This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons 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 sourcedmust 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 connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
1) The reference does not make any mention of Henry Gee or either of these novels (in fact, it pre-dates those novels). The only connection is that it is about a writing workshop system run by Andrew Burt, and Andrew Burt is also behind the site ifiction (which also post-dates the article) on which Gee's novel, The Sigil is published.
2) These novels are not open source. The term "open source" implies that the novel is available for free for anyone to edit and republish. As far as I know, Gee has not relinquished copyright on his novels, he has just chosen to not make any money off of them. If an analogy were to be made with software, it would be "Freeware".
I should point out that I haven't read By The Sea, but I have read The Sigil, and do recommend it. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 19:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be something about the womanspace fiasco here? In fact, Gee has a track record of being a sexist so perhaps we need something about that as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Although I'm personally appalled by Mr Gee's behaviour, I must note this is a BLP, so sourcing is going to need to be high-quality, and blogs and Twitter don't cut it. The latest story doesn't appear to have hit the WP:RS media - David Gerard (talk) 08:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
This article in Popular Science may meet the WP:RS criteria. It appears more balanced than most of the blog posts. Biolprof (talk) 15:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
David is of course right. There is an OTRSTicket:2014020510010379. My strong advice to everyone is to be mindful of the foundational policies: WP:NPOV, WP:NOR. Reliable independent sources, avoiding blogs and social media. Popular Science is a very good source for this content, for exactly the reason stated: it is analytical rather than polemical. Needless to say, Dr. Gee would prefer no mention was made of it at all, but long experience suggests that attempting to remove it would only increase the drama quotient. I did remove on primary source, and would ask that it's not reinserted. Additional review sources would be much appreciated. Guy (Help!) 23:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
If you're worried about a BLP, you can't remove a reference like that and leave the statements it was supporting uncited. Given that the sentence is "Dr. Isis was an open critic of the scientific journal Nature, where Gee is a senior editor." (and presumably the reference wasn't there to establish his senior editorship), I don't see the problem linking to the page where Dr. Isis criticizes Nature. But if that for some reason is not acceptable, then I don't think we should have the statement at all.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)