![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 5 July 2008. The result of the discussion was keep. |
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. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
Edited the post to remove the incorrect statement that Albany Medical College is a part of Union University. The confusion probably came from the fact that Union and AMC offered an online Master of Science in Bioethics, but this partnership was dissolved within the last few months.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Loiosh ( talk • contribs)
Actually Albany Medical College is a part of Union University. As is Union College, Albany Law School, Albany College of Pharmacy, and the Union Graduate College, formerly Graduate College of Union University, formerly Union College's Graduate School. Union University has always been the University home of Albany Medical College. The edit is incorrect because the author mistakes Union College with Union University. The masters program of which the edit speaks still exists, until 2009, and Albany Medical College's Alden March Bioethics Institute, part of Albany Medical College, is part of Union University as much as any element of Union College or the unaffiliated Union Graduate College, which, again, is just Graduate College of Union University with a rebranding.
The masters program of Albany Medical College's Alden March Bioethics Institute (AMBI) is no longer affiliated with Union Graduate College, except inasmuch as both institutions are part of Union University. AMBI's Master of Science in bioethics program is among the largest distance learning programs in the world, operated in conjunction with Apple Inc. utilizing the iTunes University technology. The Union Graduate College partnered with Mt. Sinai to continue the old masters program.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.76.183.8 ( talk • contribs) — 74.76.183.8 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Pursuant to the above: "This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard," Dr. McGee edited the page to remove two edits posted from IP address 72.224.19.243, a Road Runner account in Schnectady, New York, home to the competitive program to that previously run by Dr. McGee and posted anonymously despite its extremely provocative content. Rather than ask this person to provide their identity through any other method available within the context of remedies for false or misleading statements made on the web, and since there are perhaps three people in all of Schenectady, New York, home only to bioethicists engaged in a program directly competitive with the one that I ran, right up until the program located in Schenectady suddenly encountered a major advantage due to the dismantling of leadership of AMBI - this is a correction of two misstatements in edits, each significant, and it is clear that the person making this false edit should identify him or herself in the interest of not only ethics but "due process" within the Wikipedia universe. - Glenn McGee —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.76.183.8 ( talk) 20:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Change asserting that references are inadequate for the following: "McGee is a member of the ethics bodies of the World Association of Medical Editors, the Council of Editors of Learned Journals and the Council of Science Editors. McGee serves on the following editorial boards: Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, Law & the Human Genome Review, Cambridge Quarterly in Healthcare Ethics, New Genetics and Society, Human Reproduction and Genetics, Stem Cells, Bioethics, Politics and the Life Sciences, The New Review of Bioethics, Pragmatism and American Philosophy, Christian Bioethics, Contemporary Pragmatism, Accountability in Research & The Scientist." is without grounding and is false. - Glenn McGee —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.76.183.8 ( talk) 21:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Allowed for claim that conflict of interest may be present, since obviously as the subject of this article making corrections I am in fact conflicted in the true sense of that term. HOWEVER, the statement in the box that the author of much of the article is conflicted is simply false since I am not the author of the majority of the article but have made corrections. Moreover COI exists in any important sense only until any edit made is demonstrably unverifiable. Further, it was asserted by McGee that there is conflict of interest in all likelihood on the part of those authoring the original offending and potentially libelous changes.- Glenn McGee —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.76.183.8 ( talk • contribs) — 74.76.183.8 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Corrected false, anonymous, damaging and perhaps libelous claim that "McGee was not Chief of the Office of Bioethics of the Wadsworth Center, replacing text even more extensively to read: "He was named by Lawrence Sturman M.D., director of the Wadsworth Center of New York State Department of Public Health, as chief of the office of bioethics, a division of Sturman's office and based in an office in the Wadsworth building in Corning Plaza, which was accompanied by McGee's being given certain clear responsibilities that are, as best McGee can identify, are the first assigned to a bioethics scholar working on benchside bioethics issues within a state government's labs. McGee also served on the Newborn Screening committee and on a special group convened by Dr. Sturman and others dealing with ethics and newborn screening." Sturman signed these papers, created appropriate phone and email arrangements, recruited Dr. McGee to work in Wadsworth rather than Albany Medical College, and was present when Dr. McGee's badge was created, so as to speed the process."
Statements to the contrary must be verified by more than "it isn't on the website" when it was not claimed in this article that McGee still serves in that capacity, nor would it necessarily or even likely have EVER been the case that such would appear there. There is no reference for example to the other ethics bodies of Wadsworth, consecrated in the wake of the demise of the Office of Bioethics.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.76.183.8 ( talk • contribs) — 74.76.183.8 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I was concerned that way too much prominence was being given to the Dr. McGee's controversial departure, so I greatly reduced its mention while keeping the verifiable citations. The article is being actively editing as I write, and there have been a number of citations added. I removed some of them as being violatiive of policy (a direct link to Google scholar) or requiring original research such as entering information in a database to confirm certain quotes. I also removed a mention of the subjects supervisor. It has since been replaced, so I'll raise it here for now rather than get into any edit warring. The paragraph, which is reproduced below, did not seem to be terribly relevant to a biography, especially one as short as this. It had the feel of a premptive strike to make certain that a certain set of facts is publicized. While I understand the sentiment, I don't think that's the point of the article. The paragraph follows indented below. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 22:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
-- 74.76.183.8 ( talk) 05:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
copied from the BLP noticeboard: The anon was, among other things, trying to remove perfectly reasonable statements of his editorship of journals, and so one--they can when seriously challenged be cited from the journal home pages, & I will do so to remove all doubt, but when vbaseless objections are made to material such as this, there is reason to doubt that the challenges to material are made in good faith. I see nothing much wrong with the tone ofthearticle as it stands, bt I'll add someof the things usual in scientist bio articles, such as key papers & reviews of his books. DGG ( talk) 04:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I have never heard of Dr. McGee so I have nothing for or against him. However, the sources of the article only seem to talk about the one incident when he was fired from his job. WP policy says not to have an article about a person only notable for one thing. Steve Dufour ( talk) 06:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Those who edit this article should be aware that the continuing negative, libelous editing of this article is the subject of discussion in a number of places but most importantly that the subject of the article - myself - is simply unwilling to allow a barrage of negative edits to flow in weekly under the dark of night from anonymous editors who simply misstate the facts and/or assert that I am an "anonymous" editor with a "conflict of interest." To repeat what I said elsewhere: I am Glenn McGee. I am the subject. I have a conflict only where it is demonstrable that my edits reflect such conflict. That has not been demonstrated to ANYONE's satisfaction anywhere. The article was just tested for deletion, and coincidentally IMMEDIATELY before a piece in sciam.com made a point of saying so and attributing that test to the question of whether the article is important enough to exist. I don't care about that. I didn't write this article. But if you are going to libel me, do it with your name out there. -- 74.76.183.8 ( talk) 05:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I have been following this continuing intervention on the Glenn McGee article by David Eppstein and someone named Crusio, and both of them seem to do a great job on science articles. Neither of them know jack squat about bioethics and both have made it quite clear that they do not care that their edits on this article are demolishing a major scholar's wikipedia page. The most recent post by Eppstein calls the page a "biography of saints". This guy is either totally without scruples - in that he doesn't care to do any research at all, not that it would be hard to do research on a scholar with 21,000 web pages about him, or he loves the website for scientific american so much that he can't see past it. I wouldn't care but this is the sort of thing that destroys people - and in this case the person being attacked just spoke at my university, and I google him and this is what I find. It's amazing. Epstein MUST be put up on some kind of Wiki charge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.217.123.54 ( talk) 05:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I have posted an account of the history of this article here. -- Crusio ( talk) 18:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I've added a conflict of interest tag as it seems pretty obvious that 74.76.191.81 is Glenn McGee. At least one of other anon IP's appears to be him as well. Guyonthesubway ( talk) 23:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
While you appear to be shilling for Mr McGee, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Perhaps you -are- in fact a couple of scholars, selflessly seeking to improve this article.
Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith
wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest
If so, great! Welcome aboard!
First off, it would help your case if you were to sign up for an account. This helps everybody know who everybody else is talking to.
I would point out to you that you have no more credentials here than I do. If I were to claim to be an expert in bioethics, would you take that at face value? Certainly shouting it, and calling for 'charges' and 'firings' and generally yelling at everyone with a different opinion than you that they're uninformed etc is no great start.
Contacting you offline doesn't fix the problem either, what proof does anyone else here have that I contacted you? Wikipedia is a tertiary source, if you want it to be in the article you have to back it up with sources.
You may not like Scientific American, but it is considered a reliable source. The Times Union probably is too.
Wikipedia:Verifiability
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources
Wikipedia:No_original_research
What you've done so far is walk into a library and yell that everybody is less knowledgeable than you and that you're outraged, tone it back a bit.
Guyonthesubway ( talk) 15:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
A little example:
[
[1]] say that Glen was 'McGee, 40, of Guilderland, was fired as director of the College's Alden March Bioethics Institute and stripped of the John A. Balint Endowed Chair on May 14, though he is still considered a tenured professor.' . So we can say (without knowing a lick of bioethics) that he was 'fired'. He didn't depart and he didn't quit, he was fired. And yes it does say that he's still an tenured professor.
Guyonthesubway (
talk)
18:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Geolocates to Glenns Falls and roadrunner, the same as the anon IP that claimed to be Gelnn McGee. Seems pretty likely its the same person. Guyonthesubway ( talk) 21:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Guillaume2303 for removing the link to the retracted Slate story — I'd just come here to do the same thing but found it was already done. There's more background about what happened at http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2012/03/01/slate-retracts-story-on-glenn-mcgee-and-celltex-as-mcgee-resigns-from-company/ but I don't think we can use it as a source in the article (it's a blog). — David Eppstein ( talk) 16:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Seriously. Retraction Watch is edited by Ivan Oransky, who has made no bones about his animosity toward McGee, was McGee's editor at The Scientist, and commissioned the Borrell articles at scam.com when Oransky moved there. Either way the retraction was the first in the history of bioethics, and the second in the history of Slate. It is absolutely amazing that you get away with these flatly political edits and feel no accountability for them. I'm sure you'll do it again. But on the record the omission, and the statements inserted about claims about COI as editor that were in fact the reason for the Slate retraction according to countless sources who AREN'T McGee's former editor (whether your wife loves his blog or not). Citation: Lawrence McCullough, Baylor College of Medicine, in Chronicle of Higher Education: http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/send-lawyers-guns-and-stem-cells/44448#comment-457085462 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.76.55.4 ( talk) 07:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
This is a silly debate. Edit has been re-added with a reference. Next time you want to make an edit and don't want the people working on the page to delete it, CITE the source, don't just claim it exists. SPA is right the issue is major. Reference added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.62.244.51 ( talk) 06:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
As for the sourcing the IPs want to add for the Slate retraction: one of the two supposed sources (the one in Nature) doesn't mention Slate at all, and the other (in the Chronicle of Higher Education) appears to be an opinion piece by the author of the retracted Slate piece defending himself. As such, WP:NEWSORG suggests that it is not a good source for statements of fact. And there is absolutely no support for the claim that the retracted Slate article is the "most notable" of the multiple sources discussing the controversy over his Celltex move. — David Eppstein ( talk) 21:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Glenn McGee/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Comment(s) | Press [show] to view → |
---|---|
There are a host of problems with Glenn McGee's bio, and chief among them is the claim that the American Journal of Bioethics is the leading bioethics journal in the US. Check the circulation statistics. AJOB's paid circulation figure is in the hundreds, while other respected bioethics journals have paid circulations in the thousands.
Saffronburrows (
talk)
01:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
|
Last edited at 05:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 16:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 5 July 2008. The result of the discussion was keep. |
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. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
Edited the post to remove the incorrect statement that Albany Medical College is a part of Union University. The confusion probably came from the fact that Union and AMC offered an online Master of Science in Bioethics, but this partnership was dissolved within the last few months.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Loiosh ( talk • contribs)
Actually Albany Medical College is a part of Union University. As is Union College, Albany Law School, Albany College of Pharmacy, and the Union Graduate College, formerly Graduate College of Union University, formerly Union College's Graduate School. Union University has always been the University home of Albany Medical College. The edit is incorrect because the author mistakes Union College with Union University. The masters program of which the edit speaks still exists, until 2009, and Albany Medical College's Alden March Bioethics Institute, part of Albany Medical College, is part of Union University as much as any element of Union College or the unaffiliated Union Graduate College, which, again, is just Graduate College of Union University with a rebranding.
The masters program of Albany Medical College's Alden March Bioethics Institute (AMBI) is no longer affiliated with Union Graduate College, except inasmuch as both institutions are part of Union University. AMBI's Master of Science in bioethics program is among the largest distance learning programs in the world, operated in conjunction with Apple Inc. utilizing the iTunes University technology. The Union Graduate College partnered with Mt. Sinai to continue the old masters program.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.76.183.8 ( talk • contribs) — 74.76.183.8 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Pursuant to the above: "This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard," Dr. McGee edited the page to remove two edits posted from IP address 72.224.19.243, a Road Runner account in Schnectady, New York, home to the competitive program to that previously run by Dr. McGee and posted anonymously despite its extremely provocative content. Rather than ask this person to provide their identity through any other method available within the context of remedies for false or misleading statements made on the web, and since there are perhaps three people in all of Schenectady, New York, home only to bioethicists engaged in a program directly competitive with the one that I ran, right up until the program located in Schenectady suddenly encountered a major advantage due to the dismantling of leadership of AMBI - this is a correction of two misstatements in edits, each significant, and it is clear that the person making this false edit should identify him or herself in the interest of not only ethics but "due process" within the Wikipedia universe. - Glenn McGee —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.76.183.8 ( talk) 20:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Change asserting that references are inadequate for the following: "McGee is a member of the ethics bodies of the World Association of Medical Editors, the Council of Editors of Learned Journals and the Council of Science Editors. McGee serves on the following editorial boards: Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, Law & the Human Genome Review, Cambridge Quarterly in Healthcare Ethics, New Genetics and Society, Human Reproduction and Genetics, Stem Cells, Bioethics, Politics and the Life Sciences, The New Review of Bioethics, Pragmatism and American Philosophy, Christian Bioethics, Contemporary Pragmatism, Accountability in Research & The Scientist." is without grounding and is false. - Glenn McGee —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.76.183.8 ( talk) 21:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Allowed for claim that conflict of interest may be present, since obviously as the subject of this article making corrections I am in fact conflicted in the true sense of that term. HOWEVER, the statement in the box that the author of much of the article is conflicted is simply false since I am not the author of the majority of the article but have made corrections. Moreover COI exists in any important sense only until any edit made is demonstrably unverifiable. Further, it was asserted by McGee that there is conflict of interest in all likelihood on the part of those authoring the original offending and potentially libelous changes.- Glenn McGee —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.76.183.8 ( talk • contribs) — 74.76.183.8 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Corrected false, anonymous, damaging and perhaps libelous claim that "McGee was not Chief of the Office of Bioethics of the Wadsworth Center, replacing text even more extensively to read: "He was named by Lawrence Sturman M.D., director of the Wadsworth Center of New York State Department of Public Health, as chief of the office of bioethics, a division of Sturman's office and based in an office in the Wadsworth building in Corning Plaza, which was accompanied by McGee's being given certain clear responsibilities that are, as best McGee can identify, are the first assigned to a bioethics scholar working on benchside bioethics issues within a state government's labs. McGee also served on the Newborn Screening committee and on a special group convened by Dr. Sturman and others dealing with ethics and newborn screening." Sturman signed these papers, created appropriate phone and email arrangements, recruited Dr. McGee to work in Wadsworth rather than Albany Medical College, and was present when Dr. McGee's badge was created, so as to speed the process."
Statements to the contrary must be verified by more than "it isn't on the website" when it was not claimed in this article that McGee still serves in that capacity, nor would it necessarily or even likely have EVER been the case that such would appear there. There is no reference for example to the other ethics bodies of Wadsworth, consecrated in the wake of the demise of the Office of Bioethics.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.76.183.8 ( talk • contribs) — 74.76.183.8 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I was concerned that way too much prominence was being given to the Dr. McGee's controversial departure, so I greatly reduced its mention while keeping the verifiable citations. The article is being actively editing as I write, and there have been a number of citations added. I removed some of them as being violatiive of policy (a direct link to Google scholar) or requiring original research such as entering information in a database to confirm certain quotes. I also removed a mention of the subjects supervisor. It has since been replaced, so I'll raise it here for now rather than get into any edit warring. The paragraph, which is reproduced below, did not seem to be terribly relevant to a biography, especially one as short as this. It had the feel of a premptive strike to make certain that a certain set of facts is publicized. While I understand the sentiment, I don't think that's the point of the article. The paragraph follows indented below. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 22:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
-- 74.76.183.8 ( talk) 05:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
copied from the BLP noticeboard: The anon was, among other things, trying to remove perfectly reasonable statements of his editorship of journals, and so one--they can when seriously challenged be cited from the journal home pages, & I will do so to remove all doubt, but when vbaseless objections are made to material such as this, there is reason to doubt that the challenges to material are made in good faith. I see nothing much wrong with the tone ofthearticle as it stands, bt I'll add someof the things usual in scientist bio articles, such as key papers & reviews of his books. DGG ( talk) 04:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I have never heard of Dr. McGee so I have nothing for or against him. However, the sources of the article only seem to talk about the one incident when he was fired from his job. WP policy says not to have an article about a person only notable for one thing. Steve Dufour ( talk) 06:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Those who edit this article should be aware that the continuing negative, libelous editing of this article is the subject of discussion in a number of places but most importantly that the subject of the article - myself - is simply unwilling to allow a barrage of negative edits to flow in weekly under the dark of night from anonymous editors who simply misstate the facts and/or assert that I am an "anonymous" editor with a "conflict of interest." To repeat what I said elsewhere: I am Glenn McGee. I am the subject. I have a conflict only where it is demonstrable that my edits reflect such conflict. That has not been demonstrated to ANYONE's satisfaction anywhere. The article was just tested for deletion, and coincidentally IMMEDIATELY before a piece in sciam.com made a point of saying so and attributing that test to the question of whether the article is important enough to exist. I don't care about that. I didn't write this article. But if you are going to libel me, do it with your name out there. -- 74.76.183.8 ( talk) 05:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I have been following this continuing intervention on the Glenn McGee article by David Eppstein and someone named Crusio, and both of them seem to do a great job on science articles. Neither of them know jack squat about bioethics and both have made it quite clear that they do not care that their edits on this article are demolishing a major scholar's wikipedia page. The most recent post by Eppstein calls the page a "biography of saints". This guy is either totally without scruples - in that he doesn't care to do any research at all, not that it would be hard to do research on a scholar with 21,000 web pages about him, or he loves the website for scientific american so much that he can't see past it. I wouldn't care but this is the sort of thing that destroys people - and in this case the person being attacked just spoke at my university, and I google him and this is what I find. It's amazing. Epstein MUST be put up on some kind of Wiki charge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.217.123.54 ( talk) 05:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I have posted an account of the history of this article here. -- Crusio ( talk) 18:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I've added a conflict of interest tag as it seems pretty obvious that 74.76.191.81 is Glenn McGee. At least one of other anon IP's appears to be him as well. Guyonthesubway ( talk) 23:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
While you appear to be shilling for Mr McGee, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Perhaps you -are- in fact a couple of scholars, selflessly seeking to improve this article.
Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith
wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest
If so, great! Welcome aboard!
First off, it would help your case if you were to sign up for an account. This helps everybody know who everybody else is talking to.
I would point out to you that you have no more credentials here than I do. If I were to claim to be an expert in bioethics, would you take that at face value? Certainly shouting it, and calling for 'charges' and 'firings' and generally yelling at everyone with a different opinion than you that they're uninformed etc is no great start.
Contacting you offline doesn't fix the problem either, what proof does anyone else here have that I contacted you? Wikipedia is a tertiary source, if you want it to be in the article you have to back it up with sources.
You may not like Scientific American, but it is considered a reliable source. The Times Union probably is too.
Wikipedia:Verifiability
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources
Wikipedia:No_original_research
What you've done so far is walk into a library and yell that everybody is less knowledgeable than you and that you're outraged, tone it back a bit.
Guyonthesubway ( talk) 15:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
A little example:
[
[1]] say that Glen was 'McGee, 40, of Guilderland, was fired as director of the College's Alden March Bioethics Institute and stripped of the John A. Balint Endowed Chair on May 14, though he is still considered a tenured professor.' . So we can say (without knowing a lick of bioethics) that he was 'fired'. He didn't depart and he didn't quit, he was fired. And yes it does say that he's still an tenured professor.
Guyonthesubway (
talk)
18:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Geolocates to Glenns Falls and roadrunner, the same as the anon IP that claimed to be Gelnn McGee. Seems pretty likely its the same person. Guyonthesubway ( talk) 21:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Guillaume2303 for removing the link to the retracted Slate story — I'd just come here to do the same thing but found it was already done. There's more background about what happened at http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2012/03/01/slate-retracts-story-on-glenn-mcgee-and-celltex-as-mcgee-resigns-from-company/ but I don't think we can use it as a source in the article (it's a blog). — David Eppstein ( talk) 16:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Seriously. Retraction Watch is edited by Ivan Oransky, who has made no bones about his animosity toward McGee, was McGee's editor at The Scientist, and commissioned the Borrell articles at scam.com when Oransky moved there. Either way the retraction was the first in the history of bioethics, and the second in the history of Slate. It is absolutely amazing that you get away with these flatly political edits and feel no accountability for them. I'm sure you'll do it again. But on the record the omission, and the statements inserted about claims about COI as editor that were in fact the reason for the Slate retraction according to countless sources who AREN'T McGee's former editor (whether your wife loves his blog or not). Citation: Lawrence McCullough, Baylor College of Medicine, in Chronicle of Higher Education: http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/send-lawyers-guns-and-stem-cells/44448#comment-457085462 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.76.55.4 ( talk) 07:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
This is a silly debate. Edit has been re-added with a reference. Next time you want to make an edit and don't want the people working on the page to delete it, CITE the source, don't just claim it exists. SPA is right the issue is major. Reference added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.62.244.51 ( talk) 06:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
As for the sourcing the IPs want to add for the Slate retraction: one of the two supposed sources (the one in Nature) doesn't mention Slate at all, and the other (in the Chronicle of Higher Education) appears to be an opinion piece by the author of the retracted Slate piece defending himself. As such, WP:NEWSORG suggests that it is not a good source for statements of fact. And there is absolutely no support for the claim that the retracted Slate article is the "most notable" of the multiple sources discussing the controversy over his Celltex move. — David Eppstein ( talk) 21:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Glenn McGee/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Comment(s) | Press [show] to view → |
---|---|
There are a host of problems with Glenn McGee's bio, and chief among them is the claim that the American Journal of Bioethics is the leading bioethics journal in the US. Check the circulation statistics. AJOB's paid circulation figure is in the hundreds, while other respected bioethics journals have paid circulations in the thousands.
Saffronburrows (
talk)
01:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
|
Last edited at 05:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 16:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)