Talk:Christopher H. Whittle

Needs sources

This article has tags for improved sources. This means third party articles or books that reference Dr. Whittle and his work. While the article claims he is an artist and explorer it offers no evidence to support that. Likewise the scientific and educational contributions are supported only by a list of the subject's own works. Unfortunately I cannot find any online evidence of the May 5, 1992 Boston Globe article. A search of the Globe's online archives produces no results for Whittle paleontologist or Whittle gastrolith or Whittle sauropod from 1981 to now. Jojalozzo 16:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• I removed the reference. I performed similar searches and also didn't find anything in the Globe--or in any paper in LexisNexis's database, for that matter. 160.39.212.104 (talk) 12:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Orphan tag

If the Gastrolith article is the only appropriate area where a reference to DR. Whittle is merited, then the orphan tag seems appropriate. I added a link from Nedcolbertia Jojalozzo 16:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

The subject of this article and editors who have a personal relationship with him need to keep their contributions to a minimum to avoid bias. Jojalozzo 16:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggest redirect to Nedcolbertia

In the absence of significant independent coverage or documentation of Whittle or his work, a redirect to his claim to fame seems in order. For those who measure notability by accomplishment and not the gng, consider the following. As with so many autobiographies, the subject's claim to fame should be taken with a lump of salt. From the journal articles cited in the Spanish Wikipedia[1], it appears that a team, not an individual, discovered this genus--and Whittle was not even on it. Whittle did later describe and name the genus--but only as part of a team. 160.39.212.104 (talk) 12:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• This does seem to fall under WP:BLP1E, so a redirect is a reasonable proposal. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
• Disagree. This new info is very helpful but to me it argues against linking Whittle so directly to the dinosaur.

1. I can't imagine anyone would be looking for the dinosaur via Whittle's name, so I don't see much point in a redirect.
2. I removed the special mention of Nedcolbertia since it appears Whittle was not involved in its discovery and had a team role in naming it. If that change sticks and we agree that Whittle's role was not primary, then a redirect makes even less sense.
3. That said, his academic achievements (e.g. peer-reviewed publications) recommend him as a notable academic.

Jojalozzo 02:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• • Do you think this page can ever be a npov article rather than a CV? 160.39.212.104 (talk) 11:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't see why not. It would take one or two editors who know the subject (besides the subject) to fill in the holes. Jojalozzo 14:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Using what sources? 160.39.212.104 (talk) 15:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Good point. The Boston Globe, 5/5/92 B3-B4? :-) Jojalozzo 23:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Uh wait, didn't we agree that the guy appears nowhere in the Globe archives? 160.39.212.104 (talk) 03:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
          • No answer...so I'll take that as a "yes." So let me ask the next question. Do you think that a perpetual CV is intolerable, regardless of whether he passes wp:prof? 160.39.212.104 (talk) 00:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought the smiley face after the globe ref told it all. I am ok with this either way: as it is or deleted. It might help to get advice from someone in the WP:biography project. I will post a proposed deletion tag and notify some old editors and see what happens. Anyone can unpropose just by deleting the tag or second the proposal by adding a {{Prod-2}} tag (see WP:PROD). Jojalozzo 01:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• I do not think that merging --much less redirecting --is a good idea. (1) The individual people who discover new species are by well-establishedc practice here, individually notable as scientists.This has never been, and should never be, considered the sort of news event that falls under BLP 1E, (2) Whittle has done significant other scientific work, so it's not a matter of BLP1E in any case. The article can furthermore be expanded here. (3)Whittle is at least somewhat notable for other things also, including his fringe ideas in paranormal phenomena.

I regret that I do not have time immediately to work on this article, and I do not the least enjoy working on paranormal topics, but I shall try to come back to it. DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• • This was yet another careless de-prodding by you, and your comment shows you are even now still uninformed. Please take a few more minutes to review the article's history and talk page--and maybe even search for sources yourself--to learn what is wrong with your rationale. 160.39.212.104 (talk) 07:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion

Since no one has been able to find any mention of the subject in anything except his own academic journal articles, some editors here question whether we should keep this article. There was once a mention of a Boston Globe article of 5/5/92, pp B3-B4, but the online Globe archives do not have that section. Jojalozzo 01:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I guess it stays, CV-ish and all. Jojalozzo 02:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• According to the FAQs the archives seem to include pretty much everything except for reader-submitted content.[2] Maybe it was a wedding announcement. Getting back to the suggestion of a redirect, I don't see why we shouldn't have it. His name is mentioned in the target article and probably nowhere else. Redirects are easily undone if someone finds good sources. You pointed out that no one would look for the dinosaur via his name, but even if you're right it doesn't really matter because redirects are cheap. Anyway, he was involved in the dinosaur's naming, so the link is not completely illogical. 160.39.212.104 (talk) 14:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

A redirect does not make sense to me for the reason I gave as well as because it ignores Whittle's other notabilities in paleontology (e.g. gastroliths), in education and in critical thinking. Can you give me a link to WP policy that offers a reason to make this page a redirect? Jojalozzo 20:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Wp:redirect? And what notabilities? Who has noted his work in gastroliths, education or critical thinking? 160.39.212.104 (talk) 13:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

No answer again so...more specifically, one of the "Purposes of redirects" is "Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article. (Such redirects are often targeted to a particular section of the article.)" As I mentioned, Whittle is mentioned in the target and nowhere else. No one has noted him or his work in a way that allows this page to be transformed into a proper biography. If there is no further objection in a few days, I'll go ahead and redirect. 160.39.212.104 (talk) 10:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Whittle's notability is determined by publication in peer-reviewed journals. He is not the topic of a even a subsection of another article. Redirect makes no sense. Please do not respond here as if I have not said this before. Jojalozzo 13:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• Publishing does not make you notable. When other people publish things about you or your work, that makes you notable. 160.39.212.104 (talk) 15:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • You're correct. I misread the guidelines which mention peer reviewed publications but in the context of supporting docs not those of the subject's own authorship. I don't see that Whittle meets the criteria for Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Jojalozzo 17:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)