Jump to content

Talk:Penn State child sex abuse scandal/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Penn State child sex abuse scandal

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) at 14:01, 5 December 2011 (Archiving 3 thread(s) from Talk:Penn State sex abuse scandal.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Questionable Phrasing

This part of the article bothers me:

Indented line "According to the indictment, in 2002 a Penn State graduate assistant - now-assistant coach Mike McQueary[12] - walked in on Sandusky having anal intercourse with a ten-year-old boy. "

Calling it "anal intercourse" is completely inappropriate and implies consent, which a ten-year-old child could never give. If saying that Sandusky was raping or sodomizing is too "loaded" or "not neutral enough" by wiki standards, surely the phrase "sexually assaulting" is not so fraught. Even if it's tempered by an "allegedly," it's still far more appropriate than calling it something it absolutely was not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.211.123 (talk) 05:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe that sentence implies consent, but it was a bit vague. The released report uses the phrase "being subjected to" which is more descriptive. I changed the wording in the article. --Jtalledo (talk) 06:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
The wording is more passive, not necessarily more descriptive, but it's definitely accurate. So as to make it clear that the choice of wording is intentional, I reworded it as a direct quote from the source.--~TPW 07:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
It does not imply consent, it is simply what was happening, and I think it's clear that an old man penetrating a 10 year old boy is not consensual just from that context. However if we use a verb to describe this abuse repeatedly it makes sense to mix it up with "anally penetrating", "sodomizing", "raping", but what would be best is to quote the news source's verb if it is only mentioned once.71.142.73.25 (talk) 19:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

(this dude be straight different.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.178.243 (talk) 15:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Move

Move to Penn State sex abuse scandal per NBC Nightly News (see here? This not just about Jerry Sandusky's alleged crimes, but the coverup scandal. MaroonGray213 (talk) 06:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Initially, I thought about naming the article just that. But that name implies that the actual crimes were committed by various individuals throughout the organization. The purported cover up does make the case for that name, but right now I think the article should stay at its current name. It's still early on and we don't know how far reaching the case will get. If it went beyond the athletic director and vice president who have been charged I'd be likely to agree with renaming it. But for now, the current name seems more appropriate. --Jtalledo (talk) 11:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
My goodness, you have the Athletic Director and the Vice President for Finance and Business out on bail, how is that not throughout the university? This is way beyond just Sandusky now, and is getting press all over as the "Penn State Scandal". — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaroonGray213 (talk • contribs)
"Child" also seems like unnecessary specificity in the page title. 173.175.52.101 (talk) 19:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
I also debated whether or not to include that word in there. Looking at similar article titles, I'd wouldn't oppose moving the article to exclude the word "child" from it. --Jtalledo (talk) 23:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Probably should be move per original suggestion. Seems that is what most media is referring to. MaroonGray213 (talk) 03:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Um... in case you didn't notice, I opposed such a move. But I take it that my opinion was discounted. --Jtalledo (talk) 05:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
There are multiple crimes here, but the common thread is Penn State. The move seems logical, though I agree that more discussion was warranted. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
My sentiments exactly. I would no longer oppose such a move, because the media appears to be primarily using this very phrase to refer to this incident, but I think we needed more opinions. --Jtalledo (talk) 20:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I oppose such a move and the current naming of the article. Wikipedia often takes the "correct" name, over the "common" name that the media uses (often making the distinction that the media is "lazy" and Wikipedia, "correct"). Even if the media has started to or is using the phrase "Penn State sex abuse scandal", I don't think Wikipedia should. jheiv talk contribs 22:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I'll point out that the Mark Foley congressional page incident is referred to as such, not the "GOP congressional page incident", despite accusations of an attempted cover-up by the administrationleadership. As such, I think there needs to be significant justification to keep the current title over its former one. jheiv talk contribs 22:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
      • I'm unable to find any justification for naming it "Penn State sex abuse scandal" and have moved it back to a neutral title until a consensus about a move has been formed -- this was clearly lacking prior to the original move. jheiv talk contribs 22:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't like the name Penn State sex abuse scandal. I think it implies that the actual crimes were done by various individuals throughout the organization and/or there was a cover-up that encompassed more than the people named in the scandal. And I do agree that the previous name was far more neutral. That having been said, I can definitely understand the rationale for the move - the fact that major media outlets refer to it as such is a pretty telling fact. (See this Google search) The Mark Foley example is very good though and I'd definitely be convinced it shouldn't have stayed at the second name if there were more examples and evidence from Wikipedia policy/guidelines. --Jtalledo (talk) 22:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia insists on defying the major media outlets by naming the "Climategate" article, Climatic Research Unit email controversy. Despite many (what is probably now hundreds) of pages of debate, the consensus is to name it what is "correct" and not what is "popular". jheiv talk contribs 23:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
That's a good example, but doesn't WP:COMMONNAME apply here? That is, Jerry Sandusky child sexual abuse scandal might be the more technically accurate name (a viewpoint with which I agree), but the name it is commonly referred to is "Penn State sex abuse scandal." --Jtalledo (talk) 23:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Given that it's neither neutral nor accurate, and there is a more encyclopedic (and more accurate and more neutral title) I think it is more accurately classified as one of the common name exemptions than the rule. jheiv talk contribs 05:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I believe the "Penn State sex abuse scandal" is more apt for the following reasons:
(1) The charges and the media coverage extend beyond Penn State coach emeritus Sandusky and include claims of legal or moral culpability on the part of Penn State AD Curly, Penn State senior VP Schultz, Penn State head coach Paterno, Penn State assistant coach McQueary, and Penn State president Spanier. The common connection is Penn State. That's where they were all employed, and it was in the Penn State showers that some of the alleged abuse occurred.
(2) As noted by Jtalledo, the common media usage is "Penn State sex abuse scandal." A google search for that phrase pulls 60,000 hits. The alternate phrase draws about 1% as many hits. Compare this with this.
(3) Other scandals in collegiate sports typically have been given names that include the name of the institution associated with the scandal. See University of Michigan basketball scandal, Clemson University steroid scandal, CCNY point shaving scandal, Baylor University basketball scandal.
I can understand why Pennsylvanians would not want to be associated with this type of conduct, the fact is that Penn State is the common link in this chain, multiple Penn State officials are the subject of the controversy, and this is the common name used in the media. Cbl62 (talk) 23:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
That is ridiculous. Every major media outlet is referring to it as the Penn State Scandal. This is about Penn State's coverup, not just Sandusky. Arrests and dismissals are occurring throughout the university. There is no clearer title unless someone is trying to protect Penn State's name here. Clearly existing consensus is with the other title. Who moved it back? MaroonGray213 (talk) 04:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
If you want it to be moved, request it at WP:RM. I'm on the fence about the name and would like to see some more opinions on this. --Jtalledo (talk) 04:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Given the contentious nature of this article naming debate, I think a formal request should be made on WP:RM before this article is moved again. I also think there should be feedback on this debate from a wider array of other editors as well. --Jtalledo (talk) 23:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

This is known by RS as the "Penn State child sex abuse scandal"...and IS a valid name for the article, because it took place on Penn State grounds, correct? And it DID involve OTHERS in the Penn State organization. The cover-up was PART of the problem. The firing of Paterno proves that etc. The name should be changed back. Because logically and factually the "sex molestation" involved much more than the one individual "Jerry Sandusky". Jerry who? Point made. Change it back immediately (or I will). Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 06:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

  • My opinion: Do Not Move I think reasonable people can disagree about what is the "best" name for this article. Both names as currently proposed are fine. Current one adequately captures the topic and central scope. I can think of a dozen other permutations of "Jerry Sandusky" + "Penn State Football" + "Sex Crime" "controversy/scandal/riot/firing/coverup/debacle" ... but I don't see a reason to have a prolonged debate over which permutation is best. I might want to start a WP:ESSAY about this... Wikipedia:There are many ways to skin the cat ... I see this situation alot... you have a bunch of smart people who all have good reasons for their preference, but really I think we can all agree that the current name isn't patently incorrect. Peace, MPS (talk) 15:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
PS Disclosure: I am not a Penn state resident, fan, or alumnus; just a news junky. MPS (talk) 16:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Why isn't the simple expedient of naming articles like this by the legal case name used? Wouldn't that be as neutral, yet specific as you can get?--108.74.23.31 (talk) 01:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

This really needs to be moved. Jerry Sandusky's actions were the crime, not the scandal. The scandal part of this is what happened within the Penn State organization. The current title unnecessarily narrows the scope of the affair. Rossd —Preceding undated comment added 08:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC).

Second Mile issues

Do we need an External Link to the Second Mile website? If this is their only mention on the project, then that's not exactly neutral coverage. Similarly, if we had an article about them, 95% of it would be related to this scandal, which is its own problem. I don't have a solution, but I also don't think we should have that EL without more neutral context, if possible. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Ray Gricar

Dustyduseriffic (talk · contribs) added a bit about how Gricar eventually disappeared. The fact that Ray Gricar disappeared isn't relevant to this article and its inclusion implies that his disappearance is directly related to this scandal. I'd remove it, but I'm not interested in getting in an edit war. --Jtalledo (talk) 02:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Certainly, the inclusion the way it was written does, but I agree that in general it is irrelevant regardless of the phrasing. jheiv talk contribs 05:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-702355 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddyteddy33 (talk • contribs)

Also: neither of the references given for his disappearance (a Patriot News article, and the grand jury summary) mention that he is missing.--92.74.57.134 (talk) 21:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 9 November 2011

Please change "called for the resignations of both Joe Paterno and his graduate assistant coach Mike McQueary" to called for the resignations of both Joe Paterno and his assistant coach Mike McQueary because McQueary has not been a "graduate assistant" since 2003. Thank you.

A2gent (talk) 19:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done jheiv talk contribs 20:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 10 November 2011

Please replace "Bill Schultz" with "Gary Schultz" in Impact section.

68.91.195.173 (talk) 01:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done Vetted against source and changed. —C.Fred (talk) 01:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Maureen Dowd

The inclusion of ANYTHING by Maureen Dowd is a violation of Neutral POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.251.116.51 (talk) 02:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Not true. If Dowd's comments are presented as media reaction in the context of other opinions, then its appropriate to include them. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
However, Maureen Dowd is an op-ed writer, not a true media (independent) media reaction. Plus, if you are going to include Dowd's comments because they represent the "media reaction", then there are likely hundreds more that could be included under the same philosophy. Rsbarnes (talk) 17:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)rsbarnes
I agree. There is no particular reason to include Dowd over any other opinionators (Keith Olbermann being the exception as he used to work for ESPN). The world does not revolve around NYT opinion columnists (despite what they may think). I'm removing it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. Maureen Dowd is a highly respected, award-winning, albeit opinionated, and notable journalist. The article, as a whole, needs to be balanced of all major points of view, although individual parts can and should refelct such state of existence. Bearian (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I added back in the bit about Maureen Dowd as a citation to an uncited sentence, so although her name is not in the text, it will remain as a source in the article. Is that a good compromise? Bearian (talk) 19:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
That's absolute nonsense. There are plenty of journalists out there with the same qualifications. I could add journalists from the Wall Street Journal or Los Angeles Times or whatever. She has a very niche following, but so do a lot of other people with frankly a bigger fan base (e.g,. Rush Limbaugh... and no he doesn't get awards because his politics aren't in line with the mainstream press but he has a bigger following). Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
On further review, I see it's just a citation, which isn't so bad. I don't like the inline text. Also, FYI, I'm not necessarily associating myself with Rush Limbaugh's politics; I try to remain neutral here (although I will say this: he's obnoxious as hell). Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Relevant for "Background Section"?

US Presidential Candidate hopeful Rick Santorum honored Sandusky with a nomination for a “Congressional Angels in Adoption” award, citing his work with a non-profit group he founded to provide care for foster children. Per http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/big_tent/Santorum-honored-accused-PSU-Coach-as-angel.html Would this be relevant to include in the Background Section right now? 38.109.88.218 (talk) 05:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

  • No. That is a trivial award and unnecessarily injects US presidential politics into this article. OCNative (talk) 07:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I agree with OCNative. It is almost certain that Santorum would have no idea that these allegations would be made at the time he made the nomination, and as such, this nomination has nothing to do with the scandal itself. Kansan (talk) 09:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it should be included there. The idea for the background section is the provide some context for understanding the situation - who Sandusky was and some of the circumstances that led to everything else. It doesn't seem to belong there. --Jtalledo (talk) 11:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Ice cream impact

The article has a large section titled "Impact" where we learn in the second sentence that the Penn State University Creamery removed an ice cream flavor named after Sandusky from the menu. Doesn't anyone think that highlighting this little tidbit by featuring it at the beginning of this section trivializes the impact of child sex abuse? Please remove it (or, at the very least, move it to the bottom of the section). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.177.1.216 (talk) 15:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done — Bility (talk) 17:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I put the reference back in at the bottom of the section, and paired it with another similar impact - his face being painted out of a mural. I don't think it has undue weight in its present form.--~TPW 19:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree with True Pagan Warrior, the referenced occurrences are a direct result of this article's primary subject matter. --Aristotle1776 (talk) 21:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

second mile page?

The page Second Mile Foundation didn't exist, so I created it as a redirect to this page as a placeholder. Is there enough material to create a separate page? Ronnotel (talk) 18:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so, nor do I think it's an appropriate redirect.--~TPW 19:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree with this, and have nominated the redirect for deletion. boldly deleted it after reviewing the policy. jheiv talk contribs 21:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Not a big deal but I've never seen A3 be used to speedy direct a redirect page. The whole point of a redirect is to assist a user searching for a term that doesn't necessarily have it's own page. Ronnotel (talk) 22:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
A3 was used to delete a blank page, since I blanked it, since it violated policy. The redirect is ridiculous. It'd be like redirecting Catholicism to Catholic sex abuse cases in absence of a Catholicism page or Michael Jackson to People v. Jackson if there wasn't a Jackson page. Just because there is no page for a topic, doesn't mean we should redirect them to some other article that it is associated with -- especially when the article portrays the organization in such a negative light -- it violates WP's neutrality principal. jheiv talk contribs 23:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Suggest redirecting it to Jerry Sandusky since he started it. MPS (talk) 18:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

USED Investigation

The U.S. Dept. of Education is investigating Penn State. Here is a proposed edit (under "Investigation and Charges"):

Federal investigation

As a result of the allegations, the U.S. Department of Education is investigating Penn State over violation of the Clery Act. The Act requires that universities report crimes and provide timely warnings on criminal threats to campus safety, neither of which appears to have occurred in this case. If Penn State is found to have violated the Act, it could be subject to tens of thousands of dollars in fines.

It seems too small to warrant a subhead. If more important details about the Federal investigation come out, then I can see it being longer, but for now I think those sentences should be inserted without a new subhead. jheiv talk contribs 23:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

OBXW3

Does this invovolve the Outer Banks West Third Street Gang Complex? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.131.171.89 (talk) 02:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

See also section

I don't believe the See also section is particularly useful. Wikilinking Graham James (ice hockey) was kind of a stretch to begin with and it's fast becoming a magnet for wikilinking anything that is even mildly related to this article. --Jtalledo (talk) 06:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Photos of mob

I have some photos and short videos of the mob that occurred in State College after the announcement. Problem is they're really crummy quality. Does anyone think they'd be worth uploading anyway? Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Upload them and we can decide if the quality detracts from the usefulness.--~TPW 17:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Ugh, I just looked at them on my computer, and they're even worse than I thought. They're here though: [1]; maybe someone with experience could work on the images or videos. This is what happens when you don't have a real camera, and you're already inexpert at photos. Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Why are Spanier's and Paterno's pictures on top of the article?

Why are Spanier's and Paterno's pictures on the top of the article? I mean, not to deny attention to the just-as-guilty, but I thought the article was primarily about Sandusky as opposed to the others involved. –MuZemike 16:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it speaks to the question of what the name of this article should be, not to mention the fact that there's no free images available of Sandusky. — Preceding unsigned comment added by True Pagan Warrior (talk • contribs) 17:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Booking photo is out there in the Interwebs, but probably tagged AP. Fair use, I think until others are available.130.111.163.179 (talk) 18:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
As far as Sandusky is concerned, we need a free (i.e. licensed under the Creative Commons, the CC-BY-SA) image of him in order to include it in the article. If there is a possibility that we can get a free image of him (mainly because he's still alive), then we cannot use non-free images of him in the article. –MuZemike 19:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Definitely fair use. AP likely doesn't hold the copyright, the PA Attorney General's office does. See this press release: http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/press.aspx?id=6270 And the site says: "The content of this site is the property of the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General. Reuse of this content requires permission of the Press Office." --Jtalledo (talk) 20:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
See discussion at Template talk:Non-free mugshot for use of mugshots. Cbl62 (talk) 21:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Not sure the photo on the PA AG site is Sandusky's mugshot. This link here appears to be the mugshot. Cbl62 (talk) 21:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I didn't upload an image of Sandusky because I've never met him. The only images I was able to find in my collection are of Paterno and Spanier. I'll keep searching to see if perhaps Sandusky appears in the background of one of my images, but since he retired in 1999, I doubt he would be there. Quintin3265 (talk) 20:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
One could also argue that the controversy is actually very little about Sandusky. The Centre Daily Times didn't even mention his name yesterday except to refer to this as the "Sandusky scandal." Whether right or wrong, the news coverage has been almost exclusively on Paterno, Spanier, the riots, and the football game, with the victims and rape itself barely a footnote. Quintin3265 (talk) 21:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, that's the media for you. But the bottom line is, this whole situation was caused by his actions. So regardless of how the media reports everything and what the name of this article is, an image of him at the top would be highly appropriate. --Jtalledo (talk) 21:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, but I don't think there are any free ones available. Hopefully someone will be able to find one. Quintin3265 (talk) 21:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Maybe someone on Commons that's an admin could contact the AG's press office and ask for free photos, and log that on OTRS? I would expect them to oblige. Calwatch (talk) 02:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I think, until there is a picture of Sandusky available, the top should be blank or have then Penn state logo and Spanier and Paterno's pics be placed down below under 'Impact'. Wikifier (talk) 23:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The following comments were moved here from a similar section entitled "Pictures" jheiv talk contribs 02:50, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Given that it's the "Jerry Sandusky child sexual abuse scandal" article, shouldn't the title picture be one of Sandusky? Currently they are of Graham Spanier and Joe Paterno. While I do believe that the inclusion of their pictures is warranted, I'm not so sure that their position as the first pictures is appropriate. Thoughts? Tde1208 (talk) 23:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking exactly the same thing. Sandusky, Gary Schultz, and Timothy Curley should all be above Spanier and Paterno. No question. KevinLuna83 (talk) 00:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
I believe the issue is that there are no free images of of those 3, while there are of Spanier and Paterno. I'll try to move the images down to the appropriate sections -- but the issue still remains that the only pictures for the article will be those 2. jheiv talk contribs 01:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Infographic of relationships

The graphic refers to Sandusky as an "alleged serial child rapist." This strikes me as strongly POV. The indictment only references one individual with whom he allegedly had intercourse, and I don't know if the other allegations would be legally termed statutory rape, rape, or something else entirely.--~TPW 17:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It also says "Colleagues, friends?" implying that McQuery may have told colleagues or friends. This seems like pure speculation since I didn't read anything about that in the grand jury report that was supposedly used as the source for the image. jheiv talk contribs 18:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I partially agree. I updated infographic and deleted "colleagues, friends?" I also deleted POV "how many?" from other victims. I left in "alleged serial child rapist," because as I read the grand jury report, there are at least two allegations of anal rape. I would also consider the forced oral sex rape, but I don't think it's necessary to argue about that, given the at least two clear rape charges.--Skoch3 (talk) 19:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I just reread the document, which describes only one rape victim and one attempted rape victim. I think the language is POV and should be replaced with a broader term which includes the allegations against all victims.--~TPW 19:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Don't confuse "alleged" with "accused". It's been alleged in the media that there's a series of transgressions. That actual charges have been placed on only a few, does not lessen that fact that it has indeed been allleged. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 19:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
No confusion on my part - Skoch3 asserted that there were two allegations of anal rape in the report, but there are not. Regardless, the allegations are much broader in scope; he is not alleged to have raped all the victims, so a more accurate description of the nature of the allegations is needed, or it should be removed. I have no problem with "alleged pedophile," for example, or "alleged child sex offender."--~TPW 20:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
This is true - the situation is more complex than the chart shows and in this state it might actually confuse things more than it clears them up. --Jtalledo (talk) 20:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Victim 4 on page 15 of the grand jury report testifies to anal penetration. And of course victim 2 is more well-known. I don't know why the infographic was removed, but I can change text to something agreed upon. At least for me, I think it's much easier to read than the text of the report, and except for the color-coding (which is based on news sources), it's factual to best of my knowledge.--Skoch3 (talk) 21:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I changed the infographic to "alleged child sex offender." The full image is corrected, but the thumbnail is not updating. I don't know how to fix that. If you agree with the updated language, I'd appreciate it if it were added back to article (after thumbnail updates). Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skoch3 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Looks like thumbnail updated, so I added back in the corrected infographic--Skoch3 (talk) 21:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
No objection, and the work is appreciated. I guess we disagree about how to interpret "attempted to penetrate" and "slight penetration," but I appreciate your willingness to change it up.--~TPW 22:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, TPW --Skoch3 (talk) 14:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure the value added of the graphic which has major inaccurarices (e.g., victim 1 is the clinton high school boy). The victims as listed in the grand jury report are not in chrono order. They are listed by when the Grand Jury found out about them. A more useful graphic would be a timeline. The names as they appear in the report are important (e.g., "Victim 1" is now being billed as a hero for coming forward). All that said, i do appreciate the good faith effort to simplify and make sense of this complex case.Americasroof (talk) 23:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I fixed the victim 1 typo. Let me know of any other typos / inaccuracies and I can fix. I don't know how to upload the *.pptx file and it's the best I could do in a few hours. I agree that something much better can be produced but for now, I think it provides similar information to the text of the report, but much more quickly?--Skoch3 (talk) 14:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the quick turnaround on the graphic. It is a good faith effort to make sense of the matter and the only graphic with the article that actually applies to the scandal and does quickly summarize who did what. I don't entirely understand the three arrows from Sandusky. But the graphic does capture the pertinent names and relationships. Thanks.Americasroof (talk) 19:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Americas. The three arrows were my effort to show the organizations in which Sandusky had an official role, or at least special access. I realize it's not clear, but no good ideas for modification. I realized I could post the PPTX on another site, so here's a link: PPTX on Google Docs (Public Domain). It may not display correctly, but I think download is available to all. It's public domain.--Skoch3 (talk) 22:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Advocates have called for charges againt Paterno? What about McQueary?

"While Joe Paterno was not accused of legal wrongdoing by the grand jury,[7] advocates for sexual abuse victims have called for charges to be brought against him for not contacting the police himself." What I don't understand: What about McQueary? If you call for charges against someone for not reporting a crime after a witness tells you about it, then surely the witness is guilty of the same thing. I would even argue that the witness has a higher obligation, because the witness really saw something bad happened, whereas the person who gets told by the witness has not witnessed anything and "only" has the allegations of the witness. Are there reasons why Paterno is "targeted" and not McQueary? Or is information about McQueary just not used by the media, because talking about Paterno has a higher impact because of his position? Does anybody know? I wonder why you would even have to call for charges against McQueary. I would assume that witnessing a crime without reporting (especially a crime like this) would be punishable by more than a slap on the wrist. --78.54.121.148 (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, McQueary should be exonerated. Per ESPN (http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7212054/key-dates-penn-state-nittany-lions-sex-abuse-case) McQueary met with Tim Curley and Gary Schultz in March 2002 and McQueary told them what he saw. Schultz was in a position of administrative command over the Penn State Police Department. So, McQueary did report the incident to the police. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
McQueary likely has whisteblower protection. Even so, he as just put on administrative leave by the new PSU president. See here. Cbl62 (talk) 22:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
But McQueary didn't blow the whistle. In my opinion, he's the most culpable out of everyone involved (other than Sandusky, of course). He witnessed a man having anal sex with a 10 year old boy, did nothing to stop it, and didn't even call the police. I don't know how he sleeps at night knowing that Sandusky victimized other boys after that incident. KevinLuna83 (talk) 00:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
My comment above wasn't intended as a comment on McQueary's culpability, simply a recital of what the news media has been reporting. See here and here. Our role here isn't to decide who's "most culpable." Cbl62 (talk) 00:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
As horrific and brutal as these crimes are, we are not a court. I agree with Cb162. Bearian (talk) 19:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Background Correction

Background currently states " In 1998, he was investigated by Penn State officials for sexual abuse of a child; that incident was not reported to any law enforcement agency". The additional statement is not true. The 1998 incident was reported to law enforcement and the DA, Ray Gricar refused to prosecute. The University Police reviewed and closed the case. This is stated directly in the grand jury report. The cited reference was in relation to the 2002 incident, and is incorrect for the 1998 incident. 74.212.58.182 (talk) 00:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

It is also not correct that he was investigated by Penn State officials. He was investigated by University Police, State College Police, Centre County DA, Ray Gricar, PA Department of Public Welfare, as well as "the child protection agency". All stated in the grand jury report. 74.212.58.182 (talk) 00:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Details about victims

I'm not really sure the bulleted list about the victims makes sense and is consistent with an encyclopedia. I mean, it begs the question, to what extent should we replicate the grand jury's presentment? To me, it seems that a discussion about the number of victims as well as the alleged crimes is sufficient, and that the current bulleted list is too much and should be left to the reader. Thoughts? jheiv talk contribs 01:49, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Primary sources like grand jury report are OK as long as they are not interpreted. I do think that it could be summarized a bit (e.g. showering, touching legs, sex, going to games, etc) without the play-by-play of each alleged victim.—Bagumba (talk) 20:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Date of when Grand Jury convened (I don't think it was 2008

There have been a lot of edits on this article. My edit that the case was first reported to the police in 2008 has been changed to the grand jury convening 2008. I don't believe the grand jury convened until 2010 at the earliest. That is a big problem with what happened. The case that blew up started with a police report in 2008 but it dragged around until 2011.Americasroof (talk) 05:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

This is an important point, as someone sat on the case for 3 years without doing much. Grand juries do not work on a case for 3 years, as far as I know. Roger (talk) 19:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Sandusky speaks out

I just read this Reuters story and it has some decent pull-quotes where Sandusky and his attorney finally speak out against the allegations. I'd add them but I'm afraid it'll paint me as too one-sided on this story, so I'll just link to it and see if any other editor thinks anything in there is worthy of inclusion. The other reason is that I just broke my keyboard after I slammed my head into it upon reading the intro -- a facepalm moment. Cheers. jheiv talk contribs 04:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Ha ha. Really? Just chill out. :) Seriously though, does the intro need cleaning up? --Jtalledo (talk) 01:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for the miscom. -- I meant the intro to the linked reuters article -- it seems like a pretty ludicrous defense to me. (The intro to the WP article is fine imo ☺) jheiv talk contribs 01:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Title

I notice this article is currently move-protected. I think a better title would be "Jerry Sandusky Penn State child sexual abuse scandal" because Penn State is an significant part of the story. Cla68 (talk) 00:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

You should comment at #Requested move.—Bagumba (talk) 00:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Alleged?

Why is the entire article written with the word "alleged" sex offender or "alleged" crimes? These crimes have been confirmed by jury reports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.13.249.73 (talk) 06:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Switzer quote

User:Jheiv and I disagree on whether to include a quote by Barry Switzer on his view of the scandal. Jheiv cites WP:BLP as the basis for his objection to including it. He makes the common mistake of believing that BLP means "don't say anything bad about any person."

If Jheiv can show where and how the text in question violates BLP, please do so. Switzer is a self-evident expert on the topic of social dynamics of college-football coaching staff, making his speculation appropriate to include. I believe I have selected a representative portion of his statement, and accurately paraphrased the rest. The quote is properly cited to a reliable source (and, remember, Wikipedia's threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth) Ylee (talk) 08:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPGOSSIP: "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject."
Although Switzer's been around football, his comments don't indicate that knowledge at all. Indeed, that quote could be pulled from any anonymous forum user. The fact that it comes from Switzer doesn't make it relevant to an objective article - it only adds idle speculation. --Jtalledo (talk) 09:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
This isn't uncited, anonymous gossip on a random chat board; it's speculation, which is permissible if relevant, from a credible expert, and properly sourced from a reliable source. Is Switzer an expert on the topic of how members of a college football team's coaching staff interact over many years and deal with sensitive subjects? Yes, as much as anyone on Earth can be. Is the subject of his speculation relevant to the article? Yes. Ylee (talk) 09:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
What does it add that it should be there? As you said, anyone else could have said the same thing, so how does Switzer saying it make it worth noting? It only serves to make the article look less objective. --Jtalledo (talk) 10:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
I did not say that anyone else could have said what Switzer said; I said that Switzer is more of an expert on the topic than anyone who has not been part of a college football coaching staff for many years (i.e., 99.999999% of the planet), so his words have credibility. Switzer's words do not fail any BLP tests, and let me repeat: Wikipedia is OK with properly cited, relevant speculation by credible experts. Ylee (talk) 10:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your consideration, but I didn't make any assumptions that against policy. Simply because someone said something, and the fact that they said it is verifiable, doesn't mean it's worthy of inclusion in this encyclopedia. If there were multiple reliable sources who made the same claim, then maybe, and I stress maybe, it would be eligible. But it's not fact, but speculation, rumor, and further it is speculation that indicts a number of people. This is not material for an encyclopedia. jheiv talk contribs 19:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
This isn't an anonymous loudmouth on some forum. Switzer is a bona fide expert on the topic of how college football coaching staffs work, and what its members say to each others and to outsiders. He is also a member of the media nowadays, with his TV work, and the section is called "Media reaction" after all. You can't just shout "BLP!" whenever something you don't like appears in Wikipedia without showing how it actually violates BLP or another policy (and, no, "speculation that indicts a number of people" is not a BLP test). List the BLP rule the disputed text violates (and be able to explain your reasoning), or I will reinsert the edit. Ylee (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Jheiv on this one. Switzer is not some loudmouth and he is very familiar with the dynamics of a football team, but having that background and access to reporters doesn't magically make his "they had to have known" any more useful to the article than mine. I am deliberately not quoting policy because all policies are applied using common sense and good judgment. He doesn't know, so by definition he is not a reliable source, period.--~TPW 20:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
I nominate "I am deliberately not quoting policy" as the Wikiedit quote of the year.
Seriously, though, I know where you're coming from; WP:IGNORE exists for a reason, after all. That said, is this the type of super-emergency, rules-must-be-ignored-since-they-don't-make-sense-here situation that requires it to be invoked to the preemption of all others? No.
Switzer doesn't know for sure who knew what when. So what? No one does outside the Penn State staff. That hasn't prevented 10,000 outside observers this week from speculating, reasonable and otherwise (and, yet again, I must state for the benefit of the Wikinoobs reading this: speculation from a credible expert, and properly sourced from a reliable source, is permissible), on all aspects of the subject based on what they think they know. This includes pretty much every single media and sports pundit out there, of whom Switzer is just one example.
Switzer isn't commenting on the sex abuse charges per se, or what drove Sandusky to commit his alleged crimes, or the price of tea in China. Unlike that well-known football expert Maureen Dowd, he is speaking specifically on the narrow subtopic of how and whether the members of the coaching staff of a big-time university football program would keep an explosive secret. His background and experience makes Switzer an unquestionable expert on this particular issue. Unlike Mark Madden, Switzer is not propagating an anonymous rumor but making first-hand speculation based on his expertise. Since Switzer's speculation is labeled as such, he is thus considered a WP:RS whether or not he is correct. (The same goes, by the way, for Dowd and Madden's commentary, both also mentioned in this Wikiarticle.) Ylee (talk) 21:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
My opposition would be that Switzer be directly quoted in the article. Dowd and Madden are in the article, but aren't directly quoted, thus allowing for a more neutral presentation. I would be for including Switzer is he wasn't directly quoted. Maybe there could be a sentence somewhere near Madden's mention that says something like "Football coach Barry Switzer also commented that he thought more individuals had knowledge of Sandusky's actons." --Jtalledo (talk) 11:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the nomination, Ylee, but to be clear, I wasn't ignoring the rules, I was injecting common sense. Since you brought it up, I don't think the opinions of any of these talking heads is worth a hill of beans in this case, no matter how reliable a source they're quoted in. It's all just guesswork on their parts, and doesn't add value to the article. Given the volatile nature of these charges, I think we have a responsibility to proceed with care. Reliable sources talk about anal rape, and it's in there, because the witnesses (that's the operative word) testified to it, and the reliable sources published it. What did Switzer witness, exactly? Other football teams and other football coaches on other campuses interacting in ways that had nothing to do with this coach's actions and how this team and its staff reacted to it? How are Dowd's comments, or Madden's, any more relevant? Just because something is in a reliable source doesn't mean it needs to be included, and these do not. I'm expanding my opposition to all three.--~TPW 21:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, good grief.
1) WP:COMMON is a subset of WP:IGNORE, not a counterpart or alternate choice.
2) If you'd actually bothered to read WP:COMMON you'd have known that, and also have read the following:

When advancing a position or justifying an action, base your argument on existing agreements, community foundation issues and the interests of the encyclopedia, not your own common sense. Exhorting another editor to "just use common sense" is likely to be taken as insulting, for good reasons.

Besides being rude, your admitted inability to justify an objection to the disputed text on any actual Wikirules is not reason to pull the WP:COMMON (or WP:IGNORE) emergency fire alarm.
3) Common sense tells me that Switzer, who like Paterno won multiple national championships at a big-name football school located in a small town and during that time was unquestionably the most powerful person on campus and perhaps in the state, knows more about how football coaching staffs work than you or me or 99.99999% of humanity. That makes his words credible. Your bizarrely-high bar for a reliable source's merit for inclusion in an article--one not actually found anywhere in WP:RS or WP:BLP--would require any commentary by a credible expert to be removed from Wikipedia if he wasn't actually a firsthand participant.
4) I mentioned Dowd and Madden because I thought it was pretty hypocritical for Switzer's words to be controversial when theirs weren't as much. I agree that Dowd's commentary is pretty useless; she knows absolutely nothing about the situation, or football, or even the difference between Penn and Penn State. However, she is a recognized social commentator and there is nothing Wikiruleswise that would explicitly exclude mentioning her on those grounds. (Unlike Jheiv, I am not going to cite a Wikirule to try to remove her from the article regardless of whether it actually applies then not respond when asked to actually back up my statement. Unlike you, I am not going to claim that emergency-use metarules like WP:COMMON can be arbitrarily invoked to let me do anything I want whenever I want.) Madden is repeating an anonymous rumor but, again, no Wikirule prohibits this if phrased properly as he is a recognized Pennsylvania sports commentator who has been writing on the issue for months, not just this past week.
5) Let me repeat: List the Wikirule the disputed text violates--and be able to explain your reasoning--or I will reinsert the edit. (I may further refactor the edit as per Jtalledo's suggestion, though.) Ylee (talk) 23:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
WP:CON -- I don't have a ton of time right now to read and respond, but you asked for a wikirule and now you have it. jheiv talk contribs 23:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I am yet again amazed by an editor citing something without actually reading it. WP:CON is not a Wikirule like WP:V or WP:BLP or WP:RS; rather, it explains how editors who differ on how to interpret and apply such Wikirules should discuss and proceed. As WP:CON explains:

Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerned.

As the WP:CON article repeatedly mentions, WP:CON is not meant as "majority always rules", which is what you are implying. I have compomised, by refactoring the edit after your first revert; offered to compromise again via further refactoring; cited various Wikipolicies to explain to other editors that, among other things, speculation is actually allowed in Wikipedia; and, yes, even invoked common sense. What have you done? Oh, right, repeatedly shout "BLP!", be unable to actually explain how BLP or any other Wikirule supports your objection, and now this. (Another WP:CON quote to leave with you: "The argument "I just don't like it", and its counterpart "I just like it", usually carry no weight whatsoever." Hint, hint.) Ylee (talk) 23:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Just because an editor has a different interpretation of a policy (or, in my case, an essay) than you do, Ylee, doesn't mean that they didn't read it. My decision not to quote policy was a conscious one based on a desire to discourage wikilawyering. It appears that you don't view editorial discretion as holding much water, so I suggest you carefully consider consensus before you unilaterally decide that you're right and the quote should be included. You have not convinced any of the other three editors participating in this thread that you're right. There isn't consensus to include it, there is only your desire to include it. Your insistence that you are the only editor who reads a policy, guideline, or essay before linking to it (with your evidence being that anyone who disagrees with you couldn't possibly have read the item in question) is completely irrelevant. Build some consensus for your suggested edit, and come back when you've convinced someone that it has merit. Personally, I don't have time to read another long diatribe that assumes I must be either or illiterate or ignorant simply because I don't share your view of the world.--~TPW 12:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, it is difficult for me to take seriously your claim of Wikilawyering when you and Jheiv have repeatedly attempted, and failed, to cite some Wikirule--any one at all--to block the edit. Regarding AGF, I am not the one who shouted "BLP!" then ran away when challenged. I am not the one who rudely told me to use common sense, then said my responses were too long to read. It also doesn't mean you get to to arbitrarily define consensus.
WP:DISCRETION is primarily meant for situations in which, for example, editorial judgement is necessary to decide between multiple reliable sources that disagree on an issue. There is no such situation here; Switzer's words are clearly labeled as speculation, no one has yet demonstrated that he is not a reliable source with credibility to speculate on the particular subtopic his quote addresses, and no reliable source exists that I am aware of that diagrees with him (and the proper way to deal with such would, in this case, probably be to also cite said opposing source, anyway). So, got any more strawmen to throw up? Ylee (talk) 14:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Simply reinserting the contentious material and hoping no one will notice is not part of gaining consensus. I'm just going to revert your edits and move on until a consensus has been developed. jheiv talk contribs 10:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Good grief. Beyond your disregarding the advice given at WP:DRNC, I stated three times above, over a period of several days, that unless you or someone else could state a rule the disputed text violated and could explain the reasoning I would reinsert the edit. Nothing surreptitous about it, as the edit summary shows. I will not engage in a revert war, but once again request that you explain your work. You want to establish consensus for your side? Be able to actually discuss things using "reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense" as the article advises. Continuously stalling by changing the subject--as you have done since I opened this topic on the 12th--does not magically work to do so. As WP:DRNC states, "But you neglected to explain why you personally disagree with the edit, so you haven't given people a handle on how to build the consensus with you that you desire ... [I]f you can't point out an underlying problem with an edit, there is no good reason to immediately revert it." Ylee (talk) 11:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
PS - Speaking of "hoping no one will notice", I only just noticed that you removed the Mark Madden discussion too without mentioning it in the edit summary, although that's only been obliquely discussed here; in other words, certainly without "consensus" at least by the skewed standard you and True Pagan Warrior are claiming. Ylee (talk) 11:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
PPS - I see that Jheiv is among the most vocal in opposing the proposed renaming of the article (the "#Requested move" discussion), because he believes that calling it "Penn State sex abuse scandal" will unfairly impugn the university as a whole. Sound familiar? This is similar to his initial objection to the Switzer quote, that it is "speculation that indicts a number of people" and thus violates BLP. Beyond his confusion on what BLP actually is and isn't and ignorance of Wikipedia's actual policies on speculation, when taken together it seems Jheiv is perhaps overly protective of the image of Penn State, with which I presume he has some connection to.
I have not participated in the renaming discussion as I have no strong preference and can see merits to both sides; the relevant Wikirules are not sufficiently prescriptive and there are multiple varying precedents (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS#Precedent in usage is too often ignored by those who would cite the article as some sort of all-purpose anti-precedent weapon). That is the sort of situation that WP:CON is designed for, one in which multiple interpretations of Wikirules are reasonably feasible and/or relevant Wikirules do not exist. Not with the Switzer text, for which the rules are quite straightforward; something Jheiv and TPW have so far implicitly acknowledged by their repeated inability to cite them with any detail. Ylee (talk) 13:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

You can continue with your uncivil remarks and failure to assume good faith, as well as quote as many essays under the sun. However your edits are disruptive and you refuse to even attempt to build consensus. I'm done arguing on this page until you make an attempt to build consensus (nothing you've tried so far comes close) and will simply revert and move on. jheiv talk contribs 16:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I admit to being aggressive in my language, but what can I say? I dislike people who make things up in arguments and who don't understand basic Wikirules. I am willing to submit to any available arbitration mechanism and am comfortable in my side being vindicated on its merits. I will file a ticket on WP:DRN. Ylee (talk) 17:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Change of plans: I will file at WP:BLPN instead. Ylee (talk) 17:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
That's an excellent idea, since you're the only editor who hadn't abandoned this thread. I trust that you'll be satisfied with whatever the uninvolved editors there recommend.--~TPW 20:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Of course. Ylee (talk) 00:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
After several days, there's no question that consensus at the noticeboard is against my side and is for TPW and Jheiv's. (Eh, you win some and you lose some.) I official withdraw the edit from consideration. Ylee (talk) 16:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Lead Sentence

The opening paragraph (i.e. "The Penn State sex abuse scandal involves allegations made in 2011 against former Pennsylvania State University football assistant coach Jerry Sandusky and an alleged cover-up of those incidents by the university.") is very weak, IMO. The lead of the article should provide a broad overview of what happened and its impact. It should at the very least (a)indicate that this was a sex scandal involving children; and (b) note that it ultimately led to the dismissal of the school's revered head coach. The only reason this scandal is so notable is because of those two key factors. In journalism, you would call this 'burying the lead'. (And yes, I realize this is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper article, but the concept remains the same in an article such as this.) JoelWhy (talk) 19:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

You're right on target. Rklawton (talk) 19:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
I took a stab at rewriting it.--~TPW 19:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Much improved, thank you. I think it may need a bit of tinkering; or, perhaps, adding a second sentence to the lead specifically about Paterno. The reason for this is twofold: (1) Paterno is the biggest part of this story, in that he is the most prominent figure involved; and (2) I don't know if it's fair to say he was part of a 'cover up' per se. Rather, he was fired for his inaction (as opposed to taking proactive steps to hide the abuse.) Therefore, a second sentence would not leave readers with the false impression that he attempted to hide the abuse, only that he (arguably) failed to take sufficient steps to stop or reveal it.JoelWhy (talk) 19:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Student response

I would question if tear gas was actually fired at students. I was at riot and at no point was tear gas used to my knowledge. I can confirm that pepper spray was used on students but this would have only worked at close range as apposed to tear gas which is usually fired at long range. Several fires were set in the streets which could have given the impression that tear has was fired. Secondly, I would also question if 10000 students actually showed up. This is an exaggeration; this means that 25% of the student body showed up! I believe that several sources stated anywhere from 2-5 thousand. I feel that as a student at PSU, the media has portrayed some of the violent aspects as a deeper importance over the "Sandusky allegations." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.118.150.156 (talk) 15:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The sources cited claim tear gas was used, but only one of them pegs the figure at over 10,000, so I'm changing that.--~TPW 16:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

This section currently implies that students rioted in response to people calling for Spanier, the President of the school to be fired. They rioted in response to Paterno being fired.JoelWhy (talk) 20:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Done - split it up, also added context to the riot and the timing of the announcement. Calwatch (talk) 07:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Ray Gricar - Edit request from eturowski , 11 November 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Ray Gricar was investigating a heroin ring in 2005. His disappearance resembles that of another drug prosecutor in 2003 (assistant US Attorney Jonathan Luna), and it is possible that Gricar's disappearance resulted from his concurrent involvement in prosecuting the heroin ring, rather than his involvement in the Jerry Sandusky case several years earlier.

http://www.yardbird.com/midnight_ride_another_missing_PA_prosecutor_1.htm

Perhaps the Wiki should be edited to read something like this: "Gricar disappeared under mysterious circumstances in 2005 and has since been legally declared dead, though his body has never been found. However, at the time of his disappearance, he was in the midst of an investigation against a large heroin dealing operation, and many have attributed his disappearance to his involvement in the drug investigation rather than his involvement in the Jerry Sandusky case several years earlier."

Eturowski (talk) 14:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)eturowski

It seems to me that we need to include a bit on Gricar, concerning his investigations of allegations in this case and we need to mention that he has disappeared, and hence not available for questioning. However, any speculations on reasons for his disappearance are merely that: speculations. Unless we have some creditable source to attribute concerning causes for his disappearance. So let's just say he was involved at one time in investigations relating to this case, but has since disappeared and been declared legally dead, and let people draw their own conclusions.Wschart (talk) 16:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Plus, no reference.  Chzz  ►  23:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Most of this is covered in Ray Gricar.--GrapedApe (talk) 00:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Is PAW banner needed?

When I first noticed the banner tagging this article for WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch, I visited the page to find it more. What I found led me to tag the project as {{inactive}}. There's really no need to tag an article for an inactive project, but since I tagged the project I'd prefer to get some input about the project tag here. Do we need it?--~TPW 18:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

It's useful just in case the project gets started up again. If nothing else, the template also allows for articles that fall under the project's scope to be found easily. --Jtalledo (talk) 22:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Peer review

The initial news cycle has subsided, and there's going to be a reduced amount of coverage until the next significant events unfold, likely in a courtroom. I think this would be a good time to ask for a peer review. Are there any specific areas that we should ask any reviewer to focus on? I'd like to be able to build towards a GA review in the coming months.--~TPW 19:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

There are a few obvious points. Neutrality and balance for one, we don't want it to look too defensive of Sandusky et. al., nor should it be an indictment of all parties named. Second, organization. For the most part, the article's organized in chronological order, but there are a few parts where it dips out of that organization, which might be confusing to some readers. And the lead, namely what should go into it. It seems a bit small right now, although it is better than it was before. --Jtalledo (talk) 21:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
It should be sure to avoid WP:BLP problems. Make sure that it clearly states that he was accused of the accusations by law enforcement, not that he did them. At least that must be the focus until the trial is over.--GrapedApe (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
At one point, I was concerned with the amount of depth that we were replicating the grand jury presentment in our article -- esp. given that it is a primary source. The long enumeration of alleged victims has since been summarized so I don't think it's a real issue anymore, but its something to look out for. I'll also echo Jtalledo's sentiments in that the page should not look like a Sandusky defense page littered with weasel words (Note: This is not the case currently, just another thing to keep an eye out for as the article progresses). jheiv talk contribs 03:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Penn_State_child_sex_abuse_scandal/Archive_1&oldid=464212541"