Talk:Penn State child sex abuse scandal/Archive 2

Sandusky re-arrested
While it is true he was arrested on Dec. 7, he spent one night in jail and posted bail of $250000 and was released yesterday (Thursday.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.102.74.137 (talk) 19:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Damages from riot
The student newspaper today is reporting that the news van alone that was destroyed was $100000. I think that students caused more than $20000 in damages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.102.74.137 (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

This article in PSU navbox
I see that this article has been added to the PSU Navbox -- I'm not sure I agree with this. I checked a few navboxes of organizations / people who had "non-official" articles about them -- for example, Template:Duke University doesn't have the Duke lacrosse scandal, Template:CUNY doesn't have the CCNY Point Shaving Scandal, etc.

What are your thoughts? jheiv talk  contribs 05:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'd prefer a Penn State sex abuse scandal navbox, with Jerry Sandusky, Graham Spanier, Joe Paterno, The Second Mile, and possibly Touched: The Jerry Sandusky Story.--GrapedApe (talk) 12:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. I think the scope should only cover those people and organizations originally named in the grand jury investigation, at least for now. --Jtalledo (talk) 13:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't the nav box include this article?--~TPW 14:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Um... are you referring to Penn State sex abuse scandal? If so, it's linked in the template title. The link is not visible on this article page since it is linking to itself. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, of course . . . the colors of the box threw me off. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.--~TPW 03:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Why is this called the Penn State sex abuse scandal? One man is the central figure in this story, and not the university- the entire school did not participate in his actions and you are condemning 3,000,000+ educated readers of your website with this title. It's perfectly unbiased to keep the page within the links of the university and with its own sidebar as it's a major part of the school's history - this is fine. However, a redirect from "Penn State sex abuse scandal" to "Jerry Sandusky sex abuse scandal" with the latter as the title is more appropriate given the singular nature of the story. Please consider this- it'd be greatly appreciated. Mglasgow11 (talk) 19:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed in great detail, this is how RS refer to it, so the consensus of editors was that this was a more suitable scandal. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mglasgow11. The answer is that, back in early November, the discussion was probably closed prematurely based on a "snowball" argument. I still believe that the consensus compromise was that the article should really be called Jerry Sandusky-Penn State Sex Abuse Scandal. RS refer to it as a lot of things, but people get their minds set on a certain article name and refuse to budge. Peace, MPS (talk) 14:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep it as is, for BLP reasons, and also for the fact that this thing has had far-reaching implications for the school and its personnel. Sandusky could redirect to this, of course. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * oh, BLP got it... Ok then, The Second Mile-Penn State Sex Abuse Scandal since every single alleged victim was a program participant in The Second Mile ... and since the scandal has all but shut down Second Mile . Peace, MPS (talk) 15:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Change all "victim" to "accuser"
This is pretty standard in news media, since Sandusky is innocent until proven innocent. The term "accuser" was used for other child molestation incidents such as the one involving Michael Jackson. The current article is biased and implicitly finds Sandusky guilty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.55.175.4 (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ... or alternatively, you can say "alleged victim" MPS (talk) 21:08, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Many of the places I see the word victim are specifically refering to the grand jury report which refered to "Victim 1" and Victim 2" and so on as an identifier. In places where it's just standard prose writing I'd agree with you, but not anywhere where it's clearly and specifically refering to the wording within the actual documents.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * These people aren't necessarily "accusers" -- they are not plaintiffs in a case, but witnesses to a state prosecution. Adding "alleged" before victim is ok by me. (unless referring to grand jury report, where "Victim 1" etc is fine).  BTW, I heard Sandusky's new defense is that he was teaching these boys cleaning hygiene in the shower..  The attorney did not state what the punishment was for dropping the soap.--Milowent • hasspoken  01:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Innocent until proven guilty, innocent until proven guilty. Keep repeating it to yourself, please. Cla68 (talk) 02:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia necessarily must say "alleged victim" unless citing the grand jury document directly, in which case it would be in quotes anyway. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Renaming proposal: Jerry Sandusky Scandal
In this article and others, PSU President requested the scandal refered as "the Sandusky scandal" rather than Penn State scandal. It kind of make sense, since Jerry Sandusky is on trial here not PSU. Other media has since been calling it "Jerry Sandusky scandal" or "Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal". Should we do something similar (with neutral point of view in mind)? Thoughts? — Hasdi Bravo &bull; 04:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely Not. What you and Erickson are saying is 100% false. This matter has already been discussed previously, is referred to by no less than 90% of the national and international media as some variation of the "Penn State Scandal", and 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 his crimes are 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. 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.MaroonGray213 (talk) 00:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * MaroonGray213, indeed, indeed. Jweiss11 (talk) 14:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that Penn State administrators are trying to get the name of this incident changed in the media probably should be reported in this article, but it is indicative, in itself, of even more reason why the current article title is accurate and appropriate. Cla68 (talk) 22:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Chill out, guys. I am just asking. :-/ Still, the scope cover-up could go beyond PSU, all the way to the state level, especially on how Governor Tom Corbett mishandled the Sandusky case as Attorney General. I thought it would make sense to focus on the "point of origin". — Hasdi Bravo &bull; 15:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

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 &bull; 13:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

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), 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. 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)

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)
 * Proof that it is more common than Jerry Sandusky scandal please? Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 &bull; 15:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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 &bull; 19:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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 &bull; 20:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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 &bull; 22:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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 &bull; 02:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The firing of Joe Paterno has continued to receive considerable attention even as the rest of the scandal attention has died down. This is more of an argument for a separate article for Penn state firing of Joe Paterno, which could be spun out from Penn State sex abuse scandal and Joe Paterno.—Bagumba (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now Not convinced that anything is broken to warrant a change. Continue to follow WP:COMMONNAME for lack of compelling reason to override common usage in favor of a softer, neutral name.—Bagumba (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose. It is a Penn State Scandal. Nothing has changed from from the original discussion, nor when |the raised the subject less than a month ago. It is referred to by no less than 90% of the national and international media as some variation of the "Penn State Scandal" (still to this day). The media is not all biased.


 * 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)
 * ^^^ 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 &bull; 04:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)


 * 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 rebuttal in previous 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 mainly because of the article links that could be useful for the article or in future discussions. I just wanted it to be part of the record, sorry for the length....."

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)
 * Neologisms are not restricted to just newly coined word. Look it up: "a neogolism is a newly coined term, word, or phrase, that may be in the process of entering common use, but has not yet been accepted into mainstream language". The media initially came up with "Penn State sex abuse scandal" to refer to scandal for whatever reason but it is not necessarily an accurate name. Did you check the hits google returned? Excluding this wikipedia page, the top twenty pages of hits are news articles and editorials dated around November 2011. Naturally, there are more articles linking back to those primary articles. Just because the term had a headstart, does not make it right. At this time, the media consensus on what to call the scandal is somewhat in flux. If you checked google news instead, you would know that. WP:NEO applies here UNLESS you have written a book on this particular topic AND named the book "Penn State sex abuse scandal" AND it became a bestseller.
 * All that matters is the Wikipedia guideline not the definition of the word. WP:Dictionary and its sub guideline WP:Neo don't apply here at all. Read the whole thing and the comment by Bagumba above. You're taking it completely out of context.MaroonGray213 (talk) 10:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no central authority on what to name this scandal, not the media, and certainly not PSU PR department. The only thing we can do is use a neutral and descriptive title. If you really feel Penn State should pay for its crimes, then you are doing a fantastic job using wikipedia to taint the jury pool. Penn State has been not charged with anything. Curley and Schultz are both innocent until proven guilty. Then again, so does Jerry Sandusky, so this page should really be called "Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse allegations" with another section (or new page) for "Penn State alleged cover-up of Jerry Sandusky sex crimes". Just like Nipplegate and other media-created terms, we can mention somewhere that the alleged sex crimes led to a scandal that is initially referred in the media as "Penn State sex abuse scandal". Am I being difficult here? Or should I just escalate / defer this issue to the crats? Between you and me, I think PSU BOT and Corbett are busy CYA on this, especially after claiming that Baldin was only representing Penn State not Curley and Schultz at the Grand Jury hearing, but that is just my opinion not a statement of fact, which cannot be incorporated into wikipedia. To me, the cover-up is just another case of rich elites covering up for another rich elite, no matter how foul. BTW, you might want to check out how wikipedia handles the following:
 * Lawrence Franklin espionage scandal (redirected from AIPAC espionage scandal)
 * Franklin child prostitution ring allegations (redirected from Franklin Coverup Scandal).
 * TTFN. — Hasdi Bravo &bull; 05:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, now Wikipedia is tainting the jury pool! I guess just like 100s of local, national and international media outlets around the globe, dozens of them linked above. That may be one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever read, right up there with "media is no less biased than PSU PR". But what jury pool? I thought "Penn State has been not charged with anything", as if an attorney general can arrest a university? Add that to the list of ridiculous statements. On the other hand, how many civil litigations thus far has Penn State now been named in? At least four: at least two victims1, ESPN suing to get access to the 1998 Penn State police investigation of Sandusky,3 and Penn State's insurance company claiming university negligence.4 How many investigations is it embroiled in? DOE for violations of the Clery Act, FBI over Penn State transporting victims across state lines, NCAA for institutional control, internal Board of Trustees investigation headed by Louis Freeh, who knows how many others.56 The issue has already been discussed and decided twice and brought up by you another time. Even a board of trustee candidate for Penn State published that opinion in the Center Daily Times.7 As stated by others, there is already a clear and overwhelming WP:Consensus. If you actually get outside of the area, you would be aware that everyone, all over the country, refers to this as the "Penn State scandal", and your opinion about a Board of Trustees coverup just further drives home the appropriateness of the title beyond common name applicability. MaroonGray213 (talk) 10:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Dude, I *am* outside of the Penn State area. The only times I have been to the state of Pennsylvania was when I was passing through to get to New York City. When I first read about "Penn State sex abuse scandal", my first thought was some kind of hanky-panky by the state of Pennsylvania. Until several weeks ago, I didn't know who Joe Paterno was, much less Jerry Sandusky. Then, the unbiased media told me that Joe Paterno is responsible for enabling Jerry Sandusky because "Joe Paterno is Penn State". What the *hell* does THAT even mean? I must say that the more I dig into this, the more irrational and hysterical this turned out to be. Now YOU are telling me that "Second Mile is Penn State" too because the large donations from Penn State? I'm sorry man, if you want to build a case against Penn State, that is fine with me, but wikipedia has to be neutral on this subject matter, which centers around "Jerry Sandusky" and his alleged "child sex abuse". Until Penn State officials and former employees has been convicted of anything, any allegations against Penn State are just allegations and must be stated as such, even if I think that PSU BOT and Corbett are as guilty as sin.
 * I'm not building any case. I'm not writing these articles. The professional news media has 100s of sourced and documented articles on this topic. I don't get how you can't get that Joe Paterno was the most dominating, powerful figure at Penn State1, 2, 3 or that the Second Mile was tightly tied to the university on many levels.1, 2, 3, 4, 5 There are dozens if not hundreds of articles out there explaining the culture and interconnections that exist at the school. I don't know how many article I have to link. Maybe if you read some of them.MaroonGray213 (talk) 09:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, its not that easy. The "professional" news media has thousands of articles using the term climategate, however Wikipedia has decided to use a more neutral article naming, and one that better represents the facts of the situation: "Climatic Research Unit email controversy".  Eventually, this article will be no doubt be renamed similarly, but this will take some time.  jheiv  talk  contribs 16:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyhow, this may all be moot. It is clear to me that "Penn State sex abuse scandal" is nothing more than a "trending name" back in November 2011. My last google news search shows that the "unbiased" media is shifting to "Jerry Sandusky sex abuse scandal" instead. Without WP:SECONDARY, this page has to use a self-descriptive title or be deleted by an admin/crat at one point. I suggest you start thinking of a new title. If you think you have enough factual material that centers on Penn State, I can suggest a self-descriptive title "Penn State alleged culpability of Jerry Sandusky sex crimes" or something along those lines. Of course, that means we another self-descriptive title "Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse allegations" to hold the "epicenter" materials. Whether its one page or separate pages, I don't care. Even if you changed the title, if you mention "Penn State sex abuse scandal" on this page, google will list it as a top hit so don't worry about your preferred title being forgotten or disassociated from the alleged "whiteashing". TTFN. — Hasdi Bravo &bull; 04:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not a trending name. The vast majority of major news outlets still use it as documented above. It has been explained by others why Google hits isn't a reliable and that is your only argument. I'm not going to rehash this over and over. This has already been through two discussions. You don't have consensus or policy on your side. MaroonGray213 (talk) 09:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The number of discussions that have gone through is really irrelevant. The naming of articles are always subject to change.  There have been many an article titled one thing (on the grounds that it was how the media initially (~3-6 months) referred to a story) that were later changed.  I don't really see this article being renamed right now, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was renamed down the road.  jheiv  talk  contribs 16:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * MaroonGray123, I am not from Penn State so please excuse me for not emphatizing with their delusion that Joe Paterno is no more than a subordinate who escalated a possible sex crime to his superiors. Think about it from my perspective: if Paterno is as powerful as his legion of fans/haters make him up to be, why didn't the AG charge him as the "ring-leader" for the cover-up? The legal case for the cover-up is falling apart BTW, with the death of Paterno, since he was actually (gasp) the cooperating witness for the prosecution. If you insist, you need to establish "Joe Paterno is Penn State" first (possibly in Joe Paterno's article if not here) with indisputable facts, not with editorial opinions. You may have to do the same with "The Second Mile is Penn State". o.0
 * Also, I am actually against the "google hits" argument. I disagreed with JoelWhy of using google hits to justify naming this article as "Penn State sex abuse scandal", so I have been using google as counter-examples. If you are saying that the title should be based on objectivity rather than popularity then we may have some point of agreement here. As Jheiv noted, this article needs to be renamed at one point, just like titles the "vast majority of major news outlets" used before including Climategate, Nipplegate, Carmegeddon. Due to lack of WP:SECONDARY, we don't even have a citation for the first sentence on this page:
 * The Penn State sex abuse scandal refers to allegations that former Pennsylvania State University football assistant coach Jerry Sandusky sexually assaulted or had inappropriate contact with at least eight underage boys on or near university property.
 * If this is an accurate description of the topic, shouldn't this article be titled "Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse allegations" instead? The publisher for the first citation, The Patriot-News, is calling this "Jerry Sandusky scandal". Why should we favor the title used by other news outlets over any other? There is also WP:LIBEL to consider here. Penn State has been doing a fine job to legally disassociate themselves (if not publically) from Sandusky, as well as Curley and Schultz. Wikipedia CAN document facts against Penn State but CANNOT insinuate or suggest their guilt and/or culpability (WP:NPOV). Thus, we cannot use THAT as a justification to have "Penn State" in the title, which is the gist your argument if I understand it correctly. Right now, this page is being used as a "dumping ground" to file a number of related topics:
 * "Penn State handling of Jerry Sandusky alleged sex crimes"
 * "Penn State alleged culpability of Jerry Sandusky sex crimes"
 * "Penn State firing of Joe Paterno in relation to Jerry Sandusky sex crimes"
 * "Perjury case of Gary Schultz and Tim Curley"
 * "Tom Corbett's role in Jerry Sandusky alleged sex crimes"
 * "The Second Mile's role in Jerry Sandusky alleged sex crimes"
 * I strongly suggest we start thinking about reorganization of the topics and/or articles. No big hurry. TTFN. — Hasdi Bravo &bull; 15:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I strongly suggest we start thinking about reorganization of the topics and/or articles. No big hurry. TTFN. — Hasdi Bravo &bull; 15:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Content Conflict
I realize that the grand jury presentment notes that McQueary saw victim 2 "being subjected to anal intercourse" [P6-7], however we later note that [McQueary] further stated that he "did not see insertion nor was there any verbiage or protest, screaming or yelling" and denied ever using the words "anal" or "rape" to describe the incident to anybody. So there is clearly a conflict here. Maybe changing this:
 * McQueary testified that, on March 1, 2002, at 9:30 pm, he entered the locker room at the Lasch Football Building at Penn State and heard what he believed to be the sounds of sexual activity coming from the shower. He looked in the shower and "saw a naked boy, Victim 2, whose age he estimated to be ten years old, with his hands up against the wall, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky."[13][14]

to something qualified like
 * The grand jury presentment states that McQueary testified that, on March 1, 2002, at 9:30 pm, he entered the locker room at the Lasch Football Building at Penn State and heard what he believed to be the sounds of sexual activity coming from the shower. He looked in the shower and "saw a naked boy, Victim 2, whose age he estimated to be ten years old, with his hands up against the wall, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky." However McQueary has later disputed this characterization denying that he ever used the words "anal" or "rape" to describe the incident to anybody.

Mostly because we really don't know how McQueary testified. We only that the grand jury presentment makes the characterization. The presentment is drafted by prosecutors and agreed to by a majority of the grand jury panel.

I'm not convinced at all that this is the best way to address this ambiguity, but I think its clear we need at least qualify the first section with something that notes his later testimony. jheiv talk  contribs 22:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Your suggestion appears to be a good one. Cla68 (talk) 22:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Untitled
I believe its worth mentioning the "computer glitch" that made the grand jury report public as these meetings and their associated notes are often secret. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.118.40.78 (talk) 14:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Query
My inclusion of a piece of "common knowledge" -- "an open joke" -- reported by a reputable columnist was deleted wholesale, with the comment it "add[ed] no informational content". It bore directly on JSandusky. Yes, it's a different kind of knowledge. Yes, it was reported in the context of an opinion column. But for me it added a layer of useful knowledge about both the individual and the surroundings/context of his activities -- in other words, information, and of solid credential. Any thoughts? Swliv (talk) 19:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Adds nothing useful or informative. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * A layer of useful knowledge or a source of amusement (as you do cede that it was a joke)? Assuming it was the former, what additional insight would this add for the average reader? This quote provides no information unless you consider a snarky, unsupported gibe informative; particularly one that runs contrary to WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Including it would be like including quotes from the South Park episode "The Poor Kid". And note that inclusion of other, actually insightful Dowd quotes has been debated before. --Jtalledo (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the responses. Neither of you seem to look at the "information zone" from the point of view of, say, a vulnerable 13-year-old-boy or the, say, passing college sophomore or even mid-level coach (all potential objects of or propagators of the "joke"). This is what I'd call a "bad joke", right? Particularly in retrospect. "In bad taste." Like that. But bad jokes certainly happen. They are one of the ways people communicate. At this point of course I see no humor in the "joke" nor do I believe Dowd did; I hope you don't, seriously, either. "Jokes" in the face of a horror one can't see a way to change or challenge are common and informative. Particularly a horror like this which, while close at hand, doesn't necessarily threaten most members of a group. So the joke is a "casual warning shot" for the majority. I see the Sandusky-threat joke as a grim marker of the mindset which seems to have allowed this alleged outrage to fester -- so close but ... -- for years. In the context, now, of Sandusky being tried on charges which would seem to put the horrible truth to the "joke", I don't see citing the "joke" as breaking the policies you've cited.


 * I'm not going to address South Park for now in detail though my general response would be that fictional re-imaginings of current events, also, can shed light on a situation and are regularly cited in Wikipedia. Included here? If done right in a section of its own, it'd quite possibly be fine (to some if not you necessarily). But I hope you'd reconsider comparing the animated episode (coming from a fair "media" distance away) to the "don't bend over for soap around Sandusky" "open joke" (coming from the immediate coach/potential-alleged-victims circle).


 * "Unsupported" I obviously concede except that Dowd put her name on it. I'll try to look at the previous debate on her other inclusion(s). I'd seen she was already cited; thanks for the debate citation. But in the "joke" context she has the credibility and standing to report it. If there's a rebuttal, that too of course would be allowed. But reportage is allowed on the basis of a reporter's and a publication's credibility -- no citation within the citation is required, right? It's not always pretty or universally acclaimed, but "anonymous sources" are routine, right?


 * Your tone to me, Jtalledo -- "snarky ... actually insightful ...". Well, you're entitled to it. I've reread my own opening query and don't feel I "asked for [the tone]". I hope you maybe now understand better where another serious editor was and is coming from. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 22:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your response and sensitivity, Jtalledo, and do find you a thoughtful editor from glancing sightings. However, I hope you'll still appreciate that an editor -- me -- cannot help but take personally the disrespectful, I'd have to call it, dismissal of my best estimation of a source. There are all too few, from before McQueary and on, to speak out forcefully and bravely (well, as one commenter y'day put it, McQ. took a "middle road"; ... but "forcefully and bravely"? well, I'll leave that to others for now) for the less powerful in these cases. MDowd has proven herself to be willing and able to speak out forcefully and bravely (and insightfully) and has certainly earned my trust to a degree. And you may have noted my distinguishing between reporting and opinion. Yes, she's an opinion writer now. But she's a reporter at base. And what I was citing was a piece of reporting. Maybe not reporting that would make it in a "regular news" story, but reporting. And my trust of her reporting is strong, here. In other words, I don't think she or her sources are "making it up". That is an important test you both seem to be ignoring.


 * The word "open" has come back to me in thinking about this all since my last (long) entry. Yes, the phrase "open joke" is a common phrase. But MDowd didn't use it cavalierly; in a snarky way; I don't believe. She had reason to believe, from her source(s) that the joke was relatively widespread and commonly understood. So "open" is critical to the comments I made above about "information zone"s -- itself not an elegant phrase but an effort to explain. Much of your two comments, yours at least Jtalledo, maybe dwelt more on the "joke" component of the phrase.


 * Finally, Jtalledo, you may think and believe you "understand where [I'm] coming from" but in light of my above response and our substantive disagreement, upon rereading it just now, it has at least a condescending ("talk down") air (not as strong as a tone) to it. Your very shift from this talk page to my user page, in this context, may speak to a discomfort with addressing the issue directly (in turn revealed in, may I call it overcompensation? (talk-down-ness), there). I venture into such analysis with some trepidation but this is after all personal all around, wouldn't you agree? Deeply personal events in others' lives; and our personal judgment calls. And feelings: I was stung by "snarky"; you were stung, maybe, by "tone". I trust you'll consider this, also, as/if we go forward. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * O.K. --Jtalledo (talk) 22:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Took that as a go-ahead. Thanks. Swliv (talk) 23:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Alamo Bowl???
Are the San Anton' cops investigating whether Chester molested the boys in the Alamo Bowl itself, or are they investigating whether it molested boys in a hotel room or other places during the week Penn State was in town???Johncheverly 20:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)johncheverly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johncheverly (talk • contribs)

Big Jock Knew
The link to Big Jock Knew has been deleted and re-added several times. Just my two cents, I think it's relevant since it also relates to a sex abuse case associated with a football institution, although it was association football. --Jtalledo (talk) 18:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree, no media link has been made between the two cases so we do not need to either. Also linking to a football clubs song is not appropriate. That should not be readded to this article without sources making the connection or comparing the situation, even then it is not needed. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't need sources comparing the two situations. If there were sources, then obviously it wouldn't be in the See also section, it would be integrated in text. The reason it links to a song is that there isn't a page dedicated to the incident itself. --Jtalledo (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I added Category:Child sexual abuse to the Big Jock page. I thought that was enough to link the two (to each other and to others at other institutions). I think the "football" (two kinds) link is a bit attenuated. To have just the song as See also and no other CSA events seems sort of out of place; and I also wouldn't want a recap of the Category list. Swliv (talk) 20:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a reasonable solution. Thanks. --Jtalledo (talk) 13:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Question
No offense to anyone who has edited this previously, but does some of the more graphic natures of the sexual crimes really need to be openly and publically aired? Instead of discussing him ejaculating or having boys place their hands on his penis --- couldn't this be toned down better for the sake of readers. Personally I think the tone of the section detailing his crimes comes off as quite a bit pornographic in nature.... almost like the previous editor(s) wanted to write soft-core child porn --- and get away with it.

Please consider changing this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.31.142.13 (talk • contribs)
 * I didn't put those passages there, but I guess they are in the article to indicate the specificity of the initial allegations. Generally, Wikipedia is not censored, so if they're deemed relevant I guess they'll remain. --Jtalledo (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that they should remain as long as they are relevant and encyclopedic in tone. Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 17:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

NCAA sanctions
Section's far too long. There's far too much dedicated to the discussion of the decision process/reaction to the decision. The main focus should be the penalties themselves, with perhaps a paragraph about everything else surrounding the penalties. --Jtalledo (talk) 19:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Rename
Probably would've been wise to discuss moving this page to Penn State child sex abuse scandal before actually doing so, given previous disputes over the name. --Jtalledo (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We were lacking a WP:SECONDARY back then. If The Freeh Report it not dismissed as a paid WP:PRIMARY, we may be able to base the name of the page on the full title of the report: "Report of the Special Investigative Counsel Regarding the Actions of the Pennsylvania State University Related to the Child Sexual Abuse Committed by Gerald A. Sandusky". Shouldn't we archive the report on the commons or something? — Hasdi Bravo &bull; 09:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Responsibility of State College Police Dept. in the scandal
From reading the Freeh Report, the State College Police Dept. was involved in the investigation of Sandusky in May, 1998 (page 45). Despite the fact that the State College Police Dept. had jurisdiction over the campus, it declined to pursue criminal action against Sandusky, nor did it apparently refer the matter to Pennsylvania State Police. At the heart of the scandal is the power granted to the University to provide government services on its campus, i.e., the power to hire and supervise a police department. The power and right of the university to operate the campus police had been challenged in court unsuccessfully. (See Rogalski v. PSU, Middle District of Pennsylvania 1988-89) The difference is that when a state actor like a municipal corporation, i.e. State College, fails to properly investigate a crime, it is protected by sovereign immunity from legal liability, but a state affiliated university, has no such immunity.

The State College Police should not get a free pass in their conduct here, which implicitly permitted Sandusky to continue his actions, including his off-campus actions in State College Borough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctor Franklin (talk • contribs) 18:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * If nothing else, it serves to illustrate the power of the university over everything in the community, including the police. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Freeh report
I notice that today's release of the Free report doesn't appear to be yet mentioned in the article. Anyone have a link to the report and an article that gives Penn State's Board of Trustee's reaction to it? Cla68 (talk) 06:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It is mentioned and cited in the lead section, but doesn't appear to be fully fleshed out later in the article. And it's Louis Freeh.  You missed an "h".  -- Jayron  32  06:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * My apology at getting the name wrong. I think it deserves its own section because the investigation was commissioned by Penn State's board, Freeh is a notable figure, and the report's conclusions and Penn State's reaction were very public. Cla68 (talk) 09:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I moved it to the relatively small civil lawsuits section and changed the section title accordingly. --Jtalledo (talk) 10:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

There is not enough information about the Freeh report, especially criticism of it. Why is it that the conclusions of the report are not supported by the information presented in it? How can the NCAA use this report as its sole source to bypass its own procedures to punish the wrong people and have no jurisdiction to punish the right people? Kevin Slaten has been asking these questions on his radio show for months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.247.198.166 (talk) 00:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

"Rodney Erickson" photo
I removed the photo that is purportedly of Rodney Erickson. The first time I saw what Erickson actually looks like, I was surprised he looked nothing like the photo I'd seen on Wikipedia. It actually looks like this is a photo of Arden L. Bement, Jr., who addressed Penn State's Grad School commencement on December 17, 2005. See this photo for reference. --Jtalledo (talk) 14:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Page should be renamed
This scandal is not actually a Penn State Scandal, it is the Jerry Sandusky Scandal and should be renamed so. To date, there were 3 known assaults on the Penn State Campus late at night and the rest were in other locations. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nellykire (talk • contribs)


 * I completely 100% disagree. The scandal is due to the inaction of Penn State officials and the leadership of the Penn State football program. The story is not about one man's actions at all. Do not rename it! (Haven't we had this discussion before?) Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 12:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that Penn State was handed one of the most severe sets of sanctions in NCAA history because of its role as an institution in the episode. Cla68 (talk) 12:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This is all about the collectively poor judgement of many people who were all at Pennsylvania State University in some manner. So, why is the name of the article "Penn State child sex abuse scandal" instead of "Pennsylvania State University child sex abuse scandal"? --User101010 (talk) 06:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

IT IS NOT DUE TO THE INACTION OF PENN STATE LEADERSHIP. IT IS DUE TO THE INACTION OF SOCIAL SERVICES WHO INVESTIGATED SANDUSKY AND CLEARED HIM! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PHD77 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

This page name needs to be renamed! It is the Jerry Sandusky/Second Mile Child Abuse Scandal This scandal was erroneously marketed by the media, initially, as a "Penn State" scandal. It has since been corrected in the media as the Jerry Sandusky/Second Mile scandal. HERE ARE THE FACTS: SOME of the incidents allegedly took place at Penn State (note that the JS was not indicted on any of those charges), but that the majority took place elsewhere and the fact that JS was a FORMER coach at Penn State, but worked at the Second Mile during the entire time period, makes this Topic erroneous, and sensationalized. As the leadership from Penn State who stand accused have NOT been indicted yet...and it appears that all charges may be dropped...this again is misleading. This we know is true: Sandusky worked at the Second Mile the ENTIRE time that he was abusing children. ALL of his victims were groomed through this organization...NONE through Penn State.

Please update all titles and references to the correct topic line ("Jerry Sandusky / Second Mile Child Sex Abuse Scandal"). --PHD77 (talk) 17:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * As an initial response: The Freeh Report commissioned by the PSU Board of Trustees in unequivocal in its findings and makes exactly the opposite point, asserting that this is a Penn State scandal in the cover-up of Sandusky's activities by at least four top officials of the university. You can read the entire Freeh Report here and note that it reads in the "Findings" section of the "Executive Summary" on page 14 that "Four of the most powerful people at the Pennsylvania State University - President Graham B. Spanier, Senior Vice President-Finance and Business Gary C. Schultz, Athletic Director Timothy M. Curley and Head Football Coach Joseph V. Paterno - failed to protect against a child sexual predator harming children for over a decade. These men concealed Sandusky's activities from the Board of Trustees, the University community and authorities." Sensei48 (talk) 19:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Not to mention the fact that the president of the university was not only asked to resign because of this scandal but has been indicted by a federal grand jury... ElKevbo (talk) 02:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Jerry Sandusky photo
We Need a Phot of the Man Himself "Jerry Upon initial viewing, and subsequent views, it appears that the photograph of the man at the top must be Jerry, this is not true. P{lease rearrage or remove until photo places71.182.198.112 (talk) 14:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Archives of report files
WhisperToMe (talk) 01:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * http://progress.psu.edu/assets/content/REPORT_FINAL_071212.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6IsjLGOmO
 * http://progress.psu.edu/assets/content/Louis-Freeh-Report-on-Penn-State-ERRATA-SHEET.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6IsjSgIzA
 * http://progress.psu.edu/assets/content/Press_Release_07_12_12.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6IsjY0t8v
 * http://progress.psu.edu/resource-library/story/penn-state-issues-statement-on-freeh-report - http://archive.is/hcxx5
 * http://progress.psu.edu/the-freeh-report - http://archive.is/0ubTT

Title of Page
As a professor at Penn State, I really find it offensive to refer to this as a "scandal." This is a euphemism for what actually occurred: sex crimes and their cover-up. I do not have any idea how to address this, and I do not know where in the criminal process Spanier and co. are. But the tendency at PSU to refer to the whole episode as the "Sandusky scandal" really grossly understates the incident and is disrespectful to Sandusky's victims. I do not have an easy fix for this; just putting the idea out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.95.39 (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree. "Scandal" is often applied to criminal behavior and refers not just to the behavior itself but to all of the fall-out, such as media coverage, criminal and civil repercussions, damage to reputation, and so forth. I think it's a great way to describe the Penn State/Sandusky debacle and that we should leave the title as is. Dusty |&#x1f4ac;|You can help! 17:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I must disagree in turn with you. In the US media, the term scandal is most often applied to sex crimes; the fall-out over the shooting of Trayvon Martin is not referred to on Wikipedia as a "scandal."  If Wikipedia is not concerned about how using the term "scandal" influences readers' perceptions of its reliability, fine; I am not in a position to make such a judgement call. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.186.53.75 (talk) 16:45, 6 November 2013‎ (UTC)
 * I don't see the usage as strictly about sex crimes; consider the article on the Watergate scandal. I think Dusty has it summed up right: it's the cover-up and related fallout that are the scandal that the title refers to. —C.Fred (talk) 18:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Freeh Report Critique
Seems to me that the Freeh Report critique deserves its own subheading on equal footing with the Freeh Report but others feel differently.Thoughts?TheWarOfArt (talk) 23:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * A critique of the report should be addressed under the heading of that report. A subheading covers a section of the topic, in this case the Penn State child sex abuse scandal.  The critique is of the report, not of the topic itself, therefore giving it a section of its own would grant it undue weight.--~TPW 13:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. I think the treatment of the Paterno family-commissioned report was covered adequately in the previous edit. The Freeh Report was commissioned by the PSU Board of Trustees and as such carries with it the weight of official status. Freeh's investigation was just that: an inquiry into the extent and causes of the scandal with the aim of determining and assigning blame. There is a world of difference between such a report and a critique commissioned by the family of one of the complicit parties, the purpose of which from its creation was not an objective probe into issues of guilt and responsibility but rather a pre-determined attempt at vindication of that party. Its very purpose thus disallows it as any kind of RS, and the prior edit here did an adequate job of summarizing it without giving it undue weight.Sensei48 (talk) 05:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Changed to sub-heading three in order to put in the same subsection as the Freeh ReportTheWarOfArt (talk) 13:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

There should be no more than a sentence or two about the Paterno family report. It played no part in the investigation or its outcome. It's a biased report with only one purpose, clearing the name of Joe Paterno. It belongs on the Paterno page, not here. If it was placed here, than it would only be fair to subject it to a critical evaluation itself.Dkspartan1 (talk) 05:14, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You could just as easily argue that the board of trustees report was commissioned to clear the name of Penn State at large and place the blame on Joe Paterno. Has anyone else read both reports? It is also unclear how you can say that it is biased when it was undertaken by 3 independent investigators. What evidence do you have to cite beyond the circumstantial that it is biased?TheWarOfArt (talk) 14:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe that you have expressed the difference between the two reports clearly here. You note that an editor "could just as easily argue" a point - but such "argument" is antithetical to the very purpose of Wikipedia articles, which is to present the verifiable facts about the article's subject. The fact is that the Freeh Report was commissioned by the PSU trustees and is the official record of the incident. To "argue" about the motivations of the trustees in commissioning it is to stray into POV: the trustees commissioned it, Freeh assembled it, and the trustees let it stand. Those are verifiable facts. The Paterno family did not accept the conclusions of the report. They created their own investigation and selected the investigators (the two primary verifiable facts) who could hardly be called "independent" since they were given the commission to clear Paterno's name by his family, a point easily sourcable from RS and that (as above) would be one of many absolutely essential critiques of the Paterno family's effort should any edit attempt to give it equal weight to the Freeh Report.Sensei48 (talk) 15:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify by what you mean by official record of the incident? It is a non-legal document and not intended to be the basis for NCAA sanctions. Also, could you point to non-circumstantial evidence that the investigators were commissioned to clear Joe Paterno's name explicitly? Additionally, in terms of the trustees, your argument is a little flawed as, "(Trustee)Mr. Eckel said that Penn State never approved the Freeh report's conclusions, that it approved only moving forward with its recommendations."

http://www.post-gazette.com/news/state/2013/07/16/PSU-trustees-call-Freeh-report-speculation-disapprove-of-NCAA-sanctions/stories/201307160202#ixzz30IMLAzYK http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8207795/report-freeh-report-source-criticizes-ncaa-penalties-penn-state-nittany-lions TheWarOfArt (talk) 16:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting links. As you see, I rv'd the full restoration on the basis of lack of consensus for it - but that does not mean we can't work together to improve the section. I would be amenable to a careful expansion of the Paterno family report discussion, as long as the expansion also included some of the mountains of criticism that it in its turn received. What I would not like, though, would be to place the Paterno family report as co-equal to the Freeh report or to have the article appear to be trying to vindicate Paterno. It's a fine line indeed between reporting what the family report said and presenting it as of itself factual or accurate. I have a fairly intense work schedule over the next few days but will return to this ASAP. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 22:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ...and I will also respond as best I can to your specific questions above when time permits. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 23:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Please do respond when you get the chance. I think the major issue here is the implicit suggestion the the Freeh Report is the more accurate of the two and thus should constitute the basis of what is fact and what is not. Both reports in my mind are equal parts enlightening and dubious. People are free to disagree, but having read both - that is what I think the fair conclusion to be. A good summary of that argument can also be found here:

http://deadspin.com/5983159/what-the-paterno-familys-investigation-got-right-and-wrong-about-the-freeh-report — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheWarOfArt (talk • contribs) 23:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Additionally, with the removal of the title of the report in the subsection, the implicit critique of Chief Deputy Attorney General Frank Fina of the Freeh Report lends additional weight to the section.TheWarOfArt (talk) 15:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Dowd "Horror Story" reference
Would there be any objection to removing or rewording the paragraph about Maureen Dowd's "American Horror Story" column?

As currently written, it implies that Dowd attended the first day of the trial and that this open joke was revealed in the trial. And that's also the implication one gets from reading Dowd's column. However, there's nothing in the trial transcript that supports her claim.

I think the factual accuracy of the page would be improved by making it evident that the claim in unsupported. I've been informed that is against policy unless there is a published reference that can be cited. So lacking that, it would seem that removal of the paragraph would be an improvement.

Dissenting opinions sought.DiffuseGoose (talk) 02:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, remove it. It is extremely misleading, at best. Not everyone realizes that Dowd likes to make sarcastic wisecracks for semi-humorous purposes, and she has little regard for the facts. It would be better to quote late night comedians. Roger (talk) 02:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree.Sensei48 (talk) 05:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Finally got back to this this morning. Someone beat me to it.  I notice there are a two other references to Dowd.  Though I haven't read either of those two columns, their use doesn't appear to be as ill-conceived as the Horror Story one.  But the reference to her June 19 column appears to be a citation for some trial testimony.  Wouldn't it be better to reference the trial transcript itself, rather than to reference Dowd's perception of the testimony?DiffuseGoose (talk) 00:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Huge source on Graham Spanier's role
A great article from the NY Times magazine on Spanier's role.  Go  Phightins  !  18:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)