Talk:Henry Gee

Open-source fiction

I just fixed the text talking about The Sigil and By The Sea. They were previously mentioned as "open-source", and cited with a reference to <http://www.salon.com/tech/log/1999/09/07/open_fiction/index.html>. Lest there be any doubt about my changes, which I've explained in my edit summaries:

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. 69.95.236.40 (talk) 19:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Womanspace fiasco

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 128.112.50.183 (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Got some references? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.106.113.169 (talk) 08:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

References galore: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v477/n7366/477626a/metrics/blogs http://www.google.com/search?q=womanspace+henry+gee The "Gee became embroiled in internet controversy" comment really should date back to at least the WomanSpace incident, if not earlier. Patrikd (talk) 00:30, 23 January 2014 (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 OTRS Ticket: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)

• WP:UNDUE? I just spend a few minutes searching for a second WP:RS. I can't find any, only blogs.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Henry Gee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111121151316/http://network.nature.com/profile/henrygee to http://network.nature.com/profile/henrygee

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)