Talk:2011 University of Miami athletics scandal

Article creation
Ordinarily it would be premature to create a stub like this based on a news story. I have two reasons: Melchoir (talk) 08:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) This is guaranteed to need its own article eventually, so we may as well start now.
 * 2) The existence of an article specifically about the scandal takes some pressure off the Miami Hurricanes football article, which is huge, and the Nevin Shapiro article, which should probably focus more on the Ponzi scheme than the recent sports story. A central article should help focus editing efforts.

Retitle
"Miami Hurricanes Shapiro scandal" is an extremely awkward title. Can I suggest "Miami Hurricanes football scandal" instead? --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 18:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's awkward, but "Miami Hurricanes football scandal" isn't appropriate because they've had other football scandals (see Miami Hurricanes football) and because, although football is getting most of the attention, this also includes the men's basketball team. Perhaps "2011 Miami Hurricanes scandal"? I think for the time being, the current name, despite being awkward, might be best. cmadler (talk) 00:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm thinking. I agree that it's awkward, but a good title isn't obvious. Some more ideas at random...
 * The 2011 might be questionable since the Yahoo investigation started in 2010, and the actions under investigation started in 2002.
 * One could use the word "athletics" as in University of Southern California athletics scandal.
 * Maybe a dash between Hurricanes and Shapiro, and/or adding his first name, would help reduce the awkwardness.
 * Melchoir (talk) 00:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Given the extent to which this is a developing story, I don't think we need to rush to find a perfect article title. As the story develops and media coverage continues, the appropriate name will probably become clear. cmadler (talk) 12:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * When the time is right, the best title is probably 2011 University of Miami athletics scandal since not everyone knows "Miami Hurricanes" refers to a university or to a sports team. And the year is needed since, yes, there have been multiple high profile scandals such as in 1995 . Another route would be to make this full article about all the scandals, including both 1995 and 2011. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I was BOLD and moved the article to the new title -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

RV Forde/ "Death Penalty"
The "source" for the sentence I removed here is Pat Forde, a columnist for ESPN - not an investigative reporter and certainly not an NCAA COI official. Any suggestion that Miami is a) guilty of any of these infractions or b) is in danger of the death penalty is completely speculative and has no place in a factual article about the football program at Miami. Forde can speculate to his heart's content because he is a columnist - but that kind of thing belongs in a blog, or on an op-ed page, or in the National Enquirer - but it's gossip and entirely unworthy of an encyclopedia. The sentences that remain in that section are factual and sourced from WP:RS, which Forde is not for facts regarding this case. I invite interested parties to take a glance at the Talk page here - - for more. Wikipedia can deal with current topics, but it is not a blog or a newsrag. Facts are facts. Sensei48 (talk) 00:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Speculation
I admire the care taken by User:Blueboy96 and User:Cmadler carefully to source their additions to the article with WP:RS. I still don't like the speculative feel to it all (what happens, for example, if in the extreme Shapiro is making most of it up?), but a) I guess that this article on a current issue is the proper place for this kind of material, and b) I'm outvoted 2 to 1 here. I would, however, appreciate it if this recentist material would be kept out of the articles on the death penalty and on Miami football until something much more substantive appears. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 20:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Still - all the "woulds" in Blueboys edits are troublesome - how is your linking of these facts together and then drawing a conclusion not OR? And after BB brings this up, the Cmadler quotation undermines the previous sentences. Thoughts? Sensei48 (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * A large amount of information regarding the Miami scandal is speculative, but it's impossible to give readers a full understanding of the scandal and its context without including that speculation. I think that as long as the speculation is well-sourced and it's clear that it's speculation, we are OK. That is, we (Wikipedia) isn't speculating about this, we're noting that reliable sources have speculated about it. It's similar to Al Gore, for example. We can't just ignore the speculation, particularly when it's coming from so many reliable sources. I think the points to be made in the article are: 1. Many observers, including X,(cite) Y,(cite) and Z(cite) have speculated that if the allegations are true the Hurricanes may face the NCAA death penalty. 2. Contextual information about repeat violators and a pattern of willful violations. 3. NCAA quote, which may simply reflect that it's still early in the process for the NCAA to be considering specific actions. cmadler (talk) 12:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that the article could be more balanced, but not by removing the speculation about the death penalty, but rather by putting in more facts to fill it out! Right now it doesn't talk about the specific people named. Also, what about the comments from Tyrone Moss, and that he just recanted his admission, but Yahoo Sports claims to have a recording. All these details should be added to help balance it and give context. But the speculation about the death penalty should not be considered original research because you will see from the news stories, it's widely being discussed since the potential severity of the Miami violations far exceeds any recent infraction by USC and Ohio State, who were seen already as serious violators. -- Fuzheado | Talk 18:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Possibly worth mentioning that the scandal may spill beyond Miami. For example, many former Miami coaches are now at other schools, and some are implicated. Also, I saw something (can't find it at the moment) referring to a bidding war with another school (possibly Oklahoma) for a basketball player, which if substantiated, would draw said other school into the mess. cmadler (talk) 19:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I've restored a paragraph of attributed speculation and made it clear who is speculating (sportswriters, not Wikipedians). As long as we make it clear that we are citing someone else's published speculation, this is not OR, nor is it CRYSTAL. I've specifically mentioned Wetzel and Robinson, but we can easily add a dozen -- or two dozen, or three dozen -- other sportswriters (but I think that might be overkill) who have introduced the same speculation. cmadler (talk) 14:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * OK - that'll work, though 2 isn't "many" and "some" might be better. Overkill is not necessary, but substantiation for "many' would require more. It's still speculation and consequently not in the province of an encyclopedia - as in WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. But there appears to be editor consensus to let this be for now. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 18:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Ooops - wrong. This sentence must go: "Normally, schools who commit two major violations in five years are deemed "repeat violators," and thus could potentially face the "death penalty." That IS an editor's inferential WP:OR. (and it would be "schools that" - non-personal relative pronoun, "that" for general). Re-add only with a source that says specifically that.Sensei48 (talk) 18:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Fair enough on each count. I've restored an explanation of the term "repeat violator", cited to the NCAA's own "Glossary of terms". As for the other, how many sources do you think is needed to support "many"? I've got a little time tonight and tomorrow night, and I'm fairly confident that I can find as many examples as you deem necessary. cmadler (talk) 18:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Article structure
I agree with the above comment that the best way to make this a more-balanced article is through addition. I propose the following article structure: I think this will allow us to give the full situation without death penalty speculation overwhelming the background or the actual allegations. Thoughts? cmadler (talk) 09:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Lede
 * Prior Miami athletics scandals - Luther Campbell, the Pell Grant scandal leading to the "Why the University of Miami should drop football" SI cover, etc.
 * Nevin Shapiro background - a summary of content from our Nevin Shapiro article
 * Allegations
 * Commentary - including death penalty speculation
 * ✅ cmadler (talk) 17:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Reaction
Should reactions from individual players who were named be included in this section?  Eagles   24/7  (C)  21:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd say that if a single reaction sums up what they all say, include that. Or if any reactions are particularly noteworthy (discussed in media coverage), they should be included. Otherwise, no. cmadler (talk) 10:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks. The main reaction from Miami players is simply "Shapiro is a liar."  Eagles   24/7  (C)  18:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Sports Illustrated Picture
I don't think I'm the only one to find that SI Cover picture a bit misleading. Yes, it's in the "Past Scandals" section, and yes, it says clearly when it was published in its caption. However, it's the only picture on the page for an article titled "2011 University of Miami athletics scandal," and it has nothing to do with it specifically. It sits at the top of the page and is the first thing visitors see after the article title. As such, it gives a false first impression that nothing can undo. Furthermore, why is there even a "past scandals" section here at all? Why is it not on the Miami Hurricanes page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami_Hurricanes)? It would seem to fit much better there. Maybe leave a link to it here, because obviously it's connected, but this is a really awkward place to put the text itself. 76.109.241.82 (talk) 04:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, well, it's been a few days and nobody's replied. I'm gonna go ahead and take down that picture. I'll leave the past scandals section, even though I have doubts about whether it should be here; it's not as pressing a concern because its presence isn't really misleading visitors about the subject matter of the article.76.109.241.82 (talk) 16:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Reassessment comments
Overall, the article is good. But there are small errors, such as typos and irrelevant details that do not allow this article to be rated as B-class. Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name 06:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awardgive (talk • contribs)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2011 University of Miami athletics scandal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080415101716/http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1006688/index.htm to http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1006688/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC)