Talk:Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility

Skeptic controversy
I added detail to this section, supported by references. I also removed the following:

"In fact, PEER has never stated that the National Park Service employees were ordered to present 'non-science' based information. The Grand Canyon: A Different View still remains for sale in the Grand Canyon Park bookstore, and the pamphlet, 'Geologic Interpretive Programs: Distinguishing Science from Religion' is still awaiting approval."

The first sentence seems at odd with the facts, since PEER's original press release did assert that Grand Canyon National Park is "not permitted" to give an age estimate due to political pressure, and Ruch stated that NPS is "under orders to suspend its belief in geology." The second sentence just repeats information from the previous section (I reworded the information in that previous section to be clearer). -Zefryl (talk) 03:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Removed section because PEER retracted its earlier statement and it would be WP:UNDUE to keep it here. Mistake was corrected by PEER in appropriate manner. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 13:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Given that the only third-party-sourced content in Grand Canyon: A Different View is on the controversy covered in this article's 'Grand Canyon' section, I am proposing merging it here. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Because of PEER's complaint, the book was mentioned in national and international news providing far greater exposure for it than the publishers could have bought. What would have happened if they had said nothing?  AshforkAZ (talk) 08:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant -- WP:NOTAFORUM & WP:CRYSTAL. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * (Parenthetically, given that the book's Amazon Bestsellers Rank is only #517,160, it is hard to see why PEER would care. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC) )

Closed: lack of any consensus. _Mthoodhood (talk) 17:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support merge as there isn't any sources to demonstrate it is notable beyond the controversy. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No merge since the PEER group was but one cog in the over all discussion over the book. And their involvement was neither initial nor pivotal.  The worldwide News Media had much more influence.  There were many others who expressed opinions.  AshforkAZ (talk) 02:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. 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/20090613034224/http://www.peer.org/about/index.php to http://www.peer.org/about/index.php

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) 09:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)