Talk:Harry Glicken

Hair pulling

 * After realizing that he would likely never receive a permanent post at the Survey, Glicken became depressed and began pulling his hair out...

This sounds slightly suspect and sensationalized. Do people who pull their hair out just suddenly start one day, or is it more likely they tend to do it over a long period of their life? The article mentions other so-called "eccentricities", so it sounds to me like he probably did it before this point, only that it may have become more noticeable or severe. I'm just thinking out loud here but it would nice to have this claim reviewed by a medical expert. Viriditas (talk) 02:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems to me odd that an article featured as one of the best should, in several places, refer to the reaction to its subject's eccentricities without better references. Is it possible that the eccentricity that so significantly affected his career was more on the part of the USGS corporate culture?  After all, Doctor Glicken was a significant contributor to science in his field.  Too Old (talk) 15:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Trichotillomania is a thing.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Date of birth
Date of Birth? Guyb123321 (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * That might be his date of birth, but we prefer a secondary source, such as an obituary. I don't have access to this journal at present, but someone should:
 * Obituary: Harry Glicken (1958-1991), by R.V. Fischer, Bulletin of Volcanology 53, 514-516, 1991.
 * Jonathunder (talk) 17:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I found the obituary in the journal and I have added the exact birth date to the article. GeoWriter (talk) 12:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Now a FA in Chinese Wikipedia
I have translated this article to Chinese Wikipedia here and promoted to FA status, and I want to thank User:Ceranthor for his effort to write this amazing article. --Jarodalien (talk) 16:04, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Verifiability
I noticed a rather controversial statement in this article, stating the the subject of the article was eccentric, disorganised, and had "behavioral oddities". A core policy of Wikipedia is that all material in articles should be verifiable. I could not verify this information because it did not have an inline citation, so I added tags to indicate that a citation was needed. My expectation was that someone who knew where the material had come from would simply add a citation tag to the end of the appropriate sentences.

I am pretty disgusted by what in fact happened, which was that people have edit warred to simply remove the tags, and leave the information unverifiable. If there is a reason grounded in policy to prevent a reader from easily verifying these statements, I'd love to hear it. I do not believe such a reason exists and would therefore also love to hear someone explain why they are disrupting an attempt to improve an article. 128.40.9.164 (talk) 18:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Please check pages 151–153 of Thompson, the reference given next to those sentences. DrKay (talk) 17:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If the reference was given next to those sentences, I would not have put a citation needed tag next to those sentences, would I? What exactly is the purpose of this incredibly stupid game you are playing?  128.40.9.164 (talk) 20:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a bit gamey. It was verified that it's based on a reliable source. Once it was, you could have added it inline yourself, but the point of it being inline becomes moot, because verifiability is no longer questioned. So, everything questioned needs verification, but inline citations do not necessarily follow, though they could. El_C 21:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * So you think that I was "deliberately using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith to thwart the aims of Wikipedia"? By requesting an inline citation for a controversial claim?  That's a really disgusting accusation.  Which aims, specifically, do you think I was trying to thwart?  128.40.9.164 (talk) 14:27, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Too childish even to respond. Amazing.  128.40.9.164 (talk) 12:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Harry Glicken. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100208013335/http://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/0412/excerpt2.html to http://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/0412/excerpt2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Contradiction between this article and David A. Johnston article
The David A Johnston article states:

“ Many USGS scientists worked on the team monitoring the volcano, but it was graduate student Harry Glicken who had been manning the Coldwater II observation post for the two and a half weeks immediately preceding the eruption.[25] The evening before the eruption he was scheduled to be relieved by USGS geologist Don Swanson, but something came up, and Swanson asked Johnston to take his place. Johnston agreed.”

While this article states in the intro that Harry “was very distraught about the death of fellow volcanologist David A. Johnston, who had switched shifts with Glicken so that the latter could attend an interview.”

This appears to be a contradiction — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:D58B:DA00:809:8964:17FD:13F3 (talk) 09:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)