Talk:2019 college admissions bribery scandal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Page title?[edit]

I created 2019 college admissions bribery scandal, but thoughts on the best possible title? ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:15, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

---Another Believer (Talk) 17:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

college admissions and testing bribery scandal is what the DOJ named it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by an unspecified IP address

Hi. I made a Operation Varsity Blues redirect and added an entry to the Varsity Blues disambiguation page. Regarding the page title, I'm not sure we really need "2019" in it unless we're disambiguating from scandals in past years? But shrug. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
MZMcBride, Thanks. For now, do you think Operation Varsity Blues should be displayed in bold text? --Another Believer (Talk) 18:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Nah. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
MZMcBride, Someone bolded the text, but I don't mind either way. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
It's bold, and should remain so, per MOS:BOLDSYN. —Hugh (talk) 01:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
I think the name is fine as is for now. If RS start referring to it by a specific name, we can change it. Natureium (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Regardless of the final chosen title the title should be properly capitalized. New here, no idea bow to do that. Junipllc (talk) 02:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
It's different than most style guides, but Wikipedia uses sentence case rather than title case for article titles. See MOS:TITLECASE. Natureium (talk) 02:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Nothing in the title is a proper noun; there's no case for using capitals here. —Hugh (talk) 01:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
I would vote for US college-admissions scandal, the hyphen creating a compound modifier. Succinct, and denotes where it happened, which I'd argue is important. The when ("2019") is not needed, since there have been few other scandals of this nature in recent history, and certainly none that I can find WP articles on. If that title were adopted, a hatnote might be useful at College Scandal. —Hugh (talk) 01:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Questions about article title: Add "U.S." and change "college" to "university" ?[edit]

I have two questions about the current title of this article, "2019 college admissions bribery scandal."

1. Should we add "U.S." or something similar to make it clear that all of the institutions involved in this incident are in one country, the United States? I systematically looked but it also appears as if all or nearly all of the specific people involved are also in the U.S.

2. Should we change "college" to "university" because all of the institutions involved are universities and not colleges?

Personally, I believe the first should be done but the second should not. Clarifying the country would be helpful for readers. It's annoying that this is widely, likely unanimously, referred to as a college admissions scandal when no colleges are involved but WP:COMMONNAME is quite clear on this front. (I don't know if that policy is helpful in deciding the first question; it seems likely that most of the reporting isn't explicitly noting that this is a U.S.-based scandal simply because most of the reporters are writing in U.S.-based publications for U.S.-based audiences. Does anyone have a sense of how non-U.S. media are reporting on this?) ElKevbo (talk) 11:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

ElKevbo, I'm not opposed to either, but just spot-checking source titles in the current References section, I'd say there are not many (if any) appearances of "United States"/"U.S"., and many more mentions of "college" over "university". So, based on sourcing alone, I'd say the current title might be best, but I'm definitely not opposed to moving the page based on other naming conventions, if editors prefer. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I've thought about that, too, but clarifying the country would be more of an internal Wikipedia necessity/desire than an attempt to follow WP:COMMONNAME. It's the same reason that we have "2019" in the article title but none of the media are explicitly referring to the year in their reports. ElKevbo (talk) 16:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
ElKevbo, Sure, I understand, and I'm not opposed to adding US to the title in some way. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Why on earth would US-based sources (which most of these are) explicitly refer to the scandal as being American in nature? US sources report US news. —Hugh (talk) 00:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
That's exactly my point: We can't solely rely on WP:COMMONNAME as Wikipedia article titles exist in a different context than the names used in media sources that are, for the most part, ephemeral and have an implicit context. ElKevbo (talk) 15:34, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
College is generally the common term in the US unless there's a reason a person is trying to distinguish between colleges and universities. Natureium (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I !vote for Hugh's suggestion of U.S. college admissions scandal. Leave out the year since this case will likely span several years before it is all disposed of in the courts - and the alleged activity dates back multiple years. And it's true that in press usage and casual conversation, even the most elite universities are generically referred to as "college". This is an American thing; an American parent will say "my son is in college" while a British parent will say "my son is at university." (Original Research alert.) -- MelanieN (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN, Can we lead with an abbreviation? What about United States college admissions scandal? ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, we sometimes do lead with an abbreviation. See U.S. state, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. (We should use U.S. rather than US if we go that route; I’m correcting my suggestion above. I am also eliminating the hyphen; I don't think it is necessary and sources aren't using it.) We could say American but I don’t like that as well, and United States is awfully formal; if you search for articles starting with that they are all very official, e.g. United States Constitution, United States Congress. BTW I am noticing that the press seems to have settled on "college admissions scandal" so we should omit "bribery". -- MelanieN (talk) 00:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
MelanieN, I agree. Then, for the record, I support United States college admissions scandal and would be comfortable with U.S. college admissions scandal. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Shall we put this up for a vote? ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't think we need a formal RM discussion but we should try to get input from the other people who have been editing this article. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
MelanieN, Thanks for starting a new discussion, which I've moved directly below to keep things together. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposed name change[edit]

As per the discussion above, it is proposed to change the name of this article to either U.S. college admissions scandal or United States college admissions scandal.

@NickCT, MZMcBride, Hl, Natureium, Junipllc, ElKevbo, and Lindenfall: @Joseph A. Spadaro, Psantora, Adog, Coffeeandcrumbs, and Muboshgu: Pinging, for opinions, other people who have been active at this article, -- MelanieN (talk) 04:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

United States college admissions scandal is my preference. I abhor abbreviation in article titles. I don't think they are necessary when the title is not excessively long as in this case--- Coffeeandcrumbs 04:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Coffeeandcrumbs, +1, but as I mentioned above, I'd be fine with "U.S. college admissions scandal" if that's what others prefer. ---Another Believer (Talk) 05:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I concur with a slight variant - If I may piggyback on the original poster, I would like to go further and float the idea of renaming this page to “college admissions scandal”. There are no other college admissions scandal pages on Wikipedia, as this is the first one notable enough, and Wikipedia titles are supposed to be as simple as possible. Adding “2019” and “United States” are overly precise because there’s no need to disambiguate by year or location. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 06:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

There have been other cases (University of Illinois clout scandal and University of Texas at Austin admissions controversy based on a quick search), though those were related to specific schools. This is obviously at a different scale, but I'm not sure that the subject as a whole belongs at this page. - PaulT+/C 06:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Does it have to have "United States"? It isn't exclusive to the US as it included some Canadian parents and students for the Canadian high school graduation exams. I'd prefer 2010s college admissions bribery case or something similar. I'd prefer to wait on any move until at least a week or two in case a more natural name starts to arise (such as "Operation Varsity Blues"). I don't see any pressing need to move it currently and it works for now. I just hope that this doesn't eventually get a "-gate" moniker. - PaulT+/C 06:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Psantora: - re "included some Canadian parents and students for the Canadian high school graduation exams" - Really? Which ones? NickCT (talk) 11:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, some examples would be helpful especially since the articles that I have read have described the cheating as focusing on describing the applicants as athletes with little or no focus on exam scores. ElKevbo (talk) 12:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
David Sidoo, Canadian businessman and former Canadian Football League player[58]
Allegedly paid to have his sons score highly on the SAT and Canadian high school graduation exam[58]
Brown, Scott; Griffin, Kevin; Fraser, Keith (March 13, 2019). "Vancouver's David Sidoo charged in U.S. college-entrance scandal | Vancouver Sun". The Vancouver Sun. Retrieved March 13, 2019.
It is one example, but its there. - PaulT+/C 13:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for providing this example! There are so many people involved that it's easy to miss some of these details.
It appears that although these were Canadians their focus was still admission to U.S. universities so this particular example does not change my thinking about the possible title of this article. ElKevbo (talk) 14:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Think I concur with ElKevbo on this one. Appreciate your point Paul, but it seems like the one Canadian in this story is the exception to the rule that this was basically an American story. NickCT (talk) 15:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Either is fine but so is waiting I have a slight preference for "United States" but I would also be totally fine with waiting for a few weeks to see if the media converges on a common name. ElKevbo (talk) 12:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

  • 2019 U.S. college admissions scandal or U.S. college admissions scandal - Unless  - PaulT+/C points to specific examples on non-US persons involved in this scandal, adding "US" seems to make sense. I'd prefer if we added 2019 to avoid potential confusion with other admissions scandal... NickCT (talk) 12:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Comment / Question: I am just curious. Is there a consensus / preference for removing or maintaining the word "bribery" in the title? Is every example of wrong-doing in this case a "bribery"? I am not sure. Just posing the question. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Joseph A. Spadaro, Sources seem to use "cheating" almost as much as "bribery". I'm not sure either are necessary. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. All of these people were (allegedly) involved in wrong-doing. I am not sure that each and every one engaged in "bribery", however. Not sure of the details on all 50 people. I imagine that some may have been "quid pro quo" (exchanging "favors"), and not necessarily "bribery" proper. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
It looks like "bribery" has a pretty broad, expansive, and inclusive definition. Per Wikipedia: bribery. I thought that, technically, it had to involve the offer/exchange of actual money. But, I guess not. Of course, we'd need to see the federal law defining "bribery", but I assume that also is inclusive, expansive, and quite broad. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I think we should leave out "bribery", both because the case is broader than that, and more importantly because Reliable Sources are calling it the "college admissions scandal". Our title should follow COMMONNAME and reliable source usage if possible.-- MelanieN (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree. ElKevbo (talk) 15:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Not to be a fly in the ointment, but I don't think either name distinguishes the event from some other college scandal (to be, or yet to be revealed, perhaps). United States college admissions scandal is close, but assumes it's an isolated event... and, so early in our century. Charges were laid in 2019, so, perhaps, the year should be retained, as is often the case when referencing indictments, though the trial(s) will carry on into the 2020s. Maybe I'm over-thinking it, and should just buzz off, though. Lindenfall (talk) 16:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
────────────I agree. The more I think about it the less I like the idea of a name change at this time. The scandal started in 2019 as a result of the charges even if the bribery occured years earlier. If "scandal" is going to be in the title I think it needs to have "2019" as well. The only other wrinkle is to whether "testing" should be added since that is the official name of the investigation, but I haven't seen any sources saying that the testing services were ever unrelated to ultimately getting admitted to a better school (why else cheat on the test?). - PaulT+/C 16:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I would be fine with the latter title of United States college admissions scandal or something of the sort. If it involves international actors (not these kind, the other definition), then another name should suffice. Adog (TalkCont) 14:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Categories for institutions associated with scandal?[edit]

Should we add university categories for institutions involved in the scandal? ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

What kind of categories? Public or private, large or small, what? I don't see anything to be gained by trying to categorize them. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Since the colleges were also victims in this 'college-gate', if you will, I'm not sure that it serves general knowledge to lump them in with the accused. Lindenfall (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree. I've moved the coaches to classify them by university rather than just having a list of universities, and then also a list of coaches by university. Natureium (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Sounds good, all. I didn't feel strongly about adding university categories, but just wanted to float the idea by others. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Seems someone has added university categories... ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Yup, that was me. Seeing as it is a limited list of universties I think it makes sense, but if the list grows to over 12 or so then we may want to revisit including them. I meant to respond here as this was where I got the idea, but I must have forgotten.Face-smile.svg - PaulT+/C 22:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

List of indicted individuals[edit]

Should the list of indicted individuals be sorted alphabetically or based on how frequently they are mentioned in coverage? Current sourcing seems to focus on Huffman and Loughlin the most, but they may change very quickly. Perhaps the list of names should be moved from the lead into a bullet listed lower down? ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

---Another Believer (Talk) 23:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Another Believer: - What do think about making a List of people involved in the 2019 college admissions bribery scandal? We could throw all the defendants and other involved people into that list. Strikes me that there are so many people "involved" in this story that a stand-alone list might be justified. NickCT (talk) 14:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
NickCT, I'm not opposed, but I think I'd still recommend first fleshing out this article fully before forking out a separate list. Right now the bulleted list of names is quite short. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
@Another Believer: - Yeah. Agree. Is it worth creating another bulleted list in this article now? It looks like there are semi-notable "involved" people who don't fall under the category of "defendant" (e.g. Mark Riddell). I'm thinking a large list that gives a short one sentence bio and a one sentence description of involvement. NickCT (talk) 14:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Separate parents and coaches?[edit]

Should the Defendants separate the parents of college applicants and the nine coaches? Differentiating how people were involved may be helpful. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree in principle. I'm going to take a stab at rearranging things. If you don't agree with how I do it, please feel free to WP:BRD. I won't be offended. NickCT (talk) 00:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Should the Universities section become a subsection of Participants, or merged in some other way? ---Another Believer (Talk) 03:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)  Done ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Public reactions[edit]

Is a public reactions section of statements by politicians really useful here? Natureium (talk) 23:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Alan Dershowitz is not a politician; he is a law professor. As a high profile lawyer, and as a professor at the elite Harvard University, I think his input is important to this article. Senator Warren's is less useful, but not out of bounds, as far as I can see. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
+1, also I'm sure this section could be fleshed out much more. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree. When I asked the question, only Warren's statement had been added. I think hers should be removed. His seems more relevant. Natureium (talk) 16:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
As of now, Warren's statement stands alone. And Dershowitz's statement has been removed. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
See this diff. ---Another Believer (Talk) 03:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
I see that. Thanks. But, I disagree with it. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 10:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
I added back both statements to this section. They are not the best examples, but there will be other reactions that can be added when they are relevant. What specific concerns are there that need to be resolved?
For reference, here is the current text of that section:

Alan Dershowitz, professor emeritus at Harvard Law School, said it was "the worst scandal involving elite universities in the history of the United States".[1] Elizabeth Warren, United States Senator from Massachusetts (where all the criminal cases were filed), told news media that the scandal represented "just one more example of how the rich and powerful know how to take care of their own".[2]


 - PaulT+/C 17:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
I am sorry that I hadn't looked here before I removed this section... because I think it inappropriate to include personal opinions (even when I agree with them) about an on-going judicial matter in an encyclopedia. Also, singular comments by individuals is not "public reaction" which, no doubt, will become noteworthy, in time. I'm sure Warren, and others, will have much more to say as a trial progresses. Lindenfall (talk) 17:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
No worries. I just self-reverted and removed the section again. Let's all come to an agreement on what should be included in this section (if anything) before adding it back to the page. The statements are definately opinions and are very much borderline as to if they should be included. Haven't there been other notable reactions? - PaulT+/C 17:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I think that adding this section should wait until perspective is available. Otherwise, the reporting is more akin to a magazine than an encyclopedia. This, to my mind, is an encyclopedia-worthy reaction to this 'college-gate': "USC to bar student applicants connected to Rick Singer's admissions consulting firm" Lindenfall (talk) 18:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC) Lindenfall (talk) 18:57, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
───────────────A new section was added on the congressional response. I think this section should be broadened back to public response and the note about the NCAA should be added there along with the current wording. In theory the above questioned sentences (or similar reactions) could be added to this section as well. - PaulT+/C 16:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Someone added a "commentary" section that was extremely bare, so in the meantime I added back the two sentences that were under discussion above. Feel free to revert if this is still disputed in the new context of that section. - PaulT+/C 07:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion: Table or subsections for each university involved[edit]

It may be helpful to develop a table or subsections of prose for each university involved in this scandal to help readers understand how many people in each organization was involved, how they were involved, what has happened to those individuals and at each institution, etc. For example, it seems likely that all of the coaches and administrators involved will be (or perhaps have already been) fired and this may be an organized way of documenting that. ElKevbo (talk) 12:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Elkevbo: We should start with a section on "Colleges and universities". We can further subsection only when necessary. We want to avoid undue weight until coverage focuses on particular schools which it most likely will in the future.
I have started a new section to that effect. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Andrew Lelling[edit]

Andrew Lelling's article mentions this scandal. Should this article, in turn, mention him? ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
He is not currently mentioned in the article's prose, but his names seems to be (incorrectly) linked in the References section (Ref #11). ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, that was an error in one of my edits. I've corrected the link and added a blurb about him in the lede. - PaulT+/C 15:34, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Psantora, Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank *you* for pointing it out! I didn't realize it happened and it might have taken a while for me to notice. - PaulT+/C 19:30, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
I had already added Lelling and details earlier today, right after adding the same details to Lelling's page. He had clearly stated, when announcing the charges, that Rosen was in the lead prosecutor role (and it's Rosen who signed official court documents). I don't see why this content was since altered, when Lelling is clearly the boss of those actually prosecuting the case.Lindenfall (talk) 19:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Assistant attorneys[edit]

The last sentence of the lead is Lelling heads the securities and financial fraud unit, which includes Assistant U.S. Attorneys Eric S. Rosen, Justin D. O’Connell, Leslie Wright, and Kristen A. Kearney.[13][14] Why in the world are we listing all those non-notable assistant attorneys? Especially in the lead? If we must list them at all, put them down in the article somewhere. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

+1 ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Removed. Also, the lead (in theory) summarizes the body, so I moved the information about Lelling. Natureium (talk) 20:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Agreed, this also points to the above discussion on Lelling and his team as well. - PaulT+/C 20:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
MelanieN... Dear Miz T, I listed those non-notables because they are actually the prosecution team, led by Rosen, as stated by Lelling when announcing charges, and whose sole signature is on the court filing. Lelling is their boss, and led the investigation. I think the names are significant to the case. Lindenfall (talk) 19:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
And they are in the article... under the section "Discovery and charges". -- MelanieN (talk) 20:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, MelanieN, I have noted the disappearing/reappearing content, though I fail to grasp why it wasn't simply moved lower in the article to begin with, saving time and various efforts. Lindenfall (talk) 18:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of prosecuting attorneys[edit]

Further to my note yesterday, in the Andrew Lelling section... the facts have now been fully supplanted, completely removing the actual prosecution team, which I had initially added (and which remains intact on Lelling's page). Lelling clearly stated, when announcing the charges, that Rosen was in the lead prosecutor role, and it's Rosen who signed official court documents, yet, he has been eliminated from the article. I see no rhyme or reason for this content being altered at all, let alone deleting the attorneys' names. Lelling led the initial investigation, and is the boss of those actually prosecuting the case... yet those facts have been removed. Why? Lindenfall (talk) 16:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I added back the sentence and source to the main section. I think the initial objection was having the list in the lede. That should no longer be a concern. - PaulT+/C 18:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank-you for the follow-through, Paul. Personally, I often shift details into more appropriate sections, but I never drop sourced facts in doing so. Lindenfall (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


I assume we don't want to add images of people involved, right? ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Not of people. Should we include any images of colleges named, or would that be out of line? -- MelanieN (talk) 20:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
MelanieN, I don't think those would be particularly helpful. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I'm in favor only if they are directly related to the scandal. IE - into/out of courtrooms or relevant mugshots, etc. - PaulT+/C 20:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Psantora, Makes sense, or perhaps court document(s) would be helpful illustrations? This article is currently unillustrated, but I'll hold off adding the "image requested" tag until we know what kind of media we'd prefer to add. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
The only other image that immediately makes sense is one of William Rick Singer, since his page redirects here and he seems to be the lynchpin in most of this. - PaulT+/C 20:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Andrew Lelling or William Rick Singer?[edit]

I added an image of Andrew Lelling, but feel free to revert. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@MelanieN and Another Believer: - I think it would be good have a pic of Rick Singer (i.e. the apparent ring leader), but I agree with the general consensus that we probably don't want to flood the page with images. NickCT (talk) 15:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I think having a picture of Lelling being the only image looks a little strange. He's not the focus of this topic. Natureium (talk) 18:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree it is a little odd for that to be the only image. Have there been *any* images of Singer available? I think we might be able to get away with a non-free use copy here at least until a better one becomes available. - PaulT+/C 19:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I went ahead and removed the image of Andrew Lelling. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate the responsiveness. To be clear I think the image (and caption) you added is actually great and I want to include it in the article, but the first image on this page should be more directly relevant to the subject. The photo of Andrew will only make sense after we find the initial one. - PaulT+/C 20:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Psantora, Easy to add back later, if needed. :) ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I'd say Singer should be the main photo on this article, if possible. Perhaps, in time, someone will upload a good image of him on the courthouse steps, surrounded, of course, by attorneys. A shot of Mark Riddell would also seem appropriate. Lindenfall (talk) 19:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


Is it 761 families (as the article states right now) or 761 children that Singer got in through the side doors? Were there any failures? Abductive (reasoning) 21:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

He is quoted as saying “over 750 families” and “761 side doors” (I assume that means individual students), in the same breath as if they are two different figures.[1][2] He told parents it works “every time”; if he had any failures he apparently doesn’t admit it. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I changed it to "over 750 families" in the lead. BTW it shouldn't be in the lead and not in the article, so we should add something, maybe both figures, to the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Joe Montana[edit]

Hi everyone, So it was reported that Joe Montana was associated with this fraudulent organization because he paid them for college preparation services for his children. However, he denies any wrongdoing and as it stands now, he never knowingly paid for or agreed to anything illegal or corrupt. Is there a place for him to be mentioned in this article? Or would that only be relevant if he is indicted or otherwise linked to illegal activity with this organization? Nonetheless, any statement about him I add to the article would have the proper reference attached. Thanks Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 01:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mrbeastmodeallday: I haven't seen the references or his name mentioned anywhere, so I'm not really sure if it warrants inclusion at all, but barring any indictment I think a mention in the "others" section could make sense, assuming the references support it. - PaulT+/C 02:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Psantora, Joe Montana says he used only legit services. He wasn't indicted, no reason to disbelieve him (yet). I say leave it out. Singer seems to have provided legitimate services to a lot of people. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
@Muboshgu: Thanks for the link. It is tricky. Adding him to the others section and making it clear (based on the references) that he only used "legitimate services" would help to differentiate and insulate JM from the scandal. But listing him anywhere on the page could be WP:UNDUE...
I think if there are reliable stories about it and the denial is from a notable person that attracts those reliable sources, it makes sense to include the denial. I don't want this to become a laundry list of people that weren't involved, but right now it is just JM and I think I've talked myself into thinking it warrants a mention, if only to amplify the denial and reduce any potential confusion about whether he was involved. - PaulT+/C 03:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I oppose mentioning Joe Montana (or anyone else) who used the company's services, unless there is strong evidence of misconduct such as an indictment. This would be a violation of BLP policy. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
@Cullen328: What exactly would violate BLP? I'm thinking of a sentence/bullet like
"Joe Montana" was a client of X<ref 1> but has not been accused of any wrongdoing and has strenuously denied having done any illegal or immoral activity.<ref 2>
This would be under the "Others" section (which likely needs some re-arranging into proper sections to separate out Mark Riddell; Olivia Jade Giannulli; William H. Macy and Lou Palatella; (in that order) and then, finally, Joe Montana and any other tangentially involved (and notable) person that was categorically not involved in the actual scandal itself - assuming this list is very short. The "Joe Montana section" should be less than 2-5% of the list.
This gets the neutral, verifiable fact of their innocence and denials out there without any original research, fulfilling all the requirements of BLP. Is there something I'm not considering? - PaulT+/C 04:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
In fact, it could be further de-emphasized by just having a sentence at the end of the section without any bullet points at all. This way the list (of one, currently) is clearly separate from the others that have more involvement. - PaulT+/C 04:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
It is not Wikipedia's role to report that various people did not commit a crime, especially because a large majority of reliable sources do not even mention Montana or the other people mentioned in the the San Francisco Chronicle story. We cannot say for sure that Montana is innocent, though personally, I believe that he did nothing wrong. Denial of involvement is not proof of innocence. If we say Montana (or others) denied involvement, there is a bit of innuendo involved. Some readers might conclude that those people are somehow under suspicion, but at this time, there is zero evidence of that. Best to leave it out of this article unless the coverage changes. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
────────────Fair point on innocence. I was going to put it in quotes to show the distinction and did not include the word in my example for exactly that reason. It isn't to report that JM did not commit a crime, it is to correctly cite his 100% credible denial and emphasize the fact that he hasn't been indicted. I want to re-stress that there shouldn't be a laundry list of uninvolved parties, but including a limited list of notable parties that have been mentioned in several places can make sense if worded appropriately. No one is trying to imply anything untoward and in fact my argument is that by including these names it is bolstering their claims of innocence being uninvolved. - PaulT+/C 17:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

arbitrary break[edit]

Absolutely leave him out. I feel strongly about this. Singer ran a college admissions counseling service, which was reportedly used by thousands of families. He probably offered his "side door" services selectively, only to parents whose kids were not qualified for the elite universities their parents aspired to. After all, many shady businesses offer legitimate services to innocent people in addition to their illegal services to a selected few. Unless a parent has been specifically cited by the authorities as part of the scam, it would be unfair and potentially libelous for us to name other people in this article just because they were clients of Singer's. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Assuming we have the proper references to support it, I don't see anything unfair or libelous with this:
"Notable person", known for X and Y,<ref 1> was a client of Singer/ECCN<ref 2> but has not been accused of any wrongdoing nor have they been indicted.<ref 3> [Person] has strenuously denied having involvement with any fraudulent activities of Singer and ECCN/KWF.<ref 4>
And the intent for including it at all is to bolster the claims of the notable person. Again, this would only apply to people whose past, legitimate involvement with Singer/ECCN has been reported in reliable, verifiable, and neutral sources. I'm arguing that *not* including them is unfair, given there are reliable sources mentioning their situation. - PaulT+/C 17:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, but we aren't supposed to include ever WP:FART, no matter how reliably sourced, like Joe Montana and Phil Mickelson using legit services. This article is about the bribery scandal, and those two celebrities are not implicated in it. I agree with Melanie on keeping them out of the article. WP:BLP protections apply to them here. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
So, your mention of Phil Mickelson caused me to read the above refernece a little more than the first few paragraphs. Holy cow... I didn't realize *how many* notable people have apparently used his services. After fully reading that source I agree that none of those named should be included here. (And that kind of explosion of uninvolved names is exactly what I DID NOT want this section to become...I should have known better.) Consider pretty much everything I said above stricken.
However, I do think it is appropriate to include a sentence at the end of the "Others"/"Unindicted parents" section(s) about this source. Singer used these people as references/testimonials to generate new business and other clients. Remember, this page is also about Singer and not just the scandal. How does something like this sound:
Officials have stated Singer had many legitimate clients that did not engage in any type of fraud.<sfgate ref> Singer publicized his more notable clients on his Facebook page in an attempt to promote his 2014 book Getting In.<sfgate ref><GettingIn ref> Many of these former clients have been compelled to come forward in an attempt to preemptively clear themselves of any wrongdoing.<sfgate ref>? - PaulT+/C 18:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't like the last sentence. "Compelled"? Compelled by whom? And the phrase "Many of these former clients" just cries out for a [who?] tag. I think we should use just the first two sentences. Or combine them in some way: Officials have stated Singer had many legitimate clients, some of whom he publicized on his Facebook page, that did not engage in any type of fraud. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't like the combined single sentence. It conflates the statement by "officials", which is directly sourced, and Singer's promotional efforts. "been compelled" was a mistake, it should have read "felt compelled" but it is clunky regardless. How about combining the last two sentences:
Officials have stated Singer had many legitimate clients who did not engage in any type of fraud.<sfgate ref> Singer cited famous clients on his Facebook page while promoting his 2014 book Getting In<sfgate ref><GettingIn ref> and, as a result of this and other public endorsements by Singer, many former clients have made statements to distance themselves and their children from any percieved involvement in the scandal.<sfgate ref>
I tried to cut down last sentence, but it could still use some work. I wanted to put "proactively" or "preemptively" in there somewhere, but I think it sounds too accusatory with it in; "percieved" might be a little over the line too, but I left that one in. The reason the book is important is because it was the entire reason for and subject of the post that the article references. It might also be worthwhile for someone to dig up the original Facebook post. - PaulT+/C 22:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I see you put this version into the article. I'm OK with that. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, here. I was fairly certain I mentioned it here, but apparently not (just in the edit summary Add sentence being discussed on talk page, feel free to revert (or modify/move) if still under dispute). I think I may have gotten confused with the Public reaction section bit I also added back. I meant to leave a note here just to make it explicit ... sorry about that. - PaulT+/C 07:04, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Bullets or prose?[edit]

Specifically within the "Participants and organizations" section, should we keep bulleted lists or convert the content into prose? ---Another Believer (Talk) 05:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

That section is pretty hard to read / digest / navigate, as it stands now. I think. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

An editor added a tag suggesting we convert the bullets to a table, but I replaced the tag because I think prose would be better than a table. Thoughts? ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Bulleted lists[edit]

I find the bulleted lists hard to read. I have tagged that section with {{list to table}}. Would anyone be able to take a stab at making them into tables? William Graham talk 19:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

William Graham, I was just about to invite you to the above discussion re: lists vs. prose, since I changed your tag. These discussions are related. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sorry, I removed the tag. I want to make sure we have consensus on what the change will be (if anything) before asking people to change the section without specific direction. I agree that the list is a little clunky currently and I was thinking about some kind of table, but I think that will be overkill. I don't think converting to prose will be as useful as the current list or the proposed table, but if someone wants to mock up an example of either I'm easily convinced. (Plus I'm just one opinion.) - PaulT+/C 20:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Psantora, In the "Parents accused of paying for fraudulent services" subsection, one paragraph about parents who allegedly paid to get their children into specific schools, and a second paragraph about parents who allegedly paid for their children to have higher test scores. That takes care of everyone, right? ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
The problem with changing to prose is that you lose the structure. It starts to get hard to see related items like the schools involved or if the parents had more than one child. The idea behind something like a table would be to really beef up the structure so you can potentially add more information in a more understandable way. We started to do this by adding the involved school (or test) for each bullet, but another potential idea for expansion is the amount each parent paid for Singer's services, the date (range) the supposed fraud happened, and the current status of their case (which at this point won't have much other than "indicted" and/or "released on bail"). - PaulT+/C 20:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Psantora, I've shared an example below. I believe the prose captures all the same info as the bulleted list. Sure, could use more improvements, but I don't think the prose is difficult to read or unstructured. Could easily be fleshed out a bit more. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I have no doubt that the information is there, but it is harder to suss-out and compare with each other or easily see how many went to USC vs say Georgetown or even how many parents are listed as a whole. This is even more of an issue in the universities/coaches section. - PaulT+/C 20:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Psantora, I'm confident there are ways to make the prose easier to follow, but I don't feel so strongly about this, and I'll just let others weigh in and decide how the content is best presented. I just assume our goal is to work towards quality prose, so I was trying to get there sooner than later. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I understand and agree. I'm also interested in hearing what others have to say about it. - PaulT+/C 21:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Me, too! @CharlesShirley, Joseph A. Spadaro, MelanieN, Natureium, and William Graham: Thoughts on bullets vs. prose? Again, not suggesting the prose example below is perfect (for example, "allegedly paid to get his XXX into USC" in repeated 5 times, but we can fix this). Should we start converting bullets into easily readable prose, or are the bullets sufficient? ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
───────────────One minor note, it is between a table vs bullets vs prose (in order of decreasing structure) an originally suggested by William Graham. - PaulT+/C 21:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Psantora, Yes, good point! Sorry, I'm open to whichever format editors this is best. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I would opt for bullets, not prose. Or, even a decent table of summary. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Someone added a table to the university section and I think it looks great! I think a similar table for the parents would also work. Something like:
Indicted parent(s) | Type of fraud (admissions or testing) | Universit(y/ies) targeted (if known) | Progeny info (son(s)/daughter(s), names only if notable) | A general description of the parent/whatever else is relevant
It could also eventually be expanded to include information like the amount paid and the date it occured (or maybe just the targeted year of admission) once that information gets out, though a bunch of it is already available in the sources. These tables can also become sortable for even more flexibility. - PaulT+/C 06:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Example: "Parents accused of paying for fraudulent services", bullets vs. prose[edit]

For example, here's what the "Parents accused of paying for fraudulent services" could look like (this is a rough sketch, I'm not suggesting the prose is perfect, but this is essentially converting bullets into prose, separated by type of alleged activity):

"Parents accused of paying for fraudulent services" in bullet form
"Parents accused of paying for fraudulent services" in prose form

Gamal Mohammed "Aziz" Abdelaziz, former President and COO of Wynn Resorts and former CEO of MGM Resorts International,[20] allegedly paid to get his daughter into USC.[2] Fashion designer Mossimo Giannulli and actress Lori Loughlin allegedly paid to get their daughters into USC.[5][6][7] Douglas M. Hodge, former CEO of PIMCO,[21] allegedly paid to get his children into USC.[22][11] Elisabeth Kimmel, media businesswoman and former owner of KFMB Stations,[14] allegedly paid to get her daughter into Georgetown and her son into USC.[2] Bill McGlashan, former managing partner and founder of TPG Growth,[23] allegedly paid to get his son into UCLA.[16] Distillery owner and businesswoman Marci Palatella allegedly paid to get her son into USC.[17] Her husband, former San Francisco 49ers NFL guard Lou Palatella,[17] has not been indicted.[18]

Marketing executive and self-help book author Jane Buckingham allegedly paid to have her son score highly on the ACT.[3] Gordon Caplan, co-chairman of law firm Willkie Farr & Gallagher, allegedly paid to have his daughter score highly on the ACT.[4] Actress Felicity Huffman allegedly paid to have her daughter score highly on the SAT.[8][24] Huffman's husband, actor William H. Macy, has not been indicted.[13] David Sidoo, Canadian businessman and former Canadian Football League player, allegedly paid to have his sons score highly on the SAT and Canadian high school graduation exam.[19]



  1. ^ Executive Profile, Gamal Mohammed Abdelaziz, Member of Advisory Board, Kiwi Collection, Inc., Bloomberg
  2. ^ a b c d Associated Press (March 12, 2019). "2 Nevada executives charged in college bribery scheme". Las Vegas Sun. Retrieved March 14, 2019.
  3. ^ a b c Ng, David; Faughnder, Ryan (March 13, 2019). "Marketing guru Jane Buckingham caught up in college admissions scandal". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved March 14, 2019.
  4. ^ a b c Zafar, Maryam; Cronin, Amanda H. (March 13, 2019). "Gordon Caplan '88 Paid $75,000 to Rig His Daughter's ACT Score, the FBI Says. He and Nearly 50 Others Were Charged With Fraud". The Cornell Daily Sun. Retrieved March 14, 2019.
  5. ^ a b c Cain, Áine (March 13, 2019). "Fashion designer Mossimo Giannulli — whose self-titled brand once ran at Target — is accused of shelling out $500,000 to get his daughters into USC". Business Insider. Retrieved March 13, 2019.
  6. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference NBC Olivia College was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference WPOlivia was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  8. ^ a b c d Cite error: The named reference :9 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  9. ^ 40th Annual Conference of IOSCO - London, June 18, 2015, Panel 3. Douglas M. Hodge, Chief Executive, PIMCO, International Organization of Securities Commissions (2015). Retrieved March 13, 2019.
  10. ^ McLaughlin, Kelly (March 13, 2019). A former CEO's daughter was allegedly listed as co-captain of a Japanese national soccer team as part of a $25 million college admission scheme, Insider Inc., March 13, 2019.
  11. ^ a b Sakelaris, Nicholas (March 13, 2019). "Investment chief, Texas coach step down over college cheating scandal". UPI. Retrieved March 13, 2019.
  12. ^ Winton, Richard (March 13, 2019). "Felicity Huffman awoke to FBI agents with guns drawn at her L.A. home in college cheating raid". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved March 13, 2019.
  13. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference LAThuffmac was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  14. ^ a b Lothspeich, Jennifer (March 12, 2019). "A closer look at those with San Diego ties indicted in college admissions scandal". KFMB-TV. CBS8. Retrieved March 14, 2019.
  15. ^ Shoot, Brittany (March 12, 2019). "TPG Growth Founder Bill McGlashan Placed on Immediate, Indefinite Leave Over College Admissions Cheating Scandal". Fortune. Retrieved March 13, 2019.
  16. ^ a b Gibson, Kate (March 13, 2019). "Venture capitalist charged in college admissions cheating scandal loses job". CBS News. Retrieved March 13, 2019.
  17. ^ a b c d Cite error: The named reference :4 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  18. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference pressdem20190312 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  19. ^ a b c Brown, Scott; Griffin, Kevin; Fraser, Keith (March 13, 2019). "Vancouver's David Sidoo charged in U.S. college-entrance scandal | Vancouver Sun". The Vancouver Sun. Retrieved March 13, 2019.
  20. ^ Executive Profile, Gamal Mohammed Abdelaziz, Member of Advisory Board, Kiwi Collection, Inc., Bloomberg
  21. ^ 40th Annual Conference of IOSCO - London, June 18, 2015, Panel 3. Douglas M. Hodge, Chief Executive, PIMCO, International Organization of Securities Commissions (2015). Retrieved March 13, 2019.
  22. ^ McLaughlin, Kelly (March 13, 2019). A former CEO's daughter was allegedly listed as co-captain of a Japanese national soccer team as part of a $25 million college admission scheme, Insider Inc., March 13, 2019.
  23. ^ Shoot, Brittany (March 12, 2019). "TPG Growth Founder Bill McGlashan Placed on Immediate, Indefinite Leave Over College Admissions Cheating Scandal". Fortune. Retrieved March 13, 2019.
  24. ^ Winton, Richard (March 13, 2019). "Felicity Huffman awoke to FBI agents with guns drawn at her L.A. home in college cheating raid". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved March 13, 2019.

We could make further improvements to the prose, but the point here is to decide if prose is better than bullets or a table... ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep bullets - Bullets are just fine. A table would also be OK. XavierItzm (talk) 09:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Here is an attempt at a table:
"Parents" in table form

Officials have said Singer had many legitimate clients who did not engage in any type of fraud.[1] Singer cited famous clients on his Facebook page while promoting his 2014 book Getting In[1][2] and, as a result of this and other public endorsements by Singer,[3] many former clients have made statements to distance themselves and their children from any perceived involvement in the scandal.[1][3]

Parent(s) Extent of
alleged fraud
University or
test targeted
Progeny Description
Morrie Tobin[4][5] Not indicted in this case Yale Daughter
  • Offered information on the case to prosecutors in exchange for leniency on his unrelated fraud charge;[4][5] purportedly was asked for a bribe by Meredith in exchange for getting Tobin's daughter into Yale[4][5]
Gamal Mohammed "Aziz" Abdelaziz[6] Admissions USC Daughter
Mossimo Giannulli[8]
Lori Loughlin[9]
Admissions USC Daughters
(including Olivia Jade)
Douglas M. Hodge[13] Admissions USC Children
Elisabeth Kimmel[6] Admissions Georgetown
Bill McGlashan[17] Admissions UCLA Son
Marci Palatella[19] Admissions USC Son
Jane Buckingham[21] Testing ACT Son
  • Marketing executive and self-help book author[21]
Gordon Caplan[22] Testing ACT Daughter
Felicity Huffman[9] Testing SAT Daughter
David Sidoo[25] Testing SAT
Canadian high school graduation exam
Potentially resulted in admission to UC Berkeley[26]


  1. ^ a b c Gafni, Matthias (March 15, 2019). "Joe Montana says he used company charged with college admissions fraud". San Francisco Chronicle.
  2. ^ "Getting In by Rick Singer". Goodreads. Retrieved March 16, 2019.
  3. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference CNBCnothingwrong was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference WSJgenesis was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference Tipster20190314 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ a b Associated Press (March 12, 2019). "2 Nevada executives charged in college bribery scheme". Las Vegas Sun. Retrieved March 14, 2019.
  7. ^ Executive Profile, Gamal Mohammed Abdelaziz, Member of Advisory Board, Kiwi Collection, Inc., Bloomberg
  8. ^ Cain, Áine (March 13, 2019). "Fashion designer Mossimo Giannulli — whose self-titled brand once ran at Target — is accused of shelling out $500,000 to get his daughters into USC". Business Insider. Retrieved March 13, 2019.
  9. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference :9 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  10. ^ a b Kesslen, Ben (March 12, 2019). "Lori Loughlin's daughter, Olivia Jade, comes under fire online over college-cheating scandal". NBC News. Retrieved March 13, 2019.
  11. ^ a b Rao, Sonia; Yahr, Emily (March 12, 2019). "Before Lori Loughlin's alleged cheating scandal, daughter Olivia Jade made her life at USC a YouTube brand". Washington Post. Retrieved March 13, 2019.
  12. ^ Cite error: The named reference PageSix20190314 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  13. ^ Sakelaris, Nicholas (March 13, 2019). "Investment chief, Texas coach step down over college cheating scandal". UPI. Retrieved March 13, 2019.
  14. ^ 40th Annual Conference of IOSCO - London, June 18, 2015, Panel 3. Douglas M. Hodge, Chief Executive, PIMCO, International Organization of Securities Commissions (2015). Retrieved March 13, 2019.
  15. ^ McLaughlin, Kelly (March 13, 2019). A former CEO's daughter was allegedly listed as co-captain of a Japanese national soccer team as part of a $25 million college admission scheme, Insider Inc., March 13, 2019.
  16. ^ Lothspeich, Jennifer (March 12, 2019). "A closer look at those with San Diego ties indicted in college admissions scandal". KFMB-TV. CBS8. Retrieved March 14, 2019.
  17. ^ Gibson, Kate (March 13, 2019). "Venture capitalist charged in college admissions cheating scandal loses job". CBS News. Retrieved March 13, 2019.
  18. ^ Shoot, Brittany (March 12, 2019). "TPG Growth Founder Bill McGlashan Placed on Immediate, Indefinite Leave Over College Admissions Cheating Scandal". Fortune. Retrieved March 13, 2019.
  19. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference :4 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  20. ^ Cite error: The named reference pressdem20190312 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  21. ^ a b Ng, David; Faughnder, Ryan (March 13, 2019). "Marketing guru Jane Buckingham caught up in college admissions scandal". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved March 14, 2019.
  22. ^ a b Zafar, Maryam; Cronin, Amanda H. (March 13, 2019). "Gordon Caplan '88 Paid $75,000 to Rig His Daughter's ACT Score, the FBI Says. He and Nearly 50 Others Were Charged With Fraud". The Cornell Daily Sun. Retrieved March 14, 2019.
  23. ^ Winton, Richard (March 13, 2019). "Felicity Huffman awoke to FBI agents with guns drawn at her L.A. home in college cheating raid". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved March 13, 2019.
  24. ^ a b Winton, Richard (March 13, 2019). "Why wasn't William H. Macy charged in college admissions scandal that targeted wife Felicity Huffman?". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved March 14, 2019.
  25. ^ a b Brown, Scott; Griffin, Kevin; Fraser, Keith (March 13, 2019). "Vancouver's David Sidoo charged in U.S. college-entrance scandal | Vancouver Sun". The Vancouver Sun. Retrieved March 13, 2019.
  26. ^ Cite error: The named reference UCBerkeleyWoodsNYPost was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Still a little rough, but you get the idea. - PaulT+/C 13:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I think a bulleted list or table are both fine, but is there a better word than "progeny" to describe the students? Natureium (talk) 15:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm not super gung-ho about the term. It was the shortest, clearest description I could think of at the time to describe the relationship to the listed parent. In retrospect, "student" could work, but it is clunky from the point of view of the parent. - PaulT+/C 19:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I added the table to the article with some minor changes. There were some edits happening to that section and I didn't want to have to re-incorporate those changes. Feel free to revert this or make substantial changes to the section if you disagree. - PaulT+/C 06:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Origins of the case[edit]

The article should answer, at least minimally, how did the FBI "stumble across" this scandal? How did the ball get rolling? What led to all of this? Do we know, yet? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

[3] Natureium (talk) 14:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. But, I cannot read that. It is blocked out. It says that I have to "subscribe", if I want to read it. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
We can see at least enough of it for a mention. And maybe someone who subscribes can expand it. IMO we should mention this. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
It looks like someone added this to the first section of the article. Very interesting. I'll have to find a way to read the full article. - PaulT+/C 19:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Psantora, I added a couple sentences of info from the WSJ article. Natureium (talk) 19:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2019[edit]

Add Robert Zangrillo to the article as he is one of the indicted (talk) 14:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I am adding a link for Robert Zangrillo. It happens to be a red link. His firm is Dragon Global Management, also a red link. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't see this name added to the page, but unless the person is notable outside of this scandal in some way, I'd prefer not to include them here. Are there any other sources that name him? and any potential notability he may have? - PaulT+/C 19:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes he is notable outside of this scandal:
He is a big developer in Miami — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
Consider creating a page about him, like someone did for Gamal Aziz in the section below using AfC and the associated help desk. There is even a Draft:Robert Zangrillo already started. - PaulT+/C 16:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I meant that I am adding the red link here, to the Talk Page. I added nothing to the article, about this. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
I see. I apologize for any confusion. I also removed the bullet for Manuel Henriquez since he doesn't have sufficient notability. I don't see a Wikipedia page about him (and not the Mexican composer) or his (former) company Hercules Capital,[1] despite allegedly paying to get his daughter into Georgetown...[2]

Please see the discussion below regarding adding non-notable parents on this page. - PaulT+/C 21:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


  1. ^ Sakelaris, Nicholas (March 13, 2019). "Investment chief, Texas coach step down over college cheating scandal". UPI. Retrieved March 13, 2019.
  2. ^ Gibson, Kate (March 13, 2019). "Venture capitalist charged in college admissions cheating scandal loses job". CBS News. Retrieved March 13, 2019.
Both Zangrillo and Henriquez have been added to this list per that discussion. - PaulT+/C 18:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Lawsuits; repercussions[edit]

I have started sections, under "Reactions", about repercussions against the indicted people and lawsuits filed. I know there is a lot more to report there but I don't have any more time right now. I encourage others to expand those sections. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Guilty plea[edit]

Please reflect that the Yale coach plead guilty to two counts. 2604:2000:E010:1100:2025:BDFA:8908:9A1 (talk) 01:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Not “alleged”[edit]

The scheme is not alleged. As the first sentence maintains.

It’s organizer has plead guilty.

As have others.

All that is alleged now is whether some other people who have been indicted but not yet not plead guilty or been found guilty were part of the very real scheme. --2604:2000:E010:1100:2025:BDFA:8908:9A1 (talk) 01:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree. The scheme took place, insofar as the organizer confessed to it. XavierItzm (talk) 09:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
While some have pleaded guilty, there are many that have not and it is still alleged with regard to their involvement (or not). I agree that at some point in the future, assuming the ADAs do their jobs and get legitimate convictions in the courts, it will make sense to remove the term, but as it stands right now the only people who have pled guilty are those that are cooperating with the prosecution to implicate others in exchange for some kind of lieniency at sentencing (AFAIK/have seen). - PaulT+/C 13:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
The scheme took place. It is not alleged to have taken place. It is like a shooting: it took place. Now the shooter may be a suspect, and so should Wikipedia reflect it, but Wikipedia is generally smart enough to not have articles that say "an alleged shooting took place on Saturday, 12 March". XavierItzm (talk) 15:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I think the disputed sentence was removed and replaced with something that is generally more acceptable. This is the first paragraph currently:On March 12, 2019, United States federal prosecutors charged 50 people who were allegedly part of a scheme to influence admissions decisions at several American research universities. Wealthy parents of college applicants are accused of paying more than $25 million between 2011 and 2018 to a "college admissions counselor" who used the money to fake student test scores and bribe college officials.
I don't think you saying we should remove "allegedly" and "accused" there, right? I want to make sure we are talking about apples and apples, not apples and spaceships. Is there another place in the article that you think "alleged" (or a related/similar term) is used unnecessarily? - PaulT+/C 16:25, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time. I propose:
On March 12, 2019, United States federal prosecutors disclosed a conspiracy to influence admissions decisions at several American research universities, with at least 50 people alleged to have been part of it.  A number of parents of college applicants are accused of paying more than $25 million between 2011 and 2018 to a college admissions counselor who used part of the money to misrepresent student test scores and bribe college officials.
Cheers, XavierItzm (talk) 00:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
───────────────To me it just looks like you re-wrote the whole first paragraph. I think it is fine but I'm a little confused as to what changed in terms of "alleged" not being used properly? The only small change I would suggest is actually including Singer's name instead of (or maybe in addition to) "a college admissions counselor". Regardless, I don't see why you couldn't/shouldn't go ahead and make the change to the lede. - PaulT+/C 21:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I've implemented the change as agreed. The new text leaves no room for equivocation as to whether a scheme took place or not; what is alleged is not whether it did, but instead whether certain people, numbering 50, are allegedly individually guilty of being involved. I chose not to include Singer in the 1st para because he appears on the 2nd one. Thanks, XavierItzm (talk) 23:56, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Rick vs "Rick"[edit]

Since Rick is a nickname (which may or may not be a short form of his proper middle name), should it not be in quotation marks? Media report the name both as William Rick Singer and as William "Rick" Singer, with more astute sources (in my opinion) using the latter. Court filings do not denote Rick as a proper name or as a nickname (that I've seen), using no quotation marks. The fact is that his first name is William, but he is called Rick, so, I think, that Rick should be "Rick". (This would definitely fall under the category of "what would Miz T. do? MelanieN.) Lindenfall (talk) 19:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Mrs. T is a great believer in Reliable Sources, unlike her husband. In this case all the sources call him either Rick Singer or William Rick Singer.[4] Only a few use quotes. So I think we shouldn't. (That's MRS. T if you don't mind; we third wives have our pride, you know.[FBDB]) -- MelanieN (talk) 20:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
He uses "Rick Singer" (no quotes, to be clear) on his books: [5] [6] [7]. It could go either way (quotes vs no quotes) but we will for sure need reliable sources to add the quotes or remove "William". - PaulT+/C 07:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Mr T. says "RELIABLE SOURCES!!??! I pity you fool!". NickCT (talk) 20:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
No, it's MRS. T that says "Reliable sources." MR. T says "FAKE NEWS!" -- MelanieN who is actually NOT Melania no matter what some people say (talk) 03:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
{Doth fair Lady protest too much? Hmmm, could she truly be that Mrs. T that some dare say she be? Alas; alack! More fool me! More fools be!} Lindenfall (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Jorge Salcedo[edit]

You have him listed as the "former" coach. He is still the coach - now on leave. See here --2604:2000:E010:1100:8D9D:1F51:2803:9F9F (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Corrected. I'm not sure when he was listed as former instead of on leave, but thanks for pointing it out! That link has some good information about Stanford not actually accepting the "reccomended" students (which blows Singer's supposed "guarantee" out of the water) and USD not having any implicated faculty/staff. I'm not sure how/where to add this information but I wanted to draw attention to it. Thanks again for the info! - PaulT+/C 07:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Adding non-notable names to the tables[edit]

There has been a tendency to only include independently notable parents that have been implicated (by verifiable and reliable sources) in the scandal, but this has not been the case with the university officials. I propose that, going forward, we include any name that is supported by verifiable and reliable sources. The only caveat is that there should be enough verifiable information about the non-notable parent to reasonably fill out a full row in the table. This way, all those indicted and involved in this case can be listed in one place. In theory, that would mean we could have 50 or so rows/names listed between the two tables. I think that is reasonably small as to not overwhelm the article. What do others think? Is this acceptable? Please discuss below. - PaulT+/C 21:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

It seems unfair to list the notable players, but not the non-notable players. It's as if the notable 5 or 6 people are shouldering all of the burden of the scandal, while the 44 or 45 non-notable people are remaining relatively anonymous and unscathed. Also, that gives a disproportionate and skewed view of the roles of the (relatively) "few" notable people. It's like the entire scandal centers around, say, Lori Loughlin and Felicity Huffman, when, in reality, there are 48 others who are equally -- if not more -- involved, yet simply less famous. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
It's a fair point, although there are relatively few WP:RS available in relation to non-notable people involved as the media reports invariably focus on the notable players. --Legis (talk - contribs) 11:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
True. But, here is one. It details the names -- and a short description -- of all 50 people indicted: Everyone Who Has Been Charged in the College Admissions Cheating Scandal. I assume that People Magazine is a reliable source. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 11:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
A similar list -- all 50 names, plus a short description -- from CBS news, also a reliable source: Every charge and accusation facing the parents in the college admissions scandal. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 12:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Good job - problem solved. Let's update accordingly. --Legis (talk - contribs) 19:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Someone should add the new names to the tables. I will try to start adding them. But, with tables, I usually find that one person should do the whole task. It seems to make it easier. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
────────────I can take a stab at doing this. I'll use both the CBS and People articles as sources for now, but does anyone know of a more direct source available from the indictment or court documents? It would be helpful to have a primary source in this case to ensure there are no errors since some of these people may not be as well-known as the ones currently listed. - PaulT+/C 15:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC) Found it [8]... - PaulT+/C 15:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 Done If someone could check to make sure I didn't break anything I would appreciate it. The sortnames still need to be populated for the parents and I'm considering breaking out the "indicted personnel" column into names and descriptions to match the "parents" table. See the below discussion for more on that suggestion. The descriptions could use some expansion as well as relevant references where possible. Thanks! - PaulT+/C 17:46, 22 March 2019 (UTC) Updated with link to discussion on tangential point so as not to distract from the topic of this section - adding non-notable names to the table(s). - PaulT+/C 18:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
@Psantora: Thanks for all the work in adding the names ... and in improving the article. Thank you. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:09, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

A nit-pick about the tables[edit]

The people and colleges involved have been made into tables. Good job to the editor or editors that did so. Thanks! I have one nit-pick about these tables (and all tables in general). The use of the "row-span" and the "col-span" (extended rows and columns) is designed to make the table easier to read. In many cases, however, they make the table even harder to read. Harder to digest and absorb (i.e., understand) the information being presented. For example, I was looking up Lori Loughlin in the table. All of her "data" is involved in row-spans and col-spans. So, it's very hard to read and to "decipher". I have to keep looking back and forth and, in my mind, drawing mental "lines" to separate her from the entries above/below her. That's too much work for a reader. The row-span and col-span functions should make the data stand out better; not make it harder to absorb and digest. Not make the data get "lost" in a jig-saw puzzle of row-spans and col-spans. When you have a lot of row-spans and col-spans, it makes reading the table too much work, forcing the reader to create all of these mental lines in one's mind to separate entries. I suggest letting each person/college have its own separate row/column, even what the data above/below it is the same. My two cents. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 12:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

They are sortable tables, so if you have particular difficulty reading you can hit a header and it will force everything to expand out (and duplicate content if necessary). A better solution may be to move the 1st column (the parent name) to the 3rd column, so that there is a visual heirarchy: Type of fraud->School/Test->Parent->Family member->Description. In fact, I'm going to try that out and see if it helps. - PaulT+/C 01:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC) Done. Let me know if that helps. - PaulT+/C 01:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, that does help a bit. Thanks. But, with long and "complicated" tables, as this, I usually prefer everything to be in one (unbroken) row, with no col-spans or row-spans, etc.. It makes the reading (and understanding) much easier. Also, some readers may not know how to use the sorting ability, or even know that it exists. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:15, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Glad to hear it helps. I agree that it was harder to follow before and I'm glad you said something! I did consider keeping everything in one row per parent, but it gets complicated with Elisabeth Kimmel. She has a son and daugher that targeted two different schools. If we keep her in one row we will lose that granularity. Do you have a proposed solution to that problem? Using spans there works because her name would just be listed twice once the rows are split out when sorting, but I don't think that would be an appropriate solution if hardcoding the information. It is a tricky one. Let me know what you think. - PaulT+/C 15:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
While doing the above update, I decided to split out each (group of) parent(s) as separate rows. This means, aside from the first column, there should be one continuous "row" per parent, with subrows if necessary for different schools/tests or multiple children. Please let me know if you have any other suggestions to improve the tables. - PaulT+/C 18:32, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I think the table looks great! Good job! I don't object to a few row-spans and col-spans when needed, here or there. I just dislike when they are "over-used" and have the paradoxical effect of making the table harder -- rather than easier -- to read and understand. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:14, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
To be frank it was purely a practical decision. It was getting to be too difficult to keep manually changing the spans as I was adding the 20 or so new names and so I decided to ditch them everywhere they were purely decorative. I'm 50/50 on which is better. I see no reason to change it back at the moment though. - PaulT+/C 03:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
OK. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

New columns for the table(s) (and maybe a new table?)[edit]

Key Worldwide Foundation / The Edge College & Career Network[edit]

This section originally only had 1 or 2 names listed and it didn't make sense to include a table at that time, but now there are 4 employees listed and 3 additional cooperators. I propose that we add a new table to combine these lists showing the nature of involvement with the organization (employee or cooperator), their name, their current list of charges, their plea status, and a description. Does this make sense? - PaulT+/C 18:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I think it makes sense, yes. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:17, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Universities and accused personnel[edit]

For the "Universities and accused personnel" table, I'm considering splitting the current "Indicted personnel" column into two. One just for the name of the person involved and one for their description, similar to the parents table. For UC Berkley (and other future additions with no names listed), we can combine the cells (using colspan="2"). Are there any objections/comments? - PaulT+/C 18:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

No objections from me. I think it's a good idea. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:18, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 Done I also did a similar change to the parents table to move the primary name further to the left. - PaulT+/C 02:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


For the "Parents" table, I'm considering adding more columns similar to the suggest above for the Key section. Adding things like the total amount of the bribes, their current list of charges, and their current pleas would add to the article. I realize this will really increase the size of this table so I want to make sure we have agreement before adding in the information. Perhaps a good first step would be to add this information to the current "description" column? - PaulT+/C 18:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I think those are good -- and legitimate -- variables to add into the table, yes. When I make a table, I usually label the last column as "Notes", a pretty generic catch-all, if I want to add something extra that doesn't quite fit into any of the other columns. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:20, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
My main concern is that it will end up getting too cluttered. Perhaps their charges would be better indicated by some kind of key/footnote system? This way it could apply to all the tables? The amount bribed will be interesting to see in a structured format. - PaulT+/C 03:45, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Also, as far as the "Parents" chart ... why is the guy named Morrie Tobin listed in that chart? He seems like an "odd-ball" entry. It seems like the table is "a lot of indicted people, plus him". I am not sure that's fair to him. It almost implies guilt or, at least, guilt by association. Maybe there is a better way to handle him? I don't really object to his being listed in the chart. But, he does "stand out" as an odd-ball. And I am just trying to ascertain why he is in the chart at all? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:22, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
His testimony started the entire investigation and led the FBI to Singer. He was under investigation for an unrelated fraud charge and offered information about this case in exchange for leiniency. Tobin's testimony/wearing a wire led to Meredith, who turned state witness and led to Singer/Riddell. My understanding is that his cooperation is the first hint of any kind of fraud about this case that the FBI had and the investigation proceeded from there. Tobin->Meredith->Singer->everyone else. In exchange he isn't being charged in this case and presumably got some kind of lieniency in his original (unrelated) fraud case. Synthesized from what I have read anyway... I could be misinterpreting some of that, but I'm about 80% sure it is accurate. Check the sources, they should have all the details. and  - PaulT+/C 03:45, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I already knew all of that "back story" about Tobin. He was, essentially, the guy who let the cat out of the bag ... and got this whole ball rolling with the FBI. I am familiar with that basic back story. But, my question is: why is he listed in the table? The table is about people (parents) who participated in the bribery schemes. As far as I remember -- I could be wrong -- Tobin was "invited" to participate (i.e., he was asked to offer a bribe). But, he did not do so. (Or, maybe, I got the details wrong ... and he did do so?) If he was not a participant in the scheme, he probably should not be in the chart. If he did participate in the scheme -- and was not indicted due to his cooperation with the FBI -- then, he probably should be in the chart. What is his exact status, with regard to any participation -- or lack thereof -- in the fraudulent schemes? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
The way I see it he is a participant, though a cooperating one. The sources I have read show that he offered the lead, it wasn't offered to him. That said, I have made his row a little more explicit on the fact that he has not been implicated in this particular fraud case because it is somewhat confusing. If there are more specific statements from RSs that show he was pressured by the prosecution to get involved it may be better to find a way to clarify further. - PaulT+/C 17:51, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. This discussion has been continued below. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:32, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


According to the CBS News source about all the involved parties, John Wilson allegedly bribed someone at Harvard to gain admission for his children: John Wilson, 59, of Hyannis Port, Mass., founder and CEO of private equity and real estate development firm. Wilson is accused of bribing officials at USC, Stanford and Harvard to facilitate admission of his son and two daughters to those three schools. Wilson's company allegedly wired Key Worldwide Foundation $500,000 in 2018. This is the first mention I have seen for that school. I listed it in the parents table but I am not comfortable adding it to the university table without corroborating sources. Is anyone else aware of any other sources (including anything filed by the prosecution) that support this assertion by CBS? This would create some irony considering Alan Dershowitz's quote in the article: the worst scandal involving elite universities in the history of the United States. - PaulT+/C 04:09, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

The Harvard reference is confirmed here: Lynnfield father charged in college bribery case. It states: In exchange for the cash, Wilson secured admission at USC for his son as a purported recruit to the school’s water polo team, and Stanford University and Harvard University for his twin daughters, according to court documents. Apparently, the Harvard information is included in the indictment. Isn't the indictment a public document? Is it available anywhere? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:06, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
The indictment is available online. Here is the link: READ: The full indictment charging actors, CEOs and others in a nationwide college admission scheme. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:16, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Harvard is also confirmed here: 3 men with Cape ties charged in nationwide college cheating scandal. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
The actual indictment itself lists the specific Harvard University "scheme" on Page 122. And on pages 128-129, also. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:18, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the links. I added Harvard to the table of universities. There was a similar addition with Northwestern University that was also sourced fairly widely. The list of universities is starting to grow unfortunately... - PaulT+/C 02:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
No problem. The indictment itself spells out all of the details. As such, it is a useful document. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:33, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


Here is the indictment, all 204 pages of it: READ: The full indictment charging actors, CEOs and others in a nationwide college admission scheme. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:15, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


Tobin does not belong in a section that is entitled "Participants and organizations; Parents" ... that is a significant BLP violation. --2604:2000:E010:1100:B8A4:AD7D:D78C:7F47 (talk) 15:16, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Is there something false or unsupported by sources? I moved Tobin's row to the bottom of the table to de-emphasize it. Let me know what you think. - PaulT+/C 17:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the effort. But I don't think it suffices.
Here is the problem. We have a Wikipedia article entitled "2019 college admissions bribery scandal" with a title to a section: "Participants and organizations" and then a subsection "Parents". And Tobin is included in that section. So, we have Wikipedia saying he is a participant/parent in the scandal. True, we then have language in his entry that suggests that he doesn't belong there .. but he should not be there in the first place.
The solution would be to either take him out of that section and reflect him only in the section that he should be reflected in (already done, at least largely, in the "Discovery and charges" section), or to somehow (this would likely be clunky) rename the second section he is in so it includes people in his class of people (who are not in fact participants in the scandal).
But to leave him in that section, as entitled, is more than an editing issue. It is a clear BLP violation. As we tag him as a participant in a scandal. This is, to use BLP language, "material challenged ... that is unsourced or poorly sourced ... [and therefore] should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion"--2604:2000:E010:1100:2106:8738:20D1:EE63 (talk) 20:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Is there anything demosntrably false (according to the given sources) in that row? Tobin is an involved, unindicted parent in this scandal according to the listed sources and therefore does belong in the table (wherein all information listed is directly from the referenced sources). Would it be better to rename the "level 2" section "Involved parties and organizations" instead of "Participants and organizations" (changing "Participants" to "Involved parties")? Regardless, there is clearly some grey area here given the facts of the situation and I don't think it is fair to say it is clearly a BLP violation. I'm going to make the change to soften the section to better address your concerns. - PaulT+/C 05:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm having difficulty explaining myself. He is not a participant in the scandal. There is zero evidence that he participated in the scandal. Just as the "involved" (and they may also be parents) Eric Rosen, Justin O’Connell, Leslie Wright, Kristen Kearney, Laura Smith, and the magistrates are not participants in the scandal. Even though they all had a part in the participants being indicted or tried. He was approached by a participant in the scandal who sought to be bribed and declined to bribe him and supported the Justice Department in it uncovering of the scandal. To suggest that he participated in the scandal - which is to suggest that he took part in effecting the scandal - is wholly unsupported. And harmful to his reputation. Which is what makes it a BLP violation. 2604:2000:E010:1100:8127:41C0:A31:EE8D (talk) 13:33, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Clearly we disagree on this. I changed the name of the section to "involved parties" instead of "participants". Are there sources supporting conversations with "Eric Rosen, Justin O’Connell, Leslie Wright, Kristen Kearney, [or] Laura Smith" about fraudulently getting their children into one of the listed universities? Because there are such sources for Tobin. I understand that Tobin did not go through with actually making the bribe and that distinction is clear in multiple ways in the table as supported by the listed sources, but the action still occurred. Again, I ask, is there anything factually stated in the article that is not supported by the listed sources? Also, I'm interested to hear what others think about this. We are not the only editors here. - PaulT+/C 15:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Your changes are making it incrementally better. Thanks. But your view of BLP is the opposite of mine. Yours is that the negative BLP assertion has to be demonstrably false (as you assert above). Mine is that if you are going to cast aspersions on a person, the BLP assertion has to be demonstrably true. Lumping dozens of alleged criminals in with one person where there is not an iota of related support for their criminality in regard to this scam seems wrong. Other views are welcome as you say. I see User:Joseph A. Spadaro also has related views. 2604:2000:E010:1100:E8B1:9465:FA86:F12A (talk) 18:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
────────────If there are unsupported/unreferenced "demonstrably true" statements (as you imply), please point them out. I don't see any. - PaulT+/C 20:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
─────────────────────────I think that both of you have good, valid points. Let's do this. Let's figure out exactly what that chart is supposed to list (its "scope", if you will). And then, make sure the chart has a name in synch with the agreed upon scope. That plan does not seem controversial. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
And I was thinking further. Maybe we are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. In that chart, the other listed names are all in similar circumstances (i.e., they took part in the fraud). Tobon is different in that he did not participate in the fraud (although, yes, he is "involved" in the scheme in a global sense). Maybe Tobin should have an entry in his own special chart (which seems silly, to create a chart for just one person). Or, maybe he can be in the section with this chart, as a prefatory note or a concluding note or a footnote, delineating his specific circumstances. Does any of that sound good? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
With this in mind, I further separated Tobin's row from the rest of the table, but I don't see a need for a separate table just for Tobin. The sources support all the information as it is currently stated. - PaulT+/C 20:33, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I think the table is fine now, due to the way that it has been changed. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Note, I made some additional changes to correct some problems I found when using the sort function. The impact should still be similar to how it was previously, but if there is a better way to handle it please try other options too. - PaulT+/C 00:05, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Better every time. Thanks. Can I ask though, what might be done about the lead in? Which states "The table below lists the 34 parents directly involved in the scheme." Also, separately, perhaps people have thoughts on the discussion directly below this one. 2604:2000:E010:1100:5D3F:1967:CA13:C3DB (talk) 01:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed that also when we expanded the list and added a comment directly after the 34: "Tobin removed from the total of 35 since he was cooperating with the FBI when he called the Yale coach." I'm not sure the best way to mention him as the 35th "parent". Maybe something like: The table below lists the 34 parents directly involved in the scheme as listed by CNN, CBS News, and People. In addition, it also includes Morrie Tobin in the last row who was cooperating with the FBI when he spoke with the Yale coach. Or something similar... Any other suggestions/changes? - PaulT+/C 02:47, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Something along those lines strikes me as an improvement. Perhaps: "In addition, it also includes Morrie Tobin in the last row who was not a participant in the scheme, but instead was the tipster who led the FBI to the scheme and cooperated with it after the Yale coach tried to bribe him."[9] Thanks. --2604:2000:E010:1100:39D7:2B6A:A5C3:508C (talk) 14:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Tobin @ Yale?[edit]

An IP editor added this unsourced claim to the article: A former Yale hockey player, Tobin had been expelled by Yale before graduating from the University of Vermont in 1985. Previously it only stated "alumnus" status. Is there a source for this addition? - PaulT+/C 14:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Tobin revisited[edit]

This source states that Tobin paid a bribe. Source: Yale rescinds admission of student implicated in nationwide admissions scandal. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:50, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. Do we know if this statement Purportedly was asked for a bribe by Yale coach Rudy Meredith in exchange for Meredith getting Tobin's daughter admitted into Yale while Tobin was wearing a wire at the direction of investigators is accurate? - PaulT+/C 02:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I am not sure. But the impression I got was that he (Tobin) was asked for a bribe (by the coach) and that he (Tobin) actually paid the bribe. That is my understanding. Not 100% sure, though. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
That source seems awfully confused. This can’t be an RS. Look here. It says “According to the Journal, former Yale women’s soccer head coach Rudy Meredith offered Tobin a bribe, which he declined.” I would go to the WSJ article for anything in this. --2604:2000:E010:1100:9CF:31B3:8490:DA3E (talk) 04:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
It seems pretty even-handed to me. This is the next few sentences directly after your quote: The Journal later reported on March 19 that, according to a person familiar with the investigation, Tobin participated in the scam by paying a bribe. However, Conroy said that Yale does not know the Journal’s source and cannot comment on the accusation’s accuracy. At the time of this story’s publication, the News has not been able to identify the source or confirm the allegation published in the Journal. I agree that we probably need to look at that March 19th article in the Journal, but this source does not seem unreliable based on what I'm reading. Regardless, while the source is currently present in the article, it is only in support of existing, previously sourced information. AFAIK no new content was added to the article based on this source. - PaulT+/C 05:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Here is a Wall Street Journal article dated March 19 --> Alleged Tipster in College-Cheating Scandal Bribed a Coach, Source Says. But, one cannot access the full article, unless you pay or subscribe (as far as I can tell). However, the brief headline (byline) says, quote: "Morrie Tobin, the dad who is said to have led federal agents to Yale’s soccer coach, was also a participant in the scam, according to a person familiar with the investigation". Does this "new" source now "solve" all of the above issues that surfaced, regarding how exactly Tobin is presented in that Chart (i.e., the Talk Page section above)? It seems to be an RS that says that Tobin actually did participate in the fraud scheme, (regardless of whether he was indicted or not). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


An editor of the related page on indicted parent Douglas Hodge has deleted nearly all the detail from the article, that is already heavily reported in RSs on the independently notable, public figure, ex-CEO of PIMCO.

See here.

Is that too heavy a white-washing deletion hand?

As WP:BLPPUBLIC says, "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say."

And "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."

We don't give that level of detail here, but on the person's page why would we not reflect these heavily reported details about his charges, arrest, and the sentence that attends such charges? --2604:2000:E010:1100:F9D8:B94A:BDC8:5023 (talk) 03:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Please note that Neutral Point of View is a foundational principle of Wikipedia, especially in regard to Biographies of Living People which must be written "conservatively" and with "restraint". (See WP:NPF) Included in NPOV is the concept of WP:PROPORTION that states: discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news.
You state that this person is "independently notable" as the CEO of PIMCO which would make that the major topic of the page. But more than half of the article that you created is devoted to a single news incident. Therefore, it was pared down [10] proportionally. This is not white washing: the heading remained as well as a summary of allegations with the more valid references that you provided. The information was summarized to balance the biographical length. If the individual is noteworthy because of their career, than that should be the bulk of the article. However, if the person is noteworthy because of this single event, the article should be a redirect to this page per WP:BLP1E.
I appreciate that you are enthusiastic about this recent news item -- after all, you seem to have created this page because of it -- but we must keep our enthusiasm within the boundaries of encyclopedic policy. (This is why an editor reverted this edit as inappropriate.) The article needs to be pared and balanced in order to avoid violating our BLP policy. CactusWriter (talk) 23:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
He is independently notable as CEO of a company with a trillion dollars of assets under management. And there is at the same time a tremendous amount written about his involvement in the scandal. The article - before you deleted a great deal of heavily covered RS-supported material - was proportional in the coverage it gave to the RS coverage he received. Proportional does not mean "if 2/3 of the articles about the independently notable person deal with x, we can't have 2/3 of the WP article cover x." Just the opposite. We are proportional to the RS coverage. That is how we avoid editor biases creeping in, causing white-washing. This is all quite clearly reflected in our policy on BLPs of individuals of this sort, which is directly on point, WP:BLPPUBLIC: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say." Whitewashing the article to delete what the sources say, and bring the proportionality of the coverage of the event (in terms of the RS coverage of the person) to a lower level, is in direct contravention to BLP:PUBLIC. 2604:2000:E010:1100:5D3F:1967:CA13:C3DB (talk) 01:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Not to be blunt, but does any of this conversation have anything to do with this article? I don't think you need to have parallel discussions in two different places. Keep it to Talk:Douglas Hodge (businessman) unless there is something about the mention here that needs to be changed. My apologies if I missed something about the relevance here. - PaulT+/C 02:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Psantora - you are of course correct that substantive conversation should be there, where editors were pointed to if they had interest (as it relates to this page, but is most relevant there). Input there would be helpful, as the editor making the deletion has indicated he intends to do the same with regard to other individuals who are detailed on this page as being part of the scandal. 2604:2000:E010:1100:39D7:2B6A:A5C3:508C (talk) 14:43, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Yale rescinds admission of student accepted in the scandal[edit]

Yale University has rescinded the admission of a student who had been accepted through the fraud scandal. Source: Yale rescinds admission of student implicated in nationwide admissions scandal. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


Instead of just referring to them as “universities,” the article refers to the ones involved as “prominent research universities” (first sentence) or “elite universities” (throughout). I’m not sure those are the best descriptions of each of these universities (Though Yale and Stanford, sure .. U of San Diego and others, perhaps not so much). Thoughts? --2604:2000:E010:1100:553F:FFAA:209B:BCA7 (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

All listed universities are highly selective (and therefore are prominent and/or elite) and conduct research (and therefore are considered as research universities). I don't see a problem with the way they are described. - PaulT+/C 06:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

criminal nexus[edit]

Would it be possible to illustrate the nexus of how this becomes bribery or another federal crime. The recipient of the bribe, though powerful in some respect, does not seem to be a government official. Test service providers are not government agencies. --knoodelhed (talk) 00:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Bribery is not limited to goverment officials. From the linked article: Bribery is the act of giving or receiving something of value in exchange for some kind of influence or action in return, that the recipient would otherwise not offer. Bribery is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in charge of a public or legal duty. Essentially, bribery is offering to do something for someone for the expressed purpose of receiving something in exchange. Not really sure what you are asking to do otherwise. - PaulT+/C 02:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)


I don't think this revision is a move in the right direction, but respect Psantora, but maybe another editor could chime in. I think the word "against" is the wrong word. And I think we should distinguish between the indicted (one group) and the un-indicted (a second group). Plus - "Actions by universities vis-a-vis students" is a lot more explanatory than the presented alternative I think --2604:2000:E010:1100:740C:84B2:D8D6:96A3 (talk) 04:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

"Actions against involved individuals" applies to both the parents and students. If you have a section on just the students you need to find a way to include those actions against Olivia Jade, but that information is pretty directly tied to information about her mother. The information is perfectly clear as currently written. - PaulT+/C 05:18, 9 April 2019 (UTC) Would either "Consequences for involved individuals" or "Consequences for involved individuals beyond legal jeopardy" for that section (instead of "Actions against involved individuals") be an improvement? - PaulT+/C 05:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
There are 2 changes here. In the 1st, you replaced "Actions vis-a-vis those accused of being conspirators" with "Actions against involved individuals." I think it is clear what "accused of being a conspirator" means. Accused has a legal meaning. Conspirator, also. The phrase "involved individuals" doesn't have a legal meaning. The edges of its meaning isn't clear to me even in a non-legal sense. I read it as less clear, and therefore less helpful to the reader. Also, the first form is not conclusory - the people have without question been accused of something. The second form is conclusory, because we claim in the title that the individual was "involved" (whatever that means) in the illegal racket ... and this title does that even with respect to people who under oath are saying: "No, if there was an illegal racket, I was NOT involved with it!" Which, come to think of it, brings the second form of title into BLP territory. I certainly would not want to be one of those people, and have Wikipedia state that I am "involved" with an illegal scheme, when I am swearing that I am not, and maybe you would feel the same way if you think about it.
In the second heading we are discussing, you delete a heading that is intended, in keeping with the spirit of headings, to add clarity and help the reader find information of interest to them. Especially important as the article gets longer and more complicated. The heading says "Actions by universities vis-a-vis students." Now, the first argument for it is that it helps the reader. The second argument is that we have some natural categories discussed in the article. We help the reader elsewhere by separating many of the categories in titles -- we have Singer & Gang, college folk, and parents. Some readers will come to this article with interest in the category "students". This is I thought a natural way to help them find the information they are looking for. I think that would be a good thing.
I appreciate the effort in the above options you asked me to think about, but don't think they get us where I am suggesting we should want to go. Maybe after you read this (sorry so long; I waiting for others to respond first) answer, you will have another good idea. You usually do I see. 2604:2000:E010:1100:C807:F597:113E:AF17 (talk) 05:40, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
The section heading is vauge because it involves many kinds of parties - people associated with "The Key" (Mark Riddell), coaches (both accused and those that have also pled guilty), accused parents, and students of accused parents (and potentially students of parents that have pled guilty or cooperated as well, we don't know the identity of all the students) in a small section. All of these parties are "involved" and the actions are carried out by many different types of parties (universities/educational institutions (ie IMG) or commercial entities doing business with the different parties). Currently, the section is small enough that attempting to further divide it will make it more cumbersome and harder for the reader to understand. Given those points, the current wording ("Actions against involved individuals") is a reasonable explanation of the content in the section and, barring a significant expansion, it should stay as is.
Ideally, this section could be further expanded to include the non-legal consequences (I think the better place for the legal consequences belong in the tables earlier in the article) of all of the related parties (including convicted parents) and not just the handful we currently have. An expansion like that would create enough content so that this section may be able to be split into the various groups that you identified - parties related to "The Key" (accused and convicted -ie Singer, Riddell, etc.), Universities/Coaches (accused and convicted), Parents (accused and convicted), Students (of accused and/or convicted parents - though, the students may be more naturally included with their parents or university depending on what the sources can (or can't) verify because of academic privacy and similar policies at the schools), and any others...
Regarding "involved", all of these people are involved by nature of having recieved some kind of consequence by the parties listed above. Whether there are actual legal consequences is a separate point not currently (and I don't think it should be) discussed in this section. - PaulT+/C 15:03, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. To focus on the main issue, I think it is a BLP violation to write a title saying a person in "involved" in a criminal act, when they say they are innocent. Can we get a blp expert to say which of us is right? 2604:2000:E010:1100:5013:FCB2:F2BA:C6AE (talk) 02:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
The section details the non-legal consequenses of their "involvement". It has nothing to do with the criminal act itself. The consequenses are things like getting fired from a job or show or losing sponsorships... There is no mention of any judgement with regard to their guilt. - PaulT+/C 03:23, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
The section heading you wrote says - "Actions against involved individuals". What are they involved with? To know that we turn to the article title -- "2019 college admissions bribery scandal." What does that refer to? To know that we read the first sentence "a conspiracy to influence student college admissions decisions illegally ..." So you are making Wikipedia say that these people are involved in an illegal conspiracy. People who say they are not involved in an illegal conspiracy. That is a BLP violation in my opinion, and I am challenging it. I see it as contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced. But when I tried to fix it you reverted me. And you do not read blp the same way I do. We have different opinions. Can you bring in a blp expert to give their thoughts? 2604:2000:E010:1100:69F3:2A4A:B2ED:5BF8 (talk) 07:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Who exactly is being subjected to a "BLP violation" as you allege?
Is it the coaches or Mark Riddle? This is what is written about those parties in this section: Indicted coaches were fired or suspended, or had already left the university at the time of the charges.[120] Mark Riddell, who took tests on behalf of the students, was suspended from his position as director of college entrance exam preparation at IMG Academy, fired a week later, and pled guilty.[121][67][38] All sourced statements directly explaining the (mostly non-legal) consequences of their involvement (broadly) with the scheme.
Is it the expelled students? On March 26, 2019, Yale became the first university to rescind the admission of a student associated with the scandal.[122] On April 2, Stanford announced they also expelled a student connected to the fraud.[123] Again, all sourced statements explaining non-legal consequences.
Is it Lori Loughlin? This is the first two sentences relating to her in the section: The Hallmark Channel cut its ties to Lori Loughlin, star of the program Garage Sale Mystery and When Calls the Heart, after she was named as a parent in the indictments.[85] According to The Hill, Netflix decided to drop Loughlin from Fuller House as well.[124] It is a (sourced) fact that she was a named parent in the indictments and is therefore involved. Again, it has nothing to do with her guilt or the legal consequences.
What about her daughters (who are not in legal jeopardy nor is it implied that they are)? Her youngest daughter Olivia Jade also lost her partnership with TRESemmé and the Sephora chain of beauty products.[125] It was reported by TMZ, Page Six, and others that Loughlin's daughters dropped out of USC due to fears of being "viciously bullied";[96] however, a USC spokesperson later confirmed that they both remained enrolled at the school.[85][126] According to the San Jose Mercury News, USC scheduled a hearing in March 2019 to determine if Olivia Jade should be designated a "disruptive individual", which would result in her lifetime ban from the university's campus and properties.[127] Again, all sourced statements having to do with non-legal consequences as a result of their parents' alleged involvement in the scheme.
This covers everyone mentioned in this section. If there is a BLP violation it would be against one of those parties. Can you please point it out so we can directly resolve it in the prose? I don't agree that "involved" has the meaning you are ascribing to it. Furthermore, you can be involved with something without having done anything wrong. Just because you didn't do anything wrong doesn't mean you will be immune from the consequenses of someone else's actions. Unfortunately for us all that isn't the way the world works.
All of these consequences are extrajudicial and have nothing to do with the court case directly (with the exception of the mention of Riddle's guilty plea, which I think should be removed and kept in the earlier "Involved parties and organizations" section). It makes sense to list out these actions and "Actions against involved individuals" as the name of the section is a reasonable way to describe what is happening. Perhaps it makes sense to change it to "Consequences for involved individuals" or "Consequences for involved individuals beyond legal jeopardy" as I suggested above or maybe simply "Actions against individuals", "Consequences for individuals beyond legal jeopardy", or even "Consequences beyond legal jeopardy"/"Non-legal consequences"/"Extrajudicial consequences", but I do not think it makes sense to split this section unless more material is added to fill out the other sections you are proposing. If anyone else has a different take on this please do speak up! - PaulT+/C 13:25, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Out of an abundance of caution, I renamed the section to "Extrajudicial actions". It is clear, consise and properly describes the full contents of the section. - PaulT+/C 16:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Another heading difference of opinion[edit]

Psantora made this change while telling me that I should go to this page for consensus.

I think his change here does not make sense. Look at the table of contents as he changed it. Read down.

Involved parties and organizations

2.1 Key Worldwide Foundation / The Edge College & Career Network
2.2 Universities and accused personnel
2.3 Parents

With his change, 2.2 and 2.3 are the indicated universities (though psantora says the table is not about the universities, and will move out of the table discussion of what the universities did) and people.

But 2.1 is just the foundation and the network. Not the people in them. That is not right. It was better before he changed it.

Also, by his change he lists under 2.1 people who are not employees of the foundation or network as being so - Dvorskiy, Fox, and Williams. They need a line, which they had until Psantora took it away, at the same level of 2.1 .. but a level and number below .. describing who is in that category. We had that, before the Psantora change.

Please do as Psantora asked and indicate if you agree one way or the other. --2604:2000:E010:1100:740C:84B2:D8D6:96A3 (talk) 04:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Dvorskiy, Fox, and Williams all were working directly with Singer and other associates of Singer's organization "The Key". They all belong in the same section. - PaulT+/C 05:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Last request of the day[edit]

He also sent me here to discuss this. He made this change.

But it makes no sense -- because he just earlier said the table is really Not about the universities. But instead about the university employees (he wrote, while deleting information about the universities, "The university table is almost entirely about the indicted officials at that university and not the universities themselves.").

It's a bit confusing for him to delete material from the table about the universities -- arguing the table is not about the universities. And for him to then insist on the title saying the opposite.2604:2000:E010:1100:740C:84B2:D8D6:96A3 (talk) 04:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

What exactly does Stanford expelling a student have to do with John Vandemoer, the person in the line you added the information to? Or Yale expelling a student have to do with Rudy Meredith (same point)? The place to mention this information in the tables is the "parents" table if we can determine via RSs which parent's child is the one being referenced in the source. For now and until we have those sources, the mention in the prose is enough. - PaulT+/C 05:16, 9 April 2019 (UTC) (If the information does directly relate to Vandemoer or Meredith, it would be appropriate to add that information to those rows, but as it was initially written that was not the case.) - PaulT+/C 05:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Sentencing guidelines[edit]

Moved here from my talk page

FYI, sentencing guidelines aren't required to be followed by US federal judges. And one does not have to look far to see that they are ignored at times. Look at the Manafort case. The guideline called for 19-24 years. The judge went for way, way lower than the low limit there.[11] --2604:2000:E010:1100:B951:7500:D62B:D57A (talk) 00:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm aware, but "8-10 years, closer to 8" is what the reference states, so it is what belongs in the article. If you don't mind I'm going to move this to the article talk page in a bit. - PaulT+/C 01:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
On second thought, after seeing the 3 other references provided showing the 36 months, clearly the LA Times is the outlier here. I've removed the statement until new information is revealed. In any case, we will be able to put the actual amount in June. - PaulT+/C 03:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Whatever you want. If you want to keep it in, it may interest readers. I would reverse the order though -- and put the majority in first. Perhaps the one source was looking at the agreement five months ago, and the other three sources are considering a more recent understanding. Back then, he only got 3 levels reduced (off of 33 or so) as a thank you from the government for a combination of his prompt acceptance of personal responsibility for the offenses, and information known to the US Attorney at the time. Anyway - this will at some point sort itself out. Apparently according to the NYT in fiscal year 2017 "43 percent of those convicted of fraud received sentences below the guidelines, although many were being rewarded for cooperating with authorities."[12] So it will not be shocking if the judge imposes a sentence that is under the floor of the guideline. 2604:2000:E010:1100:B951:7500:D62B:D57A (talk) 03:20, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
I already removed the statement. I made my initial reply above before seeing the 3 other references you added showing 36 months. It could make sense to keep the 8-10 year mention in the LA Times, but I think the mention of the guidelines with the 8 year minimum and the fact that this will be resolved in June are sufficient. Regardless, the LA Times reference is still present so the information is still available if anyone cares to look after wondering "why are CBS, VF, and WSJ listed but not the LATimes?"... NBD either way. - PaulT+/C 03:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
That makes a lot of sense. 2604:2000:E010:1100:B951:7500:D62B:D57A (talk) 05:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Elite Sports[edit]

I made a minor POV edit on the use of the term “elite” sports. This should be obvious, but tennis, as a case in point, is played at the highest levels by individuals who came from less than elite backgrounds (Serina Williams, etc,) as have football players. The individuals involved as parties may be of greater means than the norm, but the term as a descriptor for sports is taking this that step too far. Yachtsman1 (talk) 05:54, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Parents/unindicted cooperating witnesses broken table markup?[edit]

Something's wrong with the unindicted cooperating witnesses section of the table in the Parents section, but I'm not familiar with the markup being used so I don't want to screw with it. The heading and the info on Tobin is in a tiny font. Can someone take a look? --valereee (talk) 12:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)