Jump to content

Talk:Gilles J. Guillemin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Gilles J Guillemin)

Spare refs[edit]

Further reading[edit]

In the media[edit]

Retraction[edit]

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]
  • Secondary source: Retraction Watch database --Bernard Bel 14:50, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Belbernard, thanks for coming to discuss. I think that Retraction Watch has similar problems to the PLOS ONE retraction. What do you think about a less prominent just-the-facts statement along the lines of what I suggest above? And it's likely that the case eventually gets more thorough coverage in the scientific press, if it's as serious as it looks; when such coverage comes out, it could be used to expand the discussion in the article. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:05, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I fully agree with your proposal. Thanks for your patience! If this retraction is discussed in secondary sources, then we may add them in due time. Please feel free to include the brief note you suggested — or I will do the same later. Bernard Bel 15:19, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added the sentence in question, subject only to the edit that the retraction actually occurred in 2020 (rather than 2021). @Randykitty: I'd still love to hear your thoughts on what is WP:DUE here; I'm not confident that we've done the right thing here. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:47, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The PLoS retraction is a primary source, but reliable. RetractionWatch is absolutely a reliable (and independent) source. Given what Leonid Schneider posted in his (blacklisted) blog, I expect to see more about this person on RW in the near future. Schneider's blog may be blacklisted, but what he posted were duplicated figures flagged by the very-respected science sleuth Elisabeth Bik, who rarely (if ever) has been shown to be wrong about these things. Her blog, Microbiome Digest is another independent RS. Of course, for the moment only the PLoS notice is available, so I agree with the current modest mention. It's proper that no bad intent is asserted, although that may change if every article flagged by Bik would be retracted. In addition, Schneider has requested that the involved universities investigate possible scientific misconduct, the report of which will be a reliable source (but I guess not independent and it may take a while before anything gets actually done, these things tend to go slow). --Randykitty (talk) 16:09, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gilles_J._Guillemin&oldid=1207479303"