Talk:University of North Carolina academic-athletic scandal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

You have to tell both sides of the story with an article like this. Plain and simple. --Willinghammer (talk) 15:51, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This title is horrible (says the AfD closer to named it)[edit]

And a better title should be appointed. Please discuss. --j⚛e deckertalk 22:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes! Real head-scratcher, that is, trying to retitle this thing.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to get a handle on the ethics here. I am not that familiar with college sports, but I am wondering about the ethics here. Wondering what the root causes are. My guess at this point is that the underlying problem here is that colleges admit professional athletes under the pretense that they are full-time students, to represent their university in athletic competitions. But they are not really students (am I right about this?) They're really professional full-time athletes not students since they spend much of their time building their bodies, practicing sports, scrimmaging, running play drills, suiting up, and such. It is a tough regimen for these athletes. Their careers and future salaries depend on how well they play, with a lucrative job offer in the NFL or NBA being their reward, and while they're on campus, there is little time for books or classes or lectures; am I right about this? The pretense goes farther: while the athletes are not real students who are on campus to learn something (they are on campus to win games), the university does not pay them what they really should, but rather the university subsidizes their "education", doles out financial perks, better dorm rooms, other privileges. If the college athletic team wins, the media attention brings huge prestige and $$$ to the university. So aren't the college athletes really employees of the university? Wondering what people reading this think about this. For me, this subject looks like a BIG MESS. Why can't colleges simply admit they're hiring full-time athletes? If my two-cent analysis is correct, then it's the system that is to blame, not UNC, not the athletes, not instructors who try to "teach" the athletes when they're really focusing on playbooks and drills and jump shots and tackling. Enter Mary Willingham. She's keen on education. She complains about "student"-athletes being steered to breezy vacuous courses with no attendance required, that these athletes read only at the 4th to 8th grade level, if that, but didn't we all know this already? Enter Wikipedia. An article is floated for whistleblower Mary Willingham. But she is not notable for a bio, but her whistleblower-controversy is, so our task is to rename the article. How about...--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:08, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2014 UNC academic scandal
2014 UNC academic-athetics scandal
2014 University of North Carolina athletics-academics scandal
2014 University of North Carolina academics scandal
2014 University of North Carolina academics scandal about student-athletes
Just thinking. Not too impressed with these ones either...--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:08, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Best one I could come up with is 2014 University of North Carolina academics-athletics scandal but still that title is so-so; it is somewhat consistent with the names of other scandals in Wikipedia. Revamped article to focus on scandal as opposed to M Willingham.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't "University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill" be used in title, since "University of North Carolina" refers to the statewide system? Arbor to SJ (talk) 15:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. I was trying to keep the title shorter, since the Chapel Hill campus is the largest of the campuses. I don't like the "UNC" abbreviation (which people in N.Carolina might know, but most others around the country would not know. As you can see above, the search for the perfect title is akin to the Monty Python quest for the Holy Grail but I might award a barnstar if anybody can come up with a hum dinger. Wondering what others think.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC) On second thought, I checked the enrollment numbers for the various campuses, and NC State is the largest, so perhaps it is good to add "at Chapel Hill" in the article title?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also suggest changing "scandal" to "controversy" - as of now there's little more than disputes between Willingham and UNC as well as a preliminary NCAA investigation in response to Rashad McCants's claims. Arbor to SJ (talk) 04:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the word 'controversy' might be more neutral.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC) That said, the controversy has definitely moved into scandal territory; almost all the sources use the word 'scandal', so the title can go either way.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think "2014" should be eliminated, since the UNC AFAM department has been scrutinized as early as 2011 because of Marvin Austin taking grad level courses AS A FRESHMAN. Kane's 2011 story led to the resignation of the AFAM chair. And the AFAM department continued to be dragged thru the mud over the years, i.e. with the 2012 Martin report. Arbor to SJ (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed reorganization[edit]

Gosh, this article could use some reorganizing. So far, the "Background" section is satisfactory, with info about basically what the NCAA is and how it regulates the student-athlete. As well as info I added about the UNC football scandal of 2010-12. But then the article starts jumping all over the place.

Here's what I'm thinking. Divide the allegations of impropriety by specifics & years, since from the news articles I've seen specific info about certain aspects of UNC came out at specific bursts of time. Like:

Arbor to SJ (talk) 06:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, good thinking. Remember there is a second (earlier) article University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill football scandal. I was wondering if a sidebar "timeline" would be a good idea? Something sortable?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of a timeline, the N&O has an ongoing timeline of the UNC Scandal on its website, as well as an archive of its reporting since 2011 on the scandal. Arbor to SJ (talk) 23:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How about if we include a link to the N&O timeline as an external link? We could do our own timeline, but it would be much work, would probably be similar to the N&O timeline, but my sense is that this topic is not as interesting overall to most readers? I'll put an external link in for the time being.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ding Dong, housekeeping, anyone home?[edit]

Guys, I removed some serious walls of text about some woman and plagerism, yadda, yadda. Can it be rewriting in a paragraph or two at the most> Thanks, --Malerooster (talk) 01:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators have been alerted about serious edit-warring and BLP violations. Your deletion of referenced content here will not be looked upon kindly.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:16, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not concerned about "looks". I came here from the ANI board or was it the BLP board? Whatever. Can we readd sourced material that isn't so long and undue weighty? That's all. Not taking sides, just saying. --Malerooster (talk) 01:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you're taking sides when you delete an entire sourced section.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(E/C)ps user fornikegolf is like at 7RR and says he won't stop. Just saw "new"account jump in to. These folks WILL get the hammer and page protection to follow as well hopefully. I am not saying anything bad faith against you, but you are at 3rr as well, just lets others take over, hopefully the calvary will arrive, thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 01:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)pss I don't give a rats patute about this subject. --Malerooster (talk) 01:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ok, time to DISCUSS how and what "material" should be included. GO. --Malerooster (talk) 01:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Last good version (imo) is here which includes the Claims by Mary Willingham section. Btw there is no 3RR for reverting vandalism, particularly BLP violations.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I should have known better to get involved in a sports article. I'll stick to politics and the middle east, much less heated. Seriously, I don't know where to begin with this article. --Malerooster (talk) 01:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of plagiarism by Willingham[edit]

The source quoted so far is a blog but checking it, there appears to be enough foundation for the charge of plagiarism by Willingham in her 2009 master's thesis.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At the 1983 NCAA convention, in response to the efforts of an ad hoc committee of college presidents that had sought to bring about reform of athletics through the American Council on Education, new academic requirements were adopted. As of 1986, freshmen were not able to participate in sports unless they scored an SAT 700...

— Source: 2001 book by James L. Shulman, William G. Bowen[1]

At the 1983 NCAA convention, in response to the efforts of an ad hoc committee of college presidents that had sought to bring about reform of athletics through the American Council on Education, new academic requirements were adopted. As of 1986, freshmen were not able to participate in sports unless they scored an SAT 700

— Source: Mary Willingham 2009 thesis[2]
  1. ^ source 2001 book by James L. Shulman, William G. Bowen
  2. ^ 2009 Willingham thesis see page 5 last paragraph

Looks like the blog is right if this is indeed plagiarism. Plus there's a source in the News & Observer making the same claim about MW plagiarism.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPSPS is clear that blogs are not to be used as sources about living persons except about the author. I've removed it. Woodroar (talk) 16:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Jan Boxill[edit]

The BLP article Jan Boxill is massively unbalanced, focusing solely on the scandal. Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E, the subject should be discussed within the context of the event they are most notable for. Granted there is the possibility this person may be independently notable per WP:SCHOLAR, but even if so I think the current state of imbalance merits a {{R with possibility}}, until the point when a neutral and balanced biography is written that does not solely focus on the scandal. --Animalparty-- (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I would not see the {{R with possibility}} as problematic, I suspect that we editors ought to research Jan Boxill a little to see whether or not there is independent reputation worthy of article-level focus in Wikipedia. I have enhanced the Boxill article somewhat, including her education, professional contributions, teaching and other awards, and publications. That may give reviewers a broader picture of who Jeanette Marie 'Jan' Boxill is as an athlete, professor, putative 'ethicist', academic, 'herstoric' personality of note. MaynardClark (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on the grounds that just she is (perhaps only just) independently notable beyond the one event, given her publications (including books, although they are anthologies) and papers in the field of ethics in sport. Klbrain (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NCAA verdict in North Carolina academic investigation: No penalties for UNC[edit]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaabk/ncaa-unable-to-conclude-unc-violated-academic-rules/ar-AAtoA8B?OCID=ansmsnnews11

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:University_of_North_Carolina_academic-athletic_scandal&oldid=1210292188"