Jump to content

Talk:Penn State child sex abuse scandal/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Requested move 06 December 2014

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.

Not moved. There is no consensus for the proposed move at this time. The discussion is well-though, with advocates of both positions making excellent points - this was a scandal that was largely tied to Penn State in the media and had consequences for various university personnel (allegedly brought on by their own conduct in turning a blind eye to certain information), and the institution as a whole; at the same time, most of the acts that precipitated the scandal occurred in other places, with Sandusky being the only common element to them. Nonetheless, this would not be a "scandal" at all if not for the institutional actions of people other than Sandusky. Furthermore, sources exist supporting either title. Neither title is therefore inherently incorrect, and absent a consensus in favor of change, the status quo remains. I would suggest that the participants in this discussion seek to develop some provision to clarify title policy on these matters. I would also suggest the possibility of splitting the article into one piece focusing on Sandusky's actions, and a separate piece focusing on the actions of other university personnel, and the impact of these events on the university. bd2412 T 20:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Penn State child sex abuse scandal → Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal – This has been a frequent suggestion over the years, so for some, it is likely natural to discount another request. However, after two years since the last discussion, it appears to me that my suggested title is a better one than our current title. Although there is definitely unreliability in Google search hit numbers, they are worth examining. A search for "Penn State child sex abuse scandal" [had link, but it is on blacklist for some reason] yields about 19,400 results, whereas a search for "Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal" [again, had link, but blocked] yields nearly 50,000 results. Moreover, recent articles favor "Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal": Centre Daily Times Allentown Morning Call FOX Sports Big Ten Blog NBC Philadelphia CBS News, while I found few-to-no articles published in 2014 that used the old title. Moreover, even sites that have a repository of articles on the subject, while the repository may include Penn State, the articles (created more recently than the repository), refer to it as the Sandusky scandal rather than the Penn State scandal, indicating a gradual, recent shift (examples: NBC Philadelphia and CBS News). Overall, there seems to have been a shift both from local and national media. According to WP:POVTITLE, in order to use a title that does not reflect a neutral point of view, it must be the predominant title used in the media, which as demonstrated, it is not (admittedly, it is one of the titles used in the media, but no longer the primary one). Consequently, I believe the title "Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal" not only more accurately reflects the facts of the case (insofar as only Sandusky has been convicted of anything, while Penn State officials remain in pre-trial limbo and much of the NCAA and Freeh Report's findings have been criticized/refuted, thus at least partially exonerating Penn State), but is now the predominant title used by reliable sources, and thus should be the title of Wikipedia's article according to our naming conventions. Thank you. Go Phightins! 20:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Support, as nominator. Go Phightins! 20:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Sandusky is in prison for mostly off-campus offenses, and no Penn State official has been convicted of anything. Roger (talk) 23:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. As previously discussed. Pretty good case that the naming convention has changed. Fluous (talk) 00:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support because the sexual abuse was committed by Sandusky. However, the actions (and lack of actions) by Penn State officials are a large part of the story, and I do not support any alteration of the article scope as a result of the article change, nor the suppression of any "Penn State" redirects. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 20:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Nominator's search is a little too specific, as the "child sex abuse" version of the phrase clearly refers more to Sandusky. Checking Google News, the simpler "penn state scandal" gets 7390 hits, while "jerry sandusky scandal" gets 2400 hits. I don't see any indication that the "Sandusky" articles are more recent or anything. Yes, it's true that's there are possibly unrelated Penn State scandals coming up from my search, but every single article from the first three pages appeared to refer to the Sandusky scandal off "Penn State scandal", so the drop-off is minor at best. So it seems that "Penn State scandal" is still the variant used by the media. (I'd question the idea from the nominator that it's a POV title as well, but it doesn't matter because it appears the media still uses "Penn State" anyway.) SnowFire (talk) 03:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per SnowFire. I'm also concerned this discussion and a related one above seem to indicate users may prefer the proposed title as only Sandusky was convicted. That downplays the fact the institution was penalized for its role and was complicit in the cover up. -- Calidum 04:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. For the reasons above. In addition, look at the article itself. Its concern and the totality of the story extend far beyond Sandusky's actions and are deeply and inextricably entwined with the university, especially with the extent to which the football culture influenced actions of university officials. The firing and/or forced resignations of the university's president, its athletic director, and its legendary football coach are prima facie evidence of that.Sensei48 (talk) 08:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Sensei48. The article is about handling of the case by the university at least as much as about Sandusky. No such user (talk) 13:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I originally created this article under the Sandusky title. It was moved to have Penn State in the title instead, which I wholly agreed with as at the time media largely used the Penn State phrasing. Now the Sandusky phrasing is increasingly being used and is recognizable and natural per WP:NC. But more importantly, I think the Sandusky article name should be used for consistency's sake. The articles Casa Pia child sexual abuse scandal, Cleveland child abuse scandal, Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal, North Wales child abuse scandal all refer to cases localized exclusively to specific locales with multiple reported perpetrators. With that convention, Penn State child sex abuse scandal implies that all the abuse occurred at Penn State by multiple abusers. As has been pointed out, some abuse incidents occurred outside of Penn State and all were perpetrated by one man, Jerry Sandusky, so the article title "Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal" is more descriptive, more neutral and more consistent with similar titles than the current name. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:
  • SnowFire I am not sure that it is a valid method either, insofar as no one is suggesting the article be renamed to "Penn State scandal" or "Jerry Sandusky scandal" ... the other search terms clearly have more hits, and the recent articles that I have found from national media sources seem to prefer the latter [Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal or similar variants]. Go Phightins! 11:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
@Go Phightins!: Well, that's because Wikipedia needs more specificity. The accepted shorthand in the news media for the event has simply been "Penn State scandal", and everyone knows which one, because there's only been 1 huge in-the-national-news scandal lately. However, that doesn't fly on Wikipedia, which has a more long-term focus, so we add qualifiers to make it obvious which scandal. Same reason that we have lots of disambiguators. SnowFire (talk) 07:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Nor am I suggesting a change in content, but rather that the re-naming would obscure rather than clarify the content of the article. The scope of the scandal and its consequences - some of which are ongoing and are not directly related to Sandusky's actions - are articulated in paragraphs 1, 3, 4, and 5 of the article's lede. The NCAA response focuses on the culture of the school's athletic department, and the consideration of the imposition of the Death penalty (NCAA) and the severe penalties actually imposed reflect by definition a "lack of institutional control," which is a Penn State issue, not a Sandusky one. Such sanctions have been imposed elsewhere for a wide variety of infractions, often involving money or eligibility. The NCAA sanction are for the school's institutional failure to act, whether it be for child abuse or any other infraction.Sensei48 (talk) 15:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Further, should Spanier, Schultz, and Curley be convicted, the name change would be rendered completely inappropriate. The reality of the NCAA sanctions as they exist and the fact of the indictments, even prior to trial and outcome, are of themselves sufficient to validate the name as is. Sandusky is a subset of a Penn State problem, not vice versa.Sensei48 (talk) 15:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • It appears that the opposition is based on a belief that Penn State is guilty of something. Maybe it is, but that issue is hotly contested, and the accused Penn State officials are claiming innocence. It is not for WP to decide their guilt or innocence. We can change it back if Spanier, Schultz, and Curley are convicted. Roger (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • That's not a very charitable reading. A charitable reading might be one that acknowledges that this tragedy has had significant repercussions for the university as a whole and hasn't focused solely on Sandusky e.g., immense NCAA sanctions directly affecting the entire football team as well as the university and the surrounding community, the firing or resignation of several of the most senior officials at the university including the president, a huge fine levied by the university's athletic conference, etc. Regardless of how perception and language will change over time, the immediate consequences affected the entire university. ElKevbo (talk) 21:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with ElKevbo, however I don't think that changes the fact that the incident has recently been more frequently referred to as the "Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal" than the current article title, which means we should follow suit. "Impact on university" should definitely be a section in the aforementioned article. Go Phightins! 22:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @Schlafly: As stated in my rationale, the reason I oppose the move is because the terminology I have seen used by the news media is still some variant of "Penn State scandal", not "Jerry Sandusky scandal," and a trip to Google News confirmed my current impression. That's all. SnowFire (talk) 07:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I linked to an actual google search above. "Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal" (with quotes, i.e. an exact-match search) is far, far more common than the "Penn State" variant. Though as ElKevbo pointed out, exact-match hit counts are not entirely reliable or strong evidence. The evidence isn't as strong as I thought it was, but it's far, far stronger than what you're making it out to be. —Fluous (talk) 02:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @Fluous: Please read my oppose which also includes links to Google. This over-specific search is misleading. Google News actually supports "Penn State scandal" as the common name by a solid ratio. SnowFire (talk) 15:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "Over-specific search?" It's the article title. You've just undermined your own case— admitting that "Penn State child-sex abuse scandal" is not the common name; and is over-specific. Perhaps it's not the search that's over-specific; it's the article title. Take a look at other college sports scandals. Here's a breakdown of the article titles. The vast majority of article titles about college sports scandals are general. They show 1) the college name and 2) the sport/ department implicated. That's it. Since you argued so strongly that "Penn State scandal" is the common name, I would support that article title (or something more in line with how college sports scandals are actually titled.) I do not support any title that includes both "Penn State" and "child-sex abuse."
Year Place Sport implicated What happened Descriptive noun
SMU football scandal
Michigan basketball scandal
Minesota basketball scandal
Baylor basketball scandal
2011 Miami athletics scandal
UNC academics-athletics scandal
Duke lacrosse case
BC basketball point shaving scandal
CCNY point shaving scandal
Penn State child-sex abuse scandal
—Fluous (talk) 21:16, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Not really sure what you're getting at with the table. You are correct that (in my view) "Penn State scandal" is the vanilla name used by news organizations. I have no particular attachment to the current disambiguation; if you wanted to propose something else to distinguish this from any other Penn State scandal, that'd be fine. Year is a classic choice elsewhere, but doesn't really work here, since the abuse stretched over one period of time, the alleged cover-up / non-reporting to the authorities a different period of time. For citing the department/sport ("Penn State football scandal?"), that's a no-go, as the problem here wasn't fielding illegal players or really anything related to students at all; it was related to the child sex abuse, hence the current title. But perhaps you have a better suggestion? SnowFire (talk) 22:39, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "2011 Penn State Scandal" would be my compromise pick. The year refers to when the scandal broke. At least one other scandal on Wikipedia had years of malfeasance but uses a year for when the scandal broke. So, there's precedent for it. -Fluous (talk) 01:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "as the problem here wasn't fielding illegal players or really anything related to students at all; it was related to the child sex abuse" – right, sex abuse perpetrated by Jerry Sandusky, which is why it makes no sense to me to include Penn State in the title, especially considering the media's recent preference for Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal. Go Phightins! 23:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • We disagree about what the media actually uses. My searches indicate it is "Penn State scandal." Per Sensei48, articles found from your preferred search on "Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal" often appear to still use "Penn State scandal" (and variants) as well. SnowFire (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  • No such user speaks for me.--~TPW 17:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • This, to me, is the most interesting argument. What exactly is the standard naming convention for "scandals?" Two points. 1) Based on your examples, an argument can be made that "Location" + "Action" is the standard. Let's evaluate the name: "Penn State child-sex abuse scandal" Location? Penn State. What happened there? Child-sex abuse. This is true. Child sex abuse happened on Penn State university grounds. It also happened at Jerry Sandusky's house. At Philadelphia Eagles games. Second Mile charity events. Restaurants. Hotels. Church. On the telephone. In a high-school conference room. In a high-school weight room. At a golf resort. In cars. In fact, child-sex abuse happened away from Penn State—overwhelmingly. The common denominator isn't Penn State; it's Jerry Sandusky. The Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal. 2) A much more apt example is the Eliot Spitzer prostitution scandal. —Fluous (talk) 02:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • An additional thought. While raw numbers returned from search results are split roughly evenly between the two names - and while there are as Phightins suggests rather more refs to Sandusky now than there were two years ago - those raw numbers include blogs, advocacy sites, and a host of other non-RS mentions. A sampling of major RS outlets from references this year indicates that the Penn State name remains the default appellation for the affair, even among some of those that give Sandusky more weight than prior. These include ABC [1], NBC [2], CNN [3], Yahoo News [4], Salon [5], The Guardian [6], Reuters [7], NYT op-ed [8], local Philadelphia NBC [9], among many others. Note again that these articles are all from 2014, most from the last three or four months. They indicate at the least that there has been no major move away from the Penn State designation by many of the major national news media.Sensei48 (talk) 14:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Raw numbers are hardly evenly split. It's over 2-1 for "Jerry Sandusky Child Sex Abuse Scandal" (Exact-match google search. You have to use quotes). Also, you have to factor in that this is Wikipedia. The name of this article influences what other people call it. There's that built-in advantage, and "Penn State Child Sex Abuse Scandal" still has less than half as many mentions. -Fluous (talk) 03:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • To analyze your sources:
  • ABC: If you look at the articles underneath the header, such as this one, you will find that the most recent ones call it the "Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal" rather than the "Penn State child sex abuse scandal".
As I intimated above, the primary header for the entire category of articles is "Penn State Scandal News."Sensei48 (talk) 07:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • NBC: uses neither "Jerry Sandusky child abuse scandal" nor "Penn State child sex abuse scandal"; initially calls it "Penn State scandal involving former coach Jerry Sandusky", which really supports neither of the proposed names
The lead sentence in the article begins, "When news of the Penn State scandal involving former coach Jerry Sandusky broke," putting the primary identification on PSU.Sensei48 (talk) 07:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • CNN: that page was created in 2011 when this began, and simply has not been renamed since; the only reason it was updated in September was the lifting of a bowl ban due to improper imposition.
It hasn't been renamed because CNN is identifying it as the PSU scandal. In addition, it has been updated continually with multiple notations from 2012, 2013, and 2 from 2014.Sensei48 (talk) 07:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Yahoo: "A long-awaited probe into the investigation of former Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky, who was convicted in 2012 of sexually abusing children, will be released early next week, Pennsylvania authorities said on Friday." is how the article begins ... the article deals with the subsequent investigation of Penn State also, which likely explains the headline; moreover, it was from six months ago
It is from 2014, and the headline is the default Yahoo characterization of "Penn State child-abuse probe."
  • Salon: An editorial that would not really qualify as a reliable source for substantive information, insofar as it has been through several admitted corrections for factual inaccuracy ... the writer likely has an agenda also, which, although not disqualifying his usage of Penn State instead of Jerry Sandusky, also does not put him on the same agenda-less level of news media (e..g, ESPN, FOX, ABC above) which, in passing, now refer to it as "Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal" ... also was published a year ago.
This op-ed is by a senior writer at a reputable website; his topic is the very question of the name. Your assumption that "the writer likely has an agenda" is a major one and one that you have no clear reason for making. It's also from this year, albeit early this year. Is there a suggestion that 2014 has created a seismic shift in the name?Sensei48 (talk) 07:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The Guardian: Not sure what you are looking at here ... the first article in that set (published in September) calls it the "Jerry Sandusky scandal".
Check The Guardian's category header, upper left: Penn State sexual abuse scandal. It is also part of the URL. All Guardian articles related to this topic fall under this header.Sensei48 (talk) 07:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Reuters: you are double-dipping with that article; it's the same one as from Yahoo above
Sorry!Sensei48 (talk) 07:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • NBC Philadelphia: If you look at the articles within the heading, as I did above in my analysis, you will note they call it the "Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal", not the Penn State child sex abuse scandal.
Yet once again, the subject header, the default identifying category that the site uses, is "Penn State Scandal:Complete coverage of the child sex abuse scandal that rocked a college football giant" - and the link reads "Read more: http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/sports/Penn-State-Sex-Abuse-Scandal.html#ixzz3LfLFIMyO" - with PSU once again apperaring in the category URL.Sensei48 (talk) 07:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Overall, a cursory look may not indicate the change I see when I dig deeper into it, but when you actually look into the prose of the articles, where the most "agenda-less" information will be, insofar as the outlet no longer needs to catch attention by throwing the name of a big institution out there, there has been a shift in the name of preference to "Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal", which is why I proposed the name change. Go Phightins! 03:37, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I note above a shift at least partially to JS. However, these examples at least indicate that as a category for articles and reports on these sites Penn State is still the umbrella under which the articles appear.Sensei48 (talk) 07:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
And my comment on that would be the categories of articles were created some time ago, so it is not feasible, for linking purposes (i.e. it would mess up links coming from the outside, causing a redirect, which would hurt their search engine placement), to change their names, however the new articles in those categories favor the latter title indicates the shift to which I have been referring. Go Phightins! 11:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
That is inference and supposition regarding why the Penn State name remains as a category. It could as easily be inferred that the name remains as a header because it is the primary focus of identification of the scandal. A report commissioned in 2004 (and usually referred to as a "landmark report," widely cited) estimated that "roughly 290,000 students experienced some sort of physical sexual abuse by a public school employee between 1991 and 2000. (Quotation from here [10] and full report here [11].) That averages to about 30,000 cases per year, with no indication of a major shift in pattern or numbers since. Yet how many of these have become national stories? A few that have, like here in LA the McMartin Preschool episode (earlier but still notorious) and the more recent Miramonte school scandal, are named for the locus and not the perpetrator. Exactly what about the case in point of this article made it and makes it an international story? Is it a near-anonymous assistant football coach? Or is it the fact that this coach was employed by and abetted by (by neglect at the very least) officials of a nationally-known university and football program? If Penn State is not the reason for the notoriety of the scandal - then why can't any editor here nor anyone in the general public likely be able to name a single one of the hundreds of thousands of other perpetrators of exactly the same offenses? The prominence - the notability - of Penn State's name and football renown are what made Sandusky a household word; had he committed the same acts at a junior high in Kansas, he would still be anonymous. regardsSensei48 (talk) 00:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
How do you respond to the numerous articles I have cited that, in the body of the article, refer to the scandal as "Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal"? They are the most recent indications of the news media's preference; per our naming guidelines, we must follow the reliable sources. Go Phightins! 03:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Okay, so here's what I'm seeing in these arguments:
  • Google searches are dicey, since we can't readily account for where they're coming from. Also, Google/Google News searches vary widely depending on the phrasing you use. So I rule out that approach entirely.
  • The article is about more than the man's actions and personal fallout, this is true. But Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal is also about institutional fallout and the wider implications of the scandal, yet the article title still has the man's name in it. These kinds of scandals inevitably involve more than the accused/convicted, whether it's law enforcement, or individuals and institutions implicated as enablers or in cover-ups.
  • The Sandusky scandal name is increasingly being used. Reuters shows an obvious trend towards Sandusky scandal. Papers of record: A search on the New York Times is mixed. Washington Post and the LA Times though shows a bit of a trend towards Sandusky. Again, depending on what sources you choose, this could vary too, especially if you're looking for a trend to confirm your POV.
To me it boils down to which is most neutral sounding title (sort of like the debate regarding Plame affair) and you could argue it both ways. Obviously the scandal relates to Penn State as does the fallout, but that title shifts the focus from the abuser himself. You could argue for the Sandusky scandal name what with the Savile article name, but on the other hand you could argue it discounts the role of Penn State (and indeed, some Paterno/PSU loyalists do refer to it as a Sandusky scandal instead of a Penn State scandal.) To me, neither name sounds entirely neutral. I wonder if there's another name that would be suitable, because an article name goes a long way in framing peoples' impression of a topic. --Jtalledo (talk) 16:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I was thinking generally along the same lines, though having just re-read our article and its sources, I just cannot see leaving PSU out of the title. Most of the latter half of the article is concerned with Penn State, its officials, its football program, and so on. I reiterate: there are thousands of educator child abuse incidents each year in the U.S., most of which do not have a major Wikipedia article written about them. If Sandusky had committed these atrocities at a junior high in Kansas, as I said above - none of this discussion would be taking place here and there would be no article. While shifting the name to JS drags a red herring across the trail of PSU's involvement, which is the larger story as addressed in the article and which makes this incident not a case in a junior high in Kansas, in the interests of collaboration and compromise and in respect of the different links above - perhaps "The Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal at Penn State."
  • Good idea but a little wordy. Slashes seem frowned upon in naming conventions, so maybe something like Jerry Sandusky–Penn State child sex abuse scandal. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "If Sandusky had committed these atrocities at a junior high in Kansas..." That line of thinking is the problem. See how you casually linked "child sex abuse" happening "at Penn State?" And "these atrocities," as if Sandusky's crimes generally occurred "at Penn State." Virtually all of the abuse occurred off-campus in a million different places. Putting both "Penn State" and "child sex abuse" in the title contributes to this confusion. It's either/or. Either "Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal" or "2011 Penn State [some general term like 'athletics'] scandal" (as is the format for college sports scandals, as I listed in a table above). Fluous (talk) 09:24, 22 December 2014 (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.

Rename the page: "Jerry Sandusky Child Sex Abuse Scandal"

As of November 2014, "Jerry Sandusky Child Sex Abuse Scandal" is the majority usage. Overwhelmingly. Here's objective evidence: A quick google search shows 517,000 articles use that phrase. By contrast, "Penn State Child Sex Abuse Scandal" is the minority usage. Just 195,000 articles use that phrase. Only 1/3rd as many mentions. The article title should be changed to reflect this. —Fluous (talk) 23:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The current title makes it sound as if Penn State officials were committing child sex abuse. Sandusky is the only one convicted of anything, and most of his offenses had little or nothing to do with Penn State. Roger (talk) 01:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with both your interpretation of the title and your assertion that Sandusky was the only person affected. For example, the university president was forced to step down and is currently under indictment. Moreover, the NCAA sanctions were imposed because the university agreed with the Freeh Report that Penn State had "an environment shaped by the actions and inactions of the leadership and board of Penn State that allowed Sandusky's serial child sexual abuse." ElKevbo (talk) 02:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, some Penn State officials stand accused of inaction of leadership. If that is so important, then call the page: Penn State inaction of leadership scandal. It is still just Sandusky's abuse that is the story. Roger (talk) 02:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not seeing the same thing. When I search Google, I get about 159,000 results for "Penn State Child Sex Abuse Scandal" and about 221,000 results for "Jerry Sandusky Child Sex Abuse Scandal." That's certainly a difference but it's a far cry from either "overwhelming" or "1/3 as many mentions." Moreover, a different search engine, Bing, brings up 12,100,000 results for "Penn State Child Sex Abuse Scandal" but only 2,060,000 results for "Jerry Sandusky Child Sex Abuse Scandal." ElKevbo (talk) 02:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
For Google, use quotes around the entire phrase. I don't know Bing syntax; probably the same. —Fluous (talk) 05:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Ah, gotcha; thanks. I thought I did that but apparently I didn't.
I'm still not convinced, however, since Google hits of these verbatim phrases alone isn't a terribly good indicator. It's certainly evidence in favor of your argument but I don't think that it's particularly strong evidence. This how-to-guide discusses some of the issues in using search engines in this manner and includes recommendations on how to use them. This part is particularly relevant: "Confirm roughly how popularly referenced an expression is. Note, however, that Google searches may report vastly more hits than will ever be returned to the user, especially for exact quoted expressions. (emphasis in original)" ElKevbo (talk) 05:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! That link is tremendously helpful. And fascinating, too. After reading through it, I changed my mind: I'm no longer confident that the hit counts are particularly strong evidence. —Fluous (talk) 18:29, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Fluous ElKevbo Schlafly – sorry for joining the conversation late, but I read the search engine test page too, and am not convinced the article should not be renamed to Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal. What is the justification under that guideline to keep it as is? Thanks! Go Phightins! 18:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

So far, the only evidence in favor of renaming the article is search results that are questionable. If you have other evidence, please share it! ElKevbo (talk) 18:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, I have long had concern over how this article title meets WP:POVTITLE, insofar as only Sandusky has been convicted, while other Penn State administrators are still in pre-trial limbo, and much of the initial wave of criticism (NCAA sanctions, Freeh report) against Penn State has been refuted, so I am not sure factually it is the best title either, although it did greatly affect Penn State, I am not sure it is fair to say it is their child sex abuse scandal. Go Phightins! 18:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Those are fair points but we have to abide by the reliable sources. ElKevbo (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Which do not appear to show a clear affinity for the current title over the more accurate one ... Go Phightins! 18:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Evidence...? ElKevbo (talk) 19:22, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Isn't what was discussed above indicative, admittedly not unequivocally, of that? It is not feasible to simply make a tally chart of every article ever published, but there are more search results for the title that includes Sandusky ... I am not sure we have a reliable source to state that reliable sources favor the current title either. Go Phightins! 19:40, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I will also note that usage seems to have gradually drifted over time to favor Sandusky over Penn State. My google search for "Penn State child sex abuse scandal" and "Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal" turned up these articles referring to it as the Sandusky scandal, and no recent articles referring to it as the Penn State scandal, with most articles using that title being written before 2013. Go Phightins! 19:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I think you're right about sentiment and naming convention changing over time. I'm not sure that the evidence you've cited so far is enough to make your case a slum dunk one but it's pretty good. Ideally, you should be able to provide sources from outside of Pennsylvania that may not be as invested in or partisan about this heated, emotionally charged topic. But I think you could probably make your case if you formally requested a move which would be my recommendation given the history of this article and its name. ElKevbo (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Fair points on in-state vs. out-of-state sources; thanks for all your input ... I think I will start a requested move at some point. Go Phightins! 20:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I've noticed this shift too. Not sure what side I'd take on a move request, but I think there would have to be lots of good evidence (including the above examples) for a move. --Jtalledo (talk)

Obviously I'm new to this, but in light of the recent events regarding the invalidation of the consent decree, removal of sanctions, and other facts that have come to light, wouldn't it be prudent to change the name? There are pending criminal proceedings and civil suits that may in fact reveal that there was no cover up. Isn't this an innocent until proven guilty type of scenario? In other words, Jerry Sandusky was proven guilty of a crime, and NOBODY else has. It should be the Jerry Sandusky scandal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Games6 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

2 proposals

1. I ask a WP:RFC to discuss the support or oppose the inclusion of the new information about the reports regarding Penn State coaches' acknowledge about Sandusky's actions. The investigations about the whole case have involved Paterno so it's not WP:RECENTISM. Here are the WP:RS:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/sandusky-case-bombshell-did-6-penn-state-coaches-witness-abuse-n569526

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/05/06/us/jerry-sandusky-victims-paterno-penn-state/index.html?sr=twCNN050616jerry-sandusky-victims-paterno-penn-state0957PMStoryGalPhoto&linkId=24234146

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/798fbba86c834439bb627254f1ab138a/passion-pain-reignited-over-new-penn-state-abuse-claims

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/8c8b42f1f7a24069b703f21c06645b28/penn-state-president-decries-new-joe-paterno-allegations

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7cfe4bb82dd84110adae6643033abfb6/paternos-son-supposed-1976-allegation-vs-father-bunk

2. Given the new information and due to there are no mention of more aftermath after 2013, this article might be tagged as WP:OUTDATED not because deletion risk but because WP:V.

Leo Bonilla (talk) 08:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why an RfC is needed as no one has attempted to update this article with this new information or discussed it at all. I can't imagine that reasonable editors would object to adding this new information provided it meets all of the other expectations that we have of all other additions e.g., WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:DUE. ElKevbo (talk) 14:29, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
I understand the desire for an RFC. This page and topic are controversial. Given the contentious edit history and how long it's been since any major events have happened surrounding this subject, additions may need fresh eyes aside from the people who have edited it in the past (myself included). --Jtalledo (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Consider the RFC because of 2 facts: First, the new information has been well reported but no one has added to this page, and assuming WP:GOODFAITH, there should be a good reason for that. Second, the WP:CONSENSUS is not implicit, so it's recommended wikieditors like us create the consensus first to avoid any single WP:EDITWAR and don't waste time on the WP:BRD process. Thank you for understand. Leo Bonilla (talk) 02:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

First off, a good faith reason why it hasn't been added might be that no-one has cared enough to do so. We're not given a list of assignments that we must complete each time we sign on, we all edit at our own whims. Another reason might be that some editors chose to start an RfC instead of simply adding the material. ;)
Second, WP:BRD is NOT a waste of time. In fact, it's a time saver. Given the (admittedly short) discussion here, it's pretty clear that you could have just added the material and been done with it. In fact, the presumption that an edit war is likely is a bit of an assumption of bad faith. I'm not trying to lecture you, but given the nature of this content, assuming that someone will start edit warring over it really requires you to assume that an editor with an passionate, irrational view of this subject is just waiting to start misbehaving.
My advice is to go for it. WP:BOLD is an official and popular editing guideline for a reason, after all. I understand and appreciate your desire to get the content in without starting a bunch of drama, but keep in mind that in cases like this, you wouldn't be starting that drama. Anyone who would edit war over this would edit war over a hundred other things. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Others are giving good advice, but having had a quick look at a few new sources, the info needs to be handled with extreme care, be bold, but be careful too! Pincrete (talk) 22:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The essential information about the 2016 reports was added, contributions and improvement discussion are welcomed WP:OWN. However, nobody had in mind Sandusky has requested a retrial, at least editors related to this page. So that's another point to take care. I still propose the article or part of it to be tagged as outdated.

Now let me clarified something I forgot. The new claims are related to Paterno and other Penn State staff more than Sandusky himself. Let's remember the controversy about naming this page referring to Penn State rather than Sandusky and the still ongoing debate about Paterno's legacy going to an extreme to hear Donald Trump expressed desire to restore the Joe Paterno statue in the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016 speech in Pennsylvania (someone here would want to kill me for mentioning it). The point is that this new information might have a major role in a potentially infamous historic figure like Paterno and dumped more the name of an institution like Penn State. So we need to be careful because WP:REAL. Leo Bonilla (talk) 23:03, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Penn State child sex abuse 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Additions to mounting media usage of accurate name of scandal

Note: This discussion section is not about the contents of the articles cited below, so please don't go there. Rather, it is to document that the prevailing use of the term "scandal" in 2016 is preceded by a variation of the words "Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse."

ESPN: article, More than 200 lettermen petition PSU to return Joe Paterno statue, More than 200 Penn State football lettermen petitioned the university on Tuesday for the return of an iconic bronze Joe Paterno statue that was removed in the summer of 2012 in the wake of the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse case. (July 6, 2016)

Los Angeles Times: article, Former Penn State players and coaches call for return of Joe Paterno statue, More than 200 former Penn State football players and coaches have signed a strongly worded letter calling on the university to restore the statue of legendary coach Joe Paterno, which was removed from campus in the aftermath of the Jerry Sandusky child molestation scandal. (July 6, 2016)

Google's news search Explore in Depth lists 45 articles on July 6, 2016. Most or all have a writer's byline. None is a duplicate credited to wire services, as the Google list had already "omitted some entries very similar to those already displayed." None includes mention of a Penn State scandal. Jeff in CA (talk) 18:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

"Report: Joe Paterno allegedly told of Jerry Sandusky sex abuse in 1976"

  • "Report: Joe Paterno allegedly told of Jerry Sandusky sex abuse in 1976". USA Today. May 5, 2016. Retrieved May 6, 2016.
  • Thompson, Charles (May 5, 2016). "Child told Paterno of sex abuse in 1976, court papers allege". Penn Live. Retrieved May 6, 2016.

—BarrelProof (talk) 04:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Here is more updated information:

http://www.pennlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/07/insurance_expert_penn_state_ha.html

Leo Bonilla (talk) 02:47, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Title change and edit war in related article

Just a quick heads up that Jeff in CA has begun an edit war at Penn State Nittany Lions to change the text that links to this article to his preferred title for this article ("Jeff Sandusky child sex abuse scandal"). We've had quite a few discussions here and I'm dismayed that he is disregarding all of that discussion and edit warring against that consensus without even attempting to discuss his objections. If it's time for another round of discussions about the title of this article then let's hold that discussion instead of trying to change the title through the back door by editing the way this article is linked in other articles. ElKevbo (talk) 20:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I never edit war, especially on this topic. My revert, ElKevbo, was for you and you only. My gripe is, "Who made you king?" You seem to be the first, last and primary reverter of anything having to do with this topic all across Wikipedia. For years you have been enforcing your own preference. It's time for some other enforcer of your preference to be king. Hell, make up a sock puppet and never tell us. After a couple years of that, lots of people will get sick of that one too. At least let someone else be the king of your kingdom. I suggest you try to stop worrying and watching and protecting this topic that you lord over. This view is certainly not mine alone.Jeff in CA (talk) 23:39, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Really? Let's disregard the nonsense about "I don't edit war but I did just edit war" and focus on the part where the opinions of the many other editors who have discussed this issue for five years are completely disregarded in favor of some bullshit about me being "king of [my] kingdom." Stop edit warring and engage in the discussion that should be held. ElKevbo (talk) 23:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
If you want to call one revert of your revert an "edit war" then fine; I made a one-time, once-in-a-decade exception. However, I never accused you of sockpuppetry. I said it would be better for you to engage in sockpuppetry instead of the Boulwarism in which you are now engaged.Jeff in CA (talk) 00:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Please address the central issue of you changing the name used to link to this article without discussion and despite several discussions that have rejected your preferred name. ElKevbo (talk) 01:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Without commenting specifically on the edit war, I will say that particularly over the last few years, I have noticed a marked shift in mainstream media sources towards calling it the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal. The last discussion yielded no clear consensus, as I recall, so the status quo endured. Perhaps it's time to discuss again. Go Phightins! 01:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm totally fine with revisiting the discussion to see if the common name has changed. I'm simply perturbed that someone is attempting to avoid having that discussion by ramming through their preferred name without any discussion or notice.
I think that some of the court cases were recently - within the last week or so - resolved with plea bargains so should be some very recent sources to include in discussion (and this article, if that hasn't already happened). ElKevbo (talk) 01:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 23 external links on Penn State child sex abuse 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Please discuss: trial testimony and police records about victims

The table that I have included keeps getting reverted by people who would rather edit-war than to a initiate a discussion on the merits. Those with an interest please chime in, so that we can arrive at a consensus on the inclusion of all or some of the material in the aforementioned table. Please note:

  • "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."
  • I maintain that there was no conspiracy to railroad Sandusky, and none is ever claimed or given credence in this addition to the article. The material in this addition to the article has nothing whatsoever to do with any "conspiracy." No matter what point the author may or may not be trying to make, nothing in this addition to the article advocates for any theory. Nothing in the table is used in the article to make some kind of point. It is simply material in the public domain from court and police records. Anyone is welcome to add any facts about the victims to the table. All facts are welcome. If a fact is contained in trial testimony or police records, be sure to cite the non-primary source.
  • Nothing here is an attempt to fight for anyone's innocence. There is a remarkable set of facts around this case contained in trial testimony and police records. Why should the content on Wikipedia be limited to a partial set of the facts of the case?
  • There are hundreds of thousands of sources on Wikipedia in which the authors evaluate facts that they have found in order to arrive at conclusions, including non-neutral conclusions. Indeed, that is the object of almost any work of non-fiction. Does that mean that the facts that an author includes are somehow non-facts, unreliable or biased if they lead an author to a non-neutral conclusion? Of course not.
  • A respected, well-regarded, Harvard-educated researcher digs into a legal case in which a person was tried and convicted. He reads the transcripts of the trial, pores through written and recorded police records, and interviews victims and other individuals that had a role in case. He writes about what he found. He quotes extensively from the transcripts and records. He is diligent in ascribing attribution. He ends up with a description of the facts in the case that is more comprehensive than what had been publicly described previously. He publishes this material in a book. In the book, he comes to a conclusion based on what he reported. When he is later interviewed in a web broadcast about the material in the book, he predicts that the book will be ignored by all of the media. He states his belief that the media is so heavily invested in its own reporting that no major outlet will ever mention it. What has he done wrong?

Jeff in CA (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Administrator note: BLP is a compulsory policy, and the table as it is being edit-warred into the article is a violation of BLP policy concerning victims of crimes. In addition, I warn against original research and synthesis. Acroterion (talk) 20:54, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

The Wikipedia policy regarding victims of crimes, WP:AVOIDVICTIM, states: "When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems—even when the material is well sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization."
Editors are invited to comment upon this aspect of the table being discussed here as well. The goal is to have a respectful discussion in order to arrive at consensus. Jeff in CA (talk)
The more I review this the worse it looks. The added material violates the whole of the quoted AVOIDVICTIM above and the overall effect, starting with naming victims who aren't mentioned anywhere else in the article and moving on to a matrix analyzing the veracity of statements is obviously unacceptable under Wikipedia policy. Simply because you have a source does not justify naming otherwise non-notable victims and picking apart the veracity of their accusations. Because the table explicitly names victims I am redacting the edits that include names. Acroterion (talk) 16:30, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Where do I mention Pendergrast's book?

This article is so tightly structured that I do not see a natural place for mentioning Mark Pendergrast's recent book on the subject. Any suggestion?

Moreover, the tone of the article leaves no room for doubt on Sandusky's guilt. Now that such doubt has appeared in reliable sources, a more cautious tone might be warranted.

Aerkem (talk) 19:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@Aerkem: You could mention it under "Other victims". The table there is based on a review of Pendergrast's book that was published at The Skeptic website. Jeff in CA (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff in CA: Thank you for mentioning the table. This table is a nice piece of work, but it seems to make the whole article self-contradicting. Shouldn't the article rather be a synthesis of reliable sources? Or a least explicitly state that there are contradictions among sources? My intention (for the moment) was only to state that there was a book by Pendergrast, and not to attempt more ambitious changes. There is also an ongoing debate at the Jerry Sandusky article. Aerkem (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Added a Further Reading section with the four books I could find on the subject. So far all mentions of Pendergrast's book in the article on Jerry Sandusky were reverted for WP:Undue weight concerns. Aerkem (talk) 21:18, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal

How many times are we going to let anonymous IP's change the name of this scandal and make various other NPOV edits before we eventually place this page under semi-protection? Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 14:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Eh. Those edits seem occasional, once every few days. It's not cut-and-dry vandalism (e.g. insertion of nonsense material). This page is fairly well patrolled and anyway I'm guessing it'll stop soon enough. --Jtalledo (talk) 14:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

ANSWER: 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. The fact that 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 your Topic erroneous, and sensationalized. Please update all titles and references to the correct topic line ("Jerry Sandusky / Second Mile Child Sex Abuse Scandal"). — Preceding unsigned --PHD77 (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

A quick search of Google does not support the assertion that the media is now calling it the "Jerry Sandusky/Second Mile scandal" or any variant thereof. If anything, there doesn't seem to be a proper name for it at all; given the damage it did to Penn State's reputation, it is reasonable to mention Penn State prominently in the article title. —C.Fred (talk) 02:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Noticed the last time anyone commented here was 2012. Here are some links to more recent articles, referencing the "Jerry Sandusky sex abuse scandal":

I believe it is time now to correct wikipedia. Ripanm2 (talk) 02:30, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Wrongful Conviction Beliefs

Talkpages aren't fora for proving innocence or guilt
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Given all that has come out in recent years from Mark Pendegrasses' book "Most Hated Man in America," and the work compiled by John Ziegler, Frederick Crews, etc. everything on this page is misleading. Just one example is the date of February 9th 2001 in the section about V2 Allan Myers. That date does not work as the school was packed with a concert and a hockey game. December 29th 2000 is now the accepted date. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/episode-one-the-date/id1562078872?i=1000517288672


I don't even know where to start since everything is misleading. So let's just start with a wrongful conviction section.

In the wake of the publication of books and other media asserting the innocence of Jerry Sandusky such as Mark Pendergrast’s “The Most Hated Man in America,” Malcolm Gladwell’s chapter on the case in “Talking to Strangers,” and John Ziegler’s podcast, “With the Benefit of Hindsight,” many people now believe Jerry Sandusky was wrongfully convicted in a moral panic rush to judgement.   This topic has been further developed in former Penn State President Graham Spanier’s  book “In The Lion’s Den: The Penn State Scandal and a Rush to Judgement”


The narrative that Jerry Sandusky is innocent is based on many factors.  Most people are familiar with assertions by government prosecutors that Penn State assistant Coach Mike McQueary witnessed Jerry Sandusky engaged in a sexual act with a 10 year old boy.  Prosecutors  illegally leaked the Grand Jury prouncement  to Patriot News cub reporter Sarah Ganim who published the unfounded salacious allegations setting off a media firestorm leading to Penn State offering payments to anyone who would make a claim against Jerry Sandusky.  In the November 5, 2011 Harrisburg Patriot News story, Ms. Ganim wrote: “On March 1, 2002, the night before Spring break, a Penn State graduate assistant walked into the Penn State football locker room around 9:30 p.m. and witnessed Sandusky having sex with a boy about 10 years old.   The graduate assistant immediately left the locker room and told his father what he’d seen, noting that both the boy and Sandusky had turned and seen him.  The next morning, the witness and his father told head football coach Jo Paterno, who immediately told athletic director Tim Curly.”  


The ”Grand Jury Prouncement” and Sarah Ganim’s reporting has now been completely discredited.  The boy in the shower, was in fact 14 year old Allan Myers who at the time gave testimony that stating “the grand jury report says Coach McQuery said he observed Jerry and I engaged in sexual activity.  This is not the truth and McQuery is not telling the truth.  Nothing occurred that night in the shower.” 


Allan Myers also penned a tribute/letter to the editor professing Jerry Sandusky’s innocence published in the Center Daily Times.   allanmyerslettertoeditor.pdf (framingpaterno.com)


Mike McQuery also stated that the grand jury report was a fabrication in emails stating “I feel my words were slightly twisted and not totally portrayed correctly in the presentment.” http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2017/10/correcting-record-part-1-mcquearys-2001.html#more


Deputy Attorney General Jonelle Eshbach emailed Mike McQuery back stating “I know that a lot of this stuff is incorrect, and it is hard not to respond. But you can’t.”


Testimony given by Mike McQueary casts doubt on the February 9, 2001 date of the event.  This date varies by one year from the state stated by Sarah Ganim in her original story.  Many including Jerry Sandusky and Allan Myers believe the date was December 29th 2000.


Settlement documents between Penn State and the alleged victims have been leaked casting further doubt as to any validity to any claim as those do not match court testimony. The veracity of the claims are also questionable as the attorney for several of the victims has been recorded in a sting operation by Second Mile participant AJ Dillon in which a fake claim is made and Mr. Shubin changes the claim to put the crime on the Penn State campus ostensibly to facilitate a potential payout.  Relevant audio is linked here:


Jerry Sandusky continues to maintain his innocence.  Frustrated with the slow pace of his appeals he recently drafted his own appeal based on accusations made in Sara Ganim’s recent podcast “The Mayor of Maple Avenue.  



Citations.


The Most Hated Man in America: Jerry Sandusky and the Rush to Judgment Paperback – October 28, 2017

by Mark Pendergrast


·        Publisher ‏ : ‎ Sunbury Press, Inc. (October 28, 2017)

·        Language ‏ : ‎ English

·        Paperback ‏ : ‎ 400 pages

·        ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 162006765X

·        ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-1620067659


Talking to Strangers: What We Should Know about the People We Don't Know Paperback – September 28, 2021

by Malcolm Gladwell


·        Publisher ‏ : ‎ Back Bay Books (September 28, 2021)

·        Language ‏ : ‎ English

·        Paperback ‏ : ‎ 416 pages

·        ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 0316299227

·        ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-0316299220


It is Part II “Case study: The boy in the shower


WTBOH: With the Benefit of Hindsight... on Apple Podcasts



In the Lions' Den: The Penn State Scandal and a Rush to Judgment Hardcover – September 6, 2022

by Graham Spanier


·        ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09XRPL7P8

·        Publisher ‏ : ‎ Gryphon/Eagle Press (September 6, 2022)

·        Language ‏ : ‎ English

·        Hardcover ‏ : ‎ 512 pages

·        ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 979-8985699494





AJ Dillon Tapes:


With the Benefit of Hindsight...: Episode Fourteen: Secret Agent Man on Apple Podcasts


Patriot News Nov. 5. Penn Live is Patriot News

https://www.pennlive.com/midstate/2011/11/readers_digest_indictment.html


Discussion of Settlement Docs:


https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/episode-twelve-part-i-the-settlements/id1562078872?i=1000524514855


New appeals June 2022 filed by Jerry on his own.


SearchWarrant on Twitter: "#BREAKING: First of Two Filings submitted today in the #PennState #Sandusky case (First Filing is 6 Pages) https://t.co/NCrC6s8QIn" / Twitter


SearchWarrant on Twitter: "#BREAKING: First of Two Filings submitted today in the #PennState #Sandusky case (First Filing is 6 Pages) https://t.co/NCrC6s8QIn" / Twitter


Summary of the latest appeal with hearing scheduled for May 25, 2023


https://ralphcipriano.substack.com/p/expert-witness-in-penn-state-case



https://www.wfmz.com/news/juror-5-i-would-have-liked-sandusky-to-say-it-face-to-face/article_0a9f5c68-5741-508c-b967-366e0fc98d12.html


Wikinovice1 (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Shower of Lies

Frederick Crews does an excellent job of summarizing how everything we think we know is wrong. This was written in response to Penn State President Graham Spanier's book on the rush to judgement at Penn State. When will the record be updated? https://www.bigtrial.net/2022/10/a-shower-of-lies.html Wikinovice1 (talk) 19:03, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

What is the plan to correct the record?

OK, my edit has been rolled back. I get that I am not well versed in the protocols and appreciate all that you do. However, what is the plan to correct the record when essentially everything in the narrative is wrong? The basics of the shower incident are wrong. The fact that emails from Jonelle Eshbach show she made up the allegations. You have Franco Harris going to his grave trying to correct the record of what Mike McQueary told him happened. You have showerboy Allan Myers's statements that nothing happened. This case is in fact the greatest miscarriage of justice since perhaps Salem and the world is trying to just ignore it. The fact that the date is very much wrong in the V2 section is a very, very big deal. But nope, not going to change it. We have our narrative and facts are not going to change it. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/episode-one-the-date/id1562078872?i=1000517288672

Wikinovice1 (talk) 18:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@Wikinovice1: You provided no sources and the parentheses seemed less than neutral. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
What would be the best source. In my edit explanation I did link to this commentary which is based on interviews of those involved and checking the calendars for when school was in session, etc. https://www.framingpaterno.com/new-proof-december-29-2000-not-february-9th-2001-was-real-date-mcqueary-episode
If you need some single source I could ask for what may be the best. But this is 2 hrs and 26 minutes of discussing the date https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/episode-one-the-date/id1562078872?i=1000517288672
And thank you!!! Wikinovice1 (talk) 19:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
@Wikinovice1: The source does no good in your edit summary. Regardless, the source you provided appears to simply be a blog which is not a reliable source. The podcast source I can't see because I don't have iTunes (and don't want it), so I can't verify the reliability of it. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:15, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't a free forum for campaigns to exonerate people
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Latest Evidentiary Hearing May 25, 2023

ON May 25, 2023 Jerry Sandusky is scheduled for a new evidentiary hearing. The tapes from the 3 year sting conducted by AJ Dillion are part of the latest filing. This is the best summary of the latest appeal. https://ralphcipriano.substack.com/p/expert-witness-in-penn-state-case

Wikinovice1 (talk) 20:59, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Franco Harris

Franco Harris frequently spoke out regarding Mike McQueary and the grand jury pronouncement. Just before death he was working on documenting his conversation so it would not be lost when he died. Fortunately, he did release his third segment just before death and it is the most important of the three segments. For posterity, I am linking to that here so that there is a record of those who have worked to right this outrage which may be the greatest prosecutorial injustice since Salem. https://www.uponfurtherreviewpsu.com/ Wikinovice1 (talk) 17:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Good short summary of the innocence positon

Certainly John Ziegler's With the Benefit of Hindsight podcast is hands down the best summary of innocence and overwhelmingly proves that Jerry Sandusky is very clearly innocent, but it is about 70 hours long. Certainly AJ Dillon's three year sting of Andrew Shubin and the therapist deserves a selection segment somewhere. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/episode-fourteen-secret-agent-man/id1562078872?i=1000526052032

But for a short readable summary of the innocence position, this is quite good. https://www.bigtrial.net/2021/11/jerry-sandusky-deserves-new-trial.html Wikinovice1 (talk) 17:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Prosecutor emails that they made it up

Related to Allan Myers' statement that he was not abused and Franco Harris' discussion with Mike McQueary stating that Mike is in agreement that he saw nothing is significant. But there are also the emails from prosecutors to Mike stating that he needs to keep quiet about the fact that the Grand Jury pronouncement is not accurate. Just made it up. Certainly, this needs to be part of the permanent record in this case as it will be studied hundreds of years from now like the Salem Witch Trials. https://www.bigtrial.net/2017/10/penn-state-confidential-prosecutor-told.html Wikinovice1 (talk) 19:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Penn_State_child_sex_abuse_scandal/Archive_3&oldid=1154726616"