Talk:Pennsylvania State University

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

Merged Article[edit]

I merged the Penn State University Police article into this article as per consensus. Safiel (talk) 04:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

There are numerous wiki entries that relate to Penn State University, I belive that the following should be under Pennsylvania State University: Penn State Nittany Lions, Penn State Nittany Lions football. Thoughts or suggestions? Jitsuman (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

My thought on the merger is, Penn State Football, and Nittany Lions are solely owned and an integral part of the University that should not be separated. It is also feasible to integrate it into the Pennsylvania State University Wikipedia Article.Jitsuman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC).

Definitely not. Multiple topics can be separated into different articles if the topics are notable on their own. The merge proposal is ridiculous. There is a section in this article about athletics that has an overview of the athletics team, that should be enough for this article. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose merge This is a joke right? No way should those articles be merged, basically articles split from university articles should have notability besides being connected to the university. Why it looks like the PSU Police were merged back into the main university articles. At least in the US related University articles it's fairly common to have separate athletic articles, especially if the content is large enough to split. PSU is a definite and clear case were the athletics are notable on their own. Bhockey10 (talk) 21:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
It's common and sensible practice to have articles about sports programs with sufficient notable history. Indeed, we have two featured articles about individual seasons for two college football teams: 2007 USC Trojans football team and 2005 Texas Longhorns football team. However, the merge tag should stay up for about a week until consensus has been reached. --Jtalledo (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with this being resolved quickly because I agree with BHockey and Eagles247 that this is a very poor suggestion with no chance of being carried out. ElKevbo (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the input.Jitsuman (talk) 11:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


We plan to update the information in this article. Your thoughts?

Laurie Creasy Department of Public Information Pennsylvania State University

LSCreasy (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you may want to review Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, WP:BOOSTER and WP:NPOV first, just to make sure there is a clear understanding of editing guidelines. Although not a requirement, it would be wise to post any proposed changes here on the talk page first because of your relationship with the university (unless they are very minor). Thanks for wanting to improve the encyclopedia here. Alanraywiki (talk) 18:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Alan: Thank you for your observations and for pointing us in the right direction. We appreciate it. We understand that this isn't something we can "own," but the information in the Penn State entry is incomplete and outdated. We have access to unbiased information and can make sure facts are included, citations are added and verified, and the citation style is consistent. We'll be posting everything here for comment before we make any changes in the entry itself. Thanks again! LSCreasy (talk) 13:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Overview update[edit]

We have updated the Overview part of the Penn State article and have posted it below. We ask for your comments and suggestions. LSCreasy (talk) 16:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that soon it will be time to reduce the focus on the Sandusky Affair. Yes, it should be here, but as time goes on the section should be reduced to a one-phrase mention and updates on the court cases, if there are any. The section takes up more space and attention than it merits in the description of the institution. (talk) 20:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Suggested text for Penn State Overview update[edit]

LSCreasy (talk) 16:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


The Pennsylvania State University (Penn State) is a multicampus state-related, land-grant, space grant public research university in the northeastern United States founded in 1855 with a threefold mission of teaching, research and public service. Its instructional mission includes undergraduate, graduate, professional and continuing education offered through resident instruction and online delivery.

Its University Park campus, the largest of 24 campuses across the state, lies within the Borough of State College and College Township, Pennsylvania. [See “Campuses and Physical Plant” for more information.],_Pennsylvania,_Pennsylvania,_PA U.S. Census Bureau.

Penn State University Park is ranked among the top public universities nationally and is considered a "Public Ivy." "Best Colleges: Top Public Schools: National Universities". U.S. News & World Report. 2009. Retrieved 2 August 2009.

Penn State was an early leader in the movement for diversity, admitting its first two women in 1871 and its first African-American student in 1899. It was one of the first schools to insist on integration in athletics. [See section on Diversity for more information.] [photo of Wallace "Wally" Triplett at 1948 Cotton Bowl] [Wally Triplett video on Penn State team refusal to play at segregated Orange Bowl] [Wally Triplett first African-American to play in Cotton Bowl]

Annual enrollment at the University Park campus totals more than 44,000 graduate and undergraduate students, making it one of the largest universities in the United States.

The university's total enrollment in 2009-10 was approximately 94,300 across its 24 campuses and online through its World Campus. Penn State offers more than 160 majors among all its campuses and administers a $1.52billion (USD, as of April 30, 2010) endowment. The university's research enterprise exceeded $765 million for the 2009-2009 fiscal year, and in fiscal year 2008 Penn State was ranked 11th among U.S. universities in research income by the National Science Foundation.

The university boasts the largest student-run philanthropy in the world, the Penn State IFC/Panhellenic Dance Marathon (also known as THON), and has one of the top intercollegiate athletic programs in the nation. [See sections on THON, Student Life and Athletics.]

Penn State’s vision for the near future includes enhancing student success, continuing sustainability efforts, advancing a global presence, enhancing diversity, maintaining access and affordability, serving the people of Pennsylvania and beyond, using technology to expand access and opportunities, controlling costs and seeking additional efficiencies.

La Vie[edit]

La Vie (the Life), the Penn State University annual student yearbook, has been in production documenting student life continuously since 1890. La Vie is a student publication governed by an internal Board of Directors who manage and control the copy rights to La Vie publications. The yearbook features spreads for Penn State sports, clubs, organizations, Greeks, student life, each college within the University including seniors who get portraits, and other focuses.File:Http://

Past versions, from 1890 through 2000, of La Vie have recently been digitized in the Online La Vie Project as a joint collaboration between the Penn State University Archives and the University Libraries Digitization and Preservation Department that took over six months. They feature fully digitized and scanned versions of every page in these books, resulting in over 51,000 pages and 1.3 terabytes of information. Past yearbooks are also in the Pennsylvania State University Libraries.

The 2011 Penn State yearbook is currently available for purchase and in production. It will be a 400 or more page, full color book that includes Organizations, Greek life, Sports, Academics, Student Life, School Events and THON. As with more recent editions, the book comes with two DVDs, one of THON from the current year and one from the most recent Football Season. More recent editions than those in the archive are still available for order and particularly coveted by alumni.

As with many other Penn State organizations, La Vie's office is located in the HUB-Robeson Center, the student union building near the center of University park, in room 220. The organization, that goes by the same name, is not only responsible for the production, sales, and advertising of the Yearbook, but also participates and assists with other university events. Jostens, the company that La Vie is submitted to, sells official Penn State Class Rings at the HUB periodically throughout the year, with the help of club members. Senior portraits, that consequently end up in the book, are also supervised and taken in conjunction with La Vie staff, as are graduation announcements, caps and gowns. They also take part in THON fundraisers, such as canning, as many student organizations do.

[1] [2] [3]

Ranking in lead[edit]

The ranking should be removed from the lead, as it is a form of boosterism and a violation of WP:NPOV. Only ONE source says the school is in the top 15. To be neutral, we would have to accommodate all rankings and say the school is in the top 200. —Eustress talk 14:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that USNWR is the premier ranking entity for higher education in the US (for whatever that is worth, I don't know). Given that, should we really concern "ourselves" with "Joe Schmoe's rankings of US Public Universities"? Also, I'm not aware of any somewhat reliable or well-regarded rankings of US Public Universities other than USNWR. Do they exist? Are they reliable? As reliable as USNWR? jheiv talk contribs 15:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, the PSU USNWR ranking (#47) is definitely not top 15. However, I still contend that any one ranking is appropriate inappropriate as an overall gauge of academic rigor and not appropriate for the lead. —Eustress talk 20:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Eustress, the sentence in the lead states that the school is in the top 15 among public universities. I missed that at first too, so it might be good to say "Among public universities..." rather than mentioning it after the fact. It would be more neutral and clear to say that it's ranked 15th rather than "in the top 15" and should say who ranked it and when. If the lead includes rankings, it should include a cross-section of rankings. From WP:UNIGUIDE (bold added by me): "Rankings should be neutrally worded without modifiers or disclaimers, represent a comprehensive cross-section of rankings by national and international publications, be limited to a single section in the article, and be reported as numeric values with years and verifiable sources. In the lead, do not use rankings to synthesize an image of the institution, whether good or bad. Give one factual statement summarising overall "most recent" rankings obtained in key surveys (for example, "In 2010, institution 'A' has been ranked #3 by The Economist, #5 by The New York Times and #8 by Financial Times.")." Klubbit (talk) 16:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I agree and realize that I mistyped in my previous comment, now with strikethrough. —Eustress talk 16:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
W/R/T it being in the lead, it seems to be in the lead of many of the top schools on that list (only checked 5 or 6):
University of Virginia: "The 2011 edition of U.S. News & World Report ranks the University of Virginia as the 2nd best public university...
The College of William & Mary: "William & Mary's undergraduate program ranks #4 and #6 among American public universities according to the 2010 Forbes and 2011 U.S. News & World Report rankings, respectively"
... And when reviewing the 5 at the top of the public school list, it seems that PSU is modest when it comes to placing rankings in the lead. jheiv talk contribs 20:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Those are B-class articles. Note that Featured Articles Georgetown University, Dartmouth College, and Michigan State University make no explicit mention of rankings in the lead. Duke University (another FA), however, does mention rankings and adheres precisely to WP:UNIGUIDE. —Eustress talk 01:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Most reputable higher ed scholars would tell you that there are no "good" ("reliable" has a very specific and technical meaning for some of us) rankings of higher education, including the ones published by USN&WR. ElKevbo (talk) 15:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

←ElKevbo's exposition of WP:UNIGUIDE assuages the matter: use one factual statement summarising overall most recent rankings obtained in key surveys. The Duke article interprets "key surveys" (plural) to be Forbes, USNWR, and WM, which seems sufficient to me. I have enacted the modification per UNIGUIDE. Best —Eustress talk 01:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I did not fully read this conversation. What is in the history section seems fine, and not bias up to this point. Although the student demonstrations may need a citation. (talk) 06:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Sandusky scandal[edit]

I'm not sure if it should be in this article or where it should be, I am merely posing the question. Should there be mention of the Jerry Sandusky child sexual abuse scandal in this article? My thinking is that someone looking for information about the scandal might not know it has its own article, and would come to the Penn State article first. (And as an aside, some might incorrectly assume that Wikipedia is part of the ongoing cover-up of this incident by not seeing a link to the Sandusky incident.) Thank you.—Michael J 12:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so, at least not now. There's been discussion over the proper naming of the scandal, particularly the inclusion of "Penn State" in the name. And a lot of other schools have faced their own high profile scandals and don't have mentions of them on their pages. --Jtalledo (talk) 13:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I tend to agree with the "at least not now" part. After some time, after the frenzy has died down, it should be a question to be seriously considered. But I think one would have a hard time making an accurate call now or for the foreseeable near future. Also see WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. jheiv talk contribs 20:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Valid points, Jtalledo and jheiv. I wasn't pushing to add anything, it was just a question that crossed my mind and I didn't have a reasonable answer one way or the other.—Michael J 22:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
It appears that a reference to the scandal has been added to the last paragraph of the opening section.—Michael J 22:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I see that. I don't think placing it in such a prominent location was due for the same reasons I already mentioned, but I'd be okay with its current placement if that was how other editors felt. I'm sure if Bearian knew of a discussion here he would have chimed in and sought consensus. jheiv talk contribs 23:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I put it in the history section, which I restored. It definitely doesn't belong in the lead. --Jtalledo (talk) 23:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Feel free to move it to the history section, and re-word as needed. Bearian (talk) 01:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
That works for me. Good job, Bearian and Jtalledo. (By the way, Bearian, were you aware that the print version in The New York Times of the column you referenced referred to "Penn" rather than "Penn State".)Michael J 03:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the scandal warrants a one or two sentence mention in the history section with an emphasis on historical framing (e.g., other administrators being indicted on federal charges, Spainer and Paterno being dismissed by BoT, their replacements). Madcoverboy (talk) 15:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Just my opinion, like stated above, I believe that there should be no mention for the time being. This should definitely be discussed at a later time, however. Any speculation at this point would be mere opinions.Bear PIG man 2 (talk) 06:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry I forgot to long on for my previous statements. But I read the history section and agree that should be all for now. Now bias noted, although the student demonstrations may need cited.Bear PIG man 2 (talk) 06:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Now that it has been added to the "Athletics" that Joe Paterno was fired, something about the scandal really needs to be added, because you really cannot mentioned that someone like him was fired without at least briefly mentioning why. Tad Lincoln (talk) 04:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
There's a paragraph in the history section. ElKevbo (talk) 14:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
I believe what is there now is fine for the time being.Bear PIG man 2 (talk) 01:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
The citation used for Joe Paterno's firing[4] is from a sports opinion column from The Boston Globe, and isn't an article about the firing itself. I'd recommend using this one instead. (talk) 09:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I think there should be a link to the scandal article on this page. The article is titled "Penn State abuse scandal" and involves more people at Penn State than Sandusky alone. While it shouldn't be a key element in this article, it should at least be referenced in a link.2CrudeDudes (talk) 14:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

It is linked in context in the "Modern era" section. --Jtalledo (talk) 15:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The way that the chapter of Penn State's history is written looks problematic to me. I don't understand why the "Child sex abuse scandal" is longer than any other parts in the chapter. By saying longer, I'm comparing the scandal part with all the other three parts which are "Early Years", "Early 20th Century" and the rest of "Modern era", respectively. Although the "Child sex abuse scandal" section is indexed as the subsection of "Modern Era", it clearly stands out as a seperate part of the university's history.

I beleive such way of introducing Penn State's history is disproportional, misleading and unfair. Because the scandal is only one of the many incidents that were once a focus of attention throughout the modern history of the university. Essentially, Penn State is an educational institute with a goal of achieving academic successes. Its history should be recorded and analyzed mainly based on its educational and research activities, rather than incidents in its peripheral organizations. I'm not saying the introduction of the scancal should be eliminated from the chapter of history, but it is irrational for such part to appear with greater length than "Early Years" and "Early 20th Century". Many universities have scandals through their over-a-century histories, but only Penn State's history is written in such a manner in Wikipedia.

In sum, I think the "Child sex abuse scandal" should be greatly abridged and incorportated into the rest part of "Modern Era". For readers who are particularly interested in incidents of child sex abuse, a hyperlink can be created to direct them to the webpage that exhaustively describes the scandal.

Wikipedia is meant to provide its readers with objective introduction of concepts, things and people. We should not allow a disproportional drawing that magnifies a scar on the face to serve as a person's portrait. ~Dule 09/26/2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

NCAA Aftermath[edit]

I added a paragraph on the sanctions to the section on athletics because that section talks at length about wins that have since been vacated. The paragraph is a start at neutralizing the now-obsolete claims but once the dust settles we need to revamp this section. Since the vacated wins may cause a ripple affect (i.e. other awards and honors may end up getting revoked) it might make sense to hold off for a while. I myself am not comfortable with rewriting the whole section since I am not clear on which parts refer to the football team and which refer to the combined athletic program. (Maybe we can make that distinction clearer when we rewrite it, especially if I am not the only one with that reaction.)

Peace, Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 17:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Southpark s15e14[edit]

Hello, there are a lot of references to Penn State in 14th episode of 15th series of Southpark. What is this actually about? Should there be perhaps a subsection "In fiction" introduced to the article? Thanks for clearing this out for me.

On another note - shouldn't there be actually different date or two dates in the infobox, as 1855 was establishment of high school, not the college/university? Cimmerian praetor (talk) 09:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

We can't really editorialize on the episode even if we watched it. If WP:RSs cover it, we can use and cite them, however. I'd have to look more into the date to be able to answer that. jheiv talk contribs 17:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
A current events template might be merited for a few weeks pointing people to Jerry Sandusky child sexual abuse scandal. People are going to be flooding in from South Park. .froth. (talk) 05:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Allegations of Discrimination[edit]

I'd like to suggest a correction of the language around the 1988 occupation of the Telecommunications Building. As a direct witness, I can say unequivocally that it was NOT non-violent, and that the demonstrators broke down doors and broke through windows of the building to occupy it, disrupting the communications capabilities of the University. The use of the Collegian article as a reference is akin to using an Op-Ed piece as fact. The only change I would suggest is that the word "nonviolently" be removed, and the addition of the claus "resulting in substantial damage to property and equipment." It should also be noted that the intent of the demonstrators was to "take over the television station and broadcast a message of racism," and they invaded a building that had nothing to do with the University's television broadcast facilities.

Edit request on 9 February 2012[edit]

Please change the endowment figures in the information box. As of the latest report, listed here: the endowment of Penn State is now 1,708.4 Million Dollars.

|endowment = $1.546 billion (systemwide)[5]

Should be:

|endowment = $1.708.4 billion (systemwide)[6]

Jackstone104 (talk) 01:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you,


Jackstone104 (talk) 01:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

DoneBility (talk) 17:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 July 2012[edit]

"The 22,000+ student section at home football games is the largest concentrated student section in the nation." I'm not sure how "concentrated student section" is interpreted, but many student sections are larger including Ohio State and Texas A&M (reference - scroll to the bottom to the last graphic. Texas A&M had approx 29,736 in the student section which will increase in the 2012 season to 30,284. reference ))

The phrase "is the largest concentrated student section in the nation." should be deleted. (talk) 03:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC) busmasterjones

Yes check.svg Done --Jtalledo (talk) 04:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

NCAA punitive actions[edit]

I see someone added this but should it not be "vacated Penn States wins..." not "vacated Joe Paterno's wins...". The wins are for the school first and also players/coaches. How about splitting the line up so it shows that the school and staff do not get credit, not just one person? Right now it reads as though the school keeps the wins. (talk) 13:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It looks like this change has been made. However, an editor recently reduced the size of the abuse scandal subsection (under History)--which is mostly a good thing as it was too large--but included no information about the Freeh report which is one of the most significant aspects of this story. I would suggest we either add that or, alternatively, reduce the abuse section further by removing less noteworthy aspects such as student reactions to Paterno's firing. It does not seem NPOV to have the student reactions to Paterno's firing without Freeh's findings on Paterno's involvement in the scandal. I will do this myself in a few days if nobody beats me to it. Cheers, Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 17:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Added mention of the Freeh report. --Jtalledo (talk) 17:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Jtalledo I saw the new content and I like it. Thanks! Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 12:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing it out. I just took content from the other article and put it there. --Jtalledo (talk) 14:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Protection required[edit]

I think the pages for Penn State Nittany Lions football, Penn State Nittany Lions, Pennsylvania State University, and Joe Paterno ought to be protected. They are almost certain to receive their fair share of vandalism as these events play out. User:Davidfreesefan23 (talk) 14:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Might want to contact a Admin as posting in a TALK page will not go far. Also Paterno's page is already protected, not sure how much more protection you think it needs? ;) (talk) 15:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Update number of programs offered by World Campus under Special-mission campuses[edit]

Under "Special-mission campuses" it says: "In 1998, the university launched Penn State World Campus, or Penn State Online, which offers more than 60 online education programs, degrees, and certificates." World Campus now has more than 90 programs, degrees, and certificates, as has been updated on the World Campus page.[7]

A primary source for this information: (talk) 16:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)Hilary

Updated University Seal?[edit]

Can someone download or upload an updated university seal with smooth edges?Juicy fruit146 (talk) 17:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Include the child molestation scandal?[edit]

User:DrCuddle has blanked the "Child sex scandal" section in this article's history section, stating: "This information is talked about in detail on another Wikipedia page and information pertains to a sports team not the academic institution".

While the first part of that statement is correct (there is a detailed article on the scandal), it is in my opinion incorrect to assert the information does not pertain to the academic institution. As the paragraph DrCuddle would suppress says, "Two university administrators, athletic director Timothy Curley and Gary Schultz, Senior Vice President for Finance and Business, were indicted for perjury". There was not only an individual's wrongdoing here, but a severe governance failure, and a conspiracy to cover it up. It is a quite relevant item in the institutions modern history, where it appears. Ijon (talk) 22:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Ijon has a good point in that university officials were involved in the cover up. However many within the University community including faculty and students feel unjustly lumped in with the guilty parties and including such a lengthy explanation of the scandal prominently on the University's Wikipedia page only furthers the association. In addition this section has been repeatedly added and removed so further discussion is necessary to reach an unbiased consensus DrCuddle 05:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The only one who's been removing it is you. Please stop removing it until an appropriate consensus may be reached. The scandal, for better or worse, has been the most significant event in the University's recent history, and it would be a disservice for the encyclopedia to ignore it. Wikipedia is not censored to prevent hurt feelings, and I kn ow as well as anyone how painful this episode has been to my friends and colleagues who are Penn State alumni, but we're here to tell it like it is. Indictments and resignations in disgrace of high university officials are pertinent and deserve discussion in the article. Acroterion (talk) 03:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not the only one removing and challenging this section, by my count it has been removed and added eight separate times since June 1,2013 excluding the edits I have proposed. I do not wish to turn this into an edit war nor do I intend to do so. I am simply proposing discussion instead of heavy handedness by a few experienced editors at he expense of a new editor who was just trying to keep Wikipedia unbiased and democratic. Hopefully this can be resolved via discussion and not undoing and redoing in an edit battle. DrCuddle 04:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrCuddle (talkcontribs)

Wikipedia is not a democracy, it is an encyclopedia, and content is not resolved by repeatedly removing material against consensus without appropriate explanation or discussion, as you and a few others have done. That is something that is perceived as heavy-handed. I appreciate that you have sought to discuss it here, and I understand that you are new to Wikipedia. Please look farther up the page for discussion of the content issues and their place in the article. If you propose to remove the material, please provide a rationale based on policy for its removal that others may support, or at least discuss.
I do not accept your view that the issue was confined to the athletic department and that it can be isolated from the university at large. The central point of the scandal was that it was ignored, covered up or minimized by university governance. The athletic programs at large universities are an integral part of the culture and history of the institutions, few more so than at Penn State, which had always prided itself (with reason) on running a clean program. Apart from its shocking nature, the scandal was an illustration of the extent to which athletics programs influence governance at Division I colleges: there is no separating the sports programs from the university in general, least of all at Penn State, owner of the 4th largest stadium in the world. I think the discussion of the event might possibly be summarized more concisely, but it cannot be ignored. Acroterion (talk) 12:37, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I did not mean democracy in the sense that simple voting should take place, rather i was stating my concern over the heavy handedness and unexplained rollbacks when it is clear consensus has not been reached. Please tell me if there is a policy against this but on the University of Notre Dame[8] and University of North Carolina Chapel Hill who have also had scandals involving administrative cover up of things that would hurt their athletic programs. Neither of these universities have these cover ups mentioned on their university Wikipedia pages. It is editorial malpractice to mention scandals on one page but not on others, simply because one was sensationalized in the media. May I suggest correcting these discrepancies before trying to silence an inexperienced editor simply because your opinion is different than mine.DrCuddle 17:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrCuddle (talkcontribs)
I don't see any reason to remove this material. It's well sourced, balanced, and not WP:undue. In fact, I agree fully with User:Acroterion's statement that the events "cannot be ignored." Some coverage of this needs to be in this article (the main article for the school). Leaving it out because it is covered in its own article makes as little sense to me as suggesting that the form of government in the US should not be mentioned in United States since the topic has its own articles in Federal government of the United States, State governments of the United States, and Local government in the United States.
As for the issue of somewhat similar situations at other schools not being covered in their articles, I suggest that you read Other Stuff Exists. It's an essay, not official policy, but it is widely accepted. The material in any given article has to stand on its own merits, and I believe this material does belong. Whether some other article does or does not contain something possibly similar is an issue for that article, and is not germane to this article.
I'm not opposed to having this material in this article. But I will say this, it takes up roughly 20% of the history section. Considering that this place has been around since 1855, I'm not sure it should take up that much room. --Jtalledo (talk) 11:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
That's a fair point. Feel free to try to shorten while retaining the important details. ElKevbo (talk) 12:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, it can be more concise, and I appreciate your efforts to condense it. Acroterion (talk) 02:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, nice job tightening it. Meters (talk) 04:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

secret campuses needs citation[edit]

the section on campuses abroad needs a citation, I can't find them. and don't know about them, and would expect to. I think it's misattribution or just wrong. for example does not list 'em. (talk) 23:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Pennsylvania State University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pennsylvania State University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^
  2. ^
  3. ^
  4. ^
  5. ^ "Investment Review for Calendar 2010" (PDF). Retrieved August 28, 2011. 
  6. ^ "5-Year Endowment Facts and Figures" (PDF). Retrieved February 8,2012.  Check date values in: |access-date= (help)
  7. ^
  8. ^