment and withdrawal

The opening paragraph lists Dr. Glecik's honors and appointments starting in 1987. Apparently some editors think that listing his most recent honors, such as his appointment to National Center for Science Education, is not correct. This, I think, is highly selective and unencyclopedic. http://ncse.com/climate-change/leading-climate-change-expert-joins-ncse-board 70.46.241.77 (talk) 10:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I think it doesn't belong in the lead (no list belongs in the lead), and the way you are adding it, with the quote ""Gleick is certainly the right man for the job." to this article and at National Center for Science Education [3] is to make a pov point and I note that you also tried to use the word fraud here and at Pacific Institute. I have no objection to it being mentioned in a way that doesn't try to take a stab at the NCSE and in the appropriate place. Dougweller (talk) 11:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The lead (as written as of 7:00am GMT-6 23.feb.2012) lists Dr. Gleick's appointments starting in the 1980's. It seems unencyclopedic to selectively only mention some appointments. 70.46.241.77 (talk) 12:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The resignation of Dr. Gleick from the American Geophysical Union Task Force on Scientific Ethics mentions the rationale of such action as "personal, private reasons". It seems unbalanced to not provide the rationale for the appointment of Dr. Gleick to National Center for Science Education as "Gleick is certainly the right man for the job.", when the NCSE itself advances such rationale at the top of its second paragraph on its press release hosted at the NCSE. 70.46.241.77 (talk) 12:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I left a further comment here in error. Apologies. 70.46.241.77 (talk) 12:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC) 70.46.241.77 (talk) 12:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Gleick's appointment to the NCSE board has been rescinded: [4], Gleick "apologized to NCSE for his behavior with regard to the Heartland Institute documents and offered to withdraw from the board, on which he was scheduled to begin serving as of February 25, 2012. His offer was accepted." Something about this probably should be added to the Heartland section, with his AGU board resignation.

I don't like our current mention of his original appointment to NCSE board in the lede, but I'm too tired to fool with it now. Fold them together maybe? Drop the right man quote from lede, I think. The whole Heartland lede bit needs a rewrite, I think. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 07:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Pete Tillman, I hadn't seen your post when I added my new section below. Looks like we are on the same page, though. I'm leaning toward the following - include a sentence (using the existing ref) in the incident section "The National Center for Science Education announced the appointment of Gleick to their Board of Directors, but in an update to the original announcement, stated that he would not be joining the board." --SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

"Current event" notice

We had a {{Current}} 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)

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)

Bast retracts part of WSJ video

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)

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)

I agree.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed change to lede - what should be done to body?

The lede contained a statement that Gleick joined the NSCE Board. This inclusion has two issues:

1. 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.
2. 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)

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)

On leave from Pacific Institute

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)

Fallout from the Heartland Incident

With the Guardian reporting on the suspension from the Pacific Institute we have a series of results, perhaps it is time to have a Heartland subsection Fallout. It could consist of reactions and consequences. ( notable consequences)

• Removed from AGU ethics group
• Resigned from NCSE board
• Removed from San Fransisco Chronicle
• (Temporary) Suspension from Pacific Institue

As well as notable reactions: NYT, Time, Atlantic Monthly, etc.

These are all well sourced and certainly noteworthy. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Gleick is reliably reported to have engaged the famous crisis manager Chris Lehane and prominent white collar criminal defense attorney John Keker should those facts be added as well?Capitalismojo (talk) 14:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

IMO, the association with Lehane and Keker does not yet rise to the level deserving mention. Should they take actions resulting in public statements which are reported by the press, I'd reconsider.

The AGU resignation is mentioned, and I just moved the NCSE decision down from the lede, so the second paragraph of the incident section is becoming the fallout paragraph. I think the SFC decision deserves mention, although I haven't read the announcement, so I'd like to see clarification that it was related.

I think the leave of absence from Pacific also belongs there (I don't believe "suspension" is the right word, unless I've missed something). I think it is a bit early for press reactions (as opposed to press reports of developments), unless I missed your point. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:50, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I see the leave of absence is mentioned in the lede, so it should be included in the incident section.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I like this two paragraph approach for the Heartland section, and I'll add something on the leave of absence down there. I suspect that the lede should probably be trimmed further, but am happy to leave that to others for the moment. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the lede is bordering on weight issues, but I don't see an obvious way to trim it down. One option is to just wait, as I suspect there will be more to come, and it may then become more obvious how to wrote a one or two sentence paragraph along the lines of "Gleick involved in incident, which lead to fallout."--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Very sensible: there are two obvious ways the fallout could run, and in both cases the lede practically writes itself. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

An excellent discussion that added to and improved the article. Well done everyone. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I second that. Just read the lede and it is well worded.Sgerbic (talk) 03:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Third to the "well done". I tweaked the NCSE wording, and I suggest substituting a quote or precis of the statement of concern from the Pacific Institiute board, for the lengthy Gleick quote we now have. Suggest

The Board of Directors earlier stated it was "deeply concerned and is actively reviewing information about the recent events" involving Gleick and the Heartland documents. Cite [5], PACIFIC INSTITUTE BOARD OF DIRECTORS STATEMENT, Feb 22, 2012. --Pete Tillman (talk) 02:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I made this change, with slightly different wording -- annoyingly, PI overwrites their older press releases with the newest one. -- Pete Tillman (talk) 21:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Jewish American scientists

An edit summarised as restore a category went much further,[6] 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)

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)

Pronunciation guide

A couple of days ago I questioned the removal of the guide ("glick") here. With no response there and still feeling it's appropriate, I've restored it today. Swliv (talk) 17:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Have you read WP:MOSIPA? It's quite specific on how you should do this sort of thing (though it's not clear on what sourcing is acceptable). Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Could the OP please post his/her source? In a bit of Googling, I couldn't find anything reliable-looking. James Gleick, his brother, doesn't give it. TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll look at MOSIPA, but meanwhile there is a reference on the page. That's how the name was pronounced on NPR; one has to listen to it to confirm; I'll note that in the footnote if we go forward. Swliv (talk) 22:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Confirmation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rm7lxwKgO5I "Peter Gleick on Peak Water" video.

I was confused because a couple of TV news items pronounced it "Gleek" -- but surely a clip featuring Gleick has it right! --Pete Tillman (talk) 14:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:MOSIPA was it exactly. Now using the template; and the confirmation (YouTube) source (maybe not absolutely necessary on the page, but it looked like a good added source for the article overall). Thanks much all for help. Swliv (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, it's actually the announcer who says Gleick's name in the intro to the Peak Water video. -- Pete Tillman (talk) 22:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I removed it since I wasn't really convienced that it was that necessary. I will defer to what other people think is best. Thank you, --Mollskman (talk) 02:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Current-event template

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)

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)

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)

My experience is that the later and trial phases are more settled, Wiki-wise. Still potential for controversy but less pell-mell sort of editing. I'm inclined from this and the above feedback to remove it with the potential of course to put it back if needed. I'll wait a bit before acting. Thanks. Swliv (talk) 20:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Include report

• 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)

Added web address

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)

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)

Bio materials; honors. Request for other editors to weigh in

At the suggestion of Capitalismojo, can some editors weigh in on the following points? (See the thread here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Capitalismojo#Edits.2FThanks.2FConcerns)

My areas of expertise here used to include "the impacts of climate change on water resources, the human right to water, and the problems of the billions of people without safe, affordable, and reliable water and sanitation." These were accurate. They were then shortened to "Among the issues he has addressed are conflicts over water resources,.[2]" and now (after some back and forth) read "Among the issues he has addressed are conflicts over water resources, water, development, and human health .[2]

I would suggest that the original summary was a more accurate summary and that "the impacts of climate change on water resources" and "the human right to water" be added back. I'm not sure if some kind of outside citation is needed for this kind of simple summary of someone's focus of work, but my many publications and lectures in these areas seem sufficient support (a link to my cv and publications is already provided). As also noted in the Talk discussion mentioned above, media stories also provide this, including:

A New Yorker article by Michael Specter describes my work: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2006/10/23/the-last-drop-2 He describes my work as "Gleick, who is forty-nine, has studied the connections between water, development, and human health for nearly three decades." Or a bio story in Los Angeles Times Magazine "Visionary" that describes my work on water efficiency, water management, water and climate change, and water and conflict. Here is that citation: http://www.latimesmagazine.com/2010/01/visionary.html.

Similarly, a recent edit removed material describing my award of the first US Water Prize and my giving the 2012 Oxford Amnesty Lecture, arguing they are "non-notable".

This seems subjective and I ask this deletion to be reverted. The US Water Prize is considered a prestigious award in the water world, given by an independent national organization. Similarly, the annual Oxford Amnesty lecture is a prestigious lecture. I request you reinstate that as well, at a minimum in the Career section if not the intro. I offered citations for the nature and "notability" of these awards, if needed: here is an article describing the US Water Prize (for 2014), at which the USEPA Administrator and the Deputy Secretary of the Interior spoke, at the National Geographic Society. http://www.wateronline.com/doc/epa-administrator-congratulates-u-s-water-prize-winners-0001. Similarly, the Oxford Amnesty Lectures are very prestigious, but here are some citations if needed about the importance of these Lectures: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/49483/francis-fukuyama/on-human-rights-the-oxford-amnesty-lectures-1993. They are published by Oxford University Press: http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/category/academic/series/politics/oal.do Here is a citation explicitly about my lecture: http://www.law.ox.ac.uk/event=11735

In terms of redundancy, I can see the argument for removing materials from the Intro paragraph, but leaving/reinstating them in the Career or Current Work section, But then I would ask an editor to remove the last sentence in the Intro as well ("In February 2012...) since that material is also repeated in the Heartland section below. It gives undue prominence and seems to violate NPOV/balance. PGleick (talk) 22:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC) PGleick (talk) 23:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Notability is always a somewhat subjective question, and as a starting point the worst person to make decisions about notability is the subject him or her self. It is, of course, fine to make suggestions, and particularly to provide links to sources, but in the end the decisions must be made by someone less involved.

What strikes me about these sources is that many of them are primary sources which establish that you did indeed receive a certain prize, or deliver a certain lecture. If the facts were in dispute they would be useful. But the dispute here is not whether you received a certain prize or delivered a certain lecture, but whether you receiving that prize or delivering that lecture is a notable fact about you. The prestige of these prizes and lectures helps a little, but they are not prestigious enough as to be automatically notable, a say a Nobel Prize would be. What would really help is independent sources (independent of both you and of the host organisation) writing about you which single out these events as notable achievements in your life.

The summary in the lead is a different question: in essence it should be a brief but representative summary of the following sections. As such the sentence about the Heartland Incident definitely belongs there, but the preceding paragraph could perhaps be extended by a sentence or two for better balance. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Jonathan, yes, that's why I'm reaching out. The citations I provided are independent of the host organization (the Water Online piece; the Foreign Affairs piece); these ARE notable things. In terms of the subjects of my expertise, I provide the New Yorker profile; the LA Times Magazine profile, though here it simply seems that the subjects of my expertise are pretty clear from my peer-reviewed paper and certainly should be expanded as I indicate. But I'm sensitive to protocol and do not want to make these changes myself, or to address the question of balance in the first section. What do you suggest? PGleick (talk) 00:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks. To follow up, barring additional input from other editors, I will follow the guidance for unobjectionable changes and revert to something along the lines of: "...conflicts over water resources; water, development, and human health; and the impacts of climate change on water resources.[2]" I will also update the Honors section to add the new Carla Bard Environmental Education award from the Bay Institute with full citation. I will wait a few days, to permit any additional feedback here in the Talk section. PGleick (talk) 17:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

As a general principle you should not be editing your own page, and reverting changes made by another editor would only be considered uncontroversial if the edits were obvious vandalism or grossly derogatory (and even then it would be better to ask somebody else to do it). The edits you are discussing here simply don't come into that category: it would be improper for you to make them, and I would expect them to be reversed. I know it must be frustrating to you that nobody seems to agree with you that these edits should be made, but unless and until some uninvolved editor is convinced by your arguments that's just the way it is. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

That said, I have some sympathy for your proposed changes to the lead, or at least to something along those lines. But to convince me of that you would have to identify reliable independent secondary sources that state this about you. Note that papers published by you don't count, as these are primary sources: they establish that you wrote on the topic, but not that your writing on the topic is notable. Your CV doesn't count, because you wrote it and it's obviously not independent of you. Material at the Pacific Institute web site normally wouldn't count because it's not really independent of you. And so on. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Jonathan, sure, that's why this is on the Talk page. Having said that, it seems kind of silly to have to find someone else to say I work extensively on climate and water issues, given the literal evidence from my publications -- do you need an independent source to say that Wilt Chamberlain was primarily a basketball player? (It is kind of like the joke that Randall Munroe uses in xkcd -- "[citation needed] -- when no citation is needed.) But: here is the bio NPR wrote for my interview with Terry Gross: "He is the president and co-founder of the Pacific Institute, a nonprofit environmental research institute, where he researches the connections between climate change and water use." http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126833795

Here is the description from the piece about me in the Los Angeles Times "Visionary" story that describes my work on water efficiency, water management, water and climate change, and water and conflict. http://www.latimesmagazine.com/2010/01/visionary.html.

For the Honors section...The independent source of the 2015 Carla Bard Bay Education Award (Bay Institute) honors award is: http://thebayinstitute.org/page/detail/9454. PGleick (talk) 23:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

First two references aren't great but they will do in a pinch so I have added them and a reference to climate change. I don't see any evidence that the Bay award is notable so I haven;t added that. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

== citation needed -- "none of the documents were forged" ==

The investigation did not find that none of the documents were forged. The Guardian source merely states that it found the Gleick did not forge any documents. However, the Guardian is apparently mis-representing the source of its information which only says

• "An independent review conducted by outside counsel on behalf of the Institute has supported what Dr. Gleick has stated publicly regarding his interaction with the Heartland Institute."*

Here is the Board of Directors statement. [7] We actually need a better source to support Gleick being cleared of doing the forgery himself, so I have put in a citation-needed. Because this statement doesn't directly support the Guardian's interpretation. The directors just are stating that the investation supported Gleick's certain unspecified public statements. The Guardian obviously was not satisfied with the level of disclosure, and neither should we be without specifics. Claiming that none of the documents were forged by the citations provided so far, is unsupported. Poodleboy (talk) 08:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean by "the forgery"? Is there any evidence there was a forgery? Isn't that just Heartland's excuse for the existence of embarrassing documents? --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:14, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

You have to go to the Heartland article for the discussion of the analysis. Only one document is considered forged, and that is the document that did not come from Heartland, but that Gleick claimed came from an email. The other documents were delivered directly to Gleick by Heartland through the subterfuge and that he admitted and apologized for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poodleboy (talk • contribs) 10:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Heartland claims it was forged, that's all. Because of Heartland's well-known credibility problem, there is neither evidence of a forgery nor any reason to believe there was a forgery. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Gleick admitted that all but one of the documents came from Heartland. That one he claimed was emailed to him from an anonymous source, yet contains obvious cuts and pastes from documents he claims he obtained after receiving the email and then posing as an insider, yet also contains errors and spin that don't occur in other HI documents.Poodleboy (talk) 15:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Heartland documents can end up in the hands of people who can send mail anonymously. Heartland can also cut and paste from their own documents to make another document. Heartland can definitely add errors and spin. So, all that is not evidence of a forgery. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The Atlantic makes a pretty good case, and based on the alleged forgery, others figured out the source was Gleick before he fessed up. [8] [9] It certainly helps that the forgery was of such poor quality, and it strains credulity that Gleick was singled out by some other forger. Poodleboy (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree. But Wikipedia is about verifiability not truth. So until you have a reliable source clearly supporting the edit there's not a lot to discuss. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The statement still needs work. The quote from the Guardian is "had found no evidence for Heartland's charges that Gleick had forged one of several documents he released last February". That doesn't remotely support the current statement in the article "found no evidence to support charges of forgery". There's no question that one of the documents was forged. The investigation failed to uncover who actually did the forgery and could not find evidence that Peter was the forger so concluded that there wasn't enough evidence to charge him with the forgery. That doesn't mean there wasn't any forgery. One simple solution is to change the sentences follows "the institute found no evidence to support charges of forgery against Gleick...". Any objection?--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The investigation was by a third party not the institute, what statement on the web page is the Guardian relying upon, because the statement that is on the web site says "An independent review conducted by outside counsel on behalf of the Institute has supported what Dr. Gleick has stated publicly regarding his interaction with the Heartland Institute." and does not mention the forgery. We have no idea whether the investigation found "no evidence to support charges of forgery", the conclusion may be that the investigation "did not find enough evidence to support charges of forgery". After all, it would be a pretty poor investigation if it found no evidence, if it ignored the evidence that was being publicly discussed that lead to Gleick. Perhaps instead of "no evidence", "insufficient evidence" if we can find cites to support it. The Guardian was not much getting information out of the institution. Where is the web statement they were relying upon?Poodleboy (talk) 18:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Parsing the Guardian source, there is no indication there was a statement other than the board statement they link to and we also cite, and that they refer to as "the statement". In fact the Guardian source does not imply more information about forgery than in the statement which doesn't mention forgery. The Guardian just interpreted the statement we have access to as that the statement indicated, i.e., not that there was any explicit statement that no evidence had been found. Here is the Guardian source's sentence "The Pacific Institute indicated in the statement that it had found no evidence for Heartland's charges that Gleick had forged one of several documents he released last February." Here is the corresponding sentence in the board statement "An independent review conducted by outside counsel on behalf of the Institute has supported what Dr. Gleick has stated publicly regarding his interaction with the Heartland Institute." So we have one Guardian writer's unexplained inference and an Atlantic writer's well reasoned inference that begs the conclusion and summarizes web findings. They don't make it easy, do they. Any question of credibility appears to be more in HI rather that Gleick's side in this instance.Poodleboy (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not fully on board with your first comment if I understand it. If your goal was to simply make the observation that the investigation was done by a third-party as opposed to the Institute, consider it noted (but not news). If your point was that the article ought to make the distinction I'm not convinced. It is quite common for an organization to subcontract an investigation to an entity with the skills to undertake such an investigation. It is quite common in such situations for the organization to present the results as if they are their own. There might be times that making the distinction is necessary — if for example, the organization summary report materially differs from the investigative body's report, it might be a subject of contention. In some situations, if the initial organization strongly leaves the impression that they did the investigation personally and this is relevant it might be worth pointing out. I don't think either situation applies here. The organization was aware of some allegations, decided appropriately to look into them and reach some conclusions (based upon the third-party report). I see nothing wrong with imputing those conclusions to the Institute given that the Institute did report the findings and did not distance themselves from the conclusions. I'm happy to discuss this further if someone thinks it's a big deal but this sounds like overkill.

In my mind, the key point is that the investigation concentrated on whether Peter was guilty of forgery and concluded that there was not enough evidence to reach that conclusion. We should not write a statement that leaves the impression there was no forgery — that wasn't the conclusion. There may well be a better way of making this point in my simple proposed edit.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

This particular board, since Gleick is the founder and chief (only?) researcher, needed the credibility of an independent investigation. But I agree that doesn't need to be emphasized. The correct inference based on the board statement, without reading their minds is not far from the Guardian author inference, apparently based upon the assumption that Gleick would not have been reinstated if the investigation firmly concluded that he had forged the document, might be "An independent investigation did not conclude that Gleick had forged a document." Frankly, I'm satisfied as long as we don't state that there was no forgery. Hmmm, how about "An independent investigation lead the board to accept Gleick's public statement that he did not forge any documents." Poodleboy (talk) 19:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

update please

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)

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)

Lede not mentioning the Heartland Incident

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)

New book. Would an editor please add as appropriate?

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)

Vandalism by VP of Heartland Institute

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)

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 Jlakely (talk · contribs) 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)

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)