Talk:Varsity Blues scandal/Archive 1: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:58, 16 May 2019

This is an archive of past discussions about Varsity Blues scandal. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Infobox?

Should this article have an infobox, and if so, which one? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there is a proper infobox for scandals, however, maybe an image or images of the actor(s) that are involved could suffice? Adog (Talk・Cont) 02:57, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

It should be a logo of the "non-profit". --- Coffeeandcrumbs 04:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Can any one offer an opinion on whether this logo qualifies for a copyright? Does it not fall below the threshold on originality? --- Coffeeandcrumbs 05:08, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Coffeeandcrumbs, I'm not sure, but we can still upload under fair use, right? As long as the image appears at Wikipedia just once? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

The requirement is not "only use once". I am no expert but I don't think we meet the contextual significance criterion since this article is not about the organization itself. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 16:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Coffeeandcrumbs, I agree, I'm not sure adding the logo is particularly helpful since this article is not about an org specifically. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. A logo is the best option. I absolutely object to using the photos of any notable figures as UNDUE. A collage of the logos of all universities involved is an option. But we cannot pick and choose photos of people because that gives undue weight to the notable figures for which Wikipedia just happens to have a photo. If we make editorial decisions based upon availability and convience, we would be no better than the tabloids.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 17:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Another Believer, I actually looked at a whole bunch of articles in the "academic scandal" range to find guidance on this, and none use infoboxes. We probably should use {{Infobox event}}. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Muboshgu, I just added, and removed some not-applicable fields, but I could use some help filling in details. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

The lead

Resolved

The lead states: The Federal Bureau of Investigation investigation was nicknamed Operation Varsity Blues ..., using the word "investigation" twice in a row. It's quite awkward and should be re-phrased. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Joseph A. Spadaro, Sure, I think we should keep "Federal Bureau of Investigation" written out with the abbreviation defined in parentheses, so perhaps there's another word for "investigation"? Perhaps, inquiry? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, that's sort of a "hot button issue" right now. Loretta Lynch wanted Clinton's email case to be called a "matter" and not an "investigation". The FBI replied: "We only do investigations. Hence, the name Federal Bureau of Investigations." I think we should introduce the term "Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI)" somewhere appropriate and somewhere before this sentence in question. Then, when this sentence comes up, just use the initials FBI. That should solve all the problems. I think. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Done Feel free to revert or make other changes, but I took a stab at separating Investigations/investigation. - Paul^T+/_C 16:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Psantora, Looks good, but we still need to define the abbreviation, so I added "Federal Bureau of Investigation" to the sentence, before "(FBI)". ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I missed that. I could have sworn I checked to make sure it was previously defined. Thanks for fixing! - Paul^T+/_C 19:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Psantora, No problem, perhaps someone else removed some text and the link. I've marked this as resolved for now. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Arrests

The infobox states that there was only one arrest. That is clearly wrong. --2604:2000:E010:1100:D89B:3D60:C8CA:64BA (talk) 02:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

William H. Macy?

Should this article mention William H. Macy in some form?

---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes. I've added it. As the VF piece notes, Macy wasn't indited, so I put him in the "others" list. NickCT (talk) 02:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Loughlin taken into custody

Lori Loughlin has been taken into custody:

---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Gamal Aziz

Can someone inline the longer version of his name set forth in the article to Gamal Aziz, one of the parents in this article? Thanks. --2604:2000:E010:1100:11EA:267:1884:8E5E (talk) 08:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Done - Paul^T+/_C 09:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Missing url from addition

Resolved

Hi Coolcaesar, You just added some references to the last section of the page, but one of them was missing a URL. The reference titled "College admissions scandal exposes a corrupt and broken system" from The Star-Ledger had the URL for the New York Times reference that was also missing its URL. I moved that one down, but the original link is still missing. Sorry for the confusion, but if you (or someone?) could find that URL and add it back that would be very helpful. Thanks! - Paul^T+/_C 07:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Nevermind, it seems you saw it already and fixed it! Sorry for the ping! - Paul^T+/_C 07:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2019

This edit request to 2019 college admissions bribery scandal has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add the word "U.S." or "American" to the title (i.e., "2019 U.S. college admissions bribery scandal"), for the obvious reason that the scandal is a purely U.S. phenomenon. 181.162.39.202 (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

This is being discussed above so that we can come up with the most appropriate title. Natureium (talk) 16:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

According to the current news ticker...

...Huffman and 13 others plead guilty. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

New inline

When the below draft article (on one of the parents) is accepted on Wikipedia by an established editor (it may take awhile), it would be great if someone could reflect it as an inline in the Parents section of this article.

Draft:Gordon Caplan.--2604:2000:E010:1100:116B:4451:15F1:7F1E (talk) 12:14, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Done (by someone anyway...) Good job on the article! - Paul^T+/_C 18:34, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@@ Line 74: / Line 74: @@
 ...Huffman and 13 others plead guilty. ---[[User:Another Believer|<span style="color:navy">Another Believer</span>]] <sub>([[User talk:Another Believer|<span style="color:#C60">Talk</span>]])</sub> 19:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
+{{Clear}}
+== New inline ==
+When the below draft article (on one of the parents) is accepted on Wikipedia by an established editor (it may take awhile), it would be great if someone could reflect it as an inline in the Parents section of this article.
+[[Draft:Gordon Caplan]].--[[Special:Contributions/2604:2000:E010:1100:116B:4451:15F1:7F1E|2604:2000:E010:1100:116B:4451:15F1:7F1E]] ([[User talk:2604:2000:E010:1100:116B:4451:15F1:7F1E|talk]]) 12:14, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
+:[[File:Yes check.svg|18px|link=|alt=]]&nbsp;'''Done'''<!--template:done--> (by someone anyway...) Good job on the article!&nbsp;-&nbsp;[[User:Psantora|Paul]]<small><sup>[[User talk:Psantora|T]]<span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]</span></sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Psantora|C]]</sub></small> 18:34, 22 March 2019 (UTC)