Talk:Matthew C. Whitaker

Balance needed

This WP:BLP article is mainly about controversies. There are six paltry sentences on Whitaker's entire career that don't involve a controversy, before diving into in depth discussion of controversies. Hardly balanced. I have no knowledge of Whitaker nor of the scandal, and no personal interest other than balance per WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:NPOV. Fight recentism and seek a more complete biography. Although controversy may be the current news item du jour, I implore editors to seek sources from prior to 2011, or sources with different content, to construct a fair, measured, and more appropriate article, else this be a coatrack or an article on a scandal masquerading as a biography. Surely there are non-scandal oriented book reviews. Surely there are more non-scandal biographical elements. Cheers, --Animalparty-- (talk) 01:54, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

There must be such sources. I hope that they will be added to the page, but recall this is an academic who had very little profile in the scholarly community before the plagiarism accusations. Perhaps searches on his political work will produce more material for a fuller profile.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

His main "accomplishments" are his controversies. The controversy seems the reason for his bio being sufficiently notable to be in Wikipedia. The ASU faculty page lists a number of accolades, but they are mainly from ASU and locals. His situation seems to be similar to the scientist Felisa Wolfe-Simon, whose main accomplishment, aside from being a PhD in an esteemed institution, was to publish controversially. So it could be a mistake to dilute the controversy aspect for the sake of NPOV and anti-recentism, although the advice is timely. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I feel like merging a condensed account of this into List of Wikipedia controversies may be warranted. If he doesn't have enough sufficient academic stature for there to be sources other than those about this controversy, it falls under WP:ONEVENT. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 22:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

No. Indeed he has exceedingly little academic stature, but this was not merely a Wikipedia scandal. He was, in fact, a recidivist plagiarist, with major national and intense Arizona press coverage for 2 separate investigations of plagiarism of which there was extended coverage over the course of several years in major publications. Coverage that twas both extensive and intensive.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Removed tag, coverage is still coming out and, really, User:Smokefoot is correct that he hardly has a reputation at all - certainly not beyond Arizona - except for his repeat plagiarism.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

SPA/IP whitewashing page

An SPA, followed by an Arizona IP address now rewriting page as a promo for Whitaker. That editor and others should know that no one is objecting to properly sourced info about Whitaker's accomplishments being added to this page. But removing information about 2 - count them 2 plagiarism scandals that generated national press coverage cannot be simply wiped off the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Prodded...

Editwarring aside, Whitaker does not meet WP:PROF and falls under WP:BLP1E. It is also my impression that this article was written to specifically publicize the plagiarism controversies. This is not the purpose of Wikipedia, so I think I'd be interested in the rationale for starting the article in the first place. MSJapan (talk) 22:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I dont feel super strongly. He's the founding director of a topical center at the largest university in the US and apparently a visible (based on pay scale) spokesperson on race. Yes, his loudest news catching achievement is repeated plagiarism (the only way I know about him), but one senses that before the latest incident, he would have been at least marginally notable. --Smokefoot (talk) 22:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I was actually much more interested to hear from the two authors editwarring on this article. One is simply repasting the subject's official bio, and the other only wants to talk about plagiarism. "Head of a center" is not a qualification under PROF, nor is the size of the university at which one works (and whether ASU is #1 or #9 depends on which WP size list you use, BTW). Salary does not equal visibility, and one CNN article does not confer notability. MSJapan (talk) 00:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

That "Head of a center", size of one's institution, and salary dont contribute or are irrelevant to notability is wrongheaded. While I empathize with your implied values, those factors are some of the trappings of notability. I might think that Donald Trump is an air-head, who has accomplished zilch, but ... --Smokefoot (talk) 00:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

No, it isn't "wrongheaded"; the issue is that you're being subjective, just as you are with Donald Trump. Politics aside, Trump would be notable for business or television reasons even if he wasn't running for President. So because you don't think Trump is notable (despite objective evidence), he's not, and (despite a lack of objective evidence) you think Whitaker is, so he is? The whole point of guidelines is to prevent exactly that sort of subjective judgment. You're using words like "apparently", "some of the trappings of", etc. None of those phrases is "is notable because" The guidelines I cited define "is notable because"; that is why they are there. Those guidelines make no distinction based on any of the criteria you have mentioned, and therefore, you cannot base notability on your own criteria. MSJapan (talk) 01:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Matthew C. Whitaker misunderstands WP:GNG, to wit, if a subject passes WP:GNG it does not have to be pass the subset of guidelines such as WP:PROFESSOR, or WP:AUTHOR. It is not uncommon for a professor to become notable for some activity outside his regular job. Whitaker passes GNG because of the major media publishing details of the case.E.M.Gregory (talk) 03:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)