Talk:Joe Paterno/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The final statement in the first paragraph which states "Despite the gravity of the charges neither Schultz, Curry, Paterno, or Mc Queary reported the allegation to the State Police" is not substaniated in either of the footnotes given. Other reports indicate the State Police were not contacted, but these reports are not referenced. Besides that it inaccurately presents what the sources say and implies as factual a responsibility for these men that is directly denied in one of the footnotes.

Footnote #39 has State Commissioner Frank Noonan's criticism but does not specifically state the State Police were not contacted not does it mention Schultz, Curry, or McQueary. It does mention Paterno, but in a manner that can be better interpreted than it is here which I will discuss later. Footnote #40 mentions Paterno was critised for not calling the police, but also does not mention Schultz, Curry, or McQueary, nor does it mention the State Police not being contacted. It says he was criticized for not contacting the police which generally means following up on the report McQueary made to the local police, not a report to the State Police. This reference does not even mention the State Police.

This statement as it is misrepresents what both of the articles say and cannot be supported by either footnote. It is a statement, for numerous reasons, that cannot be documented and should not be in the article. It implies a responsibility that might belong to Gary Schultz, but even this is not supported. There is no evidence in these articles these responsibilites apply to the other three and to say so misrepresents them as sources.

Which brings me to Commissioner Noonan's remarks. Here is the relevant quote from the article the author references;

---Paterno may have fulfilled his legal requirement to report suspected abuse by former assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky, state police Commissioner Frank Noonan said, "but somebody has to question about what I would consider the moral requirements for a human being that knows of sexual things that are taking place with a child."

He added: "I think you have the moral responsibility, anyone. Not whether you're a football coach or a university president or the guy sweeping the building. I think you have a moral responsibility to call us." ---

He begins talking about Joe Paterno's legal obligation and says Paterno met that obligation. He then begins to question a moral obligation about "a human being that knows of sexual things that are taking place with a child." Note he did not say "knew of sexual things ..." or "that took place wth a child", but spoke in the present tense. Then he said essentially everyone at the university has a responsibilty to call the State Police. No where else in the Commissioner's remarks is Paterno's name mentioned. Again, Schultz, Curry, and McQueary are not mentioned in this article.

I think the Commissioner started with the sense Paterno could have done more. Perhaps he was referring to following up on the progress of the report to the local police. Maybe asking Curry or Schultz what happened with the report. When he spoke in present tense it is clear he was responding to an active State Police investigation and placing a moral responsibility on people who know something to come forward. To read this statement otherwise is to misrepresent what the Commissioner said and what he meant.

Please rewrite this statement in a manner that better represents what the sources report.

DWright71.48.141.230 (talk) 00:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I feel need to add this statement violates two Wikkipedia polices: No original research and neutral point of view. It needs to be changed.

DWright71.48.141.230 (talk) 19:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I already responded to you a week ago regarding the same topic. I added a source that specifically says "Paterno did not face criminal charges for failing to notify police..." JoelWhy (talk) 19:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Joe - The reference you added mentions the police, not the state police. Paterno was critized for not going to the local police with what he heard from McQueary and was not charged for not going to the local police. Your statement says he, among others, did not contact the State Police which is an entirely different matter. I spent my entire adult life working in social work and have kept a close eye on this case and I think this statement not only can't be supported by the references, it does not show a clear understanding of the issues involved. I don't think you intend to misrepresent these references and issues. I don't think you understand them and are misrepresenting both out of this misunderstanding.

As to Paterno reporting to the local police; It is reasonable to think Paterno had every right to expect what he and McQueary said to Schultz would go to the local police with the jurisdiction in the case (the campus police) and that at least McQueary would be interviewed. We can discuss the substance of that controversy, whether or not Paterno should have recontacted Curry or Schultz, but I think we would run into a lot of conjecture with little documentation even though we may find some agreement about moral responsibility to attempt to follow up on the report to the local police. Not following up on the intial report to the local police however, is not the same thing as not reporting to the State Police.

As to the responsibility to report to the State Police; Federal law requires when local police encounter a charge of child sexual abuse or rape they must contact the State Police and ask for consultation. Penn State, in supervision of the campus police, is being investigated for this failure right now because; 1. There is no record of the campus police asking for consultation from the state police and, 2. There is no record of a campus investigation. We can make a case Schultz was responsible for reporting to the State Police as he was the Vice President in charge of the campus police. We cannot similarly paint Paterno or McQueary as it was not their legal responsibility and we have not shown they knew reporting to the State Police was a step in the investigation. If we cannot show this knowledge we cannot make the case for moral responsibility.

I think to paint Paterno as equally responsible to Schultz in not contacting the State Police is to take sides with those who want to place moral blame for the failure to investigate on Paterno while ignoring the legal and moral blame that may belong to Schultz and/or the campus police. McQueary testified to the Grand Jury he reported what he witnessed to the local police. Again, Federal law requires the campus police to contact the State Police on a report of child sexual abuse and there is no campus police report of the investigation or a report to the State Police. This points the finger squarely at the campus police and quite at possibly Schultz.

It says nothing about Paterno. It places no legal or moral responsibility on him nor does it show he knew he had that option. Moral failing requires one to know what could be done and not follow through. I've been through a ton this stuff about these Sandusky charges and nowhere does it say Paterno knew he could call the State Police and chose not to do so.

There is another piece that is generally misunderstood about this scandal. That is the responsibility of mandatory reporters. As a social worker I was a mandatory reporter since about 1985 and know a little bit about the requirements it places on those who are mandatory reporters and the training provided for this responsibility. Had Paterno been a mandatory reporter he would have known his obligation to go directly to the local police and known the role the State Police play in these investigations because he would have been required to attend training.

I checked the Pennsylvania laws on mandatory reporters. No one at Paterno's level or lower are mandatory reporters. The law does specifically say that school and university administrators are mandatory reporters. This is why Schultz and Curry are charged with failure to report as they did not follow through on their obiligation to report to the local police. Schultz may face an additional charge of not reporting to the State Police, but I have found little about the charges and evidence against them largely because of these misunderstandings in the law and the effort to place unexamined blame on Paterno.

Joe, Please recheck your references and rethink this statement.

DWright71.48.141.230 (talk) 00:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

It's very simple. Paterno did not contact the police. He was not legally required to contact the police. Was he morally obligated? That's a subjective question and readers can judge for themselves. End of story.JoelWhy (talk) 12:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Joe - I don't see you considering any of these points and altering the objectionable sentence. I agree the question of Paternos morality can be judged by the reader of this article. Right now I am concerned about the morality in the reporting of this article.

You make a statement that you have not properly referenced. I can copy and paste reference #40 for you as it is a very short article. It does not mention the State Police, Schultz, Curry, or McQueary and to use it to reference a statement they did not contact the State Police is a misrepresentation. Some may even call this reporting dishonest.

If you find a reputable primary source that says Joe Paterno, Schultz, etal, did not contact the State Police, I will drop the matter. I doubt you can find one, but I will agree it is possible you might and that it might take some time. Say about a week. If you have not found such a reference or changed this sentence in a week, then I think you will have violated two policies of Wikkipedia and would be continuing to do so despite consistent requests to not include original research and to take a neutral point of view. I will then follow the dispute process.

DWright71.48.141.230 (talk) 14:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I already provided you with a reputable source that states "Paterno did not face criminal charges for failing to notify police..." I am not going to search for a source that says he did not notify state police. I'm not going to look for one that says he didn't contact the county sheriff, the local police, the county police, or the campus police. The source says he didn't call the police'. If you have a reputable source that says he did call the state police, please add it to the article. JoelWhy? talk 15:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The headline for reference #40 does say JoePa does not face criminal charges for not reporting to the police. You may argue that the headline means he did not report to the State Police, but I believe a large majority of reasonable persons would disagree with you and say it is either unclear or refers to the local police. The following is the entire article that does not even repeat the statement in the headline;

I removed a

WP:COPYVIO - we cannot copy and paste large chunks of newspaper articles - see here for the original. Ruhrfisch _><>°^°

18:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I just removed a copyvio - the original article says in part "Paterno did not face criminal charges for failing to notify police after McQueary came to his home near the Penn State campus in 2002 and told him that he had seen Paterno's assistant and heir apparent Sandusky assaulting a child in a campus shower."[1] Read the whole article next time. This is not libel. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing complicated here. The article says "Paterno did not face criminal charges for failing to notify police." Therefore, that's what this Wiki article must say. End of story. But, if you want to go into trying to synthesize sources, let's just use some basic common sense. It is patently absurd to argue that he didn't contact local police, but may have contacted state police. To think that a football coach (or anyone) is responsible for determining jurisdiction of a crime, and could potentially face criminal charges for reporting an incident to campus police or state police or local police, when he should have contacted one of the other police entities is simply laughable. Let's make this perfectly clear. Paterno notified administrators within the school. HE DID NOT NOTIFY THE POLICE. NOT THE STATE POLICE, NOT THE LOCAL POLICE, AND NOT THE FASHION POLICE! Until you can find a source that says otherwise, stop perverting the article to comport with how you wish the world worked. JoelWhy? talk 18:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. This argument is nonsensical - it is well established that Paterno never contacted the police, so let's move on. Also, DWright, you repeatedly reference someone named "Tim Curry" in your posts. Tim Curry is an actor best known for his performance in The Rocky Horror Picture Show. Tim CURLEY is the former athletic director at Penn State who was fired, along with Joe Paterno and Graham Spanier, for his involvement in the Penn State sex scandal. 'kay?AVR2012 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I turned this over to dispute resolution.

DWright71.48.141.230 (talk) 19:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Sinebot - I did mistakenly refer to Tim Curley as Tim Curry. I accept your correction on the man's name and thank you for bringing that to my attention. This dispute is with Wikkipedia dispute resolution and I will not further comment on this dispute with you or others until it is resolved. I hope you understand.

DWrignt71.48.141.230 (talk) 19:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

Please note that per

Uh, weren't there 5 sources? Can't be BLP if there are multiple sources backing it up. Or am I missing something here?JOJ ^Hutton 19:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

This is utter nonsense. I'm not going to get into an edit war with this guy, but if someone wants to revert him again, please do. Otherwise, I'll just get admin involved. This is what happens when you have people who are blinded by bias on the subject of an article. I've said it before and I'll say it again -- if you're a fan of Paterno or you hate Paterno, you shouldn't be editing this article. JoelWhy? talk 19:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

For now, I've solved the BLP claim by limiting the statement to just Paterno (i.e. he's dead, no no BLP issue.) I've also requested admin's input on Guy's "argument." JoelWhy? talk 20:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Your wording ("Despite the gravity of allegations against Sandusky, Paterno did not notify state police") does not violate

WP:BLP

. Excellent short-term solution while we discuss this.

I would also note that JoelWhy has filed a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, which of course is fine. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

...aaaand it was closed by an administrator a whopping 22 minute later, thus saving JoelWhy from getting an education on the subject of

WP:BOOMERANG. --Guy Macon (talk

) 22:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

We have no citation that establishes as a fact that Mike McQueary failed to notify the police or that we should present it as an established fact in Wikipedia's voice. If anyone claims that I am wrong, ask them for the citation and check it yourself. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but Guy may have a point. I think you went about this the wrong way, Guy, especially given the problematic history of this page -- a ton of Paterno-fans have tried removing well-sourced references that state Paterno didn't call police (a fact not even Paterno disputed!) So, I assumed you were making these edits in bad faith, trying to protect Paterno, but I see I was wrong and I apologize. I would have to go back and research what you're saying, as I really haven't been closely following the news on this. But, if the subject disputes the assertion, that does make a huge difference. JoelWhy? talk 23:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

JoelWhy, given your behavior towards me and your repeated claims that something was in the sources which is not -- apparently without checking the sources yourself -- do you have something you would like to say to me?

BTW, the "way I went about this" was based upon the advice of the other Mediators at

duty to remove the BLP violation myself. Also, Paterno fans don't as a general rule, start off by saying "I am a clerk/mediator at Wikipedia's Dispute Resolution Noticeboard". I didn't come to this page, but rather an editor from this page came to the noticeboard where I mediate asking for help. --Guy Macon (talk

) 07:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I just apologized to you. I admitted I was wrong and that I misunderstood your intentions. What more do you want? What I mean by the way you went about things, is that another editor has repeatedly tried to remove this very same language based on a completely different theory (i.e. the source says Paterno didn't go to the police; but the source doesn't say he didn't go to the state police, therefore he may still have gone to the police.) This argument was absurd, but he kept making it over and over again, insisting that the statement be removed. When you came in and removed the same sentence based on a different line of argument, it looked to me (and, apparently, other editors of this page) that it was just another editor looking to preserve the memory of Paterno. Until you provided the explanation above, I legitimately did not think you were editing in good faith. After your explanation, I realized that I was mistaken, your reasoning was sound, and I reversed my position. Isn't that what people are supposed to do when they realize they are mistaken? JoelWhy? talk 11:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

This article says that McQueary "never went to police on his own." if that's what is being disputed here. As for "failing" to notify police, I'm not sure if that's the same thing. --Jtalledo (talk) 23:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

That article was published today, and was not among the five citations that those who have violated

WP:BLP

falsely said supports their claim, so of course it was not a factor in my decision. All I have ever asked is for the citations to support the claims in the article and for the article to accurately reflect the sources. If this new source supports the claims, put them back in.

Lower in the article it says that McQueary never went to police on his own, but instead believed Schultz (the head of the University Police Department) "was like a district attorney." If someone wants to put that in the article, that would be fine, but I don't think that this new citation justifies a bare "he never talked to the police" claim in Wikipedia's voice with no mention of the fact that he he says that he thought he had gone to the police. I personally would be really pissed off if I reported some abuse directly to the head of campus police and later saw that Wikipedia says I never reported it with no explanation. --Guy Macon (talk)

The article now says "Despite the gravity of allegations against Sandusky, Paterno did not notify state police", which is fully supported by the sources. However, there are five citations (45 through 49) at the end of that sentence, some of which are unrelated to the text they are attached to.

Given recent experiences here, I would very much appreciate it if certain editors would take the time to actually read the citations before firing up the flamethrowers.

The cites are:

Cite 45 ("Police official: Paterno didn't do enough to stop abuse") fully supports the statement is attached to.

Cite 46 ("JoePa: A look back at the sex abuse scandal") fully supports the statement is attached to.

Cite 47 ("Former Penn State coach Joe Paterno's full grand jury testimony on Jerry Sandusky sex-abuse case read into the record at hearing") does not actually say that Paterno did not call the police. It does say that he did the right thing by alerting his superiors, which sort of implies that he didn't alert the police, but we already have cites 45 and 46 directly saying that.

Cite 48 ("Penn State coach Paterno praised for acting appropriately in reporting Jerry Sandusky sex abuse suspicions") also does not actually say that Paterno did not call the police. Instead it has the Attorney General praising Paterno for doing the right thing by reporting it without specifying who he reported it to.

Cite 49 ("Questions mount about Mike McQueary's account of the locker room sexual assault") Does not mention Paterno except in passing ("scandal that cost Joe Paterno [his] job").

I am going to delete citations 47, 48, and 49 as not supporting the statement they are attached to. If someone wants to put 47 back (See

Wikipedia:No legal threats says, in part:

"If you make legal threats or take legal action over a Wikipedia dispute, you may be blocked from editing so that the matter is not exacerbated through other channels. Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing while legal threats are outstanding."

I and other Wikipedia editors have recently deleted several legal threats, both here and at

"The statement I find objectionable is potentially libelous and by Wikkipedia policy, stated on other biographies of living persons, should taken down immediately. Take it down today or I will take this a step further."

This sort of legal threat is not allowed on Wikipedia. All editors are reminded to phrase their comments without words such as "libelous", "lawsuit", "seek relief", "legal action", etc. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

If anyone needs a bad example not to follow, look here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive756#Legal threats from IP. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Given that many Americans had never heard of Paterno until the Sandusky scandal broke, and the Sandusky scandal has now made him a household name, it could be well argued that his involvement in the sandusky scandal is not only clearly not

Actually, I think the inverse is true. Paterno was already a well known figure, which is precisely why most of the media coverage focused on him, not on Sandusky, Curley, Schultz and other responsible parties. There's no reason the section should be that long, especially since there's already an entire article dedicated to the scandal. --Jtalledo (talk) 05:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

perhaps known to fans of college football. His media coverage in the scandal has made him much more widely known than he was before the scandal. Outside of the US no one had heard of him, and this is no longer the case. Claiming his fame before the scandal was grater than the fame he gained after the scandal is America centric jingoistic thought at it's worst.

That would be the most concise argument.

However, as an american, I can say that I certainly never heard of him prior to the scandal. Nor had pretty much anyone I know. I sure to american football fanatics, he is well known. Anectdotal I know, but, most of my friends, many of whom are football fans, never heard of the guy prior to the scandal. Now everyone knows who he is. You'd probably be shocked to learn that most people I know also know only Vince Lombardi as the guy they named that rest stop on the New Jersey turnpike after. I happen to know he had sumpthin or other to do with football because one day out of curiosity i googled him.

Not everyone, or even most people, are football fanatics. When one considers that almost everyone outside the US knows next to nothing about american football, and that the press coverage has been worldwide, i just can't see how you would think your claim holds up.

Rightly or wrongly, regardless of what happens on wikipedia, and regardless of how you or I feel about it, this is now his main claim to fame and what history will remember him for. Snertking (talk) 08:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Look back at the reply. I never claimed that he was more famous before the scandal. I certainly never claimed that people around the world knew the man either. I asserted that he was already well known before it all, which is true. And you could argue that a lot of people still don't know the guy's name but know about the scandal itself. As for that last bit, that does sound like a

crystal ball. --Jtalledo (talk)

10:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The argument is not simply that he is more famous, the argument is that where MOST of his fame derives. I would argue that MOST folks who know his name know it from the scandal. The assertions about the scandal being his main legacy are perhaps divination on my part, so i would be satisfied if we give it the test of time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snertking (talk • contribs) 20:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, let's just how it plays out. I've not edited the section to address the tag, so we'll see what other folks think. --Jtalledo (talk) 21:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Just a note from an RC patroller that has no horse in this race. I just reverted a blanking of the entire section by an IP editor. Just put it back, don't care at all about the disputes here. That is for you all to figure out.

Heh, I was about to revert but you beat me to it. I'd stick with your not caring about the dispute, much less stressful. Whether we figure it out is another question. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 22:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't we have multiple writers' views on this, and not just those of Sally Jenkins? Her take on Paterno was considerably more sympathetic than many others'. Also, we need to update this section in light of the new e-mail stories, which raise questions about Paterno's involvement in a possible cover-up. 71.205.174.204 (talk) 03:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I doubt we even need a whole section. It could just be a paragraph summarizing a few noted authors' reactions. --Jtalledo (talk) 11:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Did I miss something in the article? Why is this a part of the

Paterno co-authored a children's book with his wife: Joe Paterno#Personal life. --Jtalledo (talk) 10:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing there will probably be some back and forth over the purported e-mails between Spanier et. al but it seems a bit early to add that stuff to the article. As yet, none of the e-mails were sent by Paterno, instead we have Curley claiming that he spoke with Paterno, which isn't reliable. --Jtalledo (talk) 15:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Then why is the material now in the article? I have removed it pending discussion here as to whether it's appropriate to use. At this point, I'm taking the position that Paterno qualifies as a "recently deceased" person under

WP:BLP (I don't know if that's ever been quantified).--Bbb23 (talk

) 13:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Dunno. On one hand, it's seen coverage from major media outlets that have fueled the speculation. But on the other, it's just that, speculation. The full text of the e-mail has not been released. The exact nature of the purported discussion between Curley and Paterno is not known. And as such, the influence Paterno had on the decision, if any is unclear as well.

I do understand the argument that

WP:BDP applies here since living people are still affected and some of Paterno's familiar relations are minor public figures. --Jtalledo (talk)

15:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I think we're pretty much in agreement on the problems associated with inclusion of the material. Reporting negative, inconclusive, and speculative information in an article still covered by BLP policy would be impermissible.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

It is in the best of sources (CSM, CNN, NYT etc). And without it we have only this implausible "he didn't know, he was just a feeble old man" whitewash that completely violates

WP:NPOV. —David Eppstein (talk

) 17:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

It was wrong of you to reinstate the material without further discussion. And your comments otherwise are inappropriate and offensive. To the extent it's relevant, I would favor removing the Sally Jenkins material as well. I don't see why the opinions of journalists that Paterno got a raw deal should be included.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:51, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

If the recent emails are excluded on the grounds that the connection to Paterno is too speculative, then certainly the Jenkins piece must go; it is even more so. As for "reinstating without further discussion": this is the further discussion, and I did contribute here at the same time as reinstating. And I believe it was wrong of you to (twice) revert to a version that so blatantly violated

WP:NPOV. —David Eppstein (talk

) 20:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

My first revert was based on the sourcing, so your statement is at best misleading. Posting a comment here about your view and then unilaterally implementing your view is hardly "discussion". Putting aside our continuing spat, what is your view of the current state of the article with both parts removed?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

There's more material here of questionable value here: the part about the crowds gathering in support of Paterno, and the details of how he was notified of his firing. I think we'd be better off omitting those as well, not because they are in any way speculative but merely because they are insufficiently relevant. That said, I think the current focus on verifiable facts is an improvement over including any non-factual speculation about Paterno's mental state. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion at

Yeah, I don't think the Sally Jenkins stuff should be included either. The section should focus on what Paterno was verified to actually have done or not done (e.g. what he admitted doing, etc.), not what other people think he did/might've done, should've done, what his frame of mind was and so on. And while the sources are reliable, they are reporting on speculation at this point. It would be wise to wait until the actual e-mails surface, more details about what he said to Curley emerge and actual facts about how involved he was in the decision making are reported. --Jtalledo (talk) 18:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I was all set to disagree with excluding edits based on the recent news reports, but having looked at the text in question and the sources, I agree that it should not be included at this stage. The CNN report is quite explicit: "It's not known what Paterno may have said to Curley." If it becomes known, then we can revisit. But at this point it seems inappropriate to include a necessarily speculative passage. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

This is an update of where we are as there hasn't been a great deal of discussion at BLPN or here. Collect removed the e-mail material, and Nomosk removed the Jenkins material. At this juncture, my position is that this is the correct result. David hasn't weighed in here or at BLPN.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree with excluding the "emails" given that none were actually produced at this point - someone "read" them to CNN. That being said, a verifiable email exchange between Curley, Spanier, et al. is no longer speculative once they are produced/released and should be included if they are pertinent to the Paterno story. One note of caution - it is incorrect to state (as Jtalledo does above) that only information regarding what Paterno "admitted to" can be included in the article (the article on Jerry Sandusky would never reflect the fact that he was a child sex abuser if it only included what he "admitted to.") Anyway, this point hardly needs to be clarified. So long as the emails are properly sourced once released, they should be included.AVR2012 (talk) 18:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Err... never said that only what he admitted doing should included. I was using it as a non-exhaustive example (ergo the

e.g.) --Jtalledo (talk)

21:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that NPOV needs to be applied, but I caution against a blanket policy that only verified actions of Paterno should be mentioned. The weight of public perception at some point needs to be in this article to interpret the weight and impact of his actions. As Wikipedia:Describing points of view puts it, "Hard facts are really rare. What we most commonly encounter are opinions from people (POVs). Inherently, because of this, most articles on Wikipedia are full of POVs. An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the major, verifiable points of view will – by definition – be in accordance with Wikipedia's NPOV policy." It's reasonable to wait for the emails to be potentially released if that is the consensus, but there is nothing inherently wrong with opinions either if due weight is given.—Bagumba (talk) 19:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, yeah, there should be points of view as long as they're from reliable sources. The only concern I'd have is having a ridiculous amount of back and forth, "he said, but she said..." sorts of stuff. But yes, as long it doesn't becoming a

WP:COATRACK, then mentioning some commentary would be good. --Jtalledo (talk)

21:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the senators involved simply said that they are resciding their support in light of recent events in State College. (See citation in the article.) The representative involved noted only that the nomination would serve as a distraction. (See http://thompson.house.gov/press-release/thompson-presidential-medal-freedom-nomination) They never made any statement as to whether or not they thought Paterno was involved in the scandal.

Using the phrase "in light of Paterno's purported involvement with the Sandusky child abuse scandal" makes inferences about the intent behind the two decisions that were never articulated by the Big Ten nor the congressmen. The part about "Paterno's purported involvement" should be removed. Perhaps it should say "in light of the Sandusky child abuse scandal at Penn State." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srj4000 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

You have a point that the withdrawers don't seem to comment on Paterno directly. The problem is the current presentation in the WP article. It mentions the scandal in the lead, without details yet. That is fine. Then in the awards section it says these awards are being taken away. The reader needs to be able to understand events that have occurred beforehand to make sense of the rescinded honors, with care to not incorrectly attribute "involvement" where it is not made.—Bagumba (talk) 21:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The part about the Maxwell Football Club's award is handled appropriately in the article when it says that the award was discontinued "following the breaking of the Penn State sex abuse scandal" with a link to the Wikipedia article. When it comes to the Big Ten trophy and Presidential Medal of Freedom, however, Sandusky is mentioned for the first time before his full name is even mentioned in the section below titled "Sandusky scandal and dismissal." Whether it is referred to as the Sandusky scandal or the Penn State scandal, either way, the part about Paterno's purported involvement being cited as a reason for withdrawing the awards must be removed. Can someone remove that please? Srj4000 (talk) 14:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

In light of the investigation results revealed July 12, and out of respect for the victimized children, in my opinion the statement in the article: "His emphasis on ethics and moral conduct and his philosophy on football, to meld athletics and academics, were signatures of his coaching style." is no longer a generally accepted opinion. I believe this statement should be removed immediately.

Subject to the reaction to the investigation by Penn State, the police, and the general public, as a means to gauge the legitimacy of the investigation, and subject to any other future findings that might refute or warrant revision to the investigation, if this investigation is generally accepted to be accurate, I believe the numerous accolades detailed in the article should be considered as forfeited, and all references to awards, etc. should be removed from the article, because, except for murder, I believe their is no more heinous crime than child abuse by an adult. The preservation of money, power and prestige placed above the responsibility of stopping child abuse, and/or the concept that the law doesn't apply to a criminal if the criminal is my friend, are validated if article keeps any positive accolades. If fame was achieved without respect or empathy for the weak, the fame must be taken away to preserve moral priorities. Jleot (talk) 23:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia only relays what reliable sources state as fact. Awards which are retracted will get labelled so, but Wikipedia does not have authority to remove them. Cheers Collect (talk) 11:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with User:Collect. Regardless of what one thinks of Joe Paterno's conduct or his role in the sex abuse scandal, the fact is that during his lifetime, he earned many awards and honors. He was also respected for "his emphasis on ethics and moral conduct and his philosophy on football," which can be substantiated throughout the article. Once statements to the contrary that are reliable are found, I am sure they will be added to the article and the article revised and sourced accordingly. In addition, until the honors and awards are actually withdrawn, forfeited, etc., they need to remain in the article; if and when they are withdrawn, then I am sure notations to the fact will be made (e.g., "College Football Hall of Fame – delisted on (date and reason)") along with proper sourcing. I agree the Freeh report is very emotional and revealing. But as this – the Joe Paterno article – is a Wikipedia article, the rules remain the same for everyone, per

WP:BLP. No matter what your opinion is of him, we need to respect Wikipedia's rules when it comes to the article. Outside of that is a different matter. [[Briguy52748 (talk

) 22:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)]]

Not to mention misuse of the source to make claims not in the source. I found it better to cut to the basic facts presented - that he sought renegotiation in January 2011, the same month the investigation started. Collect (talk) 14:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I rewrote the section on Golden Parachute etc. to include precise and exact quotes from the NY Times article documenting how Mr. Paterno and his family vigorously and aggressively sought and ultimately demanded a $5.5 million payout to receive money and benefits, before the results of the Sandusky investigation and prosecution could become public. The NY Times article's title, the timing of Paterno and family demands, and results from the independent commission's findings say it all: Paterno Won Sweeter Deal Even as Scandal Played Out.

Paterno's unexpected $5.5 million payout demand to resign early, timed precisely with Paterno learning of the Sandusky investigation, is substantial and worthy of inclusion in characterizing the facts of Joe Paterno's actions and Paterno's family's actions in response to the burgeoning Sandusky ~ Penn State football ~ sex scandal.

The old maxims of "follow the money" and "money talks" speak loudly about how Paterno acted when faced with scrutiny of the Penn State football program, and scrutiny of Paterno's, the AD's, and Penn State Administrator's past coverups documented by the independent commission and as reported by the NY Times. The Good Doctor Fry (talk) 19:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

It appears that Joe-Pa fans do not like the facts as reported by the NY Times. The section recently deleted, leaves the article missing key facts of the whole story: " After Mr. Paterno’s death in January 2012, Mr. Paterno’s family, lawyers and publicists conducted "an aggressive campaign to protect his legacy". "The family and its lawyers have hammered the university’s board of trustees, accusing members of attempting to deflect blame ". In contrast to Paterno family efforts, the independent investigation headed by Louis B. Freeh asserted: "Mr. Paterno and other top university officials protected a serial predator in order to “avoid the consequences of bad publicity” for the university, its football program and its coach’s reputation."

The last quotation reporting factual findings that Paterno protected a serial predator to avoid bad publicity, seems to fully report key facts that characterize the last 10 years of Paterno's professional activities. Partial Wiki articles, edited to shade the facts and deleting key facts that show Paterno was human, fit with Paterno suddenly personally seeking an early $5.5 million package buyout for him to leave Penn State, before his coverup of sex scandal facts was made public.

Paterno continued his negotiations from Jan. 2011 through the summer of 2011, so, there was NO "about" the same time, as wiki editors have proposed. The negotiations occurred at exactly the same time period as the investigations occurred.The Good Doctor Fry (talk) 20:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I deleted that last line per

assume good faith. --Jtalledo (talk)

20:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Added missing section describing Paterno-related findings of the independent commission report describing how Penn State "Head Football Coach Joseph V. Paterno - failed to protect against a child sexual predator harming children for over a decade." and that Joe Paterno "repeatedly concealed critical facts" relating to assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky’s child sex abuse from authorities, according to an independent commission headed by former federal judge and FBI Director, Louis J. Freeh. [1]

To be representative, factual, and report significant public findings about Joe Paterno's performance and actions at key times during his tenure: the Wikipedia Joe-Pa article should document that "in order to avoid the consequences of bad publicity, the most powerful leaders of (Penn State) University - (specifically citing) Paterno - repeatedly concealed critical facts relating to Sandusky's child abuse from the authorities, and that The avoidance of the consequences of the bad publicity is the most significant ... cause for this failure to protect child victims". ^[2]

Previous removal of this key information was justified by using a NY Times reference that further referred to the original report. The current version directly references the original report, eliminating the prior double reference.The Good Doctor Fry (talk) 21:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't the NYT reference be more suitable since it is a reliable secondary source (apart from the primary source of the Freeh Report)? Please see

WP:PRIMARY.Redredryder (talk

) 00:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Restoring the lead as it is clearly supported by the citations, e.g., the NYT On 1-19-2012:

"Surma announced that an agreement appeared to have been reached to fire Paterno, too — the trustees having determined that he had failed to take adequate action when he was told that one of his longtime assistants had been seen molesting a 10-year-old boy in Paterno’s football facility. ... The trustees also laid out what they said were three key reasons for firing Paterno: his failure to do more when told about the suspected sexual assault in 2002; what they regarded as his questioning of the board’s authority in the days after Sandusky’s arrest; and what they determined to be his inability to effectively continue coaching in the face of continuing questions surrounding the program."

I'll add this additional citation, but they all say the same thing: Paterno was fired for failing to protect children from sexual abuse by his coaching staff. Histopher Critchens (talk) 09:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Retain counsel now! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.65.136.55 (talk) 15:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:No legal threats Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Addition that mentions an overturn in Mohamed bin Hammam's ban seems to border on

Agreed - the source cited in this article made no mention of the Penn State investigation at all. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I removed it after reviewing the source: the edit was a kind of synthesis that had nothing to do with the Penn State report, and the source made no mention at all of PSU, and only passing reference to Freeh's firm. Acroterion (talk) 20:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The last two paragraphs in this section talk about Paterno's coaching struggles in the last years of his coaching career. I think these paragraphs are in the wrong section. They should be moved to another section, like "Coaching History". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.156.159.10 (talk) 15:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I put them back in the first part of the section. --Jtalledo (talk) 17:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

This section states, "Paterno's abbreviated 2011 season was his 62nd on the Penn State coaching staff, which gave him the record for most seasons for any football coach at any university." This statement needs further clarification. The wording needs to be changed to state, "Paterno's abbreviated 2011 season was his 62nd on the Penn State coaching staff, which gave him the record for most seasons for any football coach at a single university." This is an incredible record. However, John Gagliardi, coach at Division III school St. John's University, had 63 years of coaching, as of 2011, when you include all the schools he coached at. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.156.159.10 (talk) 16:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Changed it. --Jtalledo (talk) 17:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

There's now a statement in the opening paragraph that the Freeh report found Paterno "guilty of an organized conspiracy," which is a not contained anywhere in the Freeh report. This is legal conclusion that also has no support in any articles or any other news sources or commentary. This phrase should be removed. Only a judge or a jury can make such a determination.Srj4000 (talk) 05:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

OMG--have you even READ the report? Paterno's guilt in covering up

WP:NPOV. If he was innocent, why did the NCAA dole out such harsh punishment on PSU, mmm? Please stick to the facts when you edit. Qworty (talk

) 05:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

You should also think long and hard about the following: According to the quite successful prosecution of Sandusky, these were the crimes that Joe Paterno believed were less important than the silly and meaningless game of football: 'Involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, indecent assault, criminal intent to commit indecent assault, unlawful contact with minors, corruption of minors, endangering welfare of children.' That is what you are defending by trying to whitewash this. Qworty (talk) 05:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Look, this is veering pretty close to

not a forum - our own interpretations of Paterno's behavior get us no closer to improving the article or settling the dispute here. --Jtalledo (talk)

14:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Nowhere in the report is there a reference to "organized conspiracy." Please state the page number of the report or the source you are using to come to this conclusion or revise the Wikipedia article to remove your personal interpretation. Also, the use of the term "child rape" is not accurate. According to the court records, the 2001 incident involving "Victim 2" resulted in a guilty verdict for Count 8 "Indecent assault", Count 9 "Unlawful contact with minors", Count 10 "Corruption of minors", and Count 11 "Endangering welfare of children." Sandusky was found not guilty of Count 7 "Involuntary deviate sexual intercourse" with regard to the shower incident reported to Paterno in 2001. See "The jury found Sandusky not guilty of three sex abuse crimes, including the alleged rape of Victim 2, the boy assistant coach Mike McQueary said he saw being raped by Sandusky in a Penn State locker room shower in 2001." from http://abcnews.go.com/US/jerry-sandusky-found-guilty-45-48-sex-abuse/story?id=16623842#.UA6mCdVvyoo and http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/06/jerry_sandusky_verdict_complet.html Please stick with facts and the language from official and reliable sources.Srj4000 (talk) 13:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I have gone to far as to remove the term 'conspiracy', and replaced it with '

complicit', which Paterno was undoubtedly in relation to Sandusky's crimes. I'm frankly appalled, though, that anyone can take exception to the description of Sandusky's actions as 'rape': he most certainly committed at the very least statutory rape, and certainly committed rape in the sense that the boys he so forced himself upon did not want him to do so. Alfietucker (talk

) 14:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The article now reads that Paterno was "complicit in Sandusky's sexual crimes against several young boys," which suggests that Paterno was participating in the actual sexual acts. By saying "several" it also suggests that he was complicit in more than (1) the 2001 incident that was reported to him and (2) the investigated 1998 incident that he denied having knowledge of but for which there are now emails to suggest he may have known about the investigation. (That's two incidents, not several.) Since the sentence in the Wikipedia article begins with a statement that the conclusions of the actual Freeh report will be noted, it would be best to use language from the actual report on page 16, which finds that Paterno, along with other university officials, "repeatedly concealed critical facts relating to Sandusky's child abuse from authorities, the University's Board of Trustees, the Penn State community, and the public at large." There is no need to inject personal interpretation into the article when language from the actual report can be used to explain what is actually in the report. Srj4000 (talk) 14:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no case to answer here. 1) "complicit" does not mean "Paterno was participating in the actual sexual acts" - merely that he was aware of Sandusky molesting boys and did not report it to appropriate authorities (check the link!); 2) "several" here refers to the series (far more than two) of crimes committed by Sandusky, enabled by Paterno's complicity. I suggest you check definitions more carefully. Alfietucker (talk) 15:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It could be argued that Paterno was "complicit" in concealing facts, but inaccurate to say he was complicit in Sandusky's crimes. As for several, there is no evidence in the report to suggest that Paterno knew about more than 2 incidents. What is the point of trying to figure out different ways of saying what ocurred when the actual Freeh report can be quoted directly? The sentence begins by saying that it will tell readers what is in the Freeh report. What is the objection to using the actual report language? Srj4000 (talk) 15:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Srj, this is about the 10th time you've advocated for referencing the report directly. You need to familiarize yourself with Wiki policy before you start making suggestions on how to frame an article. In particular, you need to review

WP:PRIMARY. JoelWhy?(talk

) 15:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you JoelWhy for the link. I would like to point out that there are no secondary sources for Paterno's complicity in Sandusky's crimes - that is only an opinion/interpretation reached by Alfietucker after reading a Wikipedia article on the word complicit. The complicity purported to be in the report is in regard to concealing facts. Please revise the sentence to remove personal interpretations of what is in the Freeh report unless an actual reliable secondary source can be cited for this legal conclusion. Srj4000 (talk) 15:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

That may be the case, I really haven't looked too closely at the details. I do get the impression that some people are trying to 'pile on' to Paterno, perhaps without the proper citations to reference his claims. But, I haven't really dug through all the sources to know for sure. In any case, the guy clearly thought football was more important than stopping a child rapist. That's going to be the central message of this Wiki article -- does anyone really think it's going to matter to the overwhelming majority of readers whether it was twice or 'several' times? Or, if some of his football wins count or not? I think most people see "child rape" and dismiss everything else as virtually irrelevant (and, rightfully so!) I'm not saying we shouldn't be as accurate as possible here -- I'm just saying that trying to cherry-pick language from secondary sources to try to paint everything in the most negative light possible is superfluous. JoelWhy?(talk) 15:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

There should be no effort to support Paterno or to make claims about him that are unsupported by primary or secondary sources. The article should be unbiased, objective, and factual. It should not include opinions or interpretations. Srj4000 (talk) 16:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

With regard to conspiracy/complicity/aiding/abetting etc., please refer to Freeh's response to the question at 21:30 of the press conference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVcZo15-jOM "Those are all legal conclusions which I'm not prepared to make. The evidence clearly shows, in our view, an active agreement to conceal and I think it would be up to a grand jury and a law enforcement officer to make decisions on whether it meets the elements of criminal offenses." Srj4000 (talk) 16:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

You just love those primary sources. You might want to try overcoming that passion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

"An active agreement to conceal" = "an organized conspiracy." Qworty (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: conspiracy - I'm not saying that your conclusion is right or wrong. But the Wikipedia article should state facts and not draw personal conclusions that do not have support from other sources. Re: complicity - Wikipedia should not state that he was complicity in Sandusky's crimes (he was not complicit in the actual acts of sexual abuse), the secondary sources only indicate "complicity" in concealing facts. Re: several - the report and the secondary sources only suggest concealment of 2001 and not being truthful in how much he knew about an investigation in 1998 (that's 2 indicents, not several). The article can be written more accurately to account for any changing circumstances by just saying he was "involved in concealing facts related to Sandusky's child sex abuse" without getting into details about exactly 2, a couple, few, or several. Srj4000 (talk) 17:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Srj, claiming that 'several' referred to how many acts Paterno knowingly covered is raising a straw man: as I clearly explained (and I thought was quite clear from the edit you're referring to) the 'several' referred to the crimes committed by Sandusky - which, as has been said by several sources, were enabled by Paterno's failure (to say the least) to have Sandusky reported to the proper authorities. I'm not sure how I can explain this to you more clearly. Alfietucker (talk) 17:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

But the sentence does not say that concealing the 2001 incident enabled Sandusky to sexually abuse several more children. It currently says "Paterno played a key role in concealing Sandusky's sexual crimes against several young boys." It's fair to say that the fact that the information was not reported enabled Sandusky to continue abusing additional children, but you cannot say that the abuse against the additional children was concealed. Srj4000 (talk) 05:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but it seems clear to me that you're now quibbling. Paterno effectively not only closed the door to having Sandusky's crimes investigated by not having them reported, but actively leaned against it when there was a real possibility that Sandusky would be actually reported. He may not have known quite how many boys Sandusky molested, but he knew enough to realise (to put it as neutrally as possible) how at risk all those boys under Sandusky's supervision were. Alfietucker (talk) 07:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

In the lead, it creates undue weight to speak first of his great coaching career, while burying the sex abuse scandal in a paragraph further down. The majority of

I completely disagree. If anything, pushing the sex abuse case paragraph 2nd violates

WP:RECENTISM. To understand why this scandal was so important in his life, you first need to understand that he became this larger than life figure in coaching 40+ years, only to have a fall from grace. Not to mention it makes most sense to discuss his life and career in chronological order. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions

) 20:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Y2k, are you going to heed the 3RR notice I left for you? Qworty, I haven't checked, but I wonder if you need to slow down as well. On edit: the answer is yes -- you, too, have exceeded 3RR today. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Have a look at

child rape in order to maintain the reputation of his meaningless football program. What you're saying is what his apologists say--that the fact that he won 111 football games or whatever should overshadow a "tiny mistake" he "later" made. Also, you are dead wrong in your chronology argument, since the sex abuse and Joe's cover-up did NOT occur after his coaching career, but DURING it. The sex abuse needs to be mentioned first, because of weight, notability, and chronology. Qworty (talk

) 20:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

You've basically just explained exactly what

WP:RECENTISM is written for. Because this is what Paterno is in the news for at the moment, you want most of the article to reflect that. The problem is that he also had a very long football coaching career that (mostly) came before this whole scandal. It would be an oversight to not mention the majority of his life (70 something years) before going into detail the terrible mistakes he made. Essentially, the lead should closely mirror the layout of the article, which for the most part, is in chronological order. I think the easiest way to resolve this is to organize the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs so they are ordered as "career" and "sex abuse scandal", but also add a line at the end of the first paragraph that explains why he was dismissed. (e.g. Joseph Paterno was an American college football coach who was the head coach of the Penn State Nittany Lions from 1966 to 2011. He was dismissed by the university for his role in the Penn State child sex abuse scandal.) Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions

) 20:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It's hard to see the sex scandal as

WP:RECENTISM--who can believe that it will be forgotten next week and that the world will go back to thinking only of his football triumphs? The scandal isn't going away--it's a permanent mark on the man, and it will be primarily what he's remembered for. Since he's dead, he's unlikely to be adding anything else to his legacy anytime soon. Qworty (talk

) 20:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't think the sex scandal paragraph belongs before all the coaching stuff. Looking at this pragmatically (hard to do considering that everyone seems to have an opinion on the man that is affecting their editing), I think the first paragraph should mention that he was a longtime coach of the team and mention his notoriety due the scandal. The rest of the lead should summarize his career at Penn State followed by a summary of the scandal stuff to maintain chronological order. --Jtalledo (talk) 15:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I think much of the commentary and editing about the Freeh report in this Wikipedia article has been written as though the report is making actual legal conclusions. The report is making findings and producing evidence. A trial must take place to draw the actual legal conclusions about what has been found, but much of this article has already been written as conclusive determinations about what the evidence shows.

We can say, based on news articles, that the report suggests, indicates, and shows evidence of certain things, but we cannot draw conclusions based on the facts or say that the report itself made conclusions. If the news articles are drawing conclusions, the conclusions must be attributed to the news articles and not the report. The report only draws attention to evidence from which it would be "reasonable to conclude" but does not make the conclusions itself. Only an actual trial can reach conclusions. Saying that the investigation or report "concluded" anything is not accurate.Srj4000 (talk) 18:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

You're using an awful lot of legalistic language. I'm not sure that anyone else is seeing these issues in the terms you're using. Having noticed a different section higher up on this talk page, I'm intrigued as to possible reasons. In any event, since Paterno is dead it seems to me that trials are not terribly relevant to these issues. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The nature of the report remains the same whether or not there are trials. It's not appropriate to make declaration statements about incomplete evidence, have others make interpretations of that incomplete evidence, and then attribute those interpretations as if they were conclusions in the report. Srj4000 (talk) 22:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia operates according to its own guidelines. Please see

WP:RS. We are not interested in any guidelines developed by the legal world. For us, it's enough that a reputable news organization has reached a conclusion. Yes, that really is how Wikipedia works. Qworty (talk

) 09:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

And I'm saying that if a reputable news organization reaches a conclusion, attribute it to the news organization, not the report. Srj4000 (talk) 13:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

No, if the news report says the Free Report makes such a conclusion, than we report it here as such. Srj, I previously thought your comments were rational and were trying to make the article more objective. With all due respect, you are sounding more and more like a Paterno apologist. If you have news articles which support your statements, please site to them. If the news reports cited do not support the assertions made here, point this out. But, we're not going to change the language based upon your interpretation of the report. JoelWhy?(talk) 14:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I have not made a single interpretation. I have simply suggested quoting language directly from the report or attributing conclusions about the report to news articles. Neutrality and complete objectivity are my only objectives. For example, it is objective and neutral to state that the Freeh investigation found emails from the athletic director indicating that Paterno was asking about the 1998 investigation even though Paterno later stated in his grand jury testimony that he did not know of previous incident of sexual conduct by Sandusky with young boys and could not say that he ever heard a rumor. But saying that Paterno "lied" in his grand jury testimony is a personal judgment, which anyone is free to draw themselves. Srj4000 (talk) 15:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Alfietucker responded to this point above (17:21 yesterday). If you're not going to show any sign of paying attention to the responses people give you, then there might not be much point in responding. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how many times people can repeat that we're not generally quoting from the report because it violates the rules pertaining to Primary sources. So, if the NY Times or the AP says 'the report concludes X, Y, and Z" that's what we report. We don't say "according to the NY Times," and we don't quote directly from the report. We expect the reputable newspapers to report accurately. If you have reports that conflict with what they state, then you have an issue to raise. Otherwise, what you're really arguing for is that we abide by your policy rather than Wiki policy. JoelWhy?(talk) 15:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

There is currently no article cited for the statement that he "lied" to a grand jury. The only citation is the grand jury transcript, which I added, which contains no indication of whether the testimony was a lie. The Wikipedia article should at least include a citation at the end to a newspaper source that says he lied in the testimony before making the personal judgment that he lied.Srj4000 (talk) 16:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

If there's no source saying he lied, this should be removed. JoelWhy?(talk) 16:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Probably a better edit might be to say "Paterno could have faced perjury charges for misleading the grand jury in 2011 about what he knew about accusations against Sandusky", with opinions attributed to legal experts. Though ESPN.com columnist Gene Wojciechowski] is pretty blunt in saying Paterno lied, and Sally Jenkins, the WaPo writer who conducted Paterno's last interview, is equally as blunt. --Mosmof (talk) 16:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't think this is a question (as Srj suggests) of "making the personal judgment that he lied". As well as the Washington Post article Mosmof has linked above, there's this in the New York Times article of July 12: "One new and central finding of the Freeh investigation is that Mr. Paterno, who died in January, knew as far back as 1998 that there were concerns Mr. Sandusky might be behaving inappropriately with children. It was then that the campus police investigated a claim by a mother that her son had been molested by Mr. Sandusky in a shower at Penn State.

"Mr. Paterno, through his family, had insisted after Mr. Sandusky’s arrest that he never knew anything about the 1998 case. In fact, he had testified under oath before the grand jury hearing evidence against Mr. Sandusky that he was not aware of the 1998 investigation.

"But Mr. Freeh’s report asserts that Mr. Paterno not only knew of the investigation, but followed it closely." See [6].

It seems to me common-sense that the NYT is accusing Paterno of having lied to the grand jury: certainly the article does not entertain any other interpretation. Alfietucker (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Wikipedia policy on opinion columns versus hard news stories, but I think care should be taken to differentiate the two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srj4000 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Srj, please read these Wikipedia guidelines about primary, secondary, tertiary sources [7]. You've been jumping up and down for days attacking all of us for refusing to quote from the Freeh report. We've been pointing out to you for days that we're not ALLOWED to quote from it. The policies have been explained to you over and over again. Frankly, since you seem incapable of reading simple guidelines and applying them, it makes me wonder how you ever got through law school. Qworty (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate everyone's patience with me with respect to primary sources. I never intended to cause everyone such strife. My statement immediately above though only concerned secondary sources and I was referring to differences between secondary sources like newspaper articles that are reporting versus columns and editorials where the columnists are sharing opinions.Srj4000 (talk) 22:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 20:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

So now you're dialing up out of DC? Huh [8] Qworty (talk) 21:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I have tried to be civil and friendly to everyone on this board and raise only questions about editing and neutrality. I have not made any comments in favor of or against the object of this article and I have been especially careful not to direct any negative comments to the editors and fellow posters of this page. Yet I have been met by a number of personal accusations both on this page and on my talk page. I certainly understand that the topics underlying this article raise certain emotions in people, and I accept that, but I hope we can all adhere to qualities of common decency and respect for others. You mention a location and cite to a news article about a Paterno family lawyer, but I am not in any way affiliated with the Paterno family, I am not qualified to give legal advice, and I would appreciate it if you would not make vague references to what may be people's physical locations or other private information on this site. I understand that IP addresses are public, and I did not realize I was not signed in at the time of my post, but I would prefer it if editors did not name people's possible location information for all to see.Srj4000 (talk) 22:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

So if you, by your own assertion, are not qualified to give legal advice, then would you say we're safe to ignore all of the legal advice you've been hitting us over the head with for day after day after day? Qworty (talk) 00:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Dear Page Owner, I do not understand why you erased my post about Joseph Paterno's statue being torn down on July 22nd, 2012. It is one important piece of Joe's history, as his famous statue, built in 2001, was dedicated to him in his success with Penn State. When Penn State proclaimed that anything that had to do with Joe must be turned away, that was one of the many things. So, if you would please so kindly, add this to the page, as if you don't it will not be as rich in information. Also, you should consider doing this as people may report this to Wikipedia for not giving full information. Thank you for your time and patience! In Regards, Reporter22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reporter22 (talk • contribs) 03:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

This was your edit:

This bann included non other than Joe Paterno's famous statue, built in 2001. The statue was ripped from the ground infront of the University. Penn State students and graduates were disappointed.

It's filled with typos, an unsourced, unecyclopedic and unverifiable claim ("students and graduates were disappointed"), and sort of gibberish (what does the removal of the statue have to do with a "bann"?). The statue is mentioned in a photo caption and I suppose it's worth mentioning in the body, but there's no way the above text should go in. --Mosmof (talk) 06:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The Sandusky grand jury report is cited for the statement that "Sandusky continued to sexually abuse children up until his arrest in 2011." There is no support in the grand jury report for this statement. Where is there any information in the report about sexual abuse in 2011, or 2010, or even earlier? Srj4000 (talk) 14:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I will go ahead an remove this sentence from the article unless someone has a source to cite for it. Does anyone have a reason for not taking it out? Srj4000 (talk) 18:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems like an obvious case of

WP:PRIMARY. --Mosmof (talk

) 18:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Source cited is the Washington Post article which read: "Some no older than 8 years old when they were allegedly abused by Sandusky between the years of 1994 and 2009, are now in their 20s, scarred forever by an adult they trusted. " --Jtalledo (talk) 18:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Am I missing something? Because the link sends me to the grand jury report transcript, and I see that there are notes, but there's no obvious way for me to get to what you just cited. Is it possible to get a more specific link? --Mosmof (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

No. I just clicked on the wrong link. The link does indeed link to the Grand Jury report. Mea culpa. --Jtalledo (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Gotcha, but it seems like a matter of correcting the years with a new source. Editing to add: "1994 to 2009" is already covered earlier in the paragraph so I took it out, but replaced with mention of Sandusky's access to athletic facilities.--Mosmof (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I've seen it pointed out that, with the vacating of wins, Paterno now holds the record for the longest losing streak in US college football (thirteen years without a single win). If we could find a reputable source mentioning this, would it be worth adding to the article? DS (talk) 18:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

It's already being disputed about how to portray his vacated wins and that would almost certainly draw another area of debate on the validity of such a record. Perhaps once the original debate regarding the vacated wins is sorted out, such a proposal could be more open to consideration. --Jtalledo (talk) 18:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

If a reliable source calls it a losing streak, then sure. But remember that vacating wins doesn't mean that those wins cease to exist. The NCAA still recognizes that those games happened, and that Penn State outscored its opponents. It's simply taking the wins away after the fact. In that sense, it's not a losing streak - there were non-losses between the losses. --Mosmof (talk) 18:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article includes the sentence in the introduction -

"An investigation conducted by former FBI director Louis Freeh concluded, in July 2012, that Paterno was complicit in concealing the
activities of Sandusky and dissuading other university officials from reporting him to the authorities in 1998 and 2001"

The Freeh report says nothing about Paterno dissauding the university from reporting Sandusky to authorities in 1998. Paterno and the university found out about 1998 BECAUSE it was reported to authorities. The implication about 1998 is whether Paterno lied about whether he knew of the reported 1998 incident when he learned of the incident in 2001. Srj4000 (talk) 17:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The Freeh report does not say that Paterno dissuaded university officials from reporting the 2001 incident ==

The Wikipedia article states that the report concluded that Paterno was complicit in concealing the activities of Sandusky and dissuading other university officials from reporting him to the authorities in 1998 and 2001.

(1) The report indicates that Paterno may have known about 1998, but it does not say anything about reporting it. The only question raised about 1998 is whether Paterno knew about 1998 when he learned about the 2001 incident.

(2) The report has no conclusions about whether Paterno dissuaded university officials from reporting the 2001 incident. The report only has a finding that the 2001 incident was not reported to authorities and that Paterno, Spanier, Curley, and Schultz all failed to protect against a child sex predator. There is no finding anywhere in the report that Paterno dissuaded the university from reporting it. Srj4000 (talk) 18:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

NYT: "Indeed, Mr. Freeh’s investigation makes clear it was Mr. Paterno, long regarded as the single most powerful official at the university, who persuaded the university president and others not to report Mr. Sandusky to the authorities in 2001 after he had violently assaulted another boy in the football showers." This isn't difficult. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no statement to that effect in the actual report. What part of the REPORT makes that clear? Do you have a page number or a specific email?

All we have is an email on page 74 from Curley on February 27, 2001 that says “After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe yesterday - - I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps. I am having trouble going to everyone, but the person involved. I think I would be more comfortable meeting with the person and tell him about the information we received. I would plan to tell him we are aware of the first situation. I would indicate we feel there is a problem and we want to assist the individual to get professional help. Also, we feel a responsibility at some point soon to inform his organization and maybe the other one about the situation." The "organization" is Second Mile and the "other one" was a reference to the Department of Public Welfare (DPW).

The email does not indicate that Paterno dissuaded the university from informing authorities. It says that they feel a responsibility to maybe inform authorities.

On page 70, the report says that Schultz's notes from February 12, before Paterno was even informed of what the university was planning to do, indicate that "Unless he confesses to having a problem, [Curley] will indicate we need to have DPW review the matter." This email shows that the university had already discussed telling Sandusky before telling DPW prior to Paterno being involved in the dicussion.

The only "reasonable conclusions" reached in the Freeh report are on page 75 where it says that Spanier, Schultz and Curley were agreeing not to report Sandusky's activity. (No reference to Paterno.) Then it says that the men decided not to report to a law enforcement or child protection authority because they had agreed to report the incident to Second Mile.

The only "finding" that should be quoted from the report with regard to Paterno is on page 16 where it says "it is reasonable to conclude that, in order to avoid the consequences of bad publicity, the most powerful leaders at the University - Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley - repeatedly concealed critical facts relating to Sandusky's child abuse from authorities, the University's Board of Trustees, the Penn State community, and the public at large."

There is no reason to cite inaccurate media interpretations when we have access to the words of the actual report.

The findings only refer to CONCEALING facts. The Freeh report contains no findings about whether Paterno DISSUADED others from reporting the incident. Srj4000 (talk) 20:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

You might want to let the New York Times know. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Srj4000 is no longer satisfied with discussing this issue but is now editing the article on the basis of his/her own interpretation of the primary source (e.g. here), ignoring what the NYTimes and other good secondary sources say about the Freeh report. Again, I think it's quite clear: the NYT says: "Indeed, Mr. Freeh’s investigation makes clear it was Mr. Paterno, long regarded as the single most powerful official at the university, who persuaded the university president and others not to report Mr. Sandusky to the authorities in 2001 after he had violently assaulted another boy in the football showers". Srj4000 has now been reverted on this point by another editor. Discussion should continue here, instead of merely repeating the same edit. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for allowing further discussion of this matter on the talk page. I believe the fairest and best compromise would be to quote or use language directly from the Freeh report (http://thefreehreportonpsu.com). On page 16 (this is not my interpretation, it is the language of the actual report), it says that "in order to avoid the consequences of bad publicity, the most powerful leaders at the University - Spanier, Schultz, Paterno, and Curley - repeatedly concealed critical facts relating to Sandusky's child abuse from authorities, the University's Board of Trustees, the Penn State community, and the public at large." If there is any support anywhere in the report that can be found for the interpretation that Paterno attempted to persuade others not to contact authorities, I would have no problem with language in the Wikipedia article about dissuasion. But I think the NYT article is inaccurate, was possibly written on deadline before a full reading of the actual report, and relied on the CNN story from the days prior to the release of the actual Freeh report that included exerpts of leaked emails out of context from the entirety of the emails that now appear in the complete report. Relying on the actual text of the Freeh report instead of media interpretations of the report is the fairest compromise in this instance. "Concealing" is actually stated in the report. The report has no conclusions about persuasion. Srj4000 (talk) 02:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, if you think the NYTimes is inaccurate, you should get in touch with them. As for us: see

WP:SECONDARY -- the first paragraph makes it quite clear what our approach will be here. Nomoskedasticity (talk

) 06:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Because there are differences in what is actually stated in the Freeh report and the conclusions that news media sources are reaching based on evidence presented in the report, I propose that the fairest and most accurate way to include both sides would be the following:

"An investigation conducted by former FBI director Louis Freeh concluded, in July 2012, that Paterno was involved in concealing facts related to Sandusky's child sex abuse. A number of news articles conclude that evidence in the Freeh report suggests that Paterno went so far as to dissuade other university officials from reporting Sandusky to the authorities in 2001." Srj4000 (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Your approach requires that wikipedia editors engage in their own interpretation of primary sources. I am trying to help you understand that this is not how Wikipedia works. As I suggest immediately above: please see

WP:SECONDARY. Nomoskedasticity (talk

) 17:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not asking for an interpretation of primary sources. I'm suggesting that we explicitly state in the Wikipedia article that it's the news articles interpretation of the primary source. Srj4000 (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Srj: can't you see that precisely through your claims about what the Freeh report does or does not say you are applying your own perception or interpretation of it. As Nomoskedasticity has explained, Wikipedia does not endorse editors putting forward their own interpretation of primary sources. So rather than you get heated about the perceptions of NYT and other reputable sources of the Freeh report, I suggest you find a secondary source which back your perception of it. Or, better still, read what all the reputable and reliable sources have to say, and furnish the article with any points which perhaps have been missed with suitable citations. Alfietucker (talk) 18:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your feedback and thank you for your patience. I'm just struggling to understand how quoting directly from the report can be an interpretation or a perception. It is letting the report speak for itself without allowing anyone's personal opinions about it affect the translation. I'm also struggling with how to find a news article as a secondary source for something that is not contained in the report. Why would there be an article about something that does not exist? It's like trying to prove a negative. Srj4000 (talk) 16:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Simply, quoting from a report implies selecting what is quoted: that alone is an act of interpretation. It is Wikipedia policy to be extremely cautious about so quoting from primary sources for that reason. For anyone concerned that the report might not be sufficiently represented as a result of this policy, there's a link in the footnotes for anyone who wants to read the entire report. Besides, the report isn't the beginning and end of the whole affair. The way it is represented and how conclusions are drawn in reputable news media is part of the picture. Alfietucker (talk) 17:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

There are secondary sources to support different interpretations of the Freeh Report. Different sources have different interpretations. According to a reading of the report in a U.S. News & World Report article, Paterno "is not solely culpable for what went on nor is there any evidence that he was the author of the cover up." http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2012/07/25/joe-paterno-is-the-ncaas-scapegoat An analysis of the report in Powerline refers to the lack of meaningful evidence in the report, states that journalists who reported that Freeh's report contains new, damaging evidence regarding Paterno read only the first part of the report, and says that the evidence cited by Freeh does not show evidence of a cover-up.http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/07/the-case-against-joe-paterno-part-two.php

Since there are different secondary source interpretations, it is not appropriate to use certain news articles to say what the report "concluded." Instead, I propose something along the lines of the following to maintain a neutral point of view:

According to many news reports, including an article from Ken Belson in the New York Times, the Freeh investigation indicated that Paterno concealed facts relating to Sandusky's sexual abuse of young boys and that it was Paterno who dissuaded other university officials from reporting Sandusky to the authorities in 2001.^[3][4][5] Other sources, including Peter Roff of U.S. News & World Report, said that Paterno was not solely culpable for what went on and that the Freeh report produced no evidence that Paterno was the author of a cover up. ^{[6] [7] [8]}

I know it has already been suggested that in Wikipedia articles we do not start every sentence with which sources said what, but in this case when there are conflicting interpretations about the Freeh report conclusions, it is not fair to cite some of the news media articles as Freeh report conclusions and not the others. I think the most neutral ground would be to attribute interpretations to the actual news sources or at least mentioning that it's from a source and not the report with the appropriate citation. Otherwise we would be left with a sentence that said the Freeh report concluded two different things that are polar opposites.

I also think extra care must be taken in wording things neutrally and accurately according to WP guidelines to avoid the use of "loaded terms": "Said, stated, described, wrote, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate. Extra care is needed with more loaded terms. For example, to write that a person revealed, pointed out, exposed, explained, or found something can imply that it is true, where a neutral account might preclude such an endorsement." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CLAIM#WP:CLAIM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_language Srj4000 (talk) 20:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Please note that the NY Times piece is a news article, while the U.S. News & World Report piece you introduced is an opinion column. Which is to say, conclusions reached in the former can be taken as fact unless there's obvious bias or error, while the opinions stated in the latter should be treated as such and not given the same weight. I think it would be disingenuous to call them "different secondary source interpretations". And for our purposes, it's useful that the Times keeps an almost religious separation between "reporting" and "commentary". The article cited falls squarely on the reporting side of the wall. --Mosmof (talk) 23:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Editing to add: Also, the quote from the US News & World Report op-ed is a bit of a straw man argument, since no one is arguing that Paterno was solely culpable, and I don't see any claim that Paterno "authored" the coverup, other than that he used his power and influence to persuade university officials to not investigate Sandusky. He just happens to be the most famous of those involved in the coverup. --Mosmof (talk) 00:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you about "solely" culpable but with respect to a cover up, if one source is saying that Paterno "persuaded" the others not to report the information he could only be persuading them to "cover it up." And if that means that Paterno persuaded them to cover it up, he would be the person behind it that was "authoring" it. I don't like the word authored either but that's just the word that the US News piece used to get across that Paterno was the one who others were saying was the person behind (ie "authoring") the cover up.Srj4000 (talk) 04:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it's a bit of a leap to say that if someone argues Paterno persuaded others not to report the information, it must mean that he was "the person behind it that was 'authoring' it", particularly given how long Sandusky was active in molesting children under his supervision. The point is that Paterno was clearly not as innocent as he tried to paint himself before the grand jury, and Curley's email appears to indicate that Paterno was very much involved in the decision not to report Sandusky when the 2001 incident came to light.

Meantime I've gone through the article and taken out that particular straw man, and also those sentences whose sole citations (not clearly spelled out when originally given) were opinion pieces. Alfietucker (talk) 11:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Just want to say that I'm pretty happy with your changes. They improve the article.

talk

) 18:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I've actually had another look at that section, and done a little tweaking and rewriting to try to clarify the issue over Curley's e-mail about changing his mind early in 2001. Feel free to improve further if you feel it doesn't read clearly. Alfietucker (talk) 18:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I may well take a pass to clean up any rough edges, but it's in pretty good shape right now.

talk

) 19:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Just read this paragraph after some time away. What happened? Appreciate all the back and forth above regarding secondary sources, but paragraph readability was clearly the loser in this battle. The sentences discussing Curley's emails are particularly difficult to understand. Back to work...AVR2012 (talk) 19:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)