Talk:Varsity Blues scandal/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Hodge

An editor of the related page on indicted parent Douglas Hodge has deleted nearly all the detail from the article, that is already heavily reported in RSs on the independently notable, public figure, ex-CEO of PIMCO.

See here.

Is that too heavy a white-washing deletion hand?

As WP:BLPPUBLIC says, "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say."

And "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."

We don't give that level of detail here, but on the person's page why would we not reflect these heavily reported details about his charges, arrest, and the sentence that attends such charges? --2604:2000:E010:1100:F9D8:B94A:BDC8:5023 (talk) 03:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Please note that Neutral Point of View is a foundational principle of Wikipedia, especially in regard to Biographies of Living People which must be written "conservatively" and with "restraint". (See WP:NPF) Included in NPOV is the concept of WP:PROPORTION that states: discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news.

You state that this person is "independently notable" as the CEO of PIMCO which would make that the major topic of the page. But more than half of the article that you created is devoted to a single news incident. Therefore, it was pared down [1] proportionally. This is not white washing: the heading remained as well as a summary of allegations with the more valid references that you provided. The information was summarized to balance the biographical length. If the individual is noteworthy because of their career, than that should be the bulk of the article. However, if the person is noteworthy because of this single event, the article should be a redirect to this page per WP:BLP1E.

I appreciate that you are enthusiastic about this recent news item -- after all, you seem to have created this page because of it -- but we must keep our enthusiasm within the boundaries of encyclopedic policy. (This is why an editor reverted this edit as inappropriate.) The article needs to be pared and balanced in order to avoid violating our BLP policy. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 23:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

He is independently notable as CEO of a company with a trillion dollars of assets under management. And there is at the same time a tremendous amount written about his involvement in the scandal. The article - before you deleted a great deal of heavily covered RS-supported material - was proportional in the coverage it gave to the RS coverage he received. Proportional does not mean "if 2/3 of the articles about the independently notable person deal with x, we can't have 2/3 of the WP article cover x." Just the opposite. We are proportional to the RS coverage. That is how we avoid editor biases creeping in, causing white-washing. This is all quite clearly reflected in our policy on BLPs of individuals of this sort, which is directly on point, WP:BLPPUBLIC: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say." Whitewashing the article to delete what the sources say, and bring the proportionality of the coverage of the event (in terms of the RS coverage of the person) to a lower level, is in direct contravention to BLP:PUBLIC. 2604:2000:E010:1100:5D3F:1967:CA13:C3DB (talk) 01:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Not to be blunt, but does any of this conversation have anything to do with this article? I don't think you need to have parallel discussions in two different places. Keep it to Talk:Douglas Hodge (businessman) unless there is something about the mention here that needs to be changed. My apologies if I missed something about the relevance here. - Paul^T+/_C 02:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Psantora - you are of course correct that substantive conversation should be there, where editors were pointed to if they had interest (as it relates to this page, but is most relevant there). Input there would be helpful, as the editor making the deletion has indicated he intends to do the same with regard to other individuals who are detailed on this page as being part of the scandal. 2604:2000:E010:1100:39D7:2B6A:A5C3:508C (talk) 14:43, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

A nit-pick about the tables

The people and colleges involved have been made into tables. Good job to the editor or editors that did so. Thanks! I have one nit-pick about these tables (and all tables in general). The use of the "row-span" and the "col-span" (extended rows and columns) is designed to make the table easier to read. In many cases, however, they make the table even harder to read. Harder to digest and absorb (i.e., understand) the information being presented. For example, I was looking up Lori Loughlin in the table. All of her "data" is involved in row-spans and col-spans. So, it's very hard to read and to "decipher". I have to keep looking back and forth and, in my mind, drawing mental "lines" to separate her from the entries above/below her. That's too much work for a reader. The row-span and col-span functions should make the data stand out better; not make it harder to absorb and digest. Not make the data get "lost" in a jig-saw puzzle of row-spans and col-spans. When you have a lot of row-spans and col-spans, it makes reading the table too much work, forcing the reader to create all of these mental lines in one's mind to separate entries. I suggest letting each person/college have its own separate row/column, even what the data above/below it is the same. My two cents. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 12:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

They are sortable tables, so if you have particular difficulty reading you can hit a header and it will force everything to expand out (and duplicate content if necessary). A better solution may be to move the 1st column (the parent name) to the 3rd column, so that there is a visual heirarchy: Type of fraud->School/Test->Parent->Family member->Description. In fact, I'm going to try that out and see if it helps. - Paul^T+/_C 01:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC) Done. Let me know if that helps. - Paul^T+/_C 01:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, that does help a bit. Thanks. But, with long and "complicated" tables, as this, I usually prefer everything to be in one (unbroken) row, with no col-spans or row-spans, etc.. It makes the reading (and understanding) much easier. Also, some readers may not know how to use the sorting ability, or even know that it exists. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:15, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Glad to hear it helps. I agree that it was harder to follow before and I'm glad you said something! I did consider keeping everything in one row per parent, but it gets complicated with Elisabeth Kimmel. She has a son and daugher that targeted two different schools. If we keep her in one row we will lose that granularity. Do you have a proposed solution to that problem? Using spans there works because her name would just be listed twice once the rows are split out when sorting, but I don't think that would be an appropriate solution if hardcoding the information. It is a tricky one. Let me know what you think. - Paul^T+/_C 15:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

While doing the above update, I decided to split out each (group of) parent(s) as separate rows. This means, aside from the first column, there should be one continuous "row" per parent, with subrows if necessary for different schools/tests or multiple children. Please let me know if you have any other suggestions to improve the tables. - Paul^T+/_C 18:32, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the table looks great! Good job! I don't object to a few row-spans and col-spans when needed, here or there. I just dislike when they are "over-used" and have the paradoxical effect of making the table harder -- rather than easier -- to read and understand. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:14, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

To be frank it was purely a practical decision. It was getting to be too difficult to keep manually changing the spans as I was adding the 20 or so new names and so I decided to ditch them everywhere they were purely decorative. I'm 50/50 on which is better. I see no reason to change it back at the moment though. - Paul^T+/_C 03:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

New columns for the table(s) (and maybe a new table?)

Key Worldwide Foundation / The Edge College & Career Network

This section originally only had 1 or 2 names listed and it didn't make sense to include a table at that time, but now there are 4 employees listed and 3 additional cooperators. I propose that we add a new table to combine these lists showing the nature of involvement with the organization (employee or cooperator), their name, their current list of charges, their plea status, and a description. Does this make sense? - Paul^T+/_C 18:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I think it makes sense, yes. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:17, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Universities and accused personnel

For the "Universities and accused personnel" table, I'm considering splitting the current "Indicted personnel" column into two. One just for the name of the person involved and one for their description, similar to the parents table. For UC Berkley (and other future additions with no names listed), we can combine the cells (using colspan="2"). Are there any objections/comments? - Paul^T+/_C 18:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

No objections from me. I think it's a good idea. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:18, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done I also did a similar change to the parents table to move the primary name further to the left. - Paul^T+/_C 02:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Parents

For the "Parents" table, I'm considering adding more columns similar to the suggest above for the Key section. Adding things like the total amount of the bribes, their current list of charges, and their current pleas would add to the article. I realize this will really increase the size of this table so I want to make sure we have agreement before adding in the information. Perhaps a good first step would be to add this information to the current "description" column? - Paul^T+/_C 18:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I think those are good -- and legitimate -- variables to add into the table, yes. When I make a table, I usually label the last column as "Notes", a pretty generic catch-all, if I want to add something extra that doesn't quite fit into any of the other columns. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:20, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

My main concern is that it will end up getting too cluttered. Perhaps their charges would be better indicated by some kind of key/footnote system? This way it could apply to all the tables? The amount bribed will be interesting to see in a structured format. - Paul^T+/_C 03:45, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, as far as the "Parents" chart ... why is the guy named Morrie Tobin listed in that chart? He seems like an "odd-ball" entry. It seems like the table is "a lot of indicted people, plus him". I am not sure that's fair to him. It almost implies guilt or, at least, guilt by association. Maybe there is a better way to handle him? I don't really object to his being listed in the chart. But, he does "stand out" as an odd-ball. And I am just trying to ascertain why he is in the chart at all? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:22, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

His testimony started the entire investigation and led the FBI to Singer. He was under investigation for an unrelated fraud charge and offered information about this case in exchange for leiniency. Tobin's testimony/wearing a wire led to Meredith, who turned state witness and led to Singer/Riddell. My understanding is that his cooperation is the first hint of any kind of fraud about this case that the FBI had and the investigation proceeded from there. Tobin->Meredith->Singer->everyone else. In exchange he isn't being charged in this case and presumably got some kind of lieniency in his original (unrelated) fraud case. Synthesized from what I have read anyway... I could be misinterpreting some of that, but I'm about 80% sure it is accurate. Check the sources, they should have all the details. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-yale-dad-who-set-off-the-college-admissions-scandal-11552588402?mod=article_inline and https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2019/03/14/only-on-2-tipster-who-touched-off-campus-bribery-admissions-scandal-lives-in-larchmont/  - Paul^T+/_C 03:45, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I already knew all of that "back story" about Tobin. He was, essentially, the guy who let the cat out of the bag ... and got this whole ball rolling with the FBI. I am familiar with that basic back story. But, my question is: why is he listed in the table? The table is about people (parents) who participated in the bribery schemes. As far as I remember -- I could be wrong -- Tobin was "invited" to participate (i.e., he was asked to offer a bribe). But, he did not do so. (Or, maybe, I got the details wrong ... and he did do so?) If he was not a participant in the scheme, he probably should not be in the chart. If he did participate in the scheme -- and was not indicted due to his cooperation with the FBI -- then, he probably should be in the chart. What is his exact status, with regard to any participation -- or lack thereof -- in the fraudulent schemes? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

The way I see it he is a participant, though a cooperating one. The sources I have read show that he offered the lead, it wasn't offered to him. That said, I have made his row a little more explicit on the fact that he has not been implicated in this particular fraud case because it is somewhat confusing. If there are more specific statements from RSs that show he was pressured by the prosecution to get involved it may be better to find a way to clarify further. - Paul^T+/_C 17:51, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. This discussion has been continued below. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:32, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Yale rescinds admission of student accepted in the scandal

Yale University has rescinded the admission of a student who had been accepted through the fraud scandal. Source: Yale rescinds admission of student implicated in nationwide admissions scandal. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Tobin

Tobin does not belong in a section that is entitled "Participants and organizations; Parents" ... that is a significant BLP violation. --2604:2000:E010:1100:B8A4:AD7D:D78C:7F47 (talk) 15:16, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Is there something false or unsupported by sources? I moved Tobin's row to the bottom of the table to de-emphasize it. Let me know what you think. - Paul^T+/_C 17:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort. But I don't think it suffices.

Here is the problem. We have a Wikipedia article entitled "2019 college admissions bribery scandal" with a title to a section: "Participants and organizations" and then a subsection "Parents". And Tobin is included in that section. So, we have Wikipedia saying he is a participant/parent in the scandal. True, we then have language in his entry that suggests that he doesn't belong there .. but he should not be there in the first place.

The solution would be to either take him out of that section and reflect him only in the section that he should be reflected in (already done, at least largely, in the "Discovery and charges" section), or to somehow (this would likely be clunky) rename the second section he is in so it includes people in his class of people (who are not in fact participants in the scandal).

But to leave him in that section, as entitled, is more than an editing issue. It is a clear BLP violation. As we tag him as a participant in a scandal. This is, to use BLP language, "material challenged ... that is unsourced or poorly sourced ... [and therefore] should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion"--2604:2000:E010:1100:2106:8738:20D1:EE63 (talk) 20:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Is there anything demosntrably false (according to the given sources) in that row? Tobin is an involved, unindicted parent in this scandal according to the listed sources and therefore does belong in the table (wherein all information listed is directly from the referenced sources). Would it be better to rename the "level 2" section "Involved parties and organizations" instead of "Participants and organizations" (changing "Participants" to "Involved parties")? Regardless, there is clearly some grey area here given the facts of the situation and I don't think it is fair to say it is clearly a BLP violation. I'm going to make the change to soften the section to better address your concerns. - Paul^T+/_C 05:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm having difficulty explaining myself. He is not a participant in the scandal. There is zero evidence that he participated in the scandal. Just as the "involved" (and they may also be parents) Eric Rosen, Justin O’Connell, Leslie Wright, Kristen Kearney, Laura Smith, and the magistrates are not participants in the scandal. Even though they all had a part in the participants being indicted or tried. He was approached by a participant in the scandal who sought to be bribed and declined to bribe him and supported the Justice Department in it uncovering of the scandal. To suggest that he participated in the scandal - which is to suggest that he took part in effecting the scandal - is wholly unsupported. And harmful to his reputation. Which is what makes it a BLP violation. 2604:2000:E010:1100:8127:41C0:A31:EE8D (talk) 13:33, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Clearly we disagree on this. I changed the name of the section to "involved parties" instead of "participants". Are there sources supporting conversations with "Eric Rosen, Justin O’Connell, Leslie Wright, Kristen Kearney, [or] Laura Smith" about fraudulently getting their children into one of the listed universities? Because there are such sources for Tobin. I understand that Tobin did not go through with actually making the bribe and that distinction is clear in multiple ways in the table as supported by the listed sources, but the action still occurred. Again, I ask, is there anything factually stated in the article that is not supported by the listed sources? Also, I'm interested to hear what others think about this. We are not the only editors here. - Paul^T+/_C 15:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Your changes are making it incrementally better. Thanks. But your view of BLP is the opposite of mine. Yours is that the negative BLP assertion has to be demonstrably false (as you assert above). Mine is that if you are going to cast aspersions on a person, the BLP assertion has to be demonstrably true. Lumping dozens of alleged criminals in with one person where there is not an iota of related support for their criminality in regard to this scam seems wrong. Other views are welcome as you say. I see User:Joseph A. Spadaro also has related views. 2604:2000:E010:1100:E8B1:9465:FA86:F12A (talk) 18:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

If there are unsupported/unreferenced "demonstrably true" statements (as you imply), please point them out. I don't see any. - Paul^T+/_C 20:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I think that both of you have good, valid points. Let's do this. Let's figure out exactly what that chart is supposed to list (its "scope", if you will). And then, make sure the chart has a name in synch with the agreed upon scope. That plan does not seem controversial. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

And I was thinking further. Maybe we are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. In that chart, the other listed names are all in similar circumstances (i.e., they took part in the fraud). Tobon is different in that he did not participate in the fraud (although, yes, he is "involved" in the scheme in a global sense). Maybe Tobin should have an entry in his own special chart (which seems silly, to create a chart for just one person). Or, maybe he can be in the section with this chart, as a prefatory note or a concluding note or a footnote, delineating his specific circumstances. Does any of that sound good? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

With this in mind, I further separated Tobin's row from the rest of the table, but I don't see a need for a separate table just for Tobin. The sources support all the information as it is currently stated. - Paul^T+/_C 20:33, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the table is fine now, due to the way that it has been changed. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Note, I made some additional changes to correct some problems I found when using the sort function. The impact should still be similar to how it was previously, but if there is a better way to handle it please try other options too. - Paul^T+/_C 00:05, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Better every time. Thanks. Can I ask though, what might be done about the lead in? Which states "The table below lists the 34 parents directly involved in the scheme." Also, separately, perhaps people have thoughts on the discussion directly below this one. 2604:2000:E010:1100:5D3F:1967:CA13:C3DB (talk) 01:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that also when we expanded the list and added a comment directly after the 34: "Tobin removed from the total of 35 since he was cooperating with the FBI when he called the Yale coach." I'm not sure the best way to mention him as the 35th "parent". Maybe something like: The table below lists the 34 parents directly involved in the scheme as listed by CNN, CBS News, and People. In addition, it also includes Morrie Tobin in the last row who was cooperating with the FBI when he spoke with the Yale coach. Or something similar... Any other suggestions/changes? - Paul^T+/_C 02:47, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Something along those lines strikes me as an improvement. Perhaps: "In addition, it also includes Morrie Tobin in the last row who was not a participant in the scheme, but instead was the tipster who led the FBI to the scheme and cooperated with it after the Yale coach tried to bribe him."[2] Thanks. --2604:2000:E010:1100:39D7:2B6A:A5C3:508C (talk) 14:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Tobin @ Yale?

An IP editor added this unsourced claim to the article: A former Yale hockey player, Tobin had been expelled by Yale before graduating from the University of Vermont in 1985. Previously it only stated "alumnus" status. Is there a source for this addition? - Paul^T+/_C 14:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Tobin revisited

This source states that Tobin paid a bribe. Source: Yale rescinds admission of student implicated in nationwide admissions scandal. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:50, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. Do we know if this statement Purportedly was asked for a bribe by Yale coach Rudy Meredith in exchange for Meredith getting Tobin's daughter admitted into Yale while Tobin was wearing a wire at the direction of investigators is accurate? - Paul^T+/_C 02:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure. But the impression I got was that he (Tobin) was asked for a bribe (by the coach) and that he (Tobin) actually paid the bribe. That is my understanding. Not 100% sure, though. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

That source seems awfully confused. This can’t be an RS. Look here. It says “According to the Journal, former Yale women’s soccer head coach Rudy Meredith offered Tobin a bribe, which he declined.” I would go to the WSJ article for anything in this. --2604:2000:E010:1100:9CF:31B3:8490:DA3E (talk) 04:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

It seems pretty even-handed to me. This is the next few sentences directly after your quote: The Journal later reported on March 19 that, according to a person familiar with the investigation, Tobin participated in the scam by paying a bribe. However, Conroy said that Yale does not know the Journal’s source and cannot comment on the accusation’s accuracy. At the time of this story’s publication, the News has not been able to identify the source or confirm the allegation published in the Journal. I agree that we probably need to look at that March 19th article in the Journal, but this source does not seem unreliable based on what I'm reading. Regardless, while the source is currently present in the article, it is only in support of existing, previously sourced information. AFAIK no new content was added to the article based on this source. - Paul^T+/_C 05:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Here is a Wall Street Journal article dated March 19 --> Alleged Tipster in College-Cheating Scandal Bribed a Coach, Source Says. But, one cannot access the full article, unless you pay or subscribe (as far as I can tell). However, the brief headline (byline) says, quote: "Morrie Tobin, the dad who is said to have led federal agents to Yale’s soccer coach, was also a participant in the scam, according to a person familiar with the investigation". Does this "new" source now "solve" all of the above issues that surfaced, regarding how exactly Tobin is presented in that Chart (i.e., the Talk Page section above)? It seems to be an RS that says that Tobin actually did participate in the fraud scheme, (regardless of whether he was indicted or not). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Universities

Instead of just referring to them as “universities,” the article refers to the ones involved as “prominent research universities” (first sentence) or “elite universities” (throughout). I’m not sure those are the best descriptions of each of these universities (Though Yale and Stanford, sure .. U of San Diego and others, perhaps not so much). Thoughts? --2604:2000:E010:1100:553F:FFAA:209B:BCA7 (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

All listed universities are highly selective (and therefore are prominent and/or elite) and conduct research (and therefore are considered as research universities). I don't see a problem with the way they are described. - Paul^T+/_C 06:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

criminal nexus

Would it be possible to illustrate the nexus of how this becomes bribery or another federal crime. The recipient of the bribe, though powerful in some respect, does not seem to be a government official. Test service providers are not government agencies. --knoodelhed (talk) 00:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Bribery is not limited to goverment officials. From the linked article: Bribery is the act of giving or receiving something of value in exchange for some kind of influence or action in return, that the recipient would otherwise not offer. Bribery is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in charge of a public or legal duty. Essentially, bribery is offering to do something for someone for the expressed purpose of receiving something in exchange. Not really sure what you are asking to do otherwise. - Paul^T+/_C 02:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Another heading difference of opinion

Psantora made this change while telling me that I should go to this page for consensus. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2019_college_admissions_bribery_scandal&diff=891624956&oldid=891624742

I think his change here does not make sense. Look at the table of contents as he changed it. Read down.

Involved parties and organizations

2.1 Key Worldwide Foundation / The Edge College & Career Network

2.2 Universities and accused personnel

2.3 Parents

With his change, 2.2 and 2.3 are the indicated universities (though psantora says the table is not about the universities, and will move out of the table discussion of what the universities did) and people.

But 2.1 is just the foundation and the network. Not the people in them. That is not right. It was better before he changed it.

Also, by his change he lists under 2.1 people who are not employees of the foundation or network as being so - Dvorskiy, Fox, and Williams. They need a line, which they had until Psantora took it away, at the same level of 2.1 .. but a level and number below .. describing who is in that category. We had that, before the Psantora change.

Please do as Psantora asked and indicate if you agree one way or the other. --2604:2000:E010:1100:740C:84B2:D8D6:96A3 (talk) 04:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Dvorskiy, Fox, and Williams all were working directly with Singer and other associates of Singer's organization "The Key". They all belong in the same section. - Paul^T+/_C 05:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Last request of the day

He also sent me here to discuss this. He made this change. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2019_college_admissions_bribery_scandal&diff=891624680&oldid=891624615

But it makes no sense -- because he just earlier said the table is really Not about the universities. But instead about the university employees (he wrote, while deleting information about the universities, "The university table is almost entirely about the indicted officials at that university and not the universities themselves."). https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2019_college_admissions_bribery_scandal&diff=891613659&oldid=891613343

It's a bit confusing for him to delete material from the table about the universities -- arguing the table is not about the universities. And for him to then insist on the title saying the opposite.2604:2000:E010:1100:740C:84B2:D8D6:96A3 (talk) 04:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

What exactly does Stanford expelling a student have to do with John Vandemoer, the person in the line you added the information to? Or Yale expelling a student have to do with Rudy Meredith (same point)? The place to mention this information in the tables is the "parents" table if we can determine via RSs which parent's child is the one being referenced in the source. For now and until we have those sources, the mention in the prose is enough. - Paul^T+/_C 05:16, 9 April 2019 (UTC) (If the information does directly relate to Vandemoer or Meredith, it would be appropriate to add that information to those rows, but as it was initially written that was not the case.) - Paul^T+/_C 05:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Sentencing guidelines

Moved here from my talk page

FYI, sentencing guidelines aren't required to be followed by US federal judges. And one does not have to look far to see that they are ignored at times. Look at the Manafort case. The guideline called for 19-24 years. The judge went for way, way lower than the low limit there.[3] --2604:2000:E010:1100:B951:7500:D62B:D57A (talk) 00:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm aware, but "8-10 years, closer to 8" is what the reference states, so it is what belongs in the article. If you don't mind I'm going to move this to the article talk page in a bit. - Paul^T+/_C 01:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

On second thought, after seeing the 3 other references provided showing the 36 months, clearly the LA Times is the outlier here. I've removed the statement until new information is revealed. In any case, we will be able to put the actual amount in June. - Paul^T+/_C 03:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Whatever you want. If you want to keep it in, it may interest readers. I would reverse the order though -- and put the majority in first. Perhaps the one source was looking at the agreement five months ago, and the other three sources are considering a more recent understanding. Back then, he only got 3 levels reduced (off of 33 or so) as a thank you from the government for a combination of his prompt acceptance of personal responsibility for the offenses, and information known to the US Attorney at the time. Anyway - this will at some point sort itself out. Apparently according to the NYT in fiscal year 2017 "43 percent of those convicted of fraud received sentences below the guidelines, although many were being rewarded for cooperating with authorities."[4] So it will not be shocking if the judge imposes a sentence that is under the floor of the guideline. 2604:2000:E010:1100:B951:7500:D62B:D57A (talk) 03:20, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I already removed the statement. I made my initial reply above before seeing the 3 other references you added showing 36 months. It could make sense to keep the 8-10 year mention in the LA Times, but I think the mention of the guidelines with the 8 year minimum and the fact that this will be resolved in June are sufficient. Regardless, the LA Times reference is still present so the information is still available if anyone cares to look after wondering "why are CBS, VF, and WSJ listed but not the LATimes?"... NBD either way. - Paul^T+/_C 03:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense. 2604:2000:E010:1100:B951:7500:D62B:D57A (talk) 05:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Headings

I don't think this revision https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2019_college_admissions_bribery_scandal&diff=891624615&oldid=891624291 is a move in the right direction, but respect Psantora, but maybe another editor could chime in. I think the word "against" is the wrong word. And I think we should distinguish between the indicted (one group) and the un-indicted (a second group). Plus - "Actions by universities vis-a-vis students" is a lot more explanatory than the presented alternative I think --2604:2000:E010:1100:740C:84B2:D8D6:96A3 (talk) 04:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

"Actions against involved individuals" applies to both the parents and students. If you have a section on just the students you need to find a way to include those actions against Olivia Jade, but that information is pretty directly tied to information about her mother. The information is perfectly clear as currently written. - Paul^T+/_C 05:18, 9 April 2019 (UTC) Would either "Consequences for involved individuals" or "Consequences for involved individuals beyond legal jeopardy" for that section (instead of "Actions against involved individuals") be an improvement? - Paul^T+/_C 05:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

There are 2 changes here. In the 1st, you replaced "Actions vis-a-vis those accused of being conspirators" with "Actions against involved individuals." I think it is clear what "accused of being a conspirator" means. Accused has a legal meaning. Conspirator, also. The phrase "involved individuals" doesn't have a legal meaning. The edges of its meaning isn't clear to me even in a non-legal sense. I read it as less clear, and therefore less helpful to the reader. Also, the first form is not conclusory - the people have without question been accused of something. The second form is conclusory, because we claim in the title that the individual was "involved" (whatever that means) in the illegal racket ... and this title does that even with respect to people who under oath are saying: "No, if there was an illegal racket, I was NOT involved with it!" Which, come to think of it, brings the second form of title into BLP territory. I certainly would not want to be one of those people, and have Wikipedia state that I am "involved" with an illegal scheme, when I am swearing that I am not, and maybe you would feel the same way if you think about it.

In the second heading we are discussing, you delete a heading that is intended, in keeping with the spirit of headings, to add clarity and help the reader find information of interest to them. Especially important as the article gets longer and more complicated. The heading says "Actions by universities vis-a-vis students." Now, the first argument for it is that it helps the reader. The second argument is that we have some natural categories discussed in the article. We help the reader elsewhere by separating many of the categories in titles -- we have Singer & Gang, college folk, and parents. Some readers will come to this article with interest in the category "students". This is I thought a natural way to help them find the information they are looking for. I think that would be a good thing.

I appreciate the effort in the above options you asked me to think about, but don't think they get us where I am suggesting we should want to go. Maybe after you read this (sorry so long; I waiting for others to respond first) answer, you will have another good idea. You usually do I see. 2604:2000:E010:1100:C807:F597:113E:AF17 (talk) 05:40, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

The section heading is vauge because it involves many kinds of parties - people associated with "The Key" (Mark Riddell), coaches (both accused and those that have also pled guilty), accused parents, and students of accused parents (and potentially students of parents that have pled guilty or cooperated as well, we don't know the identity of all the students) in a small section. All of these parties are "involved" and the actions are carried out by many different types of parties (universities/educational institutions (ie IMG) or commercial entities doing business with the different parties). Currently, the section is small enough that attempting to further divide it will make it more cumbersome and harder for the reader to understand. Given those points, the current wording ("Actions against involved individuals") is a reasonable explanation of the content in the section and, barring a significant expansion, it should stay as is.

Ideally, this section could be further expanded to include the non-legal consequences (I think the better place for the legal consequences belong in the tables earlier in the article) of all of the related parties (including convicted parents) and not just the handful we currently have. An expansion like that would create enough content so that this section may be able to be split into the various groups that you identified - parties related to "The Key" (accused and convicted -ie Singer, Riddell, etc.), Universities/Coaches (accused and convicted), Parents (accused and convicted), Students (of accused and/or convicted parents - though, the students may be more naturally included with their parents or university depending on what the sources can (or can't) verify because of academic privacy and similar policies at the schools), and any others...

Regarding "involved", all of these people are involved by nature of having recieved some kind of consequence by the parties listed above. Whether there are actual legal consequences is a separate point not currently (and I don't think it should be) discussed in this section. - Paul^T+/_C 15:03, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. To focus on the main issue, I think it is a BLP violation to write a title saying a person in "involved" in a criminal act, when they say they are innocent. Can we get a blp expert to say which of us is right? 2604:2000:E010:1100:5013:FCB2:F2BA:C6AE (talk) 02:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

The section details the non-legal consequenses of their "involvement". It has nothing to do with the criminal act itself. The consequenses are things like getting fired from a job or show or losing sponsorships... There is no mention of any judgement with regard to their guilt. - Paul^T+/_C 03:23, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

The section heading you wrote says - "Actions against involved individuals". What are they involved with? To know that we turn to the article title -- "2019 college admissions bribery scandal." What does that refer to? To know that we read the first sentence "a conspiracy to influence student college admissions decisions illegally ..." So you are making Wikipedia say that these people are involved in an illegal conspiracy. People who say they are not involved in an illegal conspiracy. That is a BLP violation in my opinion, and I am challenging it. I see it as contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced. But when I tried to fix it you reverted me. And you do not read blp the same way I do. We have different opinions. Can you bring in a blp expert to give their thoughts? 2604:2000:E010:1100:69F3:2A4A:B2ED:5BF8 (talk) 07:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Who exactly is being subjected to a "BLP violation" as you allege?

Is it the coaches or Mark Riddle? This is what is written about those parties in this section: Indicted coaches were fired or suspended, or had already left the university at the time of the charges.[120] Mark Riddell, who took tests on behalf of the students, was suspended from his position as director of college entrance exam preparation at IMG Academy, fired a week later, and pled guilty.[121][67][38] All sourced statements directly explaining the (mostly non-legal) consequences of their involvement (broadly) with the scheme.

Is it the expelled students? On March 26, 2019, Yale became the first university to rescind the admission of a student associated with the scandal.[122] On April 2, Stanford announced they also expelled a student connected to the fraud.[123] Again, all sourced statements explaining non-legal consequences.

Is it Lori Loughlin? This is the first two sentences relating to her in the section: The Hallmark Channel cut its ties to Lori Loughlin, star of the program Garage Sale Mystery and When Calls the Heart, after she was named as a parent in the indictments.[85] According to The Hill, Netflix decided to drop Loughlin from Fuller House as well.[124] It is a (sourced) fact that she was a named parent in the indictments and is therefore involved. Again, it has nothing to do with her guilt or the legal consequences.

What about her daughters (who are not in legal jeopardy nor is it implied that they are)? Her youngest daughter Olivia Jade also lost her partnership with TRESemmé and the Sephora chain of beauty products.[125] It was reported by TMZ, Page Six, and others that Loughlin's daughters dropped out of USC due to fears of being "viciously bullied";[96] however, a USC spokesperson later confirmed that they both remained enrolled at the school.[85][126] According to the San Jose Mercury News, USC scheduled a hearing in March 2019 to determine if Olivia Jade should be designated a "disruptive individual", which would result in her lifetime ban from the university's campus and properties.[127] Again, all sourced statements having to do with non-legal consequences as a result of their parents' alleged involvement in the scheme.

This covers everyone mentioned in this section. If there is a BLP violation it would be against one of those parties. Can you please point it out so we can directly resolve it in the prose? I don't agree that "involved" has the meaning you are ascribing to it. Furthermore, you can be involved with something without having done anything wrong. Just because you didn't do anything wrong doesn't mean you will be immune from the consequenses of someone else's actions. Unfortunately for us all that isn't the way the world works.

All of these consequences are extrajudicial and have nothing to do with the court case directly (with the exception of the mention of Riddle's guilty plea, which I think should be removed and kept in the earlier "Involved parties and organizations" section). It makes sense to list out these actions and "Actions against involved individuals" as the name of the section is a reasonable way to describe what is happening. Perhaps it makes sense to change it to "Consequences for involved individuals" or "Consequences for involved individuals beyond legal jeopardy" as I suggested above or maybe simply "Actions against individuals", "Consequences for individuals beyond legal jeopardy", or even "Consequences beyond legal jeopardy"/"Non-legal consequences"/"Extrajudicial consequences", but I do not think it makes sense to split this section unless more material is added to fill out the other sections you are proposing. If anyone else has a different take on this please do speak up! - Paul^T+/_C 13:25, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Out of an abundance of caution, I renamed the section to "Extrajudicial actions". It is clear, consise and properly describes the full contents of the section. - Paul^T+/_C 16:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Elite Sports

I made a minor POV edit on the use of the term “elite” sports. This should be obvious, but tennis, as a case in point, is played at the highest levels by individuals who came from less than elite backgrounds (Serina Williams, etc,) as have football players. The individuals involved as parties may be of greater means than the norm, but the term as a descriptor for sports is taking this that step too far. Yachtsman1 (talk) 05:54, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Parents/unindicted cooperating witnesses broken table markup?

Something's wrong with the unindicted cooperating witnesses section of the table in the Parents section, but I'm not familiar with the markup being used so I don't want to screw with it. The heading and the info on Tobin is in a tiny font. Can someone take a look? --valereee (talk) 12:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

This is intentional to give less emphasis to his entry as he is "not involved" with the scandal beyond as state's witness. See #Tobin above. Is there something that actually looks broken to the point where it is unreadable? - Paul^T+/_C 20:16, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Bizzack pleads guilty

• "Parent charged in college cheating scandal pleads guilty". NBC News. 24 July 2019.

"Bizzack is the 23rd defendant to plead guilty"... do we have a list?

Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: Nice to meet you ~ why is he not on this list of parents? ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 20:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Operation Varsity Blues was the investigation, not the scandal

The lead sentence seems confusingly worded. It states that the scandal is called Operation Varsity Blues. Operation Varsity Blues was the name given to the investigation into the criminal fraud which led to the resulting public scandal. The investigation, the fraud and resulting scandal are all different things. I don't think the scandal itself is referred to as Operation Varsity Blues', is it? NickCT (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Actually NickCT The FBI did code name it Operation Varsity Blues' cited in march here ~mitch~ (talk) 00:53, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

You might be right about the scandal itself ~mitch~ (talk) 00:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mitchellhobbs: - I agree that FBI named the investigation "Operation Varsity Blues". I'm disagreeing that they named the scandal "Operation Varsity Blues". The FBI conducts and names investigations. That's their job. They're not in the business of naming scandals or historical events. NickCT (talk) 13:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Fully concur with User:NickCT's observations. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Berkeley?

I think Berkeley ought to be removed from the list of involved colleges given that no one actually bribed their way into the college. It seems like the accusation is that parents/kids cheated on the SATs in order to get into Berkeley, which makes it seems as though Berkeley's involvement was incidental. It probably shouldn't be listed with schools where bribery of university personnel was involved. NickCT (talk) 12:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Agree - the tag for Berkeley should be removed at the bottom as well. Having it in there gives impression Berkeley was actually involved. Gentry862 (talk) 15:56, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Harvard?

According to the CBS News source about all the involved parties, John Wilson allegedly bribed someone at Harvard to gain admission for his children: John Wilson, 59, of Hyannis Port, Mass., founder and CEO of private equity and real estate development firm. Wilson is accused of bribing officials at USC, Stanford and Harvard to facilitate admission of his son and two daughters to those three schools. Wilson's company allegedly wired Key Worldwide Foundation $500,000 in 2018. This is the first mention I have seen for that school. I listed it in the parents table but I am not comfortable adding it to the university table without corroborating sources. Is anyone else aware of any other sources (including anything filed by the prosecution) that support this assertion by CBS? This would create some irony considering Alan Dershowitz's quote in the article: the worst scandal involving elite universities in the history of the United States. - Paul^T+/_C 04:09, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

The Harvard reference is confirmed here: Lynnfield father charged in college bribery case. It states: In exchange for the cash, Wilson secured admission at USC for his son as a purported recruit to the school’s water polo team, and Stanford University and Harvard University for his twin daughters, according to court documents. Apparently, the Harvard information is included in the indictment. Isn't the indictment a public document? Is it available anywhere? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:06, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

The indictment is available online. Here is the link: READ: The full indictment charging actors, CEOs and others in a nationwide college admission scheme. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:16, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Harvard is also confirmed here: 3 men with Cape ties charged in nationwide college cheating scandal. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

The actual indictment itself lists the specific Harvard University "scheme" on Page 122. And on pages 128-129, also. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:18, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. I added Harvard to the table of universities. There was a similar addition with Northwestern University that was also sourced fairly widely. The list of universities is starting to grow unfortunately... - Paul^T+/_C 02:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

No problem. The indictment itself spells out all of the details. As such, it is a useful document. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:33, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Psantora - Hey guys, reading back through this conversation and through the sources, I'm still a little concerned about the inclusion of Harvard on this list. Couple notes; 1) The indictment probably isn't a great source (given that it's primary). But also, as far I can tell, the indictment only says; WILSON also sought to use bribes to obtain the admission of his two daughters to Stanford University and Harvard University as recruited athletes.. That doesn't seem to explicitly state that someone did actually bribe their way into Harvard. 2) Is there a single, good secondary source (i.e. not "itemlive"), that explicitly states someone bribed their way into Harvard? If not, I suggest we remove it from the list. NickCT (talk) 12:31, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

After hearing no objections, I removed Harvard. Looking at this list again, I think I also want to remove Berkeley. I'm going to discuss this in a thread below. NickCT (talk) 12:44, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Can we also remove Harvard from the tag at the bottom of the article? Same as Berkeley (see below). Gentry862 (talk) 15:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Running totals

Where listing "total number pleading" and "total number sentenced" - as this is ongoing should the sentence stay in the body as a running total requiring continual edits? I'm fine updating regularly, the cases appear to be sentenced every few days. Gentry862 (talk) 21:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC)