Jump to content

Talk:Penn State child sex abuse scandal

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Aerkem (talk | contribs) at 20:26, 6 March 2018 (→‎Where do I mention Pendergrast's book?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Freeh report

I notice that today's release of the Free report doesn't appear to be yet mentioned in the article. Anyone have a link to the report and an article that gives Penn State's Board of Trustee's reaction to it? Cla68 (talk) 06:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is mentioned and cited in the lead section, but doesn't appear to be fully fleshed out later in the article. And it's Louis Freeh. You missed an "h". --Jayron32 06:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My apology at getting the name wrong. I think it deserves its own section because the investigation was commissioned by Penn State's board, Freeh is a notable figure, and the report's conclusions and Penn State's reaction were very public. Cla68 (talk) 09:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I moved it to the relatively small civil lawsuits section and changed the section title accordingly. --Jtalledo (talk) 10:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is not enough information about the Freeh report, especially criticism of it. Why is it that the conclusions of the report are not supported by the information presented in it? How can the NCAA use this report as its sole source to bypass its own procedures to punish the wrong people and have no jurisdiction to punish the right people? Kevin Slaten has been asking these questions on his radio show for months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.247.198.166 (talk) 00:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename

Probably would've been wise to discuss moving this page to Penn State child sex abuse scandal before actually doing so, given previous disputes over the name. --Jtalledo (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We were lacking a WP:SECONDARY back then. If The Freeh Report it not dismissed as a paid WP:PRIMARY, we may be able to base the name of the page on the full title of the report: "Report of the Special Investigative Counsel Regarding the Actions of the Pennsylvania State University Related to the Child Sexual Abuse Committed by Gerald A. Sandusky". Shouldn't we archive the report on the commons or something? — Hasdi Bravo • 09:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Big Jock Knew

The link to Big Jock Knew has been deleted and re-added several times. Just my two cents, I think it's relevant since it also relates to a sex abuse case associated with a football institution, although it was association football. --Jtalledo (talk) 18:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, no media link has been made between the two cases so we do not need to either. Also linking to a football clubs song is not appropriate. That should not be readded to this article without sources making the connection or comparing the situation, even then it is not needed. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need sources comparing the two situations. If there were sources, then obviously it wouldn't be in the See also section, it would be integrated in text. The reason it links to a song is that there isn't a page dedicated to the incident itself. --Jtalledo (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added Category:Child sexual abuse to the Big Jock page. I thought that was enough to link the two (to each other and to others at other institutions). I think the "football" (two kinds) link is a bit attenuated. To have just the song as See also and no other CSA events seems sort of out of place; and I also wouldn't want a recap of the Category list. Swliv (talk) 20:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a reasonable solution. Thanks. --Jtalledo (talk) 13:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question

No offense to anyone who has edited this previously, but does some of the more graphic natures of the sexual crimes really need to be openly and publically aired? Instead of discussing him ejaculating or having boys place their hands on his penis --- couldn't this be toned down better for the sake of readers. Personally I think the tone of the section detailing his crimes comes off as quite a bit pornographic in nature.... almost like the previous editor(s) wanted to write soft-core child porn --- and get away with it.

Please consider changing this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.31.142.13 (talk • contribs)

I didn't put those passages there, but I guess they are in the article to indicate the specificity of the initial allegations. Generally, Wikipedia is not censored, so if they're deemed relevant I guess they'll remain. --Jtalledo (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that they should remain as long as they are relevant and encyclopedic in tone. Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 17:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NCAA sanctions

Section's far too long. There's far too much dedicated to the discussion of the decision process/reaction to the decision. The main focus should be the penalties themselves, with perhaps a paragraph about everything else surrounding the penalties. --Jtalledo (talk) 19:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Responsibility of State College Police Dept. in the scandal

From reading the Freeh Report, the State College Police Dept. was involved in the investigation of Sandusky in May, 1998 (page 45). Despite the fact that the State College Police Dept. had jurisdiction over the campus, it declined to pursue criminal action against Sandusky, nor did it apparently refer the matter to Pennsylvania State Police. At the heart of the scandal is the power granted to the University to provide government services on its campus, i.e., the power to hire and supervise a police department. The power and right of the university to operate the campus police had been challenged in court unsuccessfully. (See Rogalski v. PSU, Middle District of Pennsylvania 1988-89) The difference is that when a state actor like a municipal corporation, i.e. State College, fails to properly investigate a crime, it is protected by sovereign immunity from legal liability, but a state affiliated university, has no such immunity.

The State College Police should not get a free pass in their conduct here, which implicitly permitted Sandusky to continue his actions, including his off-campus actions in State College Borough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctor Franklin (talk • contribs) 18:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing else, it serves to illustrate the power of the university over everything in the community, including the police. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page should be renamed

This scandal is not actually a Penn State Scandal, it is the Jerry Sandusky Scandal and should be renamed so. To date, there were 3 known assaults on the Penn State Campus late at night and the rest were in other locations. ````— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nellykire (talk • contribs)

I completely 100% disagree. The scandal is due to the inaction of Penn State officials and the leadership of the Penn State football program. The story is not about one man's actions at all. Do not rename it! (Haven't we had this discussion before?) Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 12:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Penn State was handed one of the most severe sets of sanctions in NCAA history because of its role as an institution in the episode. Cla68 (talk) 12:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is all about the collectively poor judgement of many people who were all at Pennsylvania State University in some manner. So, why is the name of the article "Penn State child sex abuse scandal" instead of "Pennsylvania State University child sex abuse scandal"? --User101010 (talk) 06:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


IT IS NOT DUE TO THE INACTION OF PENN STATE LEADERSHIP. IT IS DUE TO THE INACTION OF SOCIAL SERVICES WHO INVESTIGATED SANDUSKY AND CLEARED HIM! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PHD77 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page name needs to be renamed! It is the Jerry Sandusky/Second Mile Child Abuse Scandal This scandal was erroneously marketed by the media, initially, as a "Penn State" scandal. It has since been corrected in the media as the Jerry Sandusky/Second Mile scandal. HERE ARE THE FACTS: SOME of the incidents allegedly took place at Penn State (note that the JS was not indicted on any of those charges), but that the majority took place elsewhere and the fact that JS was a FORMER coach at Penn State, but worked at the Second Mile during the entire time period, makes this Topic erroneous, and sensationalized. As the leadership from Penn State who stand accused have NOT been indicted yet...and it appears that all charges may be dropped...this again is misleading. This we know is true: Sandusky worked at the Second Mile the ENTIRE time that he was abusing children. ALL of his victims were groomed through this organization...NONE through Penn State.

Please update all titles and references to the correct topic line ("Jerry Sandusky / Second Mile Child Sex Abuse Scandal"). --PHD77 (talk) 17:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As an initial response: The Freeh Report commissioned by the PSU Board of Trustees in unequivocal in its findings and makes exactly the opposite point, asserting that this is a Penn State scandal in the cover-up of Sandusky's activities by at least four top officials of the university. You can read the entire Freeh Report here [1] and note that it reads in the "Findings" section of the "Executive Summary" on page 14 that "Four of the most powerful people at the Pennsylvania State University - President Graham B. Spanier, Senior Vice President-Finance and Business Gary C. Schultz, Athletic Director Timothy M. Curley and Head Football Coach Joseph V. Paterno - failed to protect against a child sexual predator harming children for over a decade. These men concealed Sandusky's activities from the Board of Trustees, the University community and authorities." Sensei48 (talk) 19:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention the fact that the president of the university was not only asked to resign because of this scandal but has been indicted by a federal grand jury... ElKevbo (talk) 02:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal

How many times are we going to let anonymous IP's change the name of this scandal and make various other NPOV edits before we eventually place this page under semi-protection? Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 14:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eh. Those edits seem occasional, once every few days. It's not cut-and-dry vandalism (e.g. insertion of nonsense material). This page is fairly well patrolled and anyway I'm guessing it'll stop soon enough. --Jtalledo (talk) 14:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANSWER: This page name needs to be renamed! It is the Jerry Sandusky/Second Mile Child Abuse Scandal This scandal was erroneously marketed by the media, initially, as a "Penn State" scandal. It has since been corrected in the media as the Jerry Sandusky/Second Mile scandal. The fact that some of the incidents allegedly took place at Penn State (note that the JS was not indicted on any of those charges), but that the majority took place elsewhere and the fact that JS was a FORMER coach at Penn State, but worked at the Second Mile during the entire time period, makes your Topic erroneous, and sensationalized. Please update all titles and references to the correct topic line ("Jerry Sandusky / Second Mile Child Sex Abuse Scandal"). — Preceding unsigned --PHD77 (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search of Google does not support the assertion that the media is now calling it the "Jerry Sandusky/Second Mile scandal" or any variant thereof. If anything, there doesn't seem to be a proper name for it at all; given the damage it did to Penn State's reputation, it is reasonable to mention Penn State prominently in the article title. —C.Fred (talk) 02:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Rodney Erickson" photo

I removed the photo that is purportedly of Rodney Erickson. The first time I saw what Erickson actually looks like, I was surprised he looked nothing like the photo I'd seen on Wikipedia. It actually looks like this is a photo of Arden L. Bement, Jr., who addressed Penn State's Grad School commencement on December 17, 2005. See this photo for reference. --Jtalledo (talk) 14:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Sandusky photo

We Need a Phot of the Man Himself "Jerry

Upon initial viewing, and subsequent views, it appears that the photograph of the man at the top must be Jerry, this is not true. P{lease rearrage or remove until photo places71.182.198.112 (talk) 14:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Archives of report files

WhisperToMe (talk) 01:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Title of Page

As a professor at Penn State, I really find it offensive to refer to this as a "scandal." This is a euphemism for what actually occurred: sex crimes and their cover-up. I do not have any idea how to address this, and I do not know where in the criminal process Spanier and co. are. But the tendency at PSU to refer to the whole episode as the "Sandusky scandal" really grossly understates the incident and is disrespectful to Sandusky's victims. I do not have an easy fix for this; just putting the idea out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.95.39 (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. "Scandal" is often applied to criminal behavior and refers not just to the behavior itself but to all of the fall-out, such as media coverage, criminal and civil repercussions, damage to reputation, and so forth. I think it's a great way to describe the Penn State/Sandusky debacle and that we should leave the title as is. Dusty|💬|You can help! 17:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I must disagree in turn with you. In the US media, the term scandal is most often applied to sex crimes; the fall-out over the shooting of Trayvon Martin is not referred to on Wikipedia as a "scandal." If Wikipedia is not concerned about how using the term "scandal" influences readers' perceptions of its reliability, fine; I am not in a position to make such a judgement call. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.186.53.75 (talk) 16:45, 6 November 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the usage as strictly about sex crimes; consider the article on the Watergate scandal. I think Dusty has it summed up right: it's the cover-up and related fallout that are the scandal that the title refers to. —C.Fred (talk) 18:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Freeh Report Critique

Seems to me that the Freeh Report critique deserves its own subheading on equal footing with the Freeh Report but others feel differently.Thoughts?TheWarOfArt (talk) 23:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A critique of the report should be addressed under the heading of that report. A subheading covers a section of the topic, in this case the Penn State child sex abuse scandal. The critique is of the report, not of the topic itself, therefore giving it a section of its own would grant it undue weight.--~TPW 13:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. I think the treatment of the Paterno family-commissioned report was covered adequately in the previous edit. The Freeh Report was commissioned by the PSU Board of Trustees and as such carries with it the weight of official status. Freeh's investigation was just that: an inquiry into the extent and causes of the scandal with the aim of determining and assigning blame. There is a world of difference between such a report and a critique commissioned by the family of one of the complicit parties, the purpose of which from its creation was not an objective probe into issues of guilt and responsibility but rather a pre-determined attempt at vindication of that party. Its very purpose thus disallows it as any kind of RS, and the prior edit here did an adequate job of summarizing it without giving it undue weight.Sensei48 (talk) 05:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to sub-heading three in order to put in the same subsection as the Freeh ReportTheWarOfArt (talk) 13:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There should be no more than a sentence or two about the Paterno family report. It played no part in the investigation or its outcome. It's a biased report with only one purpose, clearing the name of Joe Paterno. It belongs on the Paterno page, not here. If it was placed here, than it would only be fair to subject it to a critical evaluation itself.Dkspartan1 (talk) 05:14, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You could just as easily argue that the board of trustees report was commissioned to clear the name of Penn State at large and place the blame on Joe Paterno. Has anyone else read both reports? It is also unclear how you can say that it is biased when it was undertaken by 3 independent investigators. What evidence do you have to cite beyond the circumstantial that it is biased?TheWarOfArt (talk) 14:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that you have expressed the difference between the two reports clearly here. You note that an editor "could just as easily argue" a point - but such "argument" is antithetical to the very purpose of Wikipedia articles, which is to present the verifiable facts about the article's subject. The fact is that the Freeh Report was commissioned by the PSU trustees and is the official record of the incident. To "argue" about the motivations of the trustees in commissioning it is to stray into POV: the trustees commissioned it, Freeh assembled it, and the trustees let it stand. Those are verifiable facts. The Paterno family did not accept the conclusions of the report. They created their own investigation and selected the investigators (the two primary verifiable facts) who could hardly be called "independent" since they were given the commission to clear Paterno's name by his family, a point easily sourcable from RS and that (as above) would be one of many absolutely essential critiques of the Paterno family's effort should any edit attempt to give it equal weight to the Freeh Report.Sensei48 (talk) 15:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify by what you mean by official record of the incident? It is a non-legal document and not intended to be the basis for NCAA sanctions. Also, could you point to non-circumstantial evidence that the investigators were commissioned to clear Joe Paterno's name explicitly? Additionally, in terms of the trustees, your argument is a little flawed as, "(Trustee)Mr. Eckel said that Penn State never approved the Freeh report's conclusions, that it approved only moving forward with its recommendations."

http://www.post-gazette.com/news/state/2013/07/16/PSU-trustees-call-Freeh-report-speculation-disapprove-of-NCAA-sanctions/stories/201307160202#ixzz30IMLAzYK http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8207795/report-freeh-report-source-criticizes-ncaa-penalties-penn-state-nittany-lions TheWarOfArt (talk) 16:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting links. As you see, I rv'd the full restoration on the basis of lack of consensus for it - but that does not mean we can't work together to improve the section. I would be amenable to a careful expansion of the Paterno family report discussion, as long as the expansion also included some of the mountains of criticism that it in its turn received. What I would not like, though, would be to place the Paterno family report as co-equal to the Freeh report or to have the article appear to be trying to vindicate Paterno. It's a fine line indeed between reporting what the family report said and presenting it as of itself factual or accurate. I have a fairly intense work schedule over the next few days but will return to this ASAP. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 22:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
...and I will also respond as best I can to your specific questions above when time permits. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 23:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please do respond when you get the chance. I think the major issue here is the implicit suggestion the the Freeh Report is the more accurate of the two and thus should constitute the basis of what is fact and what is not. Both reports in my mind are equal parts enlightening and dubious. People are free to disagree, but having read both - that is what I think the fair conclusion to be. A good summary of that argument can also be found here:

http://deadspin.com/5983159/what-the-paterno-familys-investigation-got-right-and-wrong-about-the-freeh-report — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheWarOfArt (talk • contribs) 23:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, with the removal of the title of the report in the subsection, the implicit critique of Chief Deputy Attorney General Frank Fina of the Freeh Report lends additional weight to the section.TheWarOfArt (talk) 15:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dowd "Horror Story" reference

Would there be any objection to removing or rewording the paragraph about Maureen Dowd's "American Horror Story" column?

As currently written, it implies that Dowd attended the first day of the trial and that this open joke was revealed in the trial. And that's also the implication one gets from reading Dowd's column. However, there's nothing in the trial transcript that supports her claim.

I think the factual accuracy of the page would be improved by making it evident that the claim in unsupported. I've been informed that is against policy unless there is a published reference that can be cited. So lacking that, it would seem that removal of the paragraph would be an improvement.

Dissenting opinions sought.DiffuseGoose (talk) 02:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, remove it. It is extremely misleading, at best. Not everyone realizes that Dowd likes to make sarcastic wisecracks for semi-humorous purposes, and she has little regard for the facts. It would be better to quote late night comedians. Roger (talk) 02:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree.Sensei48 (talk) 05:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Finally got back to this this morning. Someone beat me to it. I notice there are a two other references to Dowd. Though I haven't read either of those two columns, their use doesn't appear to be as ill-conceived as the Horror Story one. But the reference to her June 19 column appears to be a citation for some trial testimony. Wouldn't it be better to reference the trial transcript itself, rather than to reference Dowd's perception of the testimony?DiffuseGoose (talk) 00:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rename the page: "Jerry Sandusky Child Sex Abuse Scandal"

As of November 2014, "Jerry Sandusky Child Sex Abuse Scandal" is the majority usage. Overwhelmingly. Here's objective evidence: A quick google search shows 517,000 articles use that phrase. By contrast, "Penn State Child Sex Abuse Scandal" is the minority usage. Just 195,000 articles use that phrase. Only 1/3rd as many mentions. The article title should be changed to reflect this. —Fluous (talk) 23:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The current title makes it sound as if Penn State officials were committing child sex abuse. Sandusky is the only one convicted of anything, and most of his offenses had little or nothing to do with Penn State. Roger (talk) 01:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with both your interpretation of the title and your assertion that Sandusky was the only person affected. For example, the university president was forced to step down and is currently under indictment. Moreover, the NCAA sanctions were imposed because the university agreed with the Freeh Report that Penn State had "an environment shaped by the actions and inactions of the leadership and board of Penn State that allowed Sandusky's serial child sexual abuse." ElKevbo (talk) 02:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, some Penn State officials stand accused of inaction of leadership. If that is so important, then call the page: Penn State inaction of leadership scandal. It is still just Sandusky's abuse that is the story. Roger (talk) 02:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing the same thing. When I search Google, I get about 159,000 results for "Penn State Child Sex Abuse Scandal" and about 221,000 results for "Jerry Sandusky Child Sex Abuse Scandal." That's certainly a difference but it's a far cry from either "overwhelming" or "1/3 as many mentions." Moreover, a different search engine, Bing, brings up 12,100,000 results for "Penn State Child Sex Abuse Scandal" but only 2,060,000 results for "Jerry Sandusky Child Sex Abuse Scandal." ElKevbo (talk) 02:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For Google, use quotes around the entire phrase. I don't know Bing syntax; probably the same. —Fluous (talk) 05:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, gotcha; thanks. I thought I did that but apparently I didn't.
I'm still not convinced, however, since Google hits of these verbatim phrases alone isn't a terribly good indicator. It's certainly evidence in favor of your argument but I don't think that it's particularly strong evidence. This how-to-guide discusses some of the issues in using search engines in this manner and includes recommendations on how to use them. This part is particularly relevant: "Confirm roughly how popularly referenced an expression is. Note, however, that Google searches may report vastly more hits than will ever be returned to the user, especially for exact quoted expressions. (emphasis in original)" ElKevbo (talk) 05:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! That link is tremendously helpful. And fascinating, too. After reading through it, I changed my mind: I'm no longer confident that the hit counts are particularly strong evidence. —Fluous (talk) 18:29, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fluous ElKevbo Schlafly – sorry for joining the conversation late, but I read the search engine test page too, and am not convinced the article should not be renamed to Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal. What is the justification under that guideline to keep it as is? Thanks! Go Phightins! 18:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So far, the only evidence in favor of renaming the article is search results that are questionable. If you have other evidence, please share it! ElKevbo (talk) 18:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have long had concern over how this article title meets WP:POVTITLE, insofar as only Sandusky has been convicted, while other Penn State administrators are still in pre-trial limbo, and much of the initial wave of criticism (NCAA sanctions, Freeh report) against Penn State has been refuted, so I am not sure factually it is the best title either, although it did greatly affect Penn State, I am not sure it is fair to say it is their child sex abuse scandal. Go Phightins! 18:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those are fair points but we have to abide by the reliable sources. ElKevbo (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which do not appear to show a clear affinity for the current title over the more accurate one ... Go Phightins! 18:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence...? ElKevbo (talk) 19:22, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't what was discussed above indicative, admittedly not unequivocally, of that? It is not feasible to simply make a tally chart of every article ever published, but there are more search results for the title that includes Sandusky ... I am not sure we have a reliable source to state that reliable sources favor the current title either. Go Phightins! 19:40, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will also note that usage seems to have gradually drifted over time to favor Sandusky over Penn State. My google search for "Penn State child sex abuse scandal" and "Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal" turned up these articles referring to it as the Sandusky scandal, and no recent articles referring to it as the Penn State scandal, with most articles using that title being written before 2013. Go Phightins! 19:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right about sentiment and naming convention changing over time. I'm not sure that the evidence you've cited so far is enough to make your case a slum dunk one but it's pretty good. Ideally, you should be able to provide sources from outside of Pennsylvania that may not be as invested in or partisan about this heated, emotionally charged topic. But I think you could probably make your case if you formally requested a move which would be my recommendation given the history of this article and its name. ElKevbo (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair points on in-state vs. out-of-state sources; thanks for all your input ... I think I will start a requested move at some point. Go Phightins! 20:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed this shift too. Not sure what side I'd take on a move request, but I think there would have to be lots of good evidence (including the above examples) for a move. --Jtalledo (talk)

Obviously I'm new to this, but in light of the recent events regarding the invalidation of the consent decree, removal of sanctions, and other facts that have come to light, wouldn't it be prudent to change the name? There are pending criminal proceedings and civil suits that may in fact reveal that there was no cover up. Isn't this an innocent until proven guilty type of scenario? In other words, Jerry Sandusky was proven guilty of a crime, and NOBODY else has. It should be the Jerry Sandusky scandal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Games6 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huge source on Graham Spanier's role

[2] A great article from the NY Times magazine on Spanier's role. Go Phightins! 18:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move 06 December 2014

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not moved. There is no consensus for the proposed move at this time. The discussion is well-though, with advocates of both positions making excellent points - this was a scandal that was largely tied to Penn State in the media and had consequences for various university personnel (allegedly brought on by their own conduct in turning a blind eye to certain information), and the institution as a whole; at the same time, most of the acts that precipitated the scandal occurred in other places, with Sandusky being the only common element to them. Nonetheless, this would not be a "scandal" at all if not for the institutional actions of people other than Sandusky. Furthermore, sources exist supporting either title. Neither title is therefore inherently incorrect, and absent a consensus in favor of change, the status quo remains. I would suggest that the participants in this discussion seek to develop some provision to clarify title policy on these matters. I would also suggest the possibility of splitting the article into one piece focusing on Sandusky's actions, and a separate piece focusing on the actions of other university personnel, and the impact of these events on the university. bd2412 T 20:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Penn State child sex abuse scandal → Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal – This has been a frequent suggestion over the years, so for some, it is likely natural to discount another request. However, after two years since the last discussion, it appears to me that my suggested title is a better one than our current title. Although there is definitely unreliability in Google search hit numbers, they are worth examining. A search for "Penn State child sex abuse scandal" [had link, but it is on blacklist for some reason] yields about 19,400 results, whereas a search for "Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal" [again, had link, but blocked] yields nearly 50,000 results. Moreover, recent articles favor "Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal": Centre Daily Times Allentown Morning Call FOX Sports Big Ten Blog NBC Philadelphia CBS News, while I found few-to-no articles published in 2014 that used the old title. Moreover, even sites that have a repository of articles on the subject, while the repository may include Penn State, the articles (created more recently than the repository), refer to it as the Sandusky scandal rather than the Penn State scandal, indicating a gradual, recent shift (examples: NBC Philadelphia and CBS News). Overall, there seems to have been a shift both from local and national media. According to WP:POVTITLE, in order to use a title that does not reflect a neutral point of view, it must be the predominant title used in the media, which as demonstrated, it is not (admittedly, it is one of the titles used in the media, but no longer the primary one). Consequently, I believe the title "Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal" not only more accurately reflects the facts of the case (insofar as only Sandusky has been convicted of anything, while Penn State officials remain in pre-trial limbo and much of the NCAA and Freeh Report's findings have been criticized/refuted, thus at least partially exonerating Penn State), but is now the predominant title used by reliable sources, and thus should be the title of Wikipedia's article according to our naming conventions. Thank you. Go Phightins! 20:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Support, as nominator. Go Phightins! 20:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Sandusky is in prison for mostly off-campus offenses, and no Penn State official has been convicted of anything. Roger (talk) 23:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. As previously discussed. Pretty good case that the naming convention has changed. Fluous (talk) 00:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support because the sexual abuse was committed by Sandusky. However, the actions (and lack of actions) by Penn State officials are a large part of the story, and I do not support any alteration of the article scope as a result of the article change, nor the suppression of any "Penn State" redirects. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 20:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Nominator's search is a little too specific, as the "child sex abuse" version of the phrase clearly refers more to Sandusky. Checking Google News, the simpler "penn state scandal" gets 7390 hits, while "jerry sandusky scandal" gets 2400 hits. I don't see any indication that the "Sandusky" articles are more recent or anything. Yes, it's true that's there are possibly unrelated Penn State scandals coming up from my search, but every single article from the first three pages appeared to refer to the Sandusky scandal off "Penn State scandal", so the drop-off is minor at best. So it seems that "Penn State scandal" is still the variant used by the media. (I'd question the idea from the nominator that it's a POV title as well, but it doesn't matter because it appears the media still uses "Penn State" anyway.) SnowFire (talk) 03:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per SnowFire. I'm also concerned this discussion and a related one above seem to indicate users may prefer the proposed title as only Sandusky was convicted. That downplays the fact the institution was penalized for its role and was complicit in the cover up. -- Calidum 04:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. For the reasons above. In addition, look at the article itself. Its concern and the totality of the story extend far beyond Sandusky's actions and are deeply and inextricably entwined with the university, especially with the extent to which the football culture influenced actions of university officials. The firing and/or forced resignations of the university's president, its athletic director, and its legendary football coach are prima facie evidence of that.Sensei48 (talk) 08:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Sensei48. The article is about handling of the case by the university at least as much as about Sandusky. No such user (talk) 13:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I originally created this article under the Sandusky title. It was moved to have Penn State in the title instead, which I wholly agreed with as at the time media largely used the Penn State phrasing. Now the Sandusky phrasing is increasingly being used and is recognizable and natural per WP:NC. But more importantly, I think the Sandusky article name should be used for consistency's sake. The articles Casa Pia child sexual abuse scandal, Cleveland child abuse scandal, Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal, North Wales child abuse scandal all refer to cases localized exclusively to specific locales with multiple reported perpetrators. With that convention, Penn State child sex abuse scandal implies that all the abuse occurred at Penn State by multiple abusers. As has been pointed out, some abuse incidents occurred outside of Penn State and all were perpetrated by one man, Jerry Sandusky, so the article title "Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal" is more descriptive, more neutral and more consistent with similar titles than the current name. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:
  • SnowFire I am not sure that it is a valid method either, insofar as no one is suggesting the article be renamed to "Penn State scandal" or "Jerry Sandusky scandal" ... the other search terms clearly have more hits, and the recent articles that I have found from national media sources seem to prefer the latter [Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal or similar variants]. Go Phightins! 11:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Go Phightins!: Well, that's because Wikipedia needs more specificity. The accepted shorthand in the news media for the event has simply been "Penn State scandal", and everyone knows which one, because there's only been 1 huge in-the-national-news scandal lately. However, that doesn't fly on Wikipedia, which has a more long-term focus, so we add qualifiers to make it obvious which scandal. Same reason that we have lots of disambiguators. SnowFire (talk) 07:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nor am I suggesting a change in content, but rather that the re-naming would obscure rather than clarify the content of the article. The scope of the scandal and its consequences - some of which are ongoing and are not directly related to Sandusky's actions - are articulated in paragraphs 1, 3, 4, and 5 of the article's lede. The NCAA response focuses on the culture of the school's athletic department, and the consideration of the imposition of the Death penalty (NCAA) and the severe penalties actually imposed reflect by definition a "lack of institutional control," which is a Penn State issue, not a Sandusky one. Such sanctions have been imposed elsewhere for a wide variety of infractions, often involving money or eligibility. The NCAA sanction are for the school's institutional failure to act, whether it be for child abuse or any other infraction.Sensei48 (talk) 15:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further, should Spanier, Schultz, and Curley be convicted, the name change would be rendered completely inappropriate. The reality of the NCAA sanctions as they exist and the fact of the indictments, even prior to trial and outcome, are of themselves sufficient to validate the name as is. Sandusky is a subset of a Penn State problem, not vice versa.Sensei48 (talk) 15:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears that the opposition is based on a belief that Penn State is guilty of something. Maybe it is, but that issue is hotly contested, and the accused Penn State officials are claiming innocence. It is not for WP to decide their guilt or innocence. We can change it back if Spanier, Schultz, and Curley are convicted. Roger (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not a very charitable reading. A charitable reading might be one that acknowledges that this tragedy has had significant repercussions for the university as a whole and hasn't focused solely on Sandusky e.g., immense NCAA sanctions directly affecting the entire football team as well as the university and the surrounding community, the firing or resignation of several of the most senior officials at the university including the president, a huge fine levied by the university's athletic conference, etc. Regardless of how perception and language will change over time, the immediate consequences affected the entire university. ElKevbo (talk) 21:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with ElKevbo, however I don't think that changes the fact that the incident has recently been more frequently referred to as the "Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal" than the current article title, which means we should follow suit. "Impact on university" should definitely be a section in the aforementioned article. Go Phightins! 22:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Schlafly: As stated in my rationale, the reason I oppose the move is because the terminology I have seen used by the news media is still some variant of "Penn State scandal", not "Jerry Sandusky scandal," and a trip to Google News confirmed my current impression. That's all. SnowFire (talk) 07:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I linked to an actual google search above. "Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal" (with quotes, i.e. an exact-match search) is far, far more common than the "Penn State" variant. Though as ElKevbo pointed out, exact-match hit counts are not entirely reliable or strong evidence. The evidence isn't as strong as I thought it was, but it's far, far stronger than what you're making it out to be. —Fluous (talk) 02:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Over-specific search?" It's the article title. You've just undermined your own case— admitting that "Penn State child-sex abuse scandal" is not the common name; and is over-specific. Perhaps it's not the search that's over-specific; it's the article title. Take a look at other college sports scandals. Here's a breakdown of the article titles. The vast majority of article titles about college sports scandals are general. They show 1) the college name and 2) the sport/ department implicated. That's it. Since you argued so strongly that "Penn State scandal" is the common name, I would support that article title (or something more in line with how college sports scandals are actually titled.) I do not support any title that includes both "Penn State" and "child-sex abuse."
Year Place Sport implicated What happened Descriptive noun
SMU football scandal
Michigan basketball scandal
Minesota basketball scandal
Baylor basketball scandal
2011 Miami athletics scandal
UNC academics-athletics scandal
Duke lacrosse case
BC basketball point shaving scandal
CCNY point shaving scandal
Penn State child-sex abuse scandal
—Fluous (talk) 21:16, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really sure what you're getting at with the table. You are correct that (in my view) "Penn State scandal" is the vanilla name used by news organizations. I have no particular attachment to the current disambiguation; if you wanted to propose something else to distinguish this from any other Penn State scandal, that'd be fine. Year is a classic choice elsewhere, but doesn't really work here, since the abuse stretched over one period of time, the alleged cover-up / non-reporting to the authorities a different period of time. For citing the department/sport ("Penn State football scandal?"), that's a no-go, as the problem here wasn't fielding illegal players or really anything related to students at all; it was related to the child sex abuse, hence the current title. But perhaps you have a better suggestion? SnowFire (talk) 22:39, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "2011 Penn State Scandal" would be my compromise pick. The year refers to when the scandal broke. At least one other scandal on Wikipedia had years of malfeasance but uses a year for when the scandal broke. So, there's precedent for it. -Fluous (talk) 01:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as the problem here wasn't fielding illegal players or really anything related to students at all; it was related to the child sex abuse" – right, sex abuse perpetrated by Jerry Sandusky, which is why it makes no sense to me to include Penn State in the title, especially considering the media's recent preference for Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal. Go Phightins! 23:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • We disagree about what the media actually uses. My searches indicate it is "Penn State scandal." Per Sensei48, articles found from your preferred search on "Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal" often appear to still use "Penn State scandal" (and variants) as well. SnowFire (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No such user speaks for me.--~TPW 17:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This, to me, is the most interesting argument. What exactly is the standard naming convention for "scandals?" Two points. 1) Based on your examples, an argument can be made that "Location" + "Action" is the standard. Let's evaluate the name: "Penn State child-sex abuse scandal" Location? Penn State. What happened there? Child-sex abuse. This is true. Child sex abuse happened on Penn State university grounds. It also happened at Jerry Sandusky's house. At Philadelphia Eagles games. Second Mile charity events. Restaurants. Hotels. Church. On the telephone. In a high-school conference room. In a high-school weight room. At a golf resort. In cars. In fact, child-sex abuse happened away from Penn State—overwhelmingly. The common denominator isn't Penn State; it's Jerry Sandusky. The Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal. 2) A much more apt example is the Eliot Spitzer prostitution scandal. —Fluous (talk) 02:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • An additional thought. While raw numbers returned from search results are split roughly evenly between the two names - and while there are as Phightins suggests rather more refs to Sandusky now than there were two years ago - those raw numbers include blogs, advocacy sites, and a host of other non-RS mentions. A sampling of major RS outlets from references this year indicates that the Penn State name remains the default appellation for the affair, even among some of those that give Sandusky more weight than prior. These include ABC [3], NBC [4], CNN [5], Yahoo News [6], Salon [7], The Guardian [8], Reuters [9], NYT op-ed [10], local Philadelphia NBC [11], among many others. Note again that these articles are all from 2014, most from the last three or four months. They indicate at the least that there has been no major move away from the Penn State designation by many of the major national news media.Sensei48 (talk) 14:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Raw numbers are hardly evenly split. It's over 2-1 for "Jerry Sandusky Child Sex Abuse Scandal" (Exact-match google search. You have to use quotes). Also, you have to factor in that this is Wikipedia. The name of this article influences what other people call it. There's that built-in advantage, and "Penn State Child Sex Abuse Scandal" still has less than half as many mentions. -Fluous (talk) 03:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • To analyze your sources:
  • ABC: If you look at the articles underneath the header, such as this one, you will find that the most recent ones call it the "Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal" rather than the "Penn State child sex abuse scandal".
As I intimated above, the primary header for the entire category of articles is "Penn State Scandal News."Sensei48 (talk) 07:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • NBC: uses neither "Jerry Sandusky child abuse scandal" nor "Penn State child sex abuse scandal"; initially calls it "Penn State scandal involving former coach Jerry Sandusky", which really supports neither of the proposed names
The lead sentence in the article begins, "When news of the Penn State scandal involving former coach Jerry Sandusky broke," putting the primary identification on PSU.Sensei48 (talk) 07:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • CNN: that page was created in 2011 when this began, and simply has not been renamed since; the only reason it was updated in September was the lifting of a bowl ban due to improper imposition.
It hasn't been renamed because CNN is identifying it as the PSU scandal. In addition, it has been updated continually with multiple notations from 2012, 2013, and 2 from 2014.Sensei48 (talk) 07:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yahoo: "A long-awaited probe into the investigation of former Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky, who was convicted in 2012 of sexually abusing children, will be released early next week, Pennsylvania authorities said on Friday." is how the article begins ... the article deals with the subsequent investigation of Penn State also, which likely explains the headline; moreover, it was from six months ago
It is from 2014, and the headline is the default Yahoo characterization of "Penn State child-abuse probe."
  • Salon: An editorial that would not really qualify as a reliable source for substantive information, insofar as it has been through several admitted corrections for factual inaccuracy ... the writer likely has an agenda also, which, although not disqualifying his usage of Penn State instead of Jerry Sandusky, also does not put him on the same agenda-less level of news media (e..g, ESPN, FOX, ABC above) which, in passing, now refer to it as "Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal" ... also was published a year ago.
This op-ed is by a senior writer at a reputable website; his topic is the very question of the name. Your assumption that "the writer likely has an agenda" is a major one and one that you have no clear reason for making. It's also from this year, albeit early this year. Is there a suggestion that 2014 has created a seismic shift in the name?Sensei48 (talk) 07:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Guardian: Not sure what you are looking at here ... the first article in that set (published in September) calls it the "Jerry Sandusky scandal".
Check The Guardian's category header, upper left: Penn State sexual abuse scandal. It is also part of the URL. All Guardian articles related to this topic fall under this header.Sensei48 (talk) 07:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reuters: you are double-dipping with that article; it's the same one as from Yahoo above
Sorry!Sensei48 (talk) 07:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • NBC Philadelphia: If you look at the articles within the heading, as I did above in my analysis, you will note they call it the "Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal", not the Penn State child sex abuse scandal.
Yet once again, the subject header, the default identifying category that the site uses, is "Penn State Scandal:Complete coverage of the child sex abuse scandal that rocked a college football giant" - and the link reads "Read more: http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/sports/Penn-State-Sex-Abuse-Scandal.html#ixzz3LfLFIMyO" - with PSU once again apperaring in the category URL.Sensei48 (talk) 07:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall, a cursory look may not indicate the change I see when I dig deeper into it, but when you actually look into the prose of the articles, where the most "agenda-less" information will be, insofar as the outlet no longer needs to catch attention by throwing the name of a big institution out there, there has been a shift in the name of preference to "Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal", which is why I proposed the name change. Go Phightins! 03:37, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I note above a shift at least partially to JS. However, these examples at least indicate that as a category for articles and reports on these sites Penn State is still the umbrella under which the articles appear.Sensei48 (talk) 07:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And my comment on that would be the categories of articles were created some time ago, so it is not feasible, for linking purposes (i.e. it would mess up links coming from the outside, causing a redirect, which would hurt their search engine placement), to change their names, however the new articles in those categories favor the latter title indicates the shift to which I have been referring. Go Phightins! 11:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is inference and supposition regarding why the Penn State name remains as a category. It could as easily be inferred that the name remains as a header because it is the primary focus of identification of the scandal. A report commissioned in 2004 (and usually referred to as a "landmark report," widely cited) estimated that "roughly 290,000 students experienced some sort of physical sexual abuse by a public school employee between 1991 and 2000. (Quotation from here [12] and full report here [13].) That averages to about 30,000 cases per year, with no indication of a major shift in pattern or numbers since. Yet how many of these have become national stories? A few that have, like here in LA the McMartin Preschool episode (earlier but still notorious) and the more recent Miramonte school scandal, are named for the locus and not the perpetrator. Exactly what about the case in point of this article made it and makes it an international story? Is it a near-anonymous assistant football coach? Or is it the fact that this coach was employed by and abetted by (by neglect at the very least) officials of a nationally-known university and football program? If Penn State is not the reason for the notoriety of the scandal - then why can't any editor here nor anyone in the general public likely be able to name a single one of the hundreds of thousands of other perpetrators of exactly the same offenses? The prominence - the notability - of Penn State's name and football renown are what made Sandusky a household word; had he committed the same acts at a junior high in Kansas, he would still be anonymous. regardsSensei48 (talk) 00:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How do you respond to the numerous articles I have cited that, in the body of the article, refer to the scandal as "Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal"? They are the most recent indications of the news media's preference; per our naming guidelines, we must follow the reliable sources. Go Phightins! 03:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so here's what I'm seeing in these arguments:
  • Google searches are dicey, since we can't readily account for where they're coming from. Also, Google/Google News searches vary widely depending on the phrasing you use. So I rule out that approach entirely.
  • The article is about more than the man's actions and personal fallout, this is true. But Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal is also about institutional fallout and the wider implications of the scandal, yet the article title still has the man's name in it. These kinds of scandals inevitably involve more than the accused/convicted, whether it's law enforcement, or individuals and institutions implicated as enablers or in cover-ups.
  • The Sandusky scandal name is increasingly being used. Reuters shows an obvious trend towards Sandusky scandal. Papers of record: A search on the New York Times is mixed. Washington Post and the LA Times though shows a bit of a trend towards Sandusky. Again, depending on what sources you choose, this could vary too, especially if you're looking for a trend to confirm your POV.
To me it boils down to which is most neutral sounding title (sort of like the debate regarding Plame affair) and you could argue it both ways. Obviously the scandal relates to Penn State as does the fallout, but that title shifts the focus from the abuser himself. You could argue for the Sandusky scandal name what with the Savile article name, but on the other hand you could argue it discounts the role of Penn State (and indeed, some Paterno/PSU loyalists do refer to it as a Sandusky scandal instead of a Penn State scandal.) To me, neither name sounds entirely neutral. I wonder if there's another name that would be suitable, because an article name goes a long way in framing peoples' impression of a topic. --Jtalledo (talk) 16:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking generally along the same lines, though having just re-read our article and its sources, I just cannot see leaving PSU out of the title. Most of the latter half of the article is concerned with Penn State, its officials, its football program, and so on. I reiterate: there are thousands of educator child abuse incidents each year in the U.S., most of which do not have a major Wikipedia article written about them. If Sandusky had committed these atrocities at a junior high in Kansas, as I said above - none of this discussion would be taking place here and there would be no article. While shifting the name to JS drags a red herring across the trail of PSU's involvement, which is the larger story as addressed in the article and which makes this incident not a case in a junior high in Kansas, in the interests of collaboration and compromise and in respect of the different links above - perhaps "The Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal at Penn State."
  • Good idea but a little wordy. Slashes seem frowned upon in naming conventions, so maybe something like Jerry Sandusky–Penn State child sex abuse scandal. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "If Sandusky had committed these atrocities at a junior high in Kansas..." That line of thinking is the problem. See how you casually linked "child sex abuse" happening "at Penn State?" And "these atrocities," as if Sandusky's crimes generally occurred "at Penn State." Virtually all of the abuse occurred off-campus in a million different places. Putting both "Penn State" and "child sex abuse" in the title contributes to this confusion. It's either/or. Either "Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal" or "2011 Penn State [some general term like 'athletics'] scandal" (as is the format for college sports scandals, as I listed in a table above). Fluous (talk) 09:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Report: Joe Paterno allegedly told of Jerry Sandusky sex abuse in 1976"

  • "Report: Joe Paterno allegedly told of Jerry Sandusky sex abuse in 1976". USA Today. May 5, 2016. Retrieved May 6, 2016.
  • Thompson, Charles (May 5, 2016). "Child told Paterno of sex abuse in 1976, court papers allege". Penn Live. Retrieved May 6, 2016.

—BarrelProof (talk) 04:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is more updated information:

http://www.pennlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/07/insurance_expert_penn_state_ha.html

Leo Bonilla (talk) 02:47, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2 proposals

1. I ask a WP:RFC to discuss the support or oppose the inclusion of the new information about the reports regarding Penn State coaches' acknowledge about Sandusky's actions. The investigations about the whole case have involved Paterno so it's not WP:RECENTISM. Here are the WP:RS:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/sandusky-case-bombshell-did-6-penn-state-coaches-witness-abuse-n569526

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/05/06/us/jerry-sandusky-victims-paterno-penn-state/index.html?sr=twCNN050616jerry-sandusky-victims-paterno-penn-state0957PMStoryGalPhoto&linkId=24234146

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/798fbba86c834439bb627254f1ab138a/passion-pain-reignited-over-new-penn-state-abuse-claims

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/8c8b42f1f7a24069b703f21c06645b28/penn-state-president-decries-new-joe-paterno-allegations

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7cfe4bb82dd84110adae6643033abfb6/paternos-son-supposed-1976-allegation-vs-father-bunk

2. Given the new information and due to there are no mention of more aftermath after 2013, this article might be tagged as WP:OUTDATED not because deletion risk but because WP:V.

Leo Bonilla (talk) 08:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why an RfC is needed as no one has attempted to update this article with this new information or discussed it at all. I can't imagine that reasonable editors would object to adding this new information provided it meets all of the other expectations that we have of all other additions e.g., WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:DUE. ElKevbo (talk) 14:29, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the desire for an RFC. This page and topic are controversial. Given the contentious edit history and how long it's been since any major events have happened surrounding this subject, additions may need fresh eyes aside from the people who have edited it in the past (myself included). --Jtalledo (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Consider the RFC because of 2 facts: First, the new information has been well reported but no one has added to this page, and assuming WP:GOODFAITH, there should be a good reason for that. Second, the WP:CONSENSUS is not implicit, so it's recommended wikieditors like us create the consensus first to avoid any single WP:EDITWAR and don't waste time on the WP:BRD process. Thank you for understand. Leo Bonilla (talk) 02:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First off, a good faith reason why it hasn't been added might be that no-one has cared enough to do so. We're not given a list of assignments that we must complete each time we sign on, we all edit at our own whims. Another reason might be that some editors chose to start an RfC instead of simply adding the material. ;)
Second, WP:BRD is NOT a waste of time. In fact, it's a time saver. Given the (admittedly short) discussion here, it's pretty clear that you could have just added the material and been done with it. In fact, the presumption that an edit war is likely is a bit of an assumption of bad faith. I'm not trying to lecture you, but given the nature of this content, assuming that someone will start edit warring over it really requires you to assume that an editor with an passionate, irrational view of this subject is just waiting to start misbehaving.
My advice is to go for it. WP:BOLD is an official and popular editing guideline for a reason, after all. I understand and appreciate your desire to get the content in without starting a bunch of drama, but keep in mind that in cases like this, you wouldn't be starting that drama. Anyone who would edit war over this would edit war over a hundred other things. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Others are giving good advice, but having had a quick look at a few new sources, the info needs to be handled with extreme care, be bold, but be careful too! Pincrete (talk) 22:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The essential information about the 2016 reports was added, contributions and improvement discussion are welcomed WP:OWN. However, nobody had in mind Sandusky has requested a retrial, at least editors related to this page. So that's another point to take care. I still propose the article or part of it to be tagged as outdated.

Now let me clarified something I forgot. The new claims are related to Paterno and other Penn State staff more than Sandusky himself. Let's remember the controversy about naming this page referring to Penn State rather than Sandusky and the still ongoing debate about Paterno's legacy going to an extreme to hear Donald Trump expressed desire to restore the Joe Paterno statue in the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016 speech in Pennsylvania (someone here would want to kill me for mentioning it). The point is that this new information might have a major role in a potentially infamous historic figure like Paterno and dumped more the name of an institution like Penn State. So we need to be careful because WP:REAL. Leo Bonilla (talk) 23:03, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Penn State child sex abuse scandal. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additions to mounting media usage of accurate name of scandal

Note: This discussion section is not about the contents of the articles cited below, so please don't go there. Rather, it is to document that the prevailing use of the term "scandal" in 2016 is preceded by a variation of the words "Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse."

ESPN: article, More than 200 lettermen petition PSU to return Joe Paterno statue, More than 200 Penn State football lettermen petitioned the university on Tuesday for the return of an iconic bronze Joe Paterno statue that was removed in the summer of 2012 in the wake of the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse case. (July 6, 2016)

Los Angeles Times: article, Former Penn State players and coaches call for return of Joe Paterno statue, More than 200 former Penn State football players and coaches have signed a strongly worded letter calling on the university to restore the statue of legendary coach Joe Paterno, which was removed from campus in the aftermath of the Jerry Sandusky child molestation scandal. (July 6, 2016)

Google's news search Explore in Depth lists 45 articles on July 6, 2016. Most or all have a writer's byline. None is a duplicate credited to wire services, as the Google list had already "omitted some entries very similar to those already displayed." None includes mention of a Penn State scandal. Jeff in CA (talk) 18:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Title change and edit war in related article

Just a quick heads up that Jeff in CA has begun an edit war at Penn State Nittany Lions to change the text that links to this article to his preferred title for this article ("Jeff Sandusky child sex abuse scandal"). We've had quite a few discussions here and I'm dismayed that he is disregarding all of that discussion and edit warring against that consensus without even attempting to discuss his objections. If it's time for another round of discussions about the title of this article then let's hold that discussion instead of trying to change the title through the back door by editing the way this article is linked in other articles. ElKevbo (talk) 20:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I never edit war, especially on this topic. My revert, ElKevbo, was for you and you only. My gripe is, "Who made you king?" You seem to be the first, last and primary reverter of anything having to do with this topic all across Wikipedia. For years you have been enforcing your own preference. It's time for some other enforcer of your preference to be king. Hell, make up a sock puppet and never tell us. After a couple years of that, lots of people will get sick of that one too. At least let someone else be the king of your kingdom. I suggest you try to stop worrying and watching and protecting this topic that you lord over. This view is certainly not mine alone.Jeff in CA (talk) 23:39, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Let's disregard the nonsense about "I don't edit war but I did just edit war" and focus on the part where the opinions of the many other editors who have discussed this issue for five years are completely disregarded in favor of some bullshit about me being "king of [my] kingdom." Stop edit warring and engage in the discussion that should be held. ElKevbo (talk) 23:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to call one revert of your revert an "edit war" then fine; I made a one-time, once-in-a-decade exception. However, I never accused you of sockpuppetry. I said it would be better for you to engage in sockpuppetry instead of the Boulwarism in which you are now engaged.Jeff in CA (talk) 00:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please address the central issue of you changing the name used to link to this article without discussion and despite several discussions that have rejected your preferred name. ElKevbo (talk) 01:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Without commenting specifically on the edit war, I will say that particularly over the last few years, I have noticed a marked shift in mainstream media sources towards calling it the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal. The last discussion yielded no clear consensus, as I recall, so the status quo endured. Perhaps it's time to discuss again. Go Phightins! 01:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm totally fine with revisiting the discussion to see if the common name has changed. I'm simply perturbed that someone is attempting to avoid having that discussion by ramming through their preferred name without any discussion or notice.
I think that some of the court cases were recently - within the last week or so - resolved with plea bargains so should be some very recent sources to include in discussion (and this article, if that hasn't already happened). ElKevbo (talk) 01:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 23 external links on Penn State child sex abuse scandal. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 19:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where do I mention Pendergrast's book?

This article is so tightly structured that I do not see a natural place for mentioning Mark Pendergrast's recent book on the subject. Any suggestion?

Moreover, the tone of the article leaves no room for doubt on Sandusky's guilt. Now that such doubt has appeared in reliable sources, a more cautious tone might be warranted.

Aerkem (talk) 19:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Aerkem: You could mention it under "Other victims". The table there is based on a review of Pendergrast's book that was published at The Skeptic website. Jeff in CA (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff in CA: Thank you for mentioning the table. This table is a nice piece of work, but it seems to make the whole article self-contradicting. Shouldn't the article rather be a synthesis of reliable sources? Or a least explicitly state that there are contradictions among sources? My intention (for the moment) was only to state that there was a book by Pendergrast, and not to attempt more ambitious changes. There is also an ongoing debate at the Jerry Sandusky article. Aerkem (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Penn_State_child_sex_abuse_scandal&oldid=829126129"