747:: this may not be about an actual crime, but it is misconduct, and the same principles should apply. He's documented as a plagiarist, but is he notable as a plagiarist? Specifically we should ask whether there is "sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role", as WP:PERP requests. When I said this in talk, I didn't think this standard was met, but I've since changed my mind. We have coverage in both a major state-wide newspaper (the
519:
broadcast news programs and on op-ed ed pages as an expert on race in
America, but Nom removed this material asserting that "one is hardly a "public voice" for having one CNN op-ed and one local op-ed in the span of two years" - although the two links were intended as a sample of the multiple such appearances he has made. I did not replace the material since I do not have a secondary source describing him as an expert who makes frequent such appearances.
610:
are free to look at what I wrote, a neutral (brief) report of the allegations as reported in the newspapers. I added in part to refute MSJapan's inaccurate assertion (Nom) that
Whitaker was in the news only briefly and that coverage of him had ended. It had, as far as I knew until MSJapan started attacking me last week, when I did a quick google to see if Whitaker was still in the news. MSJapan did not perform
755:) among other sources, for multiple separate incidents published from 2012 to 2015. Additionally, the newer articles rehash the earlier incidents, providing coverage of those incidents from a longer-term perspective that is not merely reporting of recent news. Given all this, I don't think we need to determine whether his books or the title he was demoted from are enough to give him academic notability. —
455:, something readily apparent from the sources currently in use on the article. The nominator says they're all from a two-month period in 2015, but a glance at the dates in the references shows that's false. Similarly, the nominator says that all coverage was "local" apart from InsideHigherEd -- but again the list of references shows a citation to the
854:
Johnpacklambert, I know that you're coming late to a long argument, but this is not one event, it is a series of incidents of misappropriation of the work of other scholars that - separately and collectively - have been the subject of coverage in national and statewide media over the course of years.
609:
Editors new to this page should be aware that
Whitaker has confessed to using material without attribution, and been found by his university to have committed "serious" plagiarism. The faculty of Arizona State passed "moral judgment"; not me. As to this month's new assertions of plagiarism, editors
622:
and the geography of
Arizona. Now, accusing me of being biased, s/he chose to add Whitaker's denial, but not to add detailed public statements from Arizona State and the Phoenix and Chicago police departments supporting the City Council member's assertions of malfeasance. That's OK. Add material
215:
website. Coverage lasted less than two months, ended a month ago, and there has been nothing further since. There were no long-term effects: the subject was demoted but not fired, the books were not retracted, and university policies were not changed. Therefore, he does not meet GNG. The subject
317:
from page. MSJapan, If you thought phrasing or location in lede inappropriate, you could easily have altered it, or moved it down the page (I just altered it as per your complaint and moved it down the page) but it is inappropriate to remove a source supporting notability, immediately before taking
560:
found, and now I suppose that MSJapan will accuse me of bias. But I honestly fail to what I am supposed to do when an academic who is not especially significant as a scholar repeatedly makes headlines for behavior unbecoming a gentleman or a scholar. I did source and add a description of his most
533:
If you don't have sources to back up the claims, you can't make them, so don't accuse me of removing content and then saying that you couldn't prove the content anyway. It is very clear that unsupported content can be removed. Your "third scandal" is an entire paragraph made out of two articles,
555:
When I used multiple sources, MSJapan removed some asserting that there were excessive sources. So I added new info, a brief summary with just 2 sources. And MSJapan dismisses it as, "only two" sources. This provoked me to going back to read and add another new news story, but I ran into the same
518:
Page could use expansion, this could be sourced to reviews of
Whitaker's 2005 book "Race Works", which received respectful reviews in several academic journals - one such review already linked on page. And note that until a week ago, there was material in the article on Whitaker's appearances on
623:
that you think pertinent. No one editor is required to add everything. But, MSJapan, please stop trying to ruin my reputation as an editor by making assertions that I am acting in bad faith, or have an agenda other than writing an article about a widely reported instance of intellectual theft.
473:
So you're going to allege "significant errors" based on one source to CHE (out of 18 sources) meeting "national coverage" (the rest are
Arisona or IHE) and four prior to the last month (also out of 18) meeting the time requirement? That still leaves 12 sources that are only from the last month
590:
in the middle by adding material discrediting the response. So don't say you're trying to write a neutral balanced article focused on a scandal. You're writing a screed because you're outraged over an issue that didn't have the ramifications you wanted when you found out about it.
264:
No named chair - ASU Foundation
Professors are not named chairs. What they are I don't know, but every department at ASU has at least one (named chairs are unique - the "John Q. Public Professor of History", etc.), and it does not appear on ASU's
434:
are inappropriate measures. However I have another concern. The article is full of accusations against him but I can't find any contrary opinion mentioned. Not even his own, except for a single word. As such, it is such a blatant
498:, and of this week's news stories about Whitaker, but also that the page itself has sourced sections on the 2011 and 2015 plagiarism scandals. I just added a page on a new, third, news-making (in Arizona) plagiarism allegation.
538:
article you sourced the claims to, was left out - that is clearly biased editing, and part of what is causing the issues in this article, especially when the responses are in the sources you are sourcing the "scandals" from.
660:. Professors who have fancy titles and direct centers at major universities are often notable, or harmlessly noted. The fact that he was a highly paid consultant and then thrust into non-local news confers notability. --
173:
895:
474:(minus the book review from 2005), and that is my point - 2/3 of the coverage is significant, and is a month's worth of articles. If the subject was notable for plagiarism, why was this not the case the first time?
52:. There is consensus that the subject meets GNG rather than any one of the special guidelines. Also, most !voters find that the subject has been involved in several controversies, so that BLP1E does not apply.
493:
as per EveryMorning and
Nomoskedasticity, and note not only that Nom previoulsy prodded article and was informed on talk page of the series of scandals, of coverage of first in national publications such as
405:
211:. This was a news item regarding a professor who committed plagiarism, and as it stands, is an article about plagiarism masquerading as a BLP. Coverage was confined to local Arizona media and the
387:("People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below."). Extensive discussion of several cases over several years (therefore not BLP1E). —
722:. In addition to the arguments above, he's had two scholarly works published by a notable academic press in the last two years, with GScholar already showing dozens of hits for each of them.
576:"I honestly fail to what I am supposed to do when an academic who is not especially significant as a scholar repeatedly makes headlines for behavior unbecoming a gentleman or a scholar
793:
167:
126:
556:
problem I run into every time MSJapan prods me into revisiting this page, problem is that the more sources I read, the worse
Whitaker's behavior looks. I added what
233:
Subject is not important or cited by peers. A claim made in several sources was that he did not have the necessary research quantity for tenure in the first place.
813:
773:
701:
He is notable, if nothing else, for the scandal. I'd say there are sufficient sources here for GNG. I even heard of the scandal and I live nowhere near
Arizona. ~
678:
561:
widely-reviewed book. I feel as though I ought to apologize to all of the editors who have had to spend time on an AFD that should never have been started.
889:
228:
Does not meet AUTHOR - this guideline generally doesn't apply to academics, but I am including it because it was brought up at the article already.
99:
94:
133:
103:
86:
582:, nor is it here for you to have an outlet to pass moral judgment. You clearly don't want to show both views, as when I added Whitaker's
344:
and it was put back because I didn't edit summarize properly. The link was removed because one article headline was being used to claim
275:
No substantial impact outside academia as an academician - ASU in fact disavowed his consulting business as having any relation to them.
619:
188:
272:
Subject did not hold a highest-level elected or appointed academic post (which appears to be provosts, deans, presidents, etc.).
155:
727:
17:
456:
901:
55:
149:
723:
464:
917:
872:
845:
825:
805:
785:
764:
731:
712:
690:
669:
632:
600:
570:
548:
528:
507:
483:
468:
443:
415:
396:
365:
331:
301:
68:
936:
841:
40:
145:
760:
353:
90:
614:- or even check the sourcing of this article before starting the AFD. In fact, s/he appeared unfamiliar with
239:
For the same reason, he did not create or co-create a significant work or body of work to meet this criterion.
195:
686:
412:
439:
violation that it should be reduced to a stub until someone can rewrite it in conformity with the rules.
932:
868:
628:
566:
524:
503:
460:
392:
327:
36:
837:
704:
314:
856:
836:
This article violates the one event policies. He does not meet notability guidelines for academics.
756:
665:
181:
82:
74:
319:
356:
earlier. I actually AfDed the article after the second time I took it out, for the same reason.
161:
821:
801:
781:
682:
596:
544:
479:
409:
361:
297:
289:
204:
64:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
931:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
864:
624:
615:
611:
562:
520:
499:
427:
388:
323:
217:
888:. Perhaps more national sources could be given, but they are out there. He's mentioned in
579:
426:: There is enough coverage of the scandal to justify an article, and because of this both
384:
208:
348:
that the subject "brought renewed attention to plagiarism via technology" and the source
744:
740:
661:
495:
431:
221:
907:
885:
860:
452:
440:
436:
817:
797:
777:
592:
540:
475:
357:
293:
285:
60:
236:
He did not meet thids criterion because he did not originate anything significant.
120:
352:
nor was it expanded upon in the article. That's SYNTH. I also moved the source
281:
Does not meet criteria for being in literature or arts, because he's in history.
739:. As I discussed in the talk page already, I think the standard here should be
578:" I think that's why you wrote the article. Knowledge is not here for you to
383:
Because of the extensive coverage, he meets the general notability guidelines,
266:
557:
863:, as a significant number of veteran editors agree that this one has.
925:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
406:
list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions
318:
an article to ADF. Just as it is inappropriate to continue
459:. Puzzling nomination, containing significant errors.
313:
Just noticed that MSJapan removed a sentence sourced to
587:
583:
341:
116:
112:
108:
180:
794:
list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions
224:either, and I have addressed each criterion below.
534:from which Whitaker Group's response made in the
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
939:). No further edits should be made to this page.
242:Criterion 4 simply doesn't apply to the subject.
679:Knowledge:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Schools
194:
8:
814:list of Arizona-related deletion discussions
812:Note: This debate has been included in the
792:Note: This debate has been included in the
774:list of Authors-related deletion discussions
772:Note: This debate has been included in the
677:Note: This debate has been included in the
404:Note: This debate has been included in the
811:
791:
771:
676:
403:
261:His work has made no impact in higher ed.
751:) and a major newsmagazine of academia (
724:The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo)
7:
24:
620:The Chronicle of Higher Education
252:His research is not significant.
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
292:) 02:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
258:Not a member of any societies.
1:
457:Chronicle of Higher Education
322:me. (I created this article).
451:-- this person easily meets
918:13:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
873:01:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
846:03:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
826:01:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
806:01:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
786:01:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
765:21:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
732:19:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
713:22:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
691:22:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
670:14:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
633:20:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
601:19:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
571:18:42, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
549:17:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
529:12:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
508:12:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
484:17:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
469:11:48, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
444:04:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
416:03:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
397:03:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
366:17:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
332:13:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
302:02:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
69:16:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
956:
903:The Cleveland Plain Dealer
855:Also, academics who fail
267:Faculty Honors and Awards
928:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
340:Actually, I removed it
278:Not a journal editor.
897:The Washington Post
588:buried the response
385:which is sufficient
255:No academic awards.
247:Does not meet PROF:
83:Matthew C. Whitaker
75:Matthew C. Whitaker
838:John Pack Lambert
828:
808:
788:
693:
584:two-line response
418:
59:
56:non-admin closure
947:
930:
914:
911:
859:can and do pass
753:Inside Higher Ed
749:Arizona Republic
707:
616:Inside Higher Ed
461:Nomoskedasticity
354:to the talk page
213:Inside Higher Ed
199:
198:
184:
136:
124:
106:
53:
34:
955:
954:
950:
949:
948:
946:
945:
944:
943:
937:deletion review
926:
912:
909:
705:
350:didn't say that
315:Digital Journal
141:
132:
97:
81:
78:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
953:
951:
942:
941:
921:
920:
878:
877:
876:
875:
849:
848:
830:
829:
809:
789:
768:
767:
757:David Eppstein
734:
716:
715:
695:
694:
673:
672:
654:
653:
652:
651:
650:
649:
648:
647:
646:
645:
644:
643:
642:
641:
640:
639:
638:
637:
636:
635:
511:
510:
496:InsideHigherEd
488:
487:
486:
446:
420:
419:
400:
399:
389:Chris Woodrich
377:
376:
375:
374:
373:
372:
371:
370:
369:
368:
335:
334:
283:
282:
279:
276:
273:
270:
262:
259:
256:
253:
249:
248:
244:
243:
240:
237:
234:
230:
229:
216:does not meet
202:
201:
138:
77:
72:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
952:
940:
938:
934:
929:
923:
922:
919:
916:
915:
905:
904:
899:
898:
893:
892:
891:NPQ Quarterly
887:
883:
880:
879:
874:
870:
866:
862:
858:
853:
852:
851:
850:
847:
843:
839:
835:
832:
831:
827:
823:
819:
815:
810:
807:
803:
799:
795:
790:
787:
783:
779:
775:
770:
769:
766:
762:
758:
754:
750:
746:
742:
738:
735:
733:
729:
725:
721:
718:
717:
714:
710:
709:
708:
700:
697:
696:
692:
688:
684:
680:
675:
674:
671:
667:
663:
659:
656:
655:
634:
630:
626:
621:
617:
613:
608:
607:
606:
605:
604:
603:
602:
598:
594:
589:
585:
581:
577:
574:
573:
572:
568:
564:
559:
554:
553:
552:
551:
550:
546:
542:
537:
532:
531:
530:
526:
522:
517:
516:
515:
514:
513:
512:
509:
505:
501:
497:
492:
489:
485:
481:
477:
472:
471:
470:
466:
462:
458:
454:
450:
447:
445:
442:
438:
433:
429:
425:
422:
421:
417:
414:
411:
407:
402:
401:
398:
394:
390:
386:
382:
379:
378:
367:
363:
359:
355:
351:
347:
343:
339:
338:
337:
336:
333:
329:
325:
321:
316:
312:
311:
310:
309:
308:
307:
306:
305:
304:
303:
299:
295:
291:
287:
280:
277:
274:
271:
268:
263:
260:
257:
254:
251:
250:
246:
245:
241:
238:
235:
232:
231:
227:
226:
225:
223:
219:
214:
210:
206:
197:
193:
190:
187:
183:
179:
175:
172:
169:
166:
163:
160:
157:
154:
151:
147:
144:
143:Find sources:
139:
135:
131:
128:
122:
118:
114:
110:
105:
101:
96:
92:
88:
84:
80:
79:
76:
73:
71:
70:
66:
62:
57:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
927:
924:
908:
902:
896:
890:
881:
857:WP:PROFESSOR
833:
752:
748:
743:rather than
736:
719:
703:
702:
698:
683:AuthorAuthor
657:
580:make a point
575:
535:
490:
448:
423:
410:Everymorning
380:
349:
345:
320:WIKIHOUNDING
284:
212:
203:
191:
185:
177:
170:
164:
158:
152:
142:
129:
49:
47:
31:
28:
865:E.M.Gregory
625:E.M.Gregory
563:E.M.Gregory
521:E.M.Gregory
500:E.M.Gregory
346:in the lede
324:E.M.Gregory
168:free images
424:Yes and No
205:WP:NOTNEWS
933:talk page
818:• Gene93k
798:• Gene93k
778:• Gene93k
662:Smokefoot
612:WP:BEFORE
428:WP:AUTHOR
218:WP:AUTHOR
37:talk page
935:or in a
884:- meets
209:WP:BLP1E
127:View log
39:or in a
745:WP:PROF
741:WP:PERP
593:MSJapan
558:KPHO-TV
541:MSJapan
476:MSJapan
432:WP:PROF
358:MSJapan
342:earlier
294:MSJapan
286:MSJapan
222:WP:PROF
174:WP refs
162:scholar
100:protect
95:history
61:Kraxler
900:, and
886:WP:GNG
861:WP:GNG
834:Delete
586:, you
453:WP:GNG
437:WP:BLP
413:(talk)
146:Google
104:delete
269:page.
189:JSTOR
150:books
134:Stats
121:views
113:watch
109:links
16:<
913:5969
910:Onel
882:Keep
869:talk
842:talk
822:talk
802:talk
782:talk
761:talk
737:Keep
728:talk
720:Keep
706:EDDY
699:Keep
687:talk
666:talk
658:Keep
629:talk
597:talk
567:talk
545:talk
536:same
525:talk
504:talk
491:Keep
480:talk
465:talk
449:Keep
441:Zero
430:and
393:talk
381:Keep
362:talk
328:talk
298:talk
290:talk
182:FENS
156:news
117:logs
91:talk
87:edit
65:talk
50:keep
220:or
196:TWL
125:– (
906:.
894:,
871:)
844:)
824:)
816:.
804:)
796:.
784:)
776:.
763:)
730:)
711:~
689:)
681:.
668:)
631:)
618:,
599:)
569:)
547:)
527:)
506:)
482:)
467:)
408:.
395:)
364:)
330:)
300:)
207:,
176:)
119:|
115:|
111:|
107:|
102:|
98:|
93:|
89:|
67:)
867:(
840:(
820:(
800:(
780:(
759:(
726:(
685:(
664:(
627:(
595:(
565:(
543:(
523:(
502:(
478:(
463:(
391:(
360:(
326:(
296:(
288:(
200:)
192:·
186:·
178:·
171:·
165:·
159:·
153:·
148:(
140:(
137:)
130:·
123:)
85:(
63:(
58:)
54:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.