Jump to content

Talk:Penn State child sex abuse scandal

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MaroonGray213 (talk | contribs) at 11:53, 9 February 2012 (→Response to move discussion: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Is Tom Corbett off-limits?

I noticed no mention of Governor Corbett on this page, particularly his unique role in the scandal, like how led the charge of "moral obligation" failure with McQuery and Paterno, and how he pushed the Board of Trustees to fire Paterno instead of placing him administrative leave (as done with Curley and Schultz). BTW, Phil Knight defended Paterno's response (see this article). — Hasdi Bravo • 13:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move (2)

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved, previous RM consensus was very strong for the current title. Mike Cline (talk) 11:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Penn State sex abuse scandal → Jerry Sandusky sex abuse scandal – I realize we just had this discussion 2.5 months ago (Talk:Penn State sex abuse scandal/Archive 1#Requested move), and I even !voted for the move at that time (which was approved). However, having let the matter sit for a few months, new things have come to light, and my personal opinion on the nature of scandal has changed. Let me explain:

  • The firing of Joe Paterno has continued to receive considerable attention even as the rest of the scandal attention has died down. Joe Paterno is still the most well known Penn State figure, and his lack of inclusion changes the dynamics of where the scandal lies. For example, there was a call in the Daily Collegian for the PSU board to be ousted; it was even the headliner one day on a major conservative magazine's website.[1] This is buoyed by Paterno's December interview with the Washington Post in which he outright said he didn't know it was possible for a male to rape another male (sounds odd to us internet denizens, but he was from another time). In other words, I am maintaining that Paterno was not necessarily as involved as everyone thought he might have been a few months ago. Considering that Paterno is dead and the matter will never go before a court of law, the opinions of the public and the media are as specific as we're ever going to get, and it looks like public opinion has shifted.
  • Also involved in the scandal is the failure of the local district attorneys to act upon the evidence given to them earlier (aside: I am not faulting them, only stating that their lack of action on the issue is potentially scandalous and ought to be part of the article).
  • Also involved is the Second Mile, which has nothing to do with Penn State.
  • The immediate and common thread between all parties involved is Jerry Sandusky, not just Penn State. Yes, Penn State was a common thread for most of the persons involved, but Jerry Sandusky is the person around whom the entire scandal centers. I am maintaining that Penn State is unnecessarily broad, while Jerry Sandusky is more specific. It would be just as accurate to call this the Penn State football sex abuse scandal, but this isn't as specific as it should be either. Even State College sex abuse scandal would be more accurate than the current title, but I don't see anyone proposing this (not the least of which is because some of the acts apparently occurred in other states; United States sex abuse scandal, anyone?).

I rest my case, and hope that we can come to an agreement. Vote now and vote often. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The scandal is widely known as the "Penn State sex abuse scandal". Your arguments are all well and good, but have no bearing on what we name this article.JoelWhy (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proof that it is more common than Jerry Sandusky scandal please? Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Google "Jerry Sandusky sex abuse scandal" = 80,800 results. Google "Penn state sex abuse scandal" = 1,580,000 results. Next topic please.JoelWhy (talk) 19:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Care must be used in comparing GHITS above 1,000. Also, a hit does not always provide articles purely about the seach term.—Bagumba (talk) 20:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, my search used quotation marks around those phrases. Is this ironclad evidence? No. But, when you have one search phrase showing more than 10x more hits that the other phrase, it certainly provides some insight into the matter. Unless someone comes up with some evidence to support the opposite conclusion, there's no valid reason to change the title (and, arguments about why you personally think one title is a more precise description than the other is not a valid argument pursuant to Wiki policy.)JoelWhy (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support- Google "Joe Paterno sex abuse scandal", and I get ~2,610,000 results. But it's not about him, nor is it about Penn State. Wikipedia is neutral. While we can blindly follow sources, redirects from other likely searches are cheap. Our policy says NPOV. We shouldn't be drawing with the big crayon just because it's big; we're trying to stay inside the lines we've drawn for ourselves. Dru of Id (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support- I think it is better for the name to focus on the "point of origin", and then state the people and entities affected by the scandal. Otherwise, the existing name may unnecessarily give the presumption of guilt to others that may or may not have nothing to do with the case. Read the preliminary hearing transcript. Joe Paterno's moral and professional culpability was next to nothing, yet the article and media focused everything on him. I see zero mention on Tom Corbett's in this article, even though his involvement is well documented and published before. NPOV. Right. — Hasdi Bravo • 15:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No offense, but this argument is a pretty clear indication of your bias in this matter. The fact that you feel "Paterno's moral and professional culpability was next to nothing" is yet another opinion that should have no bearing on this article. Again, the google search I pointed to above is thus far the only objective evidence presented -- and it strongly suggests the current name is the appropriate one.JoelWhy (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No offense, but your google argument is still a popularity argument. As a non-PSU graduate, I find it frustrating that the more I learn about the case, the less it has to do with PSU and Joe Paterno. To a layman, calling "Penn State sex abuse scandal" mean sex abuse scandal by "Penn State", which is both misleading and limiting in scope. Is Penn State the problem / villian here, or is it Jerry Sandusky? If you really want to be objective, then focus on the object in question. If we later find out that Penn State has been hosting orgies involving with minors, let's talk. — Hasdi Bravo • 19:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NO! This isn't an objective question about what WE think it should be called. It's what the general media calls it. If you want to call that a 'popularity argument', fine. The same can be said for why we allow citations to the New York Times, but don't allow people to cite Bobby Joe's Blog Only Read by His Mother.com. I'm not saying the Google search I provided is indisputable evidence, but when you have Phrase X used 10x more than Phrase Y, and both phrases are related to the exact same topic, I think it's a fair guess that Phrase X is the dominant phrase.
All of these other arguments about why some people think one phrase is more accurate than the other are irrelevant. These are opinions based on subjective standards. You can certainly find good reasons why the scandal should have been called something other than the phrase that caught on. (Just as you can argue that the fact the school officials didn't notify the police make the name completely appropriate.) But, the solution is to find the most objective means of naming the article. And, I have yet to see anyone provide a single objective argument about why it should be changed.JoelWhy (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Am I to understand we should let the "general media" dictate to wikipedia what this scandal should be called? Well, I suppose we should reinstate the Carmageddon page to disambiguate the closure of I-405 because that is what the "general media" called it back in 2011, in anticipation of the mass panic and hysteria that never occured. Then again, we can always count on the "general media" as the source of neutral and unbiased information, especially the New York Times. o.0 — Hasdi Bravo • 20:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're right, we should use our subjective opinions about something; I'm going to change "Jack the Rippers" page to "Jack the Slicer", because he really didn't "rip" anyone. Who cares what the "mainstream media" refers to something as...JoelWhy (talk) 21:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you even read the article you are referencing? The name "Jack the Ripper" came from a letter written by someone claiming to be the murderer, that was disseminated in the media. Wow, you learn something new from wikipedia every day - I need to donate more often. Since you have been mentioning this "wiki policy", please point to me this policy that requires wikipedia to rely on the "mainstream media" in naming an article. It would simplify the naming fiasco on the The Last Airbender: Legend of Korra page. While we are at it, we should rename Higgs boson article back to God particle despite the clearly biased statement in that article:
  • "In the popular media, the particle is sometimes referred to as the God particle, a title generally disliked by the scientific community as a media hyperbole that misleads readers"
— Hasdi Bravo • 22:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, I learned something new about the Ripper. But, my point remains the same. As for the general policy for the title of an object: "When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that". "God Particle" = 1.4 million hits; "Higgs Boson" = 3.9 million hits. Try again.JoelWhy (talk) 22:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since you did not provide me with a link, its WP:POVTITLE. You neglected the other part which the policy was alluding to "Sometimes that common name will include non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (e.g. the Boston Massacre or the Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper noun (and that proper noun has become the usual term for the event), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue." Penn State sex abuse scandal is newly term phrase coined by the media less than 3 months ago (Nov 7 2011), so I would think it is too early to qualify as a "usual term for the event" or under common usage, so that phrase would fall under neologisms as well (see WP:NEO). As such, I feel using Google or any search engine to establish "common use" for new terms is circular and asinine. Then again, when I googled in "Penn State sex abuse scandal", most of the top hits link back to older news articles and editorials (and the actual name used in the hits did not match the "exact" search), so a web search may be misleading. I did Google news search instead for the past month:
  • "Penn State sex abuse scandal" (About 78 results)
  • "Jerry Sandusky sex abuse scandal" (About 41 results, including New York Times and USA Today)
It looks like the former term is being phased out by the same "mainstream media" to a slightly more accurate title (although I personally think "Jerry Sandusky child molestation case" is better). YMMV. BTW, the redirect American Indian has about 43,200,000 results according to google, but the article Native Americans in the United States has about 32,800,000 results, while the redirect Nipplegate has about 197,000 results while the article "Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy" has about About 49,700 results. If you disagree with intepretation of the policy, we can escalate this dispute over there. I am taking a break to give others a chance to state their position. TTFN.
— Hasdi Bravo • 02:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This scandal absolutely involves more than just Jerry Sandusky's alleged crimes, as the arrest of two high level Penn State officials can attest to. The reason Sandusky's crimes became a scandal is the institutional coverup that, according to the grand jury report, ranged from the janitors to the highest reaches of the administration, as well as the arrests, suspensions and resignations of some of the most prominent figures at Penn State, not to mention the subsequent fallout including the student riots, civil litigation against the university, and whistle blowers speaking to the culture of coverup and control that has allegedly plagued the institution. There are multiple ongoing investigations of the university by the FBI, the Department of Education, the state of Pennsylvania, NCAA inquiries, and on and on, not to mention multiple lawsuits against the university not just from alleged victims, but from to the media attempting to access information through open record laws as well as insurance companies alleging university negligence in its handling of the situation. Even the Second Mile charity has been reported to be "so embedded in the Penn State community that we might as well start thinking of the charity as an extension of the university". Many articles continue to be produced about the impact of the scandal specifically on Penn State (like here). The recent attempts by the university's President and PR department to spin this away from the university is laughably transparent. Wikipedia does not follow the dictates of PR consultants. Can we expect Penn State whitewash to be pushed every month now?
Boiling it down, Sandusky committed the alleged crimes. Much like Watergate and all great scandals, here to the scandal is the coverup and the fall out which includes the downfall of the university's top leadership including the firing of the university's President and arrests of a Senior Vice President and its Athletic Director. Whether you think it is fair or not that Penn State is primarily associated with Sandusky's crimes, it is the epicenter of the scandal, and it is referred to as such by almost the entirety of the world's media, and that is unlikely to ever change no matter what PR firm Penn State retains. MaroonGray213 (talk) 04:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
^^^ This is exactly the reason why the scandal should be refer to "Jerry Sandusky" rather than "Penn State". You are correct that he is the epicenter and this scandal absolutely involves more than just his alleged crimes, but the moment you call it Penn State scandal, you draw a fictitious boundary that scopes the crimes to just Penn State and its officials. What you see depends on what you look for.
  • Do you see any mention on this page on Judge Leslie Dutchcot, who apparently mishandled Sandusky's preliminary arraignment? No, because the judge only volunteered on the Second Mile, which has nothing to do with Penn State.
  • Do you see any mention on this page on Tom Corbett, who as the AG assigned only one trooper on the Sandusky (while he assigned other resources prosecuting his political rivals) and let it drag for three years until he became Governor? No, because that is just a cheap shot partisan issue by Democrats, nothing to do with Penn State. Let we forget the hypocrisy when Corbett and Noonan accused McQuery and Paterno of doing "the bare minimum" and failing his "moral obligation", then pushed the BOT to fire Paterno.
Sure, the PR department of PSU would love to spin this as anything but a "Penn State scandal", but the media is no less biased than PSU PR, and recently is divided on what to call this scandal. Things have definitely with new facts come to light. Did you know that Paterno had two of his own lawyers with him at the Grand Jury hearing and refused representation by the then-Penn State lawyer? This is the Google News results for the past month (with duplicates removed):
  • "Jerry Sandusky sex abuse scandal" (About 66 results)
  • "Penn State sex abuse scandal" (About 55 results)
  • "Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal" (About 184 results)
  • "Penn State child sex abuse scandal" (About 53 results)
  • "Jerry Sandusky child sex scandal" (About 19 results)
  • "Penn State child sex scandal" (About 3 results)
  • "Jerry Sandusky scandal" (About 438 results)
  • "Penn State scandal" (About 570 results)
  • "Penn State/Jerry Sandusky/Joe Paterno scandal" (one result)
Second Mile handles the children, not Penn State, and Jerry Sandusky had retired when two of his alleged victims were on PSU grounds. Why not call it "Second Mile sex abuse scandal?" In any case, we cannot claim WP:COMMONNAME for a name coined just 3 months ago --- any name for the scandal including "Penn State sex abuse scandal" falls under neologisms, of which the wikipedia policy is very clear, WP:NEO. Focus about the subject matter and beat it to death. The subject is Jerry Sandusky and his alleged sex with multiple male children, so call the scandal "Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal". If you are really hell-bent on Penn State, you are welcome to create a page for "Penn State (mis)handling of Jerry Sandusky alleged child sex abuse" or something. Everyone should have an equal opportunity to be part of the Sandusky cover-up, not just those affliated to Penn State. TTFN. — Hasdi Bravo • 04:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NEO is not applicable. Its a clear English description, not a new term with inside meaning not apparent through standard English language. Consider the current name not WP:BROKEN if a clearer COMMONNAME is not apparent.—Bagumba (talk) 07:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I absolutely agree that nothing has changed from the original discussion. As was previously noted, it is a scandal that has enveloped Penn State. There are many more facets to this story than Jerry Sandusky's specific crimes. Everything is tied to Penn State and the coverup is the story here. There is clearly a Penn State scandal, in both actuality, and how most of the world refers to the events. CrazyPaco (talk) 06:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Response to move discussion

I took the time to write this rebuttal to Hasdi Bravo's comments in the move discussion immediately above, but it had already closed by the time I submitted, so I'm going to post this anyway...

First, as noted above and you fail to address that the vast majority of media coverage and stories have focused on Penn State. Of course the focuses of the story will change as news unfolds but Penn State is and will remain at the center of the scandal. When Sandusky is at trial, the focus will be on him. When Penn State's Athletic Director and Senior Vice President are on trial, the focus will be on them. When the civil litigation against Penn State is in full swing, that will be the story. Are we to create separate stub and start-class articles every month for the "Tim Curley perjury scandal" or the "Gary Shultz coverup scandal" or one called the "Penn State riots" and one called the "Graham Spanier resignation" and one called the "Joe Paterno firing" and one called the "Rodney Erickson alumni apology tour" and one called "Board of Trustees Chairman resignation" and one called the "Department of Education Penn State Cleary Act Investigation" or one called the "NCAA Penn State inquiry"? Perhaps those articles will break out naturally in the future, but this article is the parent of all of those issues and is correctly titled to encompass all aspects of the story of the scandal. The focal point is "Penn State" and everything, including future breakout articles, stems from it. There is no way around that.

Second, your statements about the stories that you linked about Second Mile and the governor not having anything to do with Penn State is false. I already linked a story showing that the Second Mile is intimately tied to Penn State. There is probably nothing in Centre County not tied to Penn State. If you've ever lived there, you know that to be true. Your Corbett article specifically discusses using Joe Paterno as a scapegoat. The words "Penn State" appear in that article about 20 times. It specifically states that Corbett was "raking in cool millions in campaign contributions from Penn State-related benefactees, big wheels and alums." Did you even read the article that you linked? Corbett is also a member of Penn State's board of trustees. That is hardly makes him unrelated to Penn State. Calling Corbett's role a partisan "cheap shot" is strictly your partisan POV. Even with that said, you cannot pull out a few articles on peripheral events related to this scandal and say "see, there are other things that aren't explicitly the univeristy's fault so it can't be titled as such". Such articles to not invalidate the fact that the overwhelming majority of coverage on events and people are at, related to, or involve Penn State. Coincidentally, it is telling that both of the articles that you linked refer to the issue as the "Penn State scandal". This isn't surprising though because almost all media does.

Speaking of people, your attempt to distance Sandusky from the university by claiming he was retired, like the university itself is trying to do, is patently misleading. Conveniently, you must have forgotten that he had Professor Emeritus status."He was given a parking pass and was allowed to keep keys to the football facilities, with a personal office inside. As an esteemed guest, he was free to move openly around campus".1 Further, he conducted football campus at Penn State branch campuses up until at least 2009.2 He was also had access to the university's football facilities up until the scandal broke3 and was in the university President's box for the football game the week prior4, despite being under grand jury investigation. Not to mention that the Penn State Creamery had a flavor named after him5 and the Book Store stocked his book6 until after the scandal. Perhaps most importantly, it also ignores the allegations of Sandusky transporting victim #4 on Penn State charter flight and staying in Penn State's hotel for the 1999 Alamo Bowl when he was still an assistant coach, a matter that is the subject of a Pennsylvania, San Antonio Police, and FBI investigation.7 Of course, most of his victims were abused on Penn State facilities and he used the allure of Penn State to lure his victims. Because Jerry Sandusky was "retired" that makes the connection to Penn State irrelevant in what way again?

You seriously make a statement that the "media is no less biased than PSU PR"!??! You honestly believe that? Do you know what conflict of interest is? Again, 90% of the world refers to this as some variation of the "Penn State scandal" and still does. You can't just brush aside 3.6 million Google hits in order cite only things in the last month during a period of time when a slew of articles were talking about Penn State's deliberate attempt to rename the scandal..1,2,3,4, etc, etc.

Third, you really want to give special weight to month-long list of google hits that still doesn't come out in your favor? Well how about we list the major media that currently categorizes their collection of these stories under a variation of the "Penn State scandal" title, like what this Wikipedia article is doing... CNN, CBS News, ABC News, NBC, Fox News, NPR, BBC, USA Today, New York Times, New York Post, The Boston Globe, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, Associated Press, Philadelphia Inquirer, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Lehigh Valley The Morning Call, Johnstown Tribune-Democrat, Huffington Post, EIN News, ESPN, Sports Illustrated, Forbes, Time, The Guardian, Daily Mail, The Chronicle of Higher Education, Comcast Sports Net,etc, etc.

Fourth, WP:NEO isn't applicable here at all. It is a guideline talking about how Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I'll quote it anyway: "Articles on neologisms are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term." This isn't an article on a neologism. Even if it were, I've already linked dozens of reliable sources commenting about the name (and more are below). But what we are engaged in is a discussion about the name of an article about the events of a scandal. Even if that guideline was applicable, is Wikipedia's name for this article "increase usage of the term" when everyone is already using it? The article was named as such because it was already the overwhelming common name, something you even seem to admit was the case in at least the past. You logic is flawed.

Finally, I'm not just claiming common name, although it is the common name according to a survey of local, national and international media. I've made the case it is distinctly a Penn State scandal because it involves so many people at all levels of the university, and most importantly which no one can seem to refute, because the university coverup is the scandal. The individual crimes, which are more than just Sandusky's, are only components of one giant scandal all linked to protecting the university. To take a page from your book, feel free to start a break-out article more thoroughly covering Jerry Sandusky's alleged crimes or the crimes of Tim Curly or Gary Schultz. The vast majority of articles and reports specifically talk about events in the context of Penn State, even in spite of Penn State's PR campaign. Here are specific articles discussing specifically why it is a "Penn State scandal" and not a "Jerry Sandusky scandal": 1, 2, 3,4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. Is 15 enough? There are many more. MaroonGray213 (talk) 11:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Penn_State_child_sex_abuse_scandal&oldid=475929146"