Jump to content

Talk:Gilles J. Guillemin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Belbernard (talk | contribs) at 15:19, 14 September 2021 (→‎Retraction: agree to suggestion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Spare refs

Further reading

In the media

Retraction

Belbernard persists in adding material about the retraction of an article by the subject and coauthors by the editors of PLoS ONE, sourced to the retraction notice and to PubPeer. It seems to me that this falls well short of the sourcing required for contentious information in a WP:BLP. Pinging @Randykitty and Scope creep: as experienced editors who have had some experience with the article; I believe that Randykitty also has more experience about coverage of this sort of material than I do. (The material is covered in a blog post at forbetterscience.com/2021/09/07/none-of-the-work-has-not-been-done-in-my-lab , the link to which is blacklisted.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Russ Woodroofe: I don't have much experience of this either, in fact none I think. scope_creepTalk 14:30, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It needs to go in somehow. The subject is an extremely well decorated individual, and it would NPOV not include something if its true., The article needs to be crosschecked. Each of the names and the research paper need to checked to see if they conform with the article. scope_creepTalk 14:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is one persons website. I can't find anything on it. scope_creepTalk 14:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken the contentious material out again for now, while we discuss. I don't doubt that it goes in eventually, but it looks like the sourcing may not exist yet. If the case is as noteworthy as it appears it might be, then I'd expect (for example) for a comment to eventually be made by the editors of PLoS one concerning the case. Right now, all that we have are posts on a discussion board (if a relatively high-quality one) and the retraction notice itself. An alternative: we could for now have a brief note, without its own section, along the lines of: "In 2021, the editors of PLOS ONE retracted an article of Guillemin, citing concerns about the integrity of some of its data," sourced to the retraction. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]