Talk:Varsity Blues scandal/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Infobox?

Should this article have an infobox, and if so, which one? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there is a proper infobox for scandals, however, maybe an image or images of the actor(s) that are involved could suffice? Adog (Talk・Cont) 02:57, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

It should be a logo of the "non-profit". --- Coffeeandcrumbs 04:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Can any one offer an opinion on whether this logo qualifies for a copyright? Does it not fall below the threshold on originality? --- Coffeeandcrumbs 05:08, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Coffeeandcrumbs, I'm not sure, but we can still upload under fair use, right? As long as the image appears at Wikipedia just once? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

The requirement is not "only use once". I am no expert but I don't think we meet the contextual significance criterion since this article is not about the organization itself. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 16:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Coffeeandcrumbs, I agree, I'm not sure adding the logo is particularly helpful since this article is not about an org specifically. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. A logo is the best option. I absolutely object to using the photos of any notable figures as UNDUE. A collage of the logos of all universities involved is an option. But we cannot pick and choose photos of people because that gives undue weight to the notable figures for which Wikipedia just happens to have a photo. If we make editorial decisions based upon availability and convience, we would be no better than the tabloids.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 17:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Another Believer, I actually looked at a whole bunch of articles in the "academic scandal" range to find guidance on this, and none use infoboxes. We probably should use {{Infobox event}}. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Muboshgu, I just added, and removed some not-applicable fields, but I could use some help filling in details. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

The lead

Resolved

The lead states: The Federal Bureau of Investigation investigation was nicknamed Operation Varsity Blues ..., using the word "investigation" twice in a row. It's quite awkward and should be re-phrased. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Joseph A. Spadaro, Sure, I think we should keep "Federal Bureau of Investigation" written out with the abbreviation defined in parentheses, so perhaps there's another word for "investigation"? Perhaps, inquiry? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, that's sort of a "hot button issue" right now. Loretta Lynch wanted Clinton's email case to be called a "matter" and not an "investigation". The FBI replied: "We only do investigations. Hence, the name Federal Bureau of Investigations." I think we should introduce the term "Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI)" somewhere appropriate and somewhere before this sentence in question. Then, when this sentence comes up, just use the initials FBI. That should solve all the problems. I think. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done Feel free to revert or make other changes, but I took a stab at separating Investigations/investigation. - Paul^T+/_C 16:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Psantora, Looks good, but we still need to define the abbreviation, so I added "Federal Bureau of Investigation" to the sentence, before "(FBI)". ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I missed that. I could have sworn I checked to make sure it was previously defined. Thanks for fixing! - Paul^T+/_C 19:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Psantora, No problem, perhaps someone else removed some text and the link. I've marked this as resolved for now. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Arrests

The infobox states that there was only one arrest. That is clearly wrong. --2604:2000:E010:1100:D89B:3D60:C8CA:64BA (talk) 02:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

William H. Macy?

Should this article mention William H. Macy in some form?

• https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/03/felicity-huffman-william-h-macy-college-admissions-scandal-varsity-blues
• https://www.vulture.com/2019/03/william-h-macy-felicity-huffman-college-cheating-scandal.html
• https://www.huffpost.com/entry/felicity-huffman-william-h-macy-college-admissions-scandal_n_5c87f65be4b0fbd7661e6615
• https://people.com/movies/felicity-huffman-william-h-macy-stressful-college-admission-bribery-scandal/

---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes. I've added it. As the VF piece notes, Macy wasn't indited, so I put him in the "others" list. NickCT (talk) 02:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Loughlin taken into custody

Lori Loughlin has been taken into custody:

• https://abcnews.go.com/US/live-updates-actress-lori-loughlin-face-judge-varsity/story?id=61651630
• https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47557056

---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Gamal Aziz

Can someone inline the longer version of his name set forth in the article to Gamal Aziz, one of the parents in this article? Thanks. --2604:2000:E010:1100:11EA:267:1884:8E5E (talk) 08:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done - Paul^T+/_C 09:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Missing url from addition

Resolved

Hi Coolcaesar, You just added some references to the last section of the page, but one of them was missing a URL. The reference titled "College admissions scandal exposes a corrupt and broken system" from The Star-Ledger had the URL for the New York Times reference that was also missing its URL. I moved that one down, but the original link is still missing. Sorry for the confusion, but if you (or someone?) could find that URL and add it back that would be very helpful. Thanks! - Paul^T+/_C 07:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Nevermind, it seems you saw it already and fixed it! Sorry for the ping! - Paul^T+/_C 07:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2019

Add the word "U.S." or "American" to the title (i.e., "2019 U.S. college admissions bribery scandal"), for the obvious reason that the scandal is a purely U.S. phenomenon. 181.162.39.202 (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

This is being discussed above so that we can come up with the most appropriate title. Natureium (talk) 16:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

According to the current news ticker...

...Huffman and 13 others plead guilty. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

New inline

When the below draft article (on one of the parents) is accepted on Wikipedia by an established editor (it may take awhile), it would be great if someone could reflect it as an inline in the Parents section of this article.

Draft:Gordon Caplan.--2604:2000:E010:1100:116B:4451:15F1:7F1E (talk) 12:14, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done (by someone anyway...) Good job on the article! - Paul^T+/_C 18:34, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

New inline

When the below draft article on one of the parents is accepted on Wikipedia by an established editor (who knows; it may take awhile), it will be a better inline (if someone can input it) than the current inline in the Parents section of this article.

The current inline for him just goes to PIMCO ... which we inline anyway to the right of his name in this article.

Draft:Douglas Hodge (businessman). --2604:2000:E010:1100:B1ED:65E0:4301:7DBB (talk) 04:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

New inline

When the below draft article (on one of the coaches) is accepted on Wikipedia by an established editor (it may take awhile), it would be great if someone could reflect it as an inline in the this article.

Draft:Jovan Vavic. --2604:2000:E010:1100:9816:50BA:4FCD:9568 (talk) 03:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion: Table or subsections for each university involved

It may be helpful to develop a table or subsections of prose for each university involved in this scandal to help readers understand how many people in each organization was involved, how they were involved, what has happened to those individuals and at each institution, etc. For example, it seems likely that all of the coaches and administrators involved will be (or perhaps have already been) fired and this may be an organized way of documenting that. ElKevbo (talk) 12:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Elkevbo: We should start with a section on "Colleges and universities". We can further subsection only when necessary. We want to avoid undue weight until coverage focuses on particular schools which it most likely will in the future.

I have started a new section to that effect. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

List of indicted individuals

Should the list of indicted individuals be sorted alphabetically or based on how frequently they are mentioned in coverage? Current sourcing seems to focus on Huffman and Loughlin the most, but they may change very quickly. Perhaps the list of names should be moved from the lead into a bullet listed lower down? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• https://www.huffpost.com/entry/college-admissions-bribery-scandal-whos-who_n_5c87cee0e4b0fbd7661e0b01
• https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/12/us/felicity-huffman-lori-loughlin-massimo-giannulli.html
• https://www.huffpost.com/entry/felicity-huffman-lori-loughlin-charged-college-admission-scheme_n_5c87c516e4b08d5b7865d04d
• https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sports-college-coaches-indicted/college-coaches-among-50-indicted-in-college-entrance-exam-scandal-idUSKBN1QT29Z

---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Another Believer: - What do think about making a List of people involved in the 2019 college admissions bribery scandal? We could throw all the defendants and other involved people into that list. Strikes me that there are so many people "involved" in this story that a stand-alone list might be justified. NickCT (talk) 14:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

NickCT, I'm not opposed, but I think I'd still recommend first fleshing out this article fully before forking out a separate list. Right now the bulleted list of names is quite short. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Another Believer: - Yeah. Agree. Is it worth creating another bulleted list in this article now? It looks like there are semi-notable "involved" people who don't fall under the category of "defendant" (e.g. Mark Riddell). I'm thinking a large list that gives a short one sentence bio and a one sentence description of involvement. NickCT (talk) 14:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Separate parents and coaches?

Should the Defendants separate the parents of college applicants and the nine coaches? Differentiating how people were involved may be helpful. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree in principle. I'm going to take a stab at rearranging things. If you don't agree with how I do it, please feel free to WP:BRD. I won't be offended. NickCT (talk) 00:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Should the Universities section become a subsection of Participants, or merged in some other way? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)  Done ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

761

Is it 761 families (as the article states right now) or 761 children that Singer got in through the side doors? Were there any failures? Abductive (reasoning) 21:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

He is quoted as saying “over 750 families” and “761 side doors” (I assume that means individual students), in the same breath as if they are two different figures.[1][2] He told parents it works “every time”; if he had any failures he apparently doesn’t admit it. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I changed it to "over 750 families" in the lead. BTW it shouldn't be in the lead and not in the article, so we should add something, maybe both figures, to the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Page title?

I created 2019 college admissions bribery scandal, but thoughts on the best possible title? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:15, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• "Operation Varsity Blues"? https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/12/us/college-admission-cheating-scheme/index.html

---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

college admissions and testing bribery scandal is what the DOJ named it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by

Hi. I made a Operation Varsity Blues redirect and added an entry to the Varsity Blues disambiguation page. Regarding the page title, I'm not sure we really need "2019" in it unless we're disambiguating from scandals in past years? But shrug. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

MZMcBride, Thanks. For now, do you think Operation Varsity Blues should be displayed in bold text? --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Nah. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

MZMcBride, Someone bolded the text, but I don't mind either way. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

It's bold, and should remain so, per MOS:BOLDSYN. —Hugh (talk) 01:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I think the name is fine as is for now. If RS start referring to it by a specific name, we can change it. Natureium (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of the final chosen title the title should be properly capitalized. New here, no idea bow to do that. Junipllc (talk) 02:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

It's different than most style guides, but Wikipedia uses sentence case rather than title case for article titles. See MOS:TITLECASE. Natureium (talk) 02:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Nothing in the title is a proper noun; there's no case for using capitals here. —Hugh (talk) 01:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I would vote for US college-admissions scandal, the hyphen creating a compound modifier. Succinct, and denotes where it happened, which I'd argue is important. The when ("2019") is not needed, since there have been few other scandals of this nature in recent history, and certainly none that I can find WP articles on. If that title were adopted, a hatnote might be useful at College Scandal. —Hugh (talk) 01:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Questions about article title: Add "U.S." and change "college" to "university" ?

I have two questions about the current title of this article, "2019 college admissions bribery scandal."

1. Should we add "U.S." or something similar to make it clear that all of the institutions involved in this incident are in one country, the United States? I systematically looked but it also appears as if all or nearly all of the specific people involved are also in the U.S.

2. Should we change "college" to "university" because all of the institutions involved are universities and not colleges?

Personally, I believe the first should be done but the second should not. Clarifying the country would be helpful for readers. It's annoying that this is widely, likely unanimously, referred to as a college admissions scandal when no colleges are involved but WP:COMMONNAME is quite clear on this front. (I don't know if that policy is helpful in deciding the first question; it seems likely that most of the reporting isn't explicitly noting that this is a U.S.-based scandal simply because most of the reporters are writing in U.S.-based publications for U.S.-based audiences. Does anyone have a sense of how non-U.S. media are reporting on this?) ElKevbo (talk) 11:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

ElKevbo, I'm not opposed to either, but just spot-checking source titles in the current References section, I'd say there are not many (if any) appearances of "United States"/"U.S"., and many more mentions of "college" over "university". So, based on sourcing alone, I'd say the current title might be best, but I'm definitely not opposed to moving the page based on other naming conventions, if editors prefer. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I've thought about that, too, but clarifying the country would be more of an internal Wikipedia necessity/desire than an attempt to follow WP:COMMONNAME. It's the same reason that we have "2019" in the article title but none of the media are explicitly referring to the year in their reports. ElKevbo (talk) 16:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

ElKevbo, Sure, I understand, and I'm not opposed to adding US to the title in some way. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Why on earth would US-based sources (which most of these are) explicitly refer to the scandal as being American in nature? US sources report US news. —Hugh (talk) 00:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

That's exactly my point: We can't solely rely on WP:COMMONNAME as Wikipedia article titles exist in a different context than the names used in media sources that are, for the most part, ephemeral and have an implicit context. ElKevbo (talk) 15:34, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

College is generally the common term in the US unless there's a reason a person is trying to distinguish between colleges and universities. Natureium (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I !vote for Hugh's suggestion of U.S. college admissions scandal. Leave out the year since this case will likely span several years before it is all disposed of in the courts - and the alleged activity dates back multiple years. And it's true that in press usage and casual conversation, even the most elite universities are generically referred to as "college". This is an American thing; an American parent will say "my son is in college" while a British parent will say "my son is at university." (Original Research alert.) -- MelanieN (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN, Can we lead with an abbreviation? What about United States college admissions scandal? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, we sometimes do lead with an abbreviation. See U.S. state, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. (We should use U.S. rather than US if we go that route; I’m correcting my suggestion above. I am also eliminating the hyphen; I don't think it is necessary and sources aren't using it.) We could say American but I don’t like that as well, and United States is awfully formal; if you search for articles starting with that they are all very official, e.g. United States Constitution, United States Congress. BTW I am noticing that the press seems to have settled on "college admissions scandal" so we should omit "bribery". -- MelanieN (talk) 00:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN, I agree. Then, for the record, I support United States college admissions scandal and would be comfortable with U.S. college admissions scandal. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Shall we put this up for a vote? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we need a formal RM discussion but we should try to get input from the other people who have been editing this article. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN, Thanks for starting a new discussion, which I've moved directly below to keep things together. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposed name change

As per the discussion above, it is proposed to change the name of this article to either U.S. college admissions scandal or United States college admissions scandal.

@NickCT, MZMcBride, Hl, Natureium, Junipllc, ElKevbo, and Lindenfall: @Joseph A. Spadaro, Psantora, Adog, Coffeeandcrumbs, and Muboshgu: Pinging, for opinions, other people who have been active at this article, -- MelanieN (talk) 04:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

United States college admissions scandal is my preference. I abhor abbreviation in article titles. I don't think they are necessary when the title is not excessively long as in this case--- Coffeeandcrumbs 04:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Coffeeandcrumbs, +1, but as I mentioned above, I'd be fine with "U.S. college admissions scandal" if that's what others prefer. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 05:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I concur with a slight variant - If I may piggyback on the original poster, I would like to go further and float the idea of renaming this page to “college admissions scandal”. There are no other college admissions scandal pages on Wikipedia, as this is the first one notable enough, and Wikipedia titles are supposed to be as simple as possible. Adding “2019” and “United States” are overly precise because there’s no need to disambiguate by year or location. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 06:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

There have been other cases (University of Illinois clout scandal and University of Texas at Austin admissions controversy based on a quick search), though those were related to specific schools. This is obviously at a different scale, but I'm not sure that the subject as a whole belongs at this page. - Paul^T+/_C 06:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Does it have to have "United States"? It isn't exclusive to the US as it included some Canadian parents and students for the Canadian high school graduation exams. I'd prefer 2010s college admissions bribery case or something similar. I'd prefer to wait on any move until at least a week or two in case a more natural name starts to arise (such as "Operation Varsity Blues"). I don't see any pressing need to move it currently and it works for now. I just hope that this doesn't eventually get a "-gate" moniker. - Paul^T+/_C 06:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Psantora: - re "included some Canadian parents and students for the Canadian high school graduation exams" - Really? Which ones? NickCT (talk) 11:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, some examples would be helpful especially since the articles that I have read have described the cheating as focusing on describing the applicants as athletes with little or no focus on exam scores. ElKevbo (talk) 12:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

David Sidoo, Canadian businessman and former Canadian Football League player[58]

Allegedly paid to have his sons score highly on the SAT and Canadian high school graduation exam[58]

Brown, Scott; Griffin, Kevin; Fraser, Keith (March 13, 2019). "Vancouver's David Sidoo charged in U.S. college-entrance scandal | Vancouver Sun". The Vancouver Sun. Retrieved March 13, 2019. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)

It is one example, but its there. - Paul^T+/_C 13:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for providing this example! There are so many people involved that it's easy to miss some of these details.

It appears that although these were Canadians their focus was still admission to U.S. universities so this particular example does not change my thinking about the possible title of this article. ElKevbo (talk) 14:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Think I concur with ElKevbo on this one. Appreciate your point Paul, but it seems like the one Canadian in this story is the exception to the rule that this was basically an American story. NickCT (talk) 15:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Either is fine but so is waiting I have a slight preference for "United States" but I would also be totally fine with waiting for a few weeks to see if the media converges on a common name. ElKevbo (talk) 12:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• 2019 U.S. college admissions scandal or U.S. college admissions scandal - Unless  - Paul^T+/_C points to specific examples on non-US persons involved in this scandal, adding "US" seems to make sense. I'd prefer if we added 2019 to avoid potential confusion with other admissions scandal... NickCT (talk) 12:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Comment / Question: I am just curious. Is there a consensus / preference for removing or maintaining the word "bribery" in the title? Is every example of wrong-doing in this case a "bribery"? I am not sure. Just posing the question. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Joseph A. Spadaro, Sources seem to use "cheating" almost as much as "bribery". I'm not sure either are necessary. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. All of these people were (allegedly) involved in wrong-doing. I am not sure that each and every one engaged in "bribery", however. Not sure of the details on all 50 people. I imagine that some may have been "quid pro quo" (exchanging "favors"), and not necessarily "bribery" proper. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

It looks like "bribery" has a pretty broad, expansive, and inclusive definition. Per Wikipedia: bribery. I thought that, technically, it had to involve the offer/exchange of actual money. But, I guess not. Of course, we'd need to see the federal law defining "bribery", but I assume that also is inclusive, expansive, and quite broad. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I think we should leave out "bribery", both because the case is broader than that, and more importantly because Reliable Sources are calling it the "college admissions scandal". Our title should follow COMMONNAME and reliable source usage if possible.-- MelanieN (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree. ElKevbo (talk) 15:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Not to be a fly in the ointment, but I don't think either name distinguishes the event from some other college scandal (to be, or yet to be revealed, perhaps). United States college admissions scandal is close, but assumes it's an isolated event... and, so early in our century. Charges were laid in 2019, so, perhaps, the year should be retained, as is often the case when referencing indictments, though the trial(s) will carry on into the 2020s. Maybe I'm over-thinking it, and should just buzz off, though. Lindenfall (talk) 16:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree. The more I think about it the less I like the idea of a name change at this time. The scandal started in 2019 as a result of the charges even if the bribery occured years earlier. If "scandal" is going to be in the title I think it needs to have "2019" as well. The only other wrinkle is to whether "testing" should be added since that is the official name of the investigation, but I haven't seen any sources saying that the testing services were ever unrelated to ultimately getting admitted to a better school (why else cheat on the test?). - Paul^T+/_C 16:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I would be fine with the latter title of United States college admissions scandal or something of the sort. If it involves international actors (not these kind, the other definition), then another name should suffice. Adog (Talk・Cont) 14:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Lawsuits; repercussions

I have started sections, under "Reactions", about repercussions against the indicted people and lawsuits filed. I know there is a lot more to report there but I don't have any more time right now. I encourage others to expand those sections. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Categories for institutions associated with scandal?

Should we add university categories for institutions involved in the scandal? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

What kind of categories? Public or private, large or small, what? I don't see anything to be gained by trying to categorize them. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Since the colleges were also victims in this 'college-gate', if you will, I'm not sure that it serves general knowledge to lump them in with the accused. Lindenfall (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree. I've moved the coaches to classify them by university rather than just having a list of universities, and then also a list of coaches by university. Natureium (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good, all. I didn't feel strongly about adding university categories, but just wanted to float the idea by others. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Seems someone has added university categories... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Yup, that was me. Seeing as it is a limited list of universties I think it makes sense, but if the list grows to over 12 or so then we may want to revisit including them. I meant to respond here as this was where I got the idea, but I must have forgotten. - Paul^T+/_C 22:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Guilty plea

Please reflect that the Yale coach plead guilty to two counts. https://jezebel.com/yale-dad-who-exposed-college-bribery-ring-was-being-inv-1833310428 2604:2000:E010:1100:2025:BDFA:8908:9A1 (talk) 01:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Public reactions

Is a public reactions section of statements by politicians really useful here? Natureium (talk) 23:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Alan Dershowitz is not a politician; he is a law professor. As a high profile lawyer, and as a professor at the elite Harvard University, I think his input is important to this article. Senator Warren's is less useful, but not out of bounds, as far as I can see. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

+1, also I'm sure this section could be fleshed out much more. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree. When I asked the question, only Warren's statement had been added. I think hers should be removed. His seems more relevant. Natureium (talk) 16:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

As of now, Warren's statement stands alone. And Dershowitz's statement has been removed. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

See this diff. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I see that. Thanks. But, I disagree with it. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 10:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I added back both statements to this section. They are not the best examples, but there will be other reactions that can be added when they are relevant. What specific concerns are there that need to be resolved?

For reference, here is the current text of that section:

Alan Dershowitz, professor emeritus at Harvard Law School, said it was "the worst scandal involving elite universities in the history of the United States". Elizabeth Warren, United States Senator from Massachusetts (where all the criminal cases were filed), told news media that the scandal represented "just one more example of how the rich and powerful know how to take care of their own".

References

 - Paul^T+/_C 17:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry that I hadn't looked here before I removed this section... because I think it inappropriate to include personal opinions (even when I agree with them) about an on-going judicial matter in an encyclopedia. Also, singular comments by individuals is not "public reaction" which, no doubt, will become noteworthy, in time. I'm sure Warren, and others, will have much more to say as a trial progresses. Lindenfall (talk) 17:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

No worries. I just self-reverted and removed the section again. Let's all come to an agreement on what should be included in this section (if anything) before adding it back to the page. The statements are definately opinions and are very much borderline as to if they should be included. Haven't there been other notable reactions? - Paul^T+/_C 17:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think that adding this section should wait until perspective is available. Otherwise, the reporting is more akin to a magazine than an encyclopedia. This, to my mind, is an encyclopedia-worthy reaction to this 'college-gate': "USC to bar student applicants connected to Rick Singer's admissions consulting firm" https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/mar/13/usc-bars-students-tied-rick-singer-edge-college-ca/ Lindenfall (talk) 18:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC) Lindenfall (talk) 18:57, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

A new section was added on the congressional response. I think this section should be broadened back to public response and the note about the NCAA should be added there along with the current wording. In theory the above questioned sentences (or similar reactions) could be added to this section as well. - Paul^T+/_C 16:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Someone added a "commentary" section that was extremely bare, so in the meantime I added back the two sentences that were under discussion above. Feel free to revert if this is still disputed in the new context of that section. - Paul^T+/_C 07:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Joe Montana

Hi everyone, So it was reported that Joe Montana was associated with this fraudulent organization because he paid them for college preparation services for his children. However, he denies any wrongdoing and as it stands now, he never knowingly paid for or agreed to anything illegal or corrupt. Is there a place for him to be mentioned in this article? Or would that only be relevant if he is indicted or otherwise linked to illegal activity with this organization? Nonetheless, any statement about him I add to the article would have the proper reference attached. Thanks Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 01:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mrbeastmodeallday: I haven't seen the references or his name mentioned anywhere, so I'm not really sure if it warrants inclusion at all, but barring any indictment I think a mention in the "others" section could make sense, assuming the references support it. - Paul^T+/_C 02:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Psantora, Joe Montana says he used only legit services. He wasn't indicted, no reason to disbelieve him (yet). I say leave it out. Singer seems to have provided legitimate services to a lot of people. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: Thanks for the link. It is tricky. Adding him to the others section and making it clear (based on the references) that he only used "legitimate services" would help to differentiate and insulate JM from the scandal. But listing him anywhere on the page could be WP:UNDUE...

I think if there are reliable stories about it and the denial is from a notable person that attracts those reliable sources, it makes sense to include the denial. I don't want this to become a laundry list of people that weren't involved, but right now it is just JM and I think I've talked myself into thinking it warrants a mention, if only to amplify the denial and reduce any potential confusion about whether he was involved. - Paul^T+/_C 03:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I oppose mentioning Joe Montana (or anyone else) who used the company's services, unless there is strong evidence of misconduct such as an indictment. This would be a violation of BLP policy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Cullen328: What exactly would violate BLP? I'm thinking of a sentence/bullet like

"Joe Montana" was a client of X<ref 1> but has not been accused of any wrongdoing and has strenuously denied having done any illegal or immoral activity.<ref 2>

This would be under the "Others" section (which likely needs some re-arranging into proper sections to separate out Mark Riddell; Olivia Jade Giannulli; William H. Macy and Lou Palatella; (in that order) and then, finally, Joe Montana and any other tangentially involved (and notable) person that was categorically not involved in the actual scandal itself - assuming this list is very short. The "Joe Montana section" should be less than 2-5% of the list.

This gets the neutral, verifiable fact of their innocence and denials out there without any original research, fulfilling all the requirements of BLP. Is there something I'm not considering? - Paul^T+/_C 04:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

In fact, it could be further de-emphasized by just having a sentence at the end of the section without any bullet points at all. This way the list (of one, currently) is clearly separate from the others that have more involvement. - Paul^T+/_C 04:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

It is not Wikipedia's role to report that various people did not commit a crime, especially because a large majority of reliable sources do not even mention Montana or the other people mentioned in the the San Francisco Chronicle story. We cannot say for sure that Montana is innocent, though personally, I believe that he did nothing wrong. Denial of involvement is not proof of innocence. If we say Montana (or others) denied involvement, there is a bit of innuendo involved. Some readers might conclude that those people are somehow under suspicion, but at this time, there is zero evidence of that. Best to leave it out of this article unless the coverage changes. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Fair point on innocence. I was going to put it in quotes to show the distinction and did not include the word in my example for exactly that reason. It isn't to report that JM did not commit a crime, it is to correctly cite his 100% credible denial and emphasize the fact that he hasn't been indicted. I want to re-stress that there shouldn't be a laundry list of uninvolved parties, but including a limited list of notable parties that have been mentioned in several places can make sense if worded appropriately. No one is trying to imply anything untoward and in fact my argument is that by including these names it is bolstering their claims of innocence being uninvolved. - Paul^T+/_C 17:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

arbitrary break

Absolutely leave him out. I feel strongly about this. Singer ran a college admissions counseling service, which was reportedly used by thousands of families. He probably offered his "side door" services selectively, only to parents whose kids were not qualified for the elite universities their parents aspired to. After all, many shady businesses offer legitimate services to innocent people in addition to their illegal services to a selected few. Unless a parent has been specifically cited by the authorities as part of the scam, it would be unfair and potentially libelous for us to name other people in this article just because they were clients of Singer's. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Assuming we have the proper references to support it, I don't see anything unfair or libelous with this:

"Notable person", known for X and Y,<ref 1> was a client of Singer/ECCN<ref 2> but has not been accused of any wrongdoing nor have they been indicted.<ref 3> [Person] has strenuously denied having involvement with any fraudulent activities of Singer and ECCN/KWF.<ref 4>

And the intent for including it at all is to bolster the claims of the notable person. Again, this would only apply to people whose past, legitimate involvement with Singer/ECCN has been reported in reliable, verifiable, and neutral sources. I'm arguing that *not* including them is unfair, given there are reliable sources mentioning their situation. - Paul^T+/_C 17:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, but we aren't supposed to include ever WP:FART, no matter how reliably sourced, like Joe Montana and Phil Mickelson using legit services. This article is about the bribery scandal, and those two celebrities are not implicated in it. I agree with Melanie on keeping them out of the article. WP:BLP protections apply to them here. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

So, your mention of Phil Mickelson caused me to read the above refernece a little more than the first few paragraphs. Holy cow... I didn't realize *how many* notable people have apparently used his services. After fully reading that source I agree that none of those named should be included here. (And that kind of explosion of uninvolved names is exactly what I DID NOT want this section to become...I should have known better.) Consider pretty much everything I said above stricken.

However, I do think it is appropriate to include a sentence at the end of the "Others"/"Unindicted parents" section(s) about this source. Singer used these people as references/testimonials to generate new business and other clients. Remember, this page is also about Singer and not just the scandal. How does something like this sound:

Officials have stated Singer had many legitimate clients that did not engage in any type of fraud.<sfgate ref> Singer publicized his more notable clients on his Facebook page in an attempt to promote his 2014 book Getting In.<sfgate ref><GettingIn ref> Many of these former clients have been compelled to come forward in an attempt to preemptively clear themselves of any wrongdoing.<sfgate ref>? - Paul^T+/_C 18:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't like the last sentence. "Compelled"? Compelled by whom? And the phrase "Many of these former clients" just cries out for a tag. I think we should use just the first two sentences. Or combine them in some way: Officials have stated Singer had many legitimate clients, some of whom he publicized on his Facebook page, that did not engage in any type of fraud. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't like the combined single sentence. It conflates the statement by "officials", which is directly sourced, and Singer's promotional efforts. "been compelled" was a mistake, it should have read "felt compelled" but it is clunky regardless. How about combining the last two sentences:

Officials have stated Singer had many legitimate clients who did not engage in any type of fraud.<sfgate ref> Singer cited famous clients on his Facebook page while promoting his 2014 book Getting In<sfgate ref><GettingIn ref> and, as a result of this and other public endorsements by Singer, many former clients have made statements to distance themselves and their children from any percieved involvement in the scandal.<sfgate ref>

I tried to cut down last sentence, but it could still use some work. I wanted to put "proactively" or "preemptively" in there somewhere, but I think it sounds too accusatory with it in; "percieved" might be a little over the line too, but I left that one in. The reason the book is important is because it was the entire reason for and subject of the post that the article references. It might also be worthwhile for someone to dig up the original Facebook post. - Paul^T+/_C 22:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I see you put this version into the article. I'm OK with that. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, here. I was fairly certain I mentioned it here, but apparently not (just in the edit summary Add sentence being discussed on talk page, feel free to revert (or modify/move) if still under dispute). I think I may have gotten confused with the Public reaction section bit I also added back. I meant to leave a note here just to make it explicit ... sorry about that. - Paul^T+/_C 07:04, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Jorge Salcedo

You have him listed as the "former" coach. He is still the coach - now on leave. See here https://wtkr.com/2019/03/16/heres-what-universities-are-saying-about-the-alleged-college-admissions-cheating-scandal/ --2604:2000:E010:1100:8D9D:1F51:2803:9F9F (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Corrected. I'm not sure when he was listed as former instead of on leave, but thanks for pointing it out! That link has some good information about Stanford not actually accepting the "reccomended" students (which blows Singer's supposed "guarantee" out of the water) and USD not having any implicated faculty/staff. I'm not sure how/where to add this information but I wanted to draw attention to it. Thanks again for the info! - Paul^T+/_C 07:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Andrew Lelling

Andrew Lelling's article mentions this scandal. Should this article, in turn, mention him? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

He is not currently mentioned in the article's prose, but his names seems to be (incorrectly) linked in the References section (Ref #11). ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, that was an error in one of my edits. I've corrected the link and added a blurb about him in the lede. - Paul^T+/_C 15:34, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Psantora, Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank *you* for pointing it out! I didn't realize it happened and it might have taken a while for me to notice. - Paul^T+/_C 19:30, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I had already added Lelling and details earlier today, right after adding the same details to Lelling's page. He had clearly stated, when announcing the charges, that Rosen was in the lead prosecutor role (and it's Rosen who signed official court documents). I don't see why this content was since altered, when Lelling is clearly the boss of those actually prosecuting the case.Lindenfall (talk) 19:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Assistant attorneys

The last sentence of the lead is Lelling heads the securities and financial fraud unit, which includes Assistant U.S. Attorneys Eric S. Rosen, Justin D. O’Connell, Leslie Wright, and Kristen A. Kearney.[13][14] Why in the world are we listing all those non-notable assistant attorneys? Especially in the lead? If we must list them at all, put them down in the article somewhere. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

+1 ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Removed. Also, the lead (in theory) summarizes the body, so I moved the information about Lelling. Natureium (talk) 20:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Agreed, this also points to the above discussion on Lelling and his team as well. - Paul^T+/_C 20:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN... Dear Miz T, I listed those non-notables because they are actually the prosecution team, led by Rosen, as stated by Lelling when announcing charges, and whose sole signature is on the court filing. Lelling is their boss, and led the investigation. I think the names are significant to the case. Lindenfall (talk) 19:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

And they are in the article... under the section "Discovery and charges". -- MelanieN (talk) 20:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, MelanieN, I have noted the disappearing/reappearing content, though I fail to grasp why it wasn't simply moved lower in the article to begin with, saving time and various efforts. Lindenfall (talk) 18:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of prosecuting attorneys

Further to my note yesterday, in the Andrew Lelling section... the facts have now been fully supplanted, completely removing the actual prosecution team, which I had initially added (and which remains intact on Lelling's page). Lelling clearly stated, when announcing the charges, that Rosen was in the lead prosecutor role, and it's Rosen who signed official court documents, yet, he has been eliminated from the article. I see no rhyme or reason for this content being altered at all, let alone deleting the attorneys' names. Lelling led the initial investigation, and is the boss of those actually prosecuting the case... yet those facts have been removed. Why? Lindenfall (talk) 16:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I added back the sentence and source to the main section. I think the initial objection was having the list in the lede. That should no longer be a concern. - Paul^T+/_C 18:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank-you for the follow-through, Paul. Personally, I often shift details into more appropriate sections, but I never drop sourced facts in doing so. Lindenfall (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Images?

I assume we don't want to add images of people involved, right? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Not of people. Should we include any images of colleges named, or would that be out of line? -- MelanieN (talk) 20:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN, I don't think those would be particularly helpful. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm in favor only if they are directly related to the scandal. IE - into/out of courtrooms or relevant mugshots, etc. - Paul^T+/_C 20:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Psantora, Makes sense, or perhaps court document(s) would be helpful illustrations? This article is currently unillustrated, but I'll hold off adding the "image requested" tag until we know what kind of media we'd prefer to add. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

The only other image that immediately makes sense is one of William Rick Singer, since his page redirects here and he seems to be the lynchpin in most of this. - Paul^T+/_C 20:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Andrew Lelling or William Rick Singer?

I added an image of Andrew Lelling, but feel free to revert. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@MelanieN and Another Believer: - I think it would be good have a pic of Rick Singer (i.e. the apparent ring leader), but I agree with the general consensus that we probably don't want to flood the page with images. NickCT (talk) 15:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I think having a picture of Lelling being the only image looks a little strange. He's not the focus of this topic. Natureium (talk) 18:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree it is a little odd for that to be the only image. Have there been *any* images of Singer available? I think we might be able to get away with a non-free use copy here at least until a better one becomes available. - Paul^T+/_C 19:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the image of Andrew Lelling. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate the responsiveness. To be clear I think the image (and caption) you added is actually great and I want to include it in the article, but the first image on this page should be more directly relevant to the subject. The photo of Andrew will only make sense after we find the initial one. - Paul^T+/_C 20:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Psantora, Easy to add back later, if needed. :) ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd say Singer should be the main photo on this article, if possible. Perhaps, in time, someone will upload a good image of him on the courthouse steps, surrounded, of course, by attorneys. A shot of Mark Riddell would also seem appropriate. Lindenfall (talk) 19:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Bullets or prose?

Specifically within the "Participants and organizations" section, should we keep bulleted lists or convert the content into prose? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 05:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

That section is pretty hard to read / digest / navigate, as it stands now. I think. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

An editor added a tag suggesting we convert the bullets to a table, but I replaced the tag because I think prose would be better than a table. Thoughts? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Bulleted lists

See also: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists § Bulleted_lists

I find the bulleted lists hard to read. I have tagged that section with {{list to table}}. Would anyone be able to take a stab at making them into tables? William Graham ^talk 19:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

William Graham, I was just about to invite you to the above discussion re: lists vs. prose, since I changed your tag. These discussions are related. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sorry, I removed the tag. I want to make sure we have consensus on what the change will be (if anything) before asking people to change the section without specific direction. I agree that the list is a little clunky currently and I was thinking about some kind of table, but I think that will be overkill. I don't think converting to prose will be as useful as the current list or the proposed table, but if someone wants to mock up an example of either I'm easily convinced. (Plus I'm just one opinion.) - Paul^T+/_C 20:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Psantora, In the "Parents accused of paying for fraudulent services" subsection, one paragraph about parents who allegedly paid to get their children into specific schools, and a second paragraph about parents who allegedly paid for their children to have higher test scores. That takes care of everyone, right? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The problem with changing to prose is that you lose the structure. It starts to get hard to see related items like the schools involved or if the parents had more than one child. The idea behind something like a table would be to really beef up the structure so you can potentially add more information in a more understandable way. We started to do this by adding the involved school (or test) for each bullet, but another potential idea for expansion is the amount each parent paid for Singer's services, the date (range) the supposed fraud happened, and the current status of their case (which at this point won't have much other than "indicted" and/or "released on bail"). - Paul^T+/_C 20:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Psantora, I've shared an example below. I believe the prose captures all the same info as the bulleted list. Sure, could use more improvements, but I don't think the prose is difficult to read or unstructured. Could easily be fleshed out a bit more. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I have no doubt that the information is there, but it is harder to suss-out and compare with each other or easily see how many went to USC vs say Georgetown or even how many parents are listed as a whole. This is even more of an issue in the universities/coaches section. - Paul^T+/_C 20:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Psantora, I'm confident there are ways to make the prose easier to follow, but I don't feel so strongly about this, and I'll just let others weigh in and decide how the content is best presented. I just assume our goal is to work towards quality prose, so I was trying to get there sooner than later. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I understand and agree. I'm also interested in hearing what others have to say about it. - Paul^T+/_C 21:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Me, too! @CharlesShirley, Joseph A. Spadaro, MelanieN, Natureium, and William Graham: Thoughts on bullets vs. prose? Again, not suggesting the prose example below is perfect (for example, "allegedly paid to get his XXX into USC" in repeated 5 times, but we can fix this). Should we start converting bullets into easily readable prose, or are the bullets sufficient? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

One minor note, it is between a table vs bullets vs prose (in order of decreasing structure) an originally suggested by William Graham. - Paul^T+/_C 21:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Psantora, Yes, good point! Sorry, I'm open to whichever format editors this is best. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I would opt for bullets, not prose. Or, even a decent table of summary. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Someone added a table to the university section and I think it looks great! I think a similar table for the parents would also work. Something like:

Indicted parent(s) | Type of fraud (admissions or testing) | Universit(y/ies) targeted (if known) | Progeny info (son(s)/daughter(s), names only if notable) | A general description of the parent/whatever else is relevant

It could also eventually be expanded to include information like the amount paid and the date it occured (or maybe just the targeted year of admission) once that information gets out, though a bunch of it is already available in the sources. These tables can also become sortable for even more flexibility. - Paul^T+/_C 06:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Example: "Parents accused of paying for fraudulent services", bullets vs. prose

For example, here's what the "Parents accused of paying for fraudulent services" could look like (this is a rough sketch, I'm not suggesting the prose is perfect, but this is essentially converting bullets into prose, separated by type of alleged activity):

"Parents accused of paying for fraudulent services" in bullet form

Gamal Mohammed "Aziz" Abdelaziz, former President and COO of Wynn Resorts and former CEO of MGM Resorts International Allegedly paid to get his daughter into USC Jane Buckingham, marketing executive and self-help book author Allegedly paid to have her son score highly on the ACT Gordon Caplan, co-chairman of law firm Willkie Farr & Gallagher Allegedly paid to have his daughter score highly on the ACT Mossimo Giannulli, fashion designer, and Lori Loughlin, actress best known for her role on Full House Allegedly paid to get their daughters into USC Douglas M. Hodge, former CEO of PIMCO Allegedly paid to get his children into USC Felicity Huffman, actress best known for her role in Desperate Housewives, wife of actor William H. Macy; Macy has not been indicted Allegedly paid to have her daughter score highly on the SAT Elisabeth Kimmel, media businesswoman and former owner of KFMB Stations Allegedly paid to get her daughter into Georgetown and her son into USC Bill McGlashan, former managing partner and founder of TPG Growth Allegedly paid to get his son into UCLA Marci Palatella, distillery owner and businesswoman, wife of former San Francisco 49ers NFL guard Lou Palatella; Lou has not been indicted Allegedly paid to get her son into USC David Sidoo, Canadian businessman and former Canadian Football League player Allegedly paid to have his sons score highly on the SAT and Canadian high school graduation exam

"Parents accused of paying for fraudulent services" in prose form

Gamal Mohammed "Aziz" Abdelaziz, former President and COO of Wynn Resorts and former CEO of MGM Resorts International, allegedly paid to get his daughter into USC. Fashion designer Mossimo Giannulli and actress Lori Loughlin allegedly paid to get their daughters into USC. Douglas M. Hodge, former CEO of PIMCO, allegedly paid to get his children into USC. Elisabeth Kimmel, media businesswoman and former owner of KFMB Stations, allegedly paid to get her daughter into Georgetown and her son into USC. Bill McGlashan, former managing partner and founder of TPG Growth, allegedly paid to get his son into UCLA. Distillery owner and businesswoman Marci Palatella allegedly paid to get her son into USC. Her husband, former San Francisco 49ers NFL guard Lou Palatella, has not been indicted. Marketing executive and self-help book author Jane Buckingham allegedly paid to have her son score highly on the ACT. Gordon Caplan, co-chairman of law firm Willkie Farr & Gallagher, allegedly paid to have his daughter score highly on the ACT. Actress Felicity Huffman allegedly paid to have her daughter score highly on the SAT. Huffman's husband, actor William H. Macy, has not been indicted. David Sidoo, Canadian businessman and former Canadian Football League player, allegedly paid to have his sons score highly on the SAT and Canadian high school graduation exam.

References
References

We could make further improvements to the prose, but the point here is to decide if prose is better than bullets or a table... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• Keep bullets - Bullets are just fine. A table would also be OK. XavierItzm (talk) 09:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
• Here is an attempt at a table:

"Parents" in table form

Officials have said Singer had many legitimate clients who did not engage in any type of fraud. Singer cited famous clients on his Facebook page while promoting his 2014 book Getting In and, as a result of this and other public endorsements by Singer, many former clients have made statements to distance themselves and their children from any perceived involvement in the scandal. Parent(s) Extent of alleged fraud University or test targeted Progeny Description Morrie Tobin Not indicted in this case Yale Daughter Offered information on the case to prosecutors in exchange for leniency on his unrelated fraud charge; purportedly was asked for a bribe by Meredith in exchange for getting Tobin's daughter into Yale Gamal Mohammed "Aziz" Abdelaziz Admissions USC Daughter Former President and COO of Wynn Resorts and former CEO of MGM Resorts International; Mossimo Giannulli Lori Loughlin Admissions USC Daughters (including Olivia Jade) Fashion designer at Mossimo Actress best known for her role on Full House Douglas M. Hodge Admissions USC Children Former CEO of PIMCO Elisabeth Kimmel Admissions Georgetown USC Daughter Son Media businesswoman and former owner of KFMB Stations; Bill McGlashan Admissions UCLA Son Former managing partner and founder of TPG Growth Marci Palatella Admissions USC Son Distillery owner and wife of former San Francisco 49ers guard Lou Palatella; Lou has not been indicted Jane Buckingham Testing ACT Son Marketing executive and self-help book author Gordon Caplan Testing ACT Daughter Co-chairman of law firm Willkie Farr & Gallagher Felicity Huffman Testing SAT Daughter Actress best known for her role on Desperate Housewives and wife of actor William H. Macy; Macy has not been indicted David Sidoo Testing SAT Canadian high school graduation exam Potentially resulted in admission to UC Berkeley Sons Canadian businessman and former Canadian Football League player

References
References

Still a little rough, but you get the idea. - Paul^T+/_C 13:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I think a bulleted list or table are both fine, but is there a better word than "progeny" to describe the students? Natureium (talk) 15:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not super gung-ho about the term. It was the shortest, clearest description I could think of at the time to describe the relationship to the listed parent. In retrospect, "student" could work, but it is clunky from the point of view of the parent. - Paul^T+/_C 19:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I added the table to the article with some minor changes. There were some edits happening to that section and I didn't want to have to re-incorporate those changes. Feel free to revert this or make substantial changes to the section if you disagree. - Paul^T+/_C 06:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Rick vs "Rick"

Since Rick is a nickname (which may or may not be a short form of his proper middle name), should it not be in quotation marks? Media report the name both as William Rick Singer and as William "Rick" Singer, with more astute sources (in my opinion) using the latter. Court filings do not denote Rick as a proper name or as a nickname (that I've seen), using no quotation marks. The fact is that his first name is William, but he is called Rick, so, I think, that Rick should be "Rick". (This would definitely fall under the category of "what would Miz T. do? MelanieN.) Lindenfall (talk) 19:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Mrs. T is a great believer in Reliable Sources, unlike her husband. In this case all the sources call him either Rick Singer or William Rick Singer.[3] Only a few use quotes. So I think we shouldn't. (That's MRS. T if you don't mind; we third wives have our pride, you know.) -- MelanieN (talk) 20:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

He uses "Rick Singer" (no quotes, to be clear) on his books: [4] [5] [6]. It could go either way (quotes vs no quotes) but we will for sure need reliable sources to add the quotes or remove "William". - Paul^T+/_C 07:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Mr T. says "RELIABLE SOURCES!!??! I pity you fool!". NickCT (talk) 20:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

No, it's MRS. T that says "Reliable sources." MR. T says "FAKE NEWS!" -- MelanieN who is actually NOT Melania no matter what some people say (talk) 03:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

{Doth fair Lady protest too much? Hmmm, could she truly be that Mrs. T that some dare say she be? Alas; alack! More fool me! More fools be!} Lindenfall (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Not “alleged”

The scheme is not alleged. As the first sentence maintains.

It’s organizer has plead guilty.

As have others.

All that is alleged now is whether some other people who have been indicted but not yet not plead guilty or been found guilty were part of the very real scheme. --2604:2000:E010:1100:2025:BDFA:8908:9A1 (talk) 01:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree. The scheme took place, insofar as the organizer confessed to it. XavierItzm (talk) 09:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

While some have pleaded guilty, there are many that have not and it is still alleged with regard to their involvement (or not). I agree that at some point in the future, assuming the ADAs do their jobs and get legitimate convictions in the courts, it will make sense to remove the term, but as it stands right now the only people who have pled guilty are those that are cooperating with the prosecution to implicate others in exchange for some kind of lieniency at sentencing (AFAIK/have seen). - Paul^T+/_C 13:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The scheme took place. It is not alleged to have taken place. It is like a shooting: it took place. Now the shooter may be a suspect, and so should Wikipedia reflect it, but Wikipedia is generally smart enough to not have articles that say "an alleged shooting took place on Saturday, 12 March". XavierItzm (talk) 15:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I think the disputed sentence was removed and replaced with something that is generally more acceptable. This is the first paragraph currently:On March 12, 2019, United States federal prosecutors charged 50 people who were allegedly part of a scheme to influence admissions decisions at several American research universities. Wealthy parents of college applicants are accused of paying more than $25 million between 2011 and 2018 to a "college admissions counselor" who used the money to fake student test scores and bribe college officials.

I don't think you saying we should remove "allegedly" and "accused" there, right? I want to make sure we are talking about apples and apples, not apples and spaceships. Is there another place in the article that you think "alleged" (or a related/similar term) is used unnecessarily? - Paul^T+/_C 16:25, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time. I propose:

On March 12, 2019, United States federal prosecutors disclosed a conspiracy to influence admissions decisions at several American research universities, with at least 50 people alleged to have been part of it.  A number of parents of college applicants are accused of paying more than $25 million between 2011 and 2018 to a college admissions counselor who used part of the money to misrepresent student test scores and bribe college officials.

Cheers, XavierItzm (talk) 00:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

To me it just looks like you re-wrote the whole first paragraph. I think it is fine but I'm a little confused as to what changed in terms of "alleged" not being used properly? The only small change I would suggest is actually including Singer's name instead of (or maybe in addition to) "a college admissions counselor". Regardless, I don't see why you couldn't/shouldn't go ahead and make the change to the lede. - Paul^T+/_C 21:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I've implemented the change as agreed. The new text leaves no room for equivocation as to whether a scheme took place or not; what is alleged is not whether it did, but instead whether certain people, numbering 50, are allegedly individually guilty of being involved. I chose not to include Singer in the 1st para because he appears on the 2nd one. Thanks, XavierItzm (talk) 23:56, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Origins of the case

The article should answer, at least minimally, how did the FBI "stumble across" this scandal? How did the ball get rolling? What led to all of this? Do we know, yet? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

[7] Natureium (talk) 14:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. But, I cannot read that. It is blocked out. It says that I have to "subscribe", if I want to read it. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

We can see at least enough of it for a mention. And maybe someone who subscribes can expand it. IMO we should mention this. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

It looks like someone added this to the first section of the article. Very interesting. I'll have to find a way to read the full article. - Paul^T+/_C 19:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Psantora, I added a couple sentences of info from the WSJ article. Natureium (talk) 19:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2019

Add Robert Zangrillo to the article as he is one of the indicted https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-12/venture-capitalist-zangrillo-charged-in-college-admission-scheme 185.192.69.98 (talk) 14:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I am adding a link for Robert Zangrillo. It happens to be a red link. His firm is Dragon Global Management, also a red link. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't see this name added to the page, but unless the person is notable outside of this scandal in some way, I'd prefer not to include them here. Are there any other sources that name him? and any potential notability he may have? - Paul^T+/_C 19:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes he is notable outside of this scandal:

He is a big developer in Miami

https://therealdeal.com/miami/2018/12/04/cirque-du-soleil-co-founder-nabs-65m-loan-for-miami-properties/

https://miami.curbed.com/2016/11/30/13792996/magic-city-miami-little-haiti-innovation-district

https://www.bizjournals.com/southflorida/news/2018/02/09/magic-city-innovation-district-secures-initial.html

http://biscaynetimes.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2051:the-passing-of-a-neighborhood&catid=50:community-news&Itemid=258

https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/magic-city-innovation-district-developer-also-caught-in-college-bribery-case-11115477 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.52.210 (talk • contribs)

Consider creating a page about him, like someone did for Gamal Aziz in the section below using AfC and the associated help desk. There is even a Draft:Robert Zangrillo already started. - Paul^T+/_C 16:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I meant that I am adding the red link here, to the Talk Page. I added nothing to the article, about this. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I see. I apologize for any confusion. I also removed the bullet for Manuel Henriquez since he doesn't have sufficient notability. I don't see a Wikipedia page about him (and not the Mexican composer) or his (former) company Hercules Capital, despite allegedly paying to get his daughter into Georgetown...

Please see the discussion below regarding adding non-notable parents on this page. - Paul^T+/_C 21:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Both Zangrillo and Henriquez have been added to this list per that discussion. - Paul^T+/_C 18:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Adding non-notable names to the tables

There has been a tendency to only include independently notable parents that have been implicated (by verifiable and reliable sources) in the scandal, but this has not been the case with the university officials. I propose that, going forward, we include any name that is supported by verifiable and reliable sources. The only caveat is that there should be enough verifiable information about the non-notable parent to reasonably fill out a full row in the table. This way, all those indicted and involved in this case can be listed in one place. In theory, that would mean we could have 50 or so rows/names listed between the two tables. I think that is reasonably small as to not overwhelm the article. What do others think? Is this acceptable? Please discuss below. - Paul^T+/_C 21:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

It seems unfair to list the notable players, but not the non-notable players. It's as if the notable 5 or 6 people are shouldering all of the burden of the scandal, while the 44 or 45 non-notable people are remaining relatively anonymous and unscathed. Also, that gives a disproportionate and skewed view of the roles of the (relatively) "few" notable people. It's like the entire scandal centers around, say, Lori Loughlin and Felicity Huffman, when, in reality, there are 48 others who are equally -- if not more -- involved, yet simply less famous. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

It's a fair point, although there are relatively few WP:RS available in relation to non-notable people involved as the media reports invariably focus on the notable players. --Legis (talk - contribs) 11:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

True. But, here is one. It details the names -- and a short description -- of all 50 people indicted: Everyone Who Has Been Charged in the College Admissions Cheating Scandal. I assume that People Magazine is a reliable source. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 11:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

A similar list -- all 50 names, plus a short description -- from CBS news, also a reliable source: Every charge and accusation facing the parents in the college admissions scandal. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 12:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Good job - problem solved. Let's update accordingly. --Legis (talk - contribs) 19:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Someone should add the new names to the tables. I will try to start adding them. But, with tables, I usually find that one person should do the whole task. It seems to make it easier. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I can take a stab at doing this. I'll use both the CBS and People articles as sources for now, but does anyone know of a more direct source available from the indictment or court documents? It would be helpful to have a primary source in this case to ensure there are no errors since some of these people may not be as well-known as the ones currently listed. - Paul^T+/_C 15:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC) Found it [8]... - Paul^T+/_C 15:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done If someone could check to make sure I didn't break anything I would appreciate it. The sortnames still need to be populated for the parents and I'm considering breaking out the "indicted personnel" column into names and descriptions to match the "parents" table. See the below discussion for more on that suggestion. The descriptions could use some expansion as well as relevant references where possible. Thanks! - Paul^T+/_C 17:46, 22 March 2019 (UTC) Updated with link to discussion on tangential point so as not to distract from the topic of this section - adding non-notable names to the table(s). - Paul^T+/_C 18:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@Psantora: Thanks for all the work in adding the names ... and in improving the article. Thank you. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:09, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Indictment

Here is the indictment, all 204 pages of it: READ: The full indictment charging actors, CEOs and others in a nationwide college admission scheme. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:15, 23 March 2019 (UTC)