Talk:Press Your Luck scandal

"scandal"

At a recent discussion (Talk:Michael Larson#Requested move 22 March 2024), two of five participants disagreed with this title for this article. Of the twenty sources that discuss the Press Your Luck event, eleven refer to it as a scandal. On top of that, the Game Show Network documentary, arguably the most influential record of the incident, set the bar with calling it a scandal. Lastly, nobody had any other suggestions for better names derived from the reliable sources, so I've rebuilt it here. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 18:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this discussion has been duplicated below at #Separate articles. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 16:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Michael Larson (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Separate articles

The following is a closed discussion of an informal requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the informal move request was: no consensus. The request wasn't clear what needed closing, it seemed to be about the title of the article, so I've treated it as such. On the other hand, it might be a merge, but there are no merge tags or merge proposals. You need to be clear either, or both ways, I'd look at other merge and move proposals. Assuming it was about a move: the two camps are in equal numbers: 1 each. The burden, then, rests on supporters to make a strong argument to tip the discussion towards consensus in favor of the move.

Normally in a move discussion, there is a clear target. Here it appears to be Press Your Luck episode, May 19, 1984, but this needs to be clearly stated. The criteria at WP:AT are Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Concision, Consistency. Recognizability/WP:COMMONNAME is the dominant criteria for titles, and departure from it requires strong evidence/argument. Proposers would need to go through the criteria and show how the alternative title is better, particularly if it is not the COMMONNAME, or quantitatively show it is the COMMONNAME. WP:NPOVNAME could well apply here. There is no consensus on moving, or clear alternative title. For now, the title remains as is, Tom B (talk) 18:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

---

@Fourthords: Note that I've restored the Michael Larson article. Despite my strong disagreement with you on article titling, it is good to see that you've expanded the topic. I've added a merge tag to this article, but I'll just ask - does it make sense to have two separate articles here, i.e. is there content in this article you don't think would fit into the Michael Larson article? Or would just one article be better (which I think we both prefer, given you redirected Larson)?

As a note, even if it's decided to have two separate articles, this article should absolutely be retitled to something like "Press Your Luck episode, May 19, 1984". "Scandal" is a non-neutral term that is inaccurate that would only be applicable with an overwhelming WP:COMMONNAME argument - not merely "used sometimes" (which certainly happens) but "used all the time", which is IMO clearly not the case. SnowFire (talk) 14:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

When you undid the redirection of the Michael Larson page, you said, revert stealth copy & paste move that did not find consensus in a RM discussion. Nothing whatsoever was copied and pasted from that page. The content of this article was originally and entirely developed independently of the older page. Press Your Luck scandal was created from whole cloth, and then Michael Larson was turned into a redirect.

As I said when I redirected the Michael Larson page, that page was trying to make a biography for an individual who is notable for only one event. So I took the sources that were there, found more, and wrote this article about the whole event itself. That having been taken care of, I saw the only logical purpose of the older, less-sourced (and in places, uncited), over-detailed pseudo-biography was to be turned into a redirect. If you have a better purpose for that page (e.g. as a disambiguation page), I'm of course fine with that. It should not, however, be the target of a merge from this article.

As for this article's title, I addressed that in the already-begun discussion above. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

IMO, even if the article was truly developed in a vacuum, I'd have moved the old article anyway, as it's on the same topic (which, again, I think we agree on, given that you redirected the Larson article). This is what is done everywhere else on Wikipedia - if somebody totally rewrites the article on France from the ground-up, we just have a Really Big Edit in the log, we wouldn't do something like moving the old article elsewhere and creating a fresh "France" article with a blank edit history. That said, a moot point for now.

On article titling, this isn't something that a local consensus can overturn. WP:NPOV says "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." If there wasn't actually a scandal, then this article cannot be titled "scandal". If Larson was alive I'd have speedy moved it myself on WP:BLP grounds, but he isn't, so talking it out is fine... but one where I really think the current title cannot be sustained. Genuine cheating on a gameshow is theft, a criminal act. If you look at 1950s quiz show scandals, you'll see that a grand jury was actually impaneled and there were major repercussions (even if there were ultimately no indictments). For an over-dramatic example, we would never ever name something "John Doe robbery incident" if it turned out that no robbery happened. This would be true even if lazy journalists continued calling it a robbery even after it was shown that no such robbery happened. SnowFire (talk) 15:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Your tortured comparison to the "France" article notwithstanding, we aren't agreeing. I wasn't writing about Michael Larson; I was writing about the Press Your Luck scandal. I still don't know why you're advocating merging this article about said event into the once-and-future BIO1E. If there wasn't actually a scandal, then this article cannot be titled 'scandal'. The Boston Herald, Brian Brushwood, Canino, The Cincinnati Enquirer, the Dayton Daily News, Game Show Network, TV Series Finale, and Variety all refer to the events (not the documentary) as a scandal. Then we have Damn Interesting and This American Life both reporting that multiple other sources refer to the event as a scandal. In contrast, are we to cite User:SnowFire as the reliable source declaring this wasn't/isn't a scandal? I certainly wouldn't cite myself, but my reading of common definitions also finds the word duly applicable. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 16:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about the slow response. No need to go too deep on where edit history lies, I just picked a random other topic.

You keep citing BIO1E, but again, this is not some sort of absolute rule that one-event = non-notable. It means that the threshold for notability is higher. It is utterly trivial to find tens of thousands of biographies on Wikipedia of people notable for one event who are still independently notable, uncontroversially, if that one event was a big enough deal. Look at Category:Lottery winners for a few easy examples of random people plucked from obscurity by one notable event. The fact that you're citing that suggests that you think there is just a single topic here, though, meaning we need to pick a single title to put it at. IMO, that should be "Michael Larson", who was absolutely the focus of the event and the reason why it happened at all. The same as biographies of other notable gameshow contestants. So it sounds like we agree that the two articles should be merged, I'm just saying it should be at, well, "Michael Larson".

I've been very clear on why "scandal" is problematic. I also provided evidence in the previous RM that plenty of sources do not use the word "scandal" but do use "Michael Larson". Per WP:NPOVTITLE, the word "scandal" is directly referenced as a "non-neutral word that Wikipedia normally avoids" and gives the example of the Teapot Dome scandal where a COMMONNAME case for a non-neutral term is valid. I do not believe such a COMMONNAME case is made here since many of your own sources, per the previous RM discussion, do not necessarily use "scandal" as the title or reference the word once in passing. You're greatly overstating how common the word "scandal" is. Finally, we're allowed to use some common sense here. If you've read the sources, then you know that Larson, to state for like the zillionth time, did not actually cheat. If you agree with that fact... why are we calling this a scandal again? (And for that matter why is the lede bothering to play up Larson's troubled later life? Just bad implications?) SnowFire (talk) 21:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Michael Larson is only noteworthy in the context of this event. Of the 25 reliable sources in this article, only two mention Larson outside the larger context of Press Your Luck: the Social Security Administration database and the 1967 Lebanon High School yearbook. His presence here is entirely predicated on the larger event, and he does not meet any threshold of Wikipedia:Notability without it, making the scandal itself (background, participants, fallout, legacy, etc) the topic at hand. The existence of other questionable articles doesn't impact this discussion about this article. An article that's 89% about one event, and 11% otherwise about Larson, is still an article about the event, just unduly masquerading as a biography. This article was written from scratch to solve that problem (as well as issues related to Wikipedia:Summary style, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and more).

I've been very clear on why 'scandal' is problematic. Yes, you've been very clear that User:SnowFire says it isn't/wasn't a scandal. Per WP:NPOVTITLE "Sometimes that common name includes non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids. In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper name (and that proper name has become the common name), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue." Since the documentary, which was the first major piece to really comprehensively break down all aspects of the event, and supported in that name by the entity who owns the rights to all the original work therein, the proper name 'Press Your Luck scandal' (literally the subtitle) has become a standard. I've been through the sources cited here pretty thoroughly, and referring to the overarching event as a scandal has been the only naming commonality I've come across, and nobody else has found better, either. You're greatly overstating how common the word 'scandal' is. I'm not. I actually very-specifically named the sources that use that word in their reporting, as well as those which explicitly reported that the word's often used. It was in this edit. […] Larson, to state for like the zillionth time, did not actually cheat. If you agree with that fact... I don't have an opinion on whether he's considered to have cheated or not. The words 'cheat' and 'scandal' also aren't synonymous, so I'm not sure what conclusion you're drawing, instead. why are we calling this a scandal again? Because many of the cited sources do specifically, the documentary bearing that word is the most-publicized piece by which the event is known (and owned), it's accurately descriptive (again, by my reading of the definition at multiple dictionaries—including our own), and no better/more-prevalent descriptors have revealed themselves in reliable sources. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 01:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Reply - I have requested at WP:CR that this discussion be closed. After this time, I would like to have a formal discussion about whether Paul Michael Larson should be redirected or kept, as well as what the title of this page should be. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

As this isn't a formal discussion or process, I wouldn't think it needs any official closure, but I certainly don't object to such. …whether Paul Michael Larson should be redirected or kept The page Paul Michael Larson has been naught but a redirect since it was created 18.18 years ago; it's already "redirected", and being "kept" would still be a redirection. As for the title of this page, what other consistent name for the event have you found in reliable sources? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 21:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"ce"

I've undone a few of these edits by TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs). I'm worried that since my last edit summary wasn't clear enough, I might be minconstrued, so I'm just elaborating here.

• Since the owner of the actual episode explicitly and officially calls the event the "Press Your Luck scandal", and the documentary has further cemented that nomenclature, I replaced that formatting in the lead IAW MOS:BOLDLEAD.
• Per the allowance at MOS:PUNCTSPACE and MOS:VAR, I've replaced double-spacing after the full stops.
• I replaced "until a contestant pressed the button" with "until a contestant pressed their button" because I think each contestant had their own lectern and button, not a shared singular button for the whole game.
• Reliable sources Damn Interesting/TV Guide reported that Larson flew from Ohio to Hollywood. That's why I specifically called out how Larson told PYL producers that he 'rode the bus' because it's another falsehood he used to make himself an appealing contestant. None of the sources explicitly drew that connecting line, but I wanted to include those two clear points to allow readers to make their own inferences.
• I added that, according to the cited source, Carruthers was the co-creator, not sole.
• When our sources refer to "Whammy" in the plural, it was always pluralized as "[W/w]hammies" (Priceonomics, Damn Interesting, This American Life, TV Series Finale, TV Guide, Dayton Daily News, Variety) and never "Whammys". I've replaced the previous spelling IAW cited sources.

I really hope I've explained my edit properly and thoroughly enough to clarify that I'm not trying to ruffle feathers. Thanks, all, — Fourthords | =Λ= | 13:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 21 June 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 18:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

---

Press Your Luck scandal → Press Your Luck episode, May 19, 1984 – It has been debated whether the title should include the word "scandal". Jax 0677 (talk) 23:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 08:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• The Boston Herald, Brian Brushwood, Canino, The Cincinnati Enquirer, the Dayton Daily News, Game Show Network, TV Series Finale, and Variety all refer to the events (not the documentary) as a scandal; then we have Damn Interesting and This American Life both reporting that multiple other sources refer to the event as a scandal. WP:NPOVTITLE says, Sometimes that common name includes non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids. In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper name (and that proper name has become the common name), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue. Since the documentary, which was the first major piece to really comprehensively break down all aspects of the event, and supported in that name by the entity who owns the rights to all the original work therein, the proper name 'Press Your Luck scandal' (literally the subtitle) has become a standard. It's titled as it is because many of its cited sources do specifically, and the documentary bearing that specific title is the most-publicized piece by which the event is known (and owned), certainly more so than the episode's date of recording. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 23:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose: The title needs to identify what the article is about in an easily recognizable way. The suggested one doesn't do that. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:55, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support per previous comments and WP:NPOVTITLE. Without relitigating it all, scroll up, but fourthords evidence is far weaker than presented above - it's basically a word search for use of the word "scandal". Nobody contests that some sources use the word occasionally, but it's not the most common or majority way it's referred to. It's simply not true that this has "become a standard" at all, there are sources that discuss the matter without using the word scandal, and there are sources that fourtholds holds up as endorsing scandal that don't actually. Even if you could argue it is the majority title (which I do not grant at all), it needs to be the overwhelming majority title to have such an inaccurate POV name. It's simply not true that there was a scandal here. As a descriptive title, this would never fly - there was no scandal, there was no cheating at all. Michael Larson did something perfectly within the rules, he didn't lose his winnings, he wasn't prosecuted. "Scandal" is just hypey newspaper language & flashy titles for attention, which is exactly the thing Wikipedia should AVOID. Per above, we wouldn't call something the "John Doe burglary case" if no burglary happened and the sources agreed it didn't without an overwhelming COMMONNNAME argument, which is again just not true here. SnowFire (talk) 17:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  per previous comments and WP:NPOVTITLE First of all, the company that owns the episode and developed the documentary about it, named the event 'the Press Your Luck scandal'. That has been the only "single common name" of the events described. Secondly, that policy also says, "Sometimes that common name includes non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids […]. In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper name (and that proper name has become the common name), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue." The only common given descriptor of the overall events has been to refer to them as a scandal. fourthords evidence is far weaker than presented above - it's basically a word search for use of the word 'scandal'. I did list eight sources that simply refer to the overall events as having been a scandal (though some do so multiple times). Additionally, however, Damn Interesting and This American Life specifically reported that "[Larson's] shenanigans on Press Your Luck are oft described as a 'scam,' 'scandal,' or a 'cheat,'" and "They call what he did a scandal or a scam." These are sources saying that the PYL–Larson events are collectively referred to as a scandal, and no cited sources refer to the events by any other common moniker. Even if you could argue it is the majority title (which I do not grant at all), it needs to be the overwhelming majority title… I cannot find "overwhelming" listed as a requirement at Wikipedia:Article titles. …to have such an inaccurate POV name. It's simply not true that there was a scandal here. First of all, it is original research to rely on SnowFire's interpretation of 'scandal', and not the cited sources. Secondly, our own dictionary says that a scandal is "[a]n incident or event that disgraces or damages the reputation of the persons or organization involved." While my own interpretation holds no more weight than another pseudonymous contributor's in light of reliable sources, it seems to me that both Press Your Luck and CBS would meet this definition, given the sourced prose at #Fallout. there was no scandal, there was no cheating at all. Michael Larson did something perfectly within the rules, he didn't lose his winnings, he wasn't prosecuted. I cannot find a definition of the word 'scandal' that mentions or requires 'cheating', 'rules', 'loss', or 'prosecution' as a prerequisite to apply. 'Scandal' is just hypey newspaper language & flashy titles for attention This is again original research and assuming poor faith on many of our sources, but also isn't supported by Wikipedia:Article titles in the face of nonetheless being the predominant and only common descriptor of the event. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 21:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. As discussed, the most typical way of referring to this event in primary sources is as the "Press Your Luck scandal." This term is concise and widely recognized, capturing the essence of the event and its notoriety. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 07:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. This would be an inappropriate move. The article has significant context about the events leading up to and after the episode that the new name would be too narrow and limiting. I see that there is a reservation of using the word "scandal" in the community. If a better word applies to use in this page name, then I may not oppose a change. But this proposal both limits the scope of the content and does not include descriptive terms about the event other than an "episode". If anything, they could be separate pages named as-is. Shotgunheist ^💬 04:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. The proposed title doesn't describe the subject well. Policies on NPOV don't apply when there is little debate about the morality or "goodness" of this event. If Fourthords is correct, even the company at the heart of this scandal calls it a scandal. If there's only one side to the argument (the side that calls it a scandal), then "neutrality" would be WP:UNDUE. Toadspike [Talk] 13:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per the above discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 14:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

merge discussion

Liz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Larson with a determination to merge the page Michael Larson into this article, and discussion should be held here to decide how. This article has already used all of the reliable sources present at the Michael Larson page; if there's prose there that didn't make it here, it was either uncited or unsupported by the source cited. Does anybody see any specific sources or properly-cited prose there that should migrate here?

Secondly, the {{afd-merge from}} tag above says, "Do not remove this template after completing the merger. A bot will replace it with {{afd-merged-from}}." Does anyone know how we activate or summon that unspecified bot once we've determined what all, if anything, should be merged into this article? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 02:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)