Talk:Glenn McGee

message: 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)
replies: text: The onus is on editors to provide citations for claims of this sort, the positive as well as negative. In addition, I would urge you to read this article before making any further edits here. --Orange Mike  |  Talk 21:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I see no reason to disagree with anything you are saying.  I've met that burden.  I certainly assert no ownership.  These claims are not in dispute as I framed them.  I was merely correcting a libelous claim that I was not Chief because it was not on a website where it would never appear.  --74.76.183.8 (talk) 22:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: First Attack by Unsigned Individual (of dozens)

message: 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)
replies: text: Steve, how would you establish the notability of a bioethicist?  That you have heard of them?  Will you be deleting the others listed in Wikipedia on the basis of the Dufour standard of whether you have heard from him apart from having read this article and noticing that (as a result of edits) there was AT THAT TIME more mention of departure than other issues?  If you apply your standard to bioethics scholars, perhaps you would want to do slightly more research.  No offense, nor any taken by your comment, presuming that you will now do research.  If you have trouble establishing "notability" then I assume you'll be deleting all but two or three people on the bioethicists' list.  Good luck with that.  --74.76.183.8 (talk) 22:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for the misunderstanding. My reason for saying that I have never heard of you was to establish my neutrality, not to give a reason to delete the article.  I probably have not heard of 90% of people who have WP bios. The article still needs more sources, according to WP policy on notability. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable

message: 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)
replies: text: Comment on content, not on the contributor.  Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks  Guyonthesubway (talk) 23:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Now there's some irony.  Read your own comments on this page.  Then invoke that claim.  Look at the personal attacks here YOU make.  Accusing someone of "shilling"?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.76.191.81 (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction of "Neutrality" Tag

message: 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)
replies: text: I have protected the article for one week.  Any more users that come to whitewash or astroturf this article after the prot will be swiftly reverted and blocked if they start edit-warring. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 05:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Jéské, is there ANY evidence of whitewash in the version you quashed?  It has a whole section, all with citations, attacking McGee.  And the notion that edit-wars are entirely a function of McGee is incredible.  Please review the record rather than just accepting this one-sided account.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.76.191.81 (talk) 17:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  COI Tag 

message: 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)
replies: text: Guy, the same anonymous IP just now attempted to remove your comment. I pointed him to WP:RFO but I'm skeptical they will do anything, as if he wished to be less identifiable he could and should log in. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[USER:74.76.191.81]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: Once again, an SPA with such intimate knowledge of unpublished details of the subject... hmmm... Guyonthesubway (talk) 18:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

text: Don't start with more fallacious nonsense about who is writing.  The "SPA" is right.  Your agreed upon - and that is suspicious - design to edit the Slate withdrawal would be misleading and biased.  The retraction of an article in Slate about McGee caused, pace McCullough, at least 10 major blog entries in places like Chronicle of Higher Education, Pharmalot, Inside Higher Ed, and Nature, which devoted quite a bit of discussion to the retraction.  Nature, Guillaume2303's wife will know, is one of the top 3 most read journals in all of science.  If they thought the Slate retraction was significant, is it really your place to decide otherwise??  In the history of the publication of Slate no article had been retracted.  That is public knowledge, should be in this article, but isn't.  In the history of bioethics, to my knowledge, no major scholar has ever had an article retracted from a major magazine.  That has been alleged in major public sources, but is not noted in the Wikipedia article.  Why?  Retraction Watch's commentary is by Ivan Oransky, which is cited but without any reference to the public discussion of the fact that Oransky is McGee's former editor, or the person behind the article about McGee at SciAm.com??  I find it appalling that you believe that it is your prerogative to continue to commit this logical fallacy of flipping the burden of proof every time your edits are corrected by *anyone* who is not on a vendetta to attack McGee.  I suspect that Guyonthesubway, Guillaume2303, and/or David Eppstein are acting from financial reward or political connection and encourage someone to investigate it.  This Wikipedia article is a laughing stock because it reflects a witch hunt by three people, "heavily armed," over a period of years.    Even if that doesn't happen - and I'm going to try to see that it does - you must either accept that it was a valid edit by the "SPA" or revert to your version based solely on your power to do so, since you have no content area knowledge at all and have made no defense of your edit in the face of all the public sources available  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.94.195.202 (talk) 05:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh look, a bunch of IP editors with a common voice.  I'm sure there's no connection between them.  That might be unethical.  I like the rant about getting paid, though.  For the record, I have no financial, political or personal connection with the content, subject, or editing of this article.  Can the IP's state the same?   One might wonder what an ethicist would say about such a thing?  Guyonthesubway (talk) 20:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slate retraction 

message: Substituted at 16:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment