Talk:Joe Paterno/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Death bed

According to multiple reports Joe is on his deathbed. I don't think that this is the place for breaking news. We should hold off on this information until the death. There is no need to provide updates on Wikipedia. That's what the newspapers are for. Gerry D (talk) 00:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, and there's always a chance he makes it. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

If reliable sources are saying he's on his death bed, then there is no problem in adding that he's on his deathbed. Article might as well be up to date for the next 12 hours until the deed is done. They are, after all, reliable. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I see your point. The initial edits were poorly written. For example BREAKING NEWS and so on and looked like copy and paste jobs. Gerry D (talk) 00:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

We must also consider WP:NOTNEWSPAPER when dealing with this situation. Gerry D (talk) 00:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand that. It just means we're not under a deadline, like everyone else. But there's no harm in adding a well-sourced note to the article, IMHO. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I concur with Gerry D that we should not add anything until he actually dies. But for those who care to follow the news updates, they are mostly coming from the Citizens Voice of Wilkes-Barre. Reuters is also reporting it.—Michael J 01:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

On-Campus announcement a bit ago that he passed away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.14.68.146 (talk) 01:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Nothing on the University website yet.—Michael J 01:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Has been reported dead, source from friend on campus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.185.110 (talk) 01:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Wait until reliable sources break the story. -- Luke (Talk) 02:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Family spokesperson was on record as of ten minutes ago denying the reports of his death. We need to hold off until there are published, confirmed reports that we can cite. PSUMark2006 (talk) 02:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Agreed; I was about to revert. None of sites claiming he's dead have provided any evidence. Mackensen (talk) 02:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

CBS Sports.com reporting Paterno dead.—Michael J 02:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Without attribution, and a family spokesman is denying the report. I don't doubt it's a matter of time, but this needs to be verified. Mackensen (talk) 02:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• I've fully protected the article in the meantime. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

This seems premature. The CBS report states that a student website reported it and then they go on to state that the family rep says it isn't true. Huffington Post then misquotes CBS...

I recommend that we remove the death date and template and wait for further reports.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 02:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Holy moly. CBS quoted Twitter, and next thing you know, people quote it all the way from HuffPo to Fox News. This is bad journalism 101. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Suggest we not post anything until we get more than one source, and must include specific identity of spokesperson (doctor, family member etc. ... I am following local TV reports from Scranton stations.—Michael J 02:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• :I'll watch the State College ones. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Paterno's sons have gone to Twitter to say he's still alive: [1] [2]. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The initial report seems to have come from Onward State, which now doesn't load (naturally). Their twitter account still works. CBS was saying 'multiple' reports without quoting. Bet they're regretting that now. Everyone else is relying on CBS' report. Mackensen (talk) 02:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Yep...journalists look like fools tonight. I guess everything is normal.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 02:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

What is OnwardState anyway? A student newspaper, or a campus blog? 71.189.63.114 (talk) 02:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Not clear. Here's what they call themselves: " online news organization serving Penn State students, faculty, staff, alumni, and the State College community." I'm not personally familiar with them, but the report originated with them. They've retracted it. Mackensen (talk) 02:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The managing editor of Onward State has already resigned over this mistake.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 04:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I was just curious if they would have passed WP's reliability test, if CBS hadn't jumped the gun and loaned their clout to the story. Well, at least now I'll have a good example to point people toward the next time the Wiki Coroners Office is in a big hurry to pronounce someone dead, OMGBRAKINGNOOOS!!11 71.189.63.114 (talk) 02:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Student newspaper The Daily Collegian is reporting serious condition and reiterating the family denial ...

Also, does this warrant a [[Template:Current related]]? Just asking.—Michael J 02:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

WNEP-TV live on campus reporting JoePa is still alive but in serious condition.—Michael J 03:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, he has passed away as per ESPN. (January 22, 2012 - 10:22 AM EDT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.62.23 (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 January 2012

Joe Paterno pronounced dead on January 21, 2012. Complications with Lung Cancer treatment. Edit: Thanks for the clarification Luke, didn't notice it until I read the above conversation. There are a multiple news sources saying he has passed, but now some are springing up saying the spokesperson is denying it. Best wait and see now. Dusty8807 (talk) 02:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

A family spokesperson has denied this claim. Wait until the family announces it. -- Luke (Talk) 02:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Are there any other sources refuting the death reports other than this NYT reporter?--RadioFan (talk) 02:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Reports of his death are untrue

https://twitter.com/#!/markcviera/status/160904588176793601 family spokesperson says it's untrue. Itaku (talk) 02:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)Itaku

Are there any other sources refuting the death reports other than this NYT reporter?--RadioFan (talk) 02:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Besides a Paterno family spokesperson and Paterno's two sons? Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I really don't trust social networking sites like Twitter to be a reliable source whether they're true or not, and like MuZemike said in the below section, we do need a more reliable source confirming his death or this false rumor. NHRHS2010 the student pilot ✈ 02:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

people mag reporting death

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20563737,00.html

For crying out loud, people, read the talk page already. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes I am hearing words that Joe Paterno passed away today, January 21, 2012. :( NHRHS2010 the student pilot ✈ 02:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Please read the above sections. He's still alive. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately he is not alive anymore, according to this source, http://photos.nj.com/star-ledger/2012/01/joe_paterno_dead_at_85_8.html those other sources stating he's alive was an earlier source from today, which I saw that it says he's in critical condition. NHRHS2010 the student pilot ✈ 02:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Read the above sections, it's wrong. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, we need something much more reliable than a tabloid magazine (though it looks like said reliable sources fucked up again by jumping the gun) for something like this. --MuZemike 02:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes we do need more reliable source. According to this link, the family denied that he's dead: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/legendary-coach-joe-paterno-dead-at-85-cbs-sports-2012-01-21?link=MW_latest_news NHRHS2010 the student pilot ✈ 02:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

That's good, and it's coming from a source that had originally reported the death (CBS). I dont like a single source on anything, either way.--RadioFan (talk) 02:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Deep breaths, people

If he is dead, it will be confirmed soon enough. There is no harm in waiting, but plenty of harm can come from jumping the gun here. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

But he's not dead. Did you read this talk page? Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

CNN confirmed he is still alive, btw. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Dumb question, perhaps, but why does it matter that the man's death be posted here the moment it happens? Is Wikipedia the Grim Reaper? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.55.61 (talk) 04:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Onward State controversy

Can we please have this incorporated?

On the evening of January 21, 2012 at 8:45 PM EST, a Twitter posting from the Penn State student blog Onward State reported that Paterno had died. This information was picked up by CBS News, and other news outlets soon followed, despite the fact that CBS retracted the reports in response to a tweet by Scott Paterno, confirming that Joe was still alive. By 10:20 PM EST, Onward State's managing editor Devon Edwards confirmed that the information they had been given was false according to tweets by both Jay and Scott Paterno, and also announced that he would immediately resign from his position as editor for the blog.

ViperSnake151  Talk  04:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

No. WP:NOTDIARY. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I added it, but I've reverted myself. The article cited above may make the event notable per WP:GNG. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

CBS News, or CBS Sports? Anyway, I'd say wait a day and see if it becomes part of the narrative. Mackensen (talk) 04:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't feel WP:NOTDIARY applies. The fact that a Penn State media outlet actually managed to make an incorrect report about the death of a major figure to their respective school, and the fact that the fallout is also that huge (and with all the reliable sources picking it up as well) means that this would be a significantly notable event to mention, and not just the average "tabloid death rumor." If we can find enough sources to justify having a separate article for Onward State, indeed, this can be mentioned. ViperSnake151  Talk  04:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

This is ephemeral, and won't be worth noting in the context of Joe Paterno's life. We should give it a day or two and review then. Acroterion (talk) 04:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

:I disagree with this request. In the long term, this will be a minor blip not worth mentioning. If we had an article about Onward State (not saying we should, but if), this might be part of that, but it has no place in an article about the life and legacy of Paterno.—Michael J 04:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it's worth a line or two. Looking at the List of premature obituaries, of which Paterno is now a part of, several of the people mentioned had information of their own premature obituary included in their respective articles. Buffalutheran (talk) 10:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• The article for Onward State was recently made into a redirect. This mishap may be notable enough for that article to be revived.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 04:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

There are now some reports that the editor of Onward State has resigned, but the note on the site itself merely has him apologizing. Perhaps this discussion should be moved to that article now.—Michael J 05:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

This Facebook post from the editor includes his resignation. Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• If this is widely covered tomorrow, then I think it should be discussed, not necessarily incorporated into the Paterno article. If is not, its just random trivia and doesn't really belong in the encyclopedia. As for whether it belongs in the Onward State article, if one exists, is another story, but I'm doubtful that an Onward State article meets WP:N anyway. jheiv ^{talk contribs} 05:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

From a statement by Onward State editor Devon Edwards: "...I will be stepping down from my post as Managing Editor, effective immediately. I take full responsibility for the events that transpired tonight, and for the black mark upon the organization that I have caused. ,,,"

he died

sources

Thetalkingheads (talk) 05:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Nope. Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes Penn State Football has reported his death.Tstrobaugh (talk) 15:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Now AP has tweeted he has really died. Source 97.64.215.195 (talk) 15:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

CNN is also reporting it. Request for unprotection has been submitted.--RadioFan (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Change to make once article is unlocked

In the "early life" section, the sentence below is phrased awkwardly:

He played quarterback and cornerback, and as of 2011 shares, with Greg Parker, the career record for interceptions at 14.

Once the article is back up, someone should rephrase and update the date to:

He played quarterback and cornerback, and as of 2012 shares the career record for interceptions with Greg Parker at 14. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravensfan5252 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done Eagles 24/7 (C) 06:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for punctuation nuance change

The opening paragraph currently reads "Paterno was fired mid-season by Penn State trustees in November 2011, after the arrest of Jerry Sandusky, one of his long-time assistant coaches, on child sexual abuse charges." Current punctuation can be misread to imply that Paterno was fired on child sexual abuse charges, which is untrue. (There actually was no formal reason for firing aside from moral reasoning, as he was not accused of or charged with any illegal wrongdoing)

Although it's explained in the article, it isn't until significantly far in - this leads to confusion.

Request to amend punctuation of this sentence for clarity to read as the following (citations would remain unchanged): Paterno was fired mid-season by Penn State trustees in November 2011, after long-time assistant coach Jerry Sandusky was arrested on child sexual abuse charges.

Thanks Ktester9 (talk) 06:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done Eagles 24/7 (C) 06:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Death

Sadly, Paterno has just passed away. VegetaSaiyan...going Super Saiyan 5! (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

CNN has confirmed it. -- Luke (Talk) 15:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

KYW-TV, the CBS affiliate in Philadelphia is also reporting Coach Paterno's death on Sunday, January 22, 2012. Bill S. (talk) 15:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Paterno's Family Says He Died

Joe Paterno actually died today. Add in today's date (1-22-2012) to the first line.

Add a new section entitled "Death," and write that he died on Sunday, January 22, 2012 due to complications from lung cancer.

Found here: http://www.nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/46085007

Ddbruce (talk) 15:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Joe Paterno, 85, dies in State College ESPN source as well. --Airtuna08 (talk) 15:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done – Looks like this is for real this time. --MuZemike 15:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

He is dead

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/46085007/ns/sports-college_football/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.88.212 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Or not: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/legendary-coach-joe-paterno-dead-at-85-cbs-sports-2012-01-21?link=MW_story_popular Yakatz (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

You are using outdated information. Please read the rest of this talk page for the full story. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Football Icon Joe Paterno Dies at 85. He turned Penn State into a national football power. However, he will forever be linked to the shocking scandal that led to his downfall. See the statement from his family.63.3.2.129 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC).

Saturday Death

Reports were denied by family but he was already dead and family wanted a night of peace and merely delayed confirming what had already happened. There are no consequences of either date but the initial reports were correct. Lingust (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

fix death date?

Joe Paterno actually died Saturday night. His family confirmed his death on Sunday. The NBC article has the news wrong.

Thanks. -Seth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.17.154.113 (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

If a reliable source publishes this information, the change will be made, until then and if then, it should not. Gerry D (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The sources are saying Sunday. In any case, it was reported on ESPN at about 9:20 eastern on Sunday morning. The crawl line, as recently as a couple minutes before that, was still reporting "seriously ill". However, it had been augmented by a report that people were gathering Saturday to say goodbye. So they figured he was soon to go. At some point, an actual time of death might get reported. Then it could be used. But the best info we have currently is Sunday. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

It was reported on WBRE 28 NEWS that Joe Paterno died at 9:25 AM, this morning. 63.3.2.129 (talk)

That's actually a few minutes after ESPN was reporting the story, so that might just be when that station reported it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

There were reports on Yahoo, MSN, and Twitter on Saturday night that he had passed. At around 6:50 or so (Eastern Time) on Saturday night, they were saying on the news (I believe it was on CNN, but I'm not entirely sure as I was at a restaraunt) that he was in a critical condition. Sometime after I got home (still Saturday evening) there was news saying that he had died. -Seth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.17.154.113 (talk) 00:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

False reports Saturday night, read the above section. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Late yesterday there was word that he was seriously ill. Obviously they were preparing the world for his imminent death. Those 3 sources aren't considered reliable for wikipedia purposes, although I wouldn't be surprised if they turned out to be accurate. However, as we know all too well, sometimes there are folks jumping the gun on these things. Like when Walter Cronkite was reported to have died, but it was like a week later before he actually died. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 January 2012

Joe Paterno is still alive according to his family. The report of his death by the school newspaper was picked up by various news services but was never confirmed. The newspaper editor has since resigned.

65.41.138.243 (talk) 03:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

You're a day behind. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Joe Paterno Military Service

I can not find a record of Joe Paterno's Army service in the national online goverment archives. I believe he may have not served. I base this on the claim that "After serving a year in the Army, he attended Brown University; his tuition was paid for by Busy Arnold.[4]" If Joe Paterno had served in the WWII time period, he was eligible for the WWII GI Bill. The WWII GI bill paid tution up to $500 and a $50.00 stipend. It is hard to believe that Joe Paterno would have passed on this benefit. Any thoughts on this?

This article from today's Fayetteville Observer says that he spent a short time at Fort Bragg while in the service. Gerry D (talk) 01:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Anything from an earlier source 1946- ? Pictures of Joe Paterno in service. Hard to believe Ft. Bragg didn't have him as famous recruit trained there.

Not earlier, but one with a more personal connection, here--Gerry D (talk) 03:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Emailed Joe Posnanski perhaps he can verify from personal sources. I have also seen the claim that Joe Paterno had a athletic scholarship to Brown for football. At this latest story about Joe Paterno from Tom Layden at SI http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1127368/2/index.htm . There is no mention of Joe Paterno's Military service "He attended Brooklyn Preparatory School and was recruited to play football at Brown. Paterno struggled to fit in with the polished rich boys in college, but on the field he was a star quarterback and defensive back who still shares the school's career record with 14 interceptions. More important, he forged a bond with Brown coach Rip Engle. " Brown did not have football 1942-45.Paterno was recruited for 1946 season.http://www.brownbears.com/sports/m-footbl/FB_History/through_the_decades

Do you actually think that he wasn't in the Army? Almost everybody of his generation served during World War II. He was probably in for a short period of time. He was born in 1926. The war ended in 1945 when he was still 18. The numbers of soldiers in the Army were cut dramatically in the years right after the war. Many soldiers were cut loose after only serving a short period of time. Gerry D (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I question it, because it can not be found in the national online goverment archives.http://aad.archives.gov/aad/ There are many Joseph Paternos in the database -none that match Joe Paterno of Penn State fame. The lack of proof of his service, sounds like a good cover story for someone of that era.There was alot of shame of not being in the service in the WWII era in that age group.Any solid documentation of his service would of course terminate the need for this discussion.

I used the data base and I found a Joseph J. Paterno, born in 1926, from Kings County, New York also known as Brooklyn, New York. I realize that this Joe is Joseph V. Paterno, but I am willing to bet that the J. is a clerical error. Gerry D (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem with that Joseph J. Paterno is he enlisted on August 11 1944 and had 3 years of High school. http://aad.archives.gov/aad/record-detail.jsp?dt=893&mtch=2&cat=all&tf=F&q=Joseph+J.+Paterno&bc=&rpp=10&pg=1&rid=8383675&rlst=3573526,8383675

On page 49 of Paterno by the Book, "Six weeks after my graduation from Brooklyn Prep, the U.S. Army drafted me. Less than a month later, President Truman dropped two bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, suddenly ending World War II, but not improving my personal situation. The Army shipped me from Fort Dix, New Jersey, near home to Korea. Finally, a year later, I was discharged just in time to start at Brown in the fall of 1946. This book was published in 1989 by Random House the ISBN is 0-394-56501-0. And there was a time when high school was 10-12 grade and junior high was 7-9 grade. Also the book has a picture of Joe in uniform. Gerry D (talk) 02:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Six years of grade school, three years of junior high, and three years of high school was once a common experience in the US. Also, many US Army service records from that era were destroyed in the National Personnel Records Center fire and had to be reconstructed afterwards, so I am not surprised that there are either errors in his record (J for V?) or that it is not in the database at all. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I Will check book this weekend-1989 predated photoshop and the author looks solid.

For what it's worth, my father was drafted into the US Army (I've seen his photo album) and he checked afterwards and his records were destroyed in the fire - I just checked the database and he is not listed there. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I feel enough evidence is present that Joe Paterno served in the US Army.

Selling His House

Hi,

Can the follow statement be addressed?

In the wake of the Sandusky scandal, it was reported that Paterno had transferred whole interest in his house, valued at over $500,000, to his wife "for a dollar plus 'love and affection'" in July 2011. While a lawyer for Paterno stated that the transfer was part of a "multiyear estate planning program", others claimed it seemed more likely a preparatory move in case personal liability was found relative to the scandal.[78]

While this is under the family life section and is technically correct, it once again relates the Sandusky matter through nuance where it's unnecessary. The fact is that "claiming it was a preparatory move" is all speculation. Realistically, it seems to have been proven as a multiyear estate planning program since the man was dying of lung cancer. Here's an article from Forbes that analyzes it as estate planning: http://www.forbes.com/sites/deborahljacobs/2012/01/22/monday-morning-quarterback-joe-paternos-house-transfer-was-a-dumb-tax-move/ (Note: the Forbes article is critical from a financial opinion perspective, but that has nothing to do with his bio)

Any other articles that say it was related to Sandusky are speculation and conjecture, and therefore are unnecessary in the "personal life" section of an encyclopedia article.

Is that something that can be edited or removed?

Ktester9 (talk) 20:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that the selling of his house to his wife should be included. As far as I can tell it is a personal, private matter and should be left as such. Any connections to the Sandusky scandal is pure speculation. If one wants to discuss the merits of the sale, wikipedia is not the place. Gerry D (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Pure speculation doesn't belong in the article, and that's what it is, barring any actual evidence. As others have said here, most likely he was concerned about his physical well-being and did that sale to get around any probate issues. This is not uncommon, and is not newsworthy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed it. Gerry D (talk) 23:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 January 2012

PLEASE CHANGE: "An anonymous trustee told The Morning Call of Allentown that he and his colleagues felt they had no choice but to order Paterno to leave immediately due to growing outrage over the scandal. The board considered allowing Paterno to stay on for the rest of the season and let Bradley act as team spokesman, but feared this would further sully Penn State's image. The board was also angered that Paterno released statements on his own rather than through the university.[52] This was confirmed in a statement issued by board chairman Steve Garban and vice chairman John Surma on January 12, 2012; which said that the board felt Paterno "could not be expected to effectively perform his duties" as head coach due to the nature of the scandal.[3]"

TO:

"An anonymous trustee told The Morning Call of Allentown that he and his colleagues felt they had no choice but to order Paterno to leave immediately due to growing outrage over the scandal. The board considered allowing Paterno to stay on for the rest of the season and let Bradley act as team spokesman, but feared this would further sully Penn State's image. The board was also angered that Paterno released statements on his own rather than through the university.[52] This was confirmed in a statement issued by board chairman Steve Garban and vice chairman John Surma on January 12, 2012; which said that the board felt Paterno "could not be expected to effectively perform his duties" as head coach due to the nature of the scandal.[3]

Later, in an interview with the New York Times, Trustee Kenneth C. Frazier, the chief executive of Merck Pharmaceuticals, explained the Board's decision to fire Paterno. “To me, it wasn’t about guilt or innocence in a legal sense,” he said of Paterno’s decision not to go to police. “It was about these norms of society that I’m talking about: that every adult has a responsibility for every other child in our community. And that we have a responsibility not to do the minimum, the legal requirement. We have a responsibility for ensuring that we can take every effort that’s within our power not only to prevent further harm to that child, but to every other child.”

CITE: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/sports/ncaafootball/penn-state-trustees-recall-decision-to-fire-paterno.html?pagewanted=all

AVR2012 (talk) 04:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

 Not done The second paragraph (after the first sentence) is a copyvio. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm? We have plenty of articles with longer, properly attributed quotes where no one considers them to be copyvio (for instance, Anna Wintour, a BLP I wrote and developed to A-class status, has quotations of similar length). I realize WP:NFC#TEXT is vague on the difference between "brief" and "extensive" but I would also note that MOS:QUOTE refers to, in its formatting instructions, that quotes of "more than about 40 words or a few hundred characters, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of length" are to be put in {{quote}}, suggesting that length of quote is not intrinsically copyvio.

You could argue for cutting it short in the interests of brevity, but copyright is not a valid reason not to include this. Daniel Case (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm referring specifically to the line above, "'in a legal sense," he said of Paterno's decision not to go to police." Compare that to "said of Paterno’s decision not to go to police" from the article cited. I am fully aware that quotations are not copyrighted. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Quotations are copyrighted; they just come under fair use almost all the time. But anyway ... I see what you're saying. That can easily be fixed by a little paraphrasing, as I've suggested above. To call it copyvio without suggesting a solution when one is indeed so easy to find is, to me, being rather picayune. Daniel Case (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

AVR2012 has already done so in the section below, I believe. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I did (i.e., paraphrased) after you said it was a copy vio, but the quote still hasn't been added despite the fact everyone's concerns have been addressed so I am more than a little confused. You can use the above quote and change the "legal sense," he said of Paterno's decision not to go to police" excerpt to "Frazier said regarding Paterno's choice not to call the state police." So now you have two options (either changing the excepted sentence or using the more fully paraphrased quote below) both of which address all of the stated concerns. --AVR2012 (talk) 22:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by AVR2012 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done I've made a modified addition. Pared down since the earlier statement from police about responsibility is similar and doesn't need to be repeated.—Bagumba (talk) 23:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 January 2012

Please consider appending Trustee Kenneth Frazier's quote from the NYT regarding Board's decision to fire Paterno to the existing paragraph below. I think a direct quote attributed to an actual trustee is essential to the history of this matter.

"An anonymous trustee told The Morning Call of Allentown that he and his colleagues felt they had no choice but to order Paterno to leave immediately due to growing outrage over the scandal. The board considered allowing Paterno to stay on for the rest of the season and let Bradley act as team spokesman, but feared this would further sully Penn State's image. The board was also angered that Paterno released statements on his own rather than through the university.[52] This was confirmed in a statement issued by board chairman Steve Garban and vice chairman John Surma on January 12, 2012; which said that the board felt Paterno "could not be expected to effectively perform his duties" as head coach due to the nature of the scandal.[3]

Later, Trustee Kenneth C. Frazier, the chief executive of Merck Pharmaceuticals, in an interview with the New York Times, explained his support for the Board's decision to fire Paterno rested on his belief that, while Paterno met his legal obligation to report child abuse to a superior, he failed to meet the "norms of society" by not reporting the incident directly to state police. According to Frazier, “It was about these norms of society that I’m talking about: that every adult has a responsibility for every other child in our community. And that we have a responsibility not to do the minimum, the legal requirement. We have a responsibility for ensuring that we can take every effort that’s within our power not only to prevent further harm to that child, but to every other child.” Following the 2002 incident at Penn State, Sandusky is alleged to have continued to abuse children up until November 2011, when he was arrested and charged with 40 counts of sexual abuse of young boys over a 15-year period.

AVR2012 (talk) 21:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Just a note, I'm not sure that there exists such a thing as "minimum legal obligation" -- there is a legal obligation, and perhaps an expectation that he should have done more. Simply removing "minimum" would resolve this however. Also, I edited the url in your 3rd ref -- it looked like a pretty clear copy paste error, but just wanted to give you a heads up. jheiv ^{talk contribs} 21:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, this kind of mischaracterizes what Frazier said. He prefaced his quote with a qualification: to me. The full quote in the article is (emphasis added):

“To me, it wasn’t about guilt or innocence in a legal sense,” the trustee Kenneth C. Frazier, the chief executive at Merck, said of Paterno’s decision not to go to police. “It was about these norms of society that I’m talking about: that every adult has a responsibility for every other child in our community. And that we have a responsibility not to do the minimum, the legal requirement. We have a responsibility for ensuring that we can take every effort that’s within our power not only to prevent further harm to that child, but to every other child.”

So I have to oppose making this change. jheiv ^{talk contribs} 21:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I actually tried to add the full quote earlier, but was told that it was a copyright violation (I think because I included a line from the actual NYT article text in it). I'm going to go ahead and re-insert it per your suggestion (without the original source text) and have also edited the paragraph to reflect Frazier's opinion. I additionally removed "minimum" in regard to "minimum legal obligation" as you suggested. Thanks for your help! AVR2012 (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Paterno's Motives

There are lengthy excerpts from an interview with someone named Veronica Fulbright who staunchly defends Paterno's motives in not reporting the 2002 incident to the police that appears today at the end of the scandal section. This is all highly speculative -- I feel we should avoid individual opinion regarding Paterno's motives and stick as closely to the known facts as possible. AVR2012 (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Except that this person is apparently an expert in this field. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. She is a Penn State alumna and "sexologist" with a number of books to her credit, the most recent entitled: "The Best Ever Oral Sex for Her" (Adams Media, 2011), "The Best Ever Oral Sex for Him" (Adams Media, 2011), and "The Best Oral Sex Ever - His Guide to Going Down." The other six book titles credited to her are all similarly devoted to improving sexual performance. In a comprehensive literature search on PubMed, I find no scholarly publications by either a "Yvonne K. Fulbright" or "Yvonne Fulbright" regarding the history of rape in our culture. She may be a "sexologist" but the history of rape is not her area of expertise. The blog itself contains numerous statements such as "It wasn't his fault... he did what he was supposed to do... he acted with honor and gave the school $100,000" that are clearly her opinion. Furthermore, by word count, the section reserved for Fulbright's blog occupies a full 1/3 of the Sandusky scandal section. This concerns me greatly - so much space devoted to an individual blogger who seeks to rationalize a decision not to report a rape may be seen as tacit approval of this opinion by Wikipedia itself. AVR2012 (talk) 00:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

You make good points, and I feel that this will be resolved following the "undue weight" discussion above. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Appreciate your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AVR2012 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

This section notes that Joe Paterno met with Tim Curry and Gary Schultz. It fails to initially make explicit Mike McQueary was present at this meeting. Although earlier in the article the role Gary Schultz had supervising the campus police is clearly stated, this role is ignored when the writer states none at the meeting contacted the State Police.

It makes sense that Schultz had the direct responsibility to have the allegation investigated by the campus police as they had jurisdiction. It also makes sense Schultz or his designee had the responsibility to contact the State Police. It may be accurate to say Paterno (or the others at the meeting) did not contact the State Police (or the police at all according to most criticism), but it is unfair to imply this responsibility was equally shared by all at the meeting. Clearly Vice President Schultz carried the largest burden of reporting to the police, seeing the campus police interview McQueary, and ensuring the State Police be contacted.

Not pointing this out suggests all at the meeting were equally responsible for making this report when it is likely neither Paterno or McQueary knew the responsibility the campus police had in reporting to the State Police. This section also does not make clear the distinction between reporting to the police, which is what Paterno faced criticism for not doing and reporting to the State Police which the local police are required to do in any case of child abuse.

The distinction is important for reasons beyond clarity. The matter of the campus police not reporting to the State Police could have serious consequences for the university in the way of fines and sanctions. An individual not following up a secondary contact with the police will not bring much in the manner of consequences.

Athletic Director Curry and Vice President Schultz were mandatory reporters at the time of the alledged offense, yet these responsibilities are different than the responsibility to report to the State Police. As mandatory reporters they were required to report to the local police and this is one of the charges they are facing. Neither Paterno or McQueary were manadatory reporters at the time, yet both sat in a meeting with the man in charge of the campus police and McQueary has testified to the grand jury he reported to the local police.

No one did enough and most everyone did what they could. Once we get past this stumbling block we can then begin to see the facts of the events and report them. There is much misunderstanding of events of sexual abuse allegations. We need to be careful about this misunderstanding finding its way into articles that touch on this subject.

DWright71.48.141.230 (talk) 17:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I reviewed the footnote attributed to the statement beginning, "Despite the gravity of the charges, none of the four men..." and ending "...called the State Police" and found this statement could not be supported by what was in that article. No where in that article does it say the State Police were not contacted, let alone not contacted my Schultz, Curry, Paterno, or McQueary. I replaced it with a statement the commission said anyone who knows of child sexual abuse should call the State Police. A stronger statement would be he said we all are morally bound to call the State Police. It is inaccurate to say he said anything at all about Schultz, Curry, Paterno, or McQueary.

DWright71.48.141.230 (talk) 04:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Paterno didn't contact the police. It seems the only people who still believe this is in dispute are Paterno fans. Let me make this as clear as possible -- The ONLY reason Paterno's reputation was tarnished in this scandal is because he didn't go to the cops. Had he gone to the police, what would people criticize him of? Not then making a citizens arrest? Not strangling Sandusky with his bare hands? Whether you think he should have gone to the police or not is an opinion. But, there is no dispute that he never contacted the police. I added a source that specifically states "Paterno did not face criminal charges for failing to notify police..."JoelWhy (talk) 12:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request Re Paterno Defense

Please consider (1) adding references/exposition to the beginning of the first sentence as follows and (2) more accurately identifying Yvonne K. Fulbright

FROM: Defense of Paterno's Actions: Some commentators have criticised Paterno's statement above to allegations of sexual misconduct as ludicrous but the sexual educator and author, Dr. Yvonne Fulbright, has defended Paterno's actions as understandable given his generation and lack of expertise with such matters.

TO: While some commentators have criticised Paterno's statement that he was unaware of rape between men as ludicrous given that he was an observant Roman Catholic and the 2002 Catholic sexual abuse scandal in the United States was widely publicized, others disagree. Sexual educator and Penn State alumni Dr. Yvonne Fulbright has defended Paterno's actions as understandable given his generation and lack of expertise with such matters.

refs re first sentence are: http://espn.go.com/espnw/commentary/7476452/former-penn-state-coach-joe-paterno-na%C3%AFve-not-credible http://www.suntimes.com/news/roeper/10167463-452/taint-from-scandal-follows-paterno-to-grave.html Refs for Yvonne Fulbright CV: http://sexualitysource.com/about-dr-yvonne.htm --AVR2012 (talk) 06:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request - Factual inaccuracy in first paragaph "Sandusdky Scandal and Dismissal"

Under the heading "Sandusky Scandal and Dismissal," the second sentence of the first paragraph is factually incorrect and contradicts Paterno’s sworn testimony under oath to the Grand Jury In his testimony he clearly does not state that he contacted Tim Curley “the next day,” but rather early the next week because he did not want to disturb Mr. Curley’s weekend. I also note that there are no links to the actual Grand Jury testimony in the entire bio as it currently stands and given its obvious significance I believe it is important to include it.

Paterno's testimony can be found at on Page 177, lines 2-7, Exhibit 1 to the Grand Jury Testimony currently entered into the court record:

“Commonwealth of Penn. v. Curley and Schulz. Preliminary Hearing, 12/16/11, Exhibit No. 1 (Transcript of Paterno Grand Jury Testimony) p: 177: 2-7”

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/12/penn_state_officials_hearing_t.html

--AVR2012 (talk) 00:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

This page is no longer protected. You can make any changes yourself. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Page is still protected, so I've re-raised the flag. --AVR2012 (talk) 23:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

 Partly done Removed "next day" as its not supported. I did not add link to the testimony as it is a primary source and seems overkill and more than most can comprehend. No objection if anyone else wants to add it.—Bagumba (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I just went an confirmed AVR2012; easier that way, and <24 hours until confirmation anyway. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Most reports have the meeting between Paterno, McQueary, Schultz and Curry as occuring ten days later and that Paterno reported to Tim Curry the next day. I have not found any report of why it took so long to schedule the meeting. I think that would be an interesting part of the story to report. I have seen numerous reports that Paterno reported the next day and believe this is the "fact" of his part of the story.

This section largely deals with the accusation Joe Paterno failed morally in some manner. Certainly it is reasonable to assume he knew of the Catholic priest sex scandals. It is also reasonable to assume he had a deep sense of moral failing with regard to the report Jerry Sandusky abused a ten year old boy in the shower of PSU locker facilities. He stated his sense of failing many times before his death.

It is not reasonable to treat feelings of moral failing as facts or to treat actual moral failings as legal failings. Paterno brought hearsay, by his own testimony less than what is alledged to have happened, to his supervisors and sat in a meeting with the man in charge of supervising the campus police reporting what he knew. Beyond that it is difficult to say what he might have better done morally.

As he was not the direct witness, there is likely little Gary Schultz or the campus police could have told him had he followed up on the interview with Schultz. As a practising Catholic he could have consulted his priest, yet the church was embroiled at the time with priest sexual abuse scandals at the time. It is not, to my knowledge, in the information released whether he was asked not to speak in public about the accusation in case Sandusky would respond with a defense and then sue the university, Paterno, and others.

Moral issues are hard to pin down as facts. Until they are, it is my opinion Paterno does not need a defense of his motives. There also does not need to be a counter charge against him. It is all too much conjecture.

DWright71.48.141.230 (talk) 18:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request - "Assessment" section

Please check this section for neutrality

Edit Request:

I believe the website www.coachjoepa.com should be added to Joe Paterno for external links. the website has a great blog about Joe Paterno. people are leaving comments on the blog and it should be included in the joe paterno wikipedia article so people can view ccomments about joe paterno as there is no joe paterno website i could find other than www.coachjoepa.com www.coachjoepa.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.110.166.57 (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the inclusion of the "Assessment" section and find it to be highly biased without allowing for any opposing views.

1. The content of the "Assessment" section is opinion, not fact. As it currently stands, the section simply includes the opinions of two persons sympathetic to Paterno without allowing for any opposing views:

Sally Jenkins, the Washington Post sports commentator, has already met with criticism for her sympathetic portrayal of Paterno's actions regarding his response to the Sandusky child abuse scandal, including but not limited to her own editors at the Washington Post: (see "The Post's View: Joe Paterno, Confirming an Abdication of Leadership; http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/joe-paterno-confirming-an-abdication-of-leadership/2012/01/17/gIQAvaXY6P_story.html). While her softened view of Paterno's actions is eloquently persuasive, comments such as ""he mostly maintained his perspective," and "Paterno 'seemed to reflexively recoil from such deviancy; it baffled him, and to connect it to a longtime colleague (Sandusky) was almost impossible" are strictly her opinion.

Comments by Yvonne Fulbright, Ph.D., a Penn State alumni, sex educator and current sex columnist for Cosmo are presented as expert opinion, yet the fact she has no actual expertise to render such an opinion or that she is a Penn State alumni, important qualifiers, are both omitted. Additionally, her mention of Paterno's donations to the university followed immediately by her comment that 'in spite of people brutally questioning a life he'd defined with honor, academics, and sportsmanship, he (Paterno) chose to be positive. How many people could say that?" is clearly opinion. Paterno's extensive philanthropy to the University is already included in a prior section.

2. Misleading heading and exclusion of opposing views. The heading was changed from "Paterno Defenses," which I felt was accurate and allowed for opinion, to "Assessment," which, by definition, is assumed to be an objective overall review of an individual's history, however as it currently stands, the section only presents opinion. Furthermore, given that Paterno died only a week ago, it would be impossible to render any sort of objective overall assessment of his actions. A true and objective assessment of a controversial historical figure can only be rendered with the passage of time. Consider changing this heading to "Lingering Controversy over Paterno's Actions" and obviously including opposing viewpoints.

3. Section length. Again, as it currently stands, with the today's expansion of the Jenkin's commentary, an entire third of this bio is devoted to two individual opinions regarding Paterno's actions. To include opposing views would make it ever more cumbersome. I propose somehow including both sides, but shortening each so that the section does not overshadow the bio itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AVR2012 (talk • contribs) 03:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC) --AVR2012 (talk) 03:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Could I just make a comment. If you wish to shorten the length of the Assessment of Paterno's actions, that's OK with me but please keep the most relevant facts intact. Sally Jenkins is important--despite the criticism of her--because she is a WP reporter and was the only person to interview Paterno before he died and she saw how he acted. I saw an important comment by her (which I didn't include here) on ESPN's video site about Paterno's death where she said that Paterno was not god at Penn State, that he didn't control PSU and this is backed up by the fact that PSU tried to fire him in 2005 after a losing football season. Paterno did follow the policies of most organizations to report sexual abuse allegations to one's superiors. That he failed to do so to the police, too, is a moral failing but it shouldn't taint all his generally good accomplishments. As he said in a quote to Jenkins, he didn't know that Sandusky was guilty or about the other allegations against him.

As for Yvonne Fulbright, her published views are relevant because she gives a psychological analysis of Paterno's actions and stresses that our heroes don't always behave as we expect them to. If you wish to shorten one article, I'd suggest you shorten the Fulbright one but please leave the essence of her views intact so that readers know what was going through Paterno's mind and actions in 2002. The FBI defined rape as that of the forced intercourse of a woman until November 2011 (when they also included young boys) so what was Paterno supposed to think back in 2002? That's a relevant point. And As Fulbright says, Paterno was basically out of his depth in dealing with these serious allegations of sexual misconduct of boys by Sandusky so he turned to his superiors. Most people would have done this....including me, I'm sure. Would I have reported such an allegation to police, too after telling my supervisor and the head of security? Its hard to say if I hadn't seen such an act with my own eyes. We're not perfect and we don't have 20/20 hindsight sadly....like Paterno. That's why he's human even though almost all of the things he did was for the good of his students and PSU ultimately. Feel free to remove Fulbright's section which you regard as opinion. I don't disagree. By the way, I think the heading title of 'Assessment' is good because it is a neutral term. I agree its better than 'Defence'--which suggests it is a pro-Paterno viewpoint. Here, its an attempt to 'read' Paterno's mind to see why he did what he did. The word 'Assessment' does allow criticism--and opposite viewpoints--of Paterno's actions, too. I'm afraid I have to stop editing at wikipedia as I have to live in the real world now. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

One reporter's opinion is barely relevant, let along warranting this lengthy defense of Paterno. This page keeps getting more and more dominated by the pro-Paterno camp. The purpose of this page should not be to malign or defend him, but to present an objective view of his biography. This recent addition is ridiculous.JoelWhy (talk) 13:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• But Sally Jenkin's interviewed Paterno prior to his death. She also knew that Paterno was Not PSU. PSU tried to fire Paterno in 2005 after a single losing season in 2005. So, she keeps Paterno's role at Penn State in perspective. He was a human being, not a perfect person. That's all I will say....but I will delete Fulbright's somewhat bisaed conclusion to her post that Fulbright shouldn't be criticised. I agree now that is a bit over the top. That section is removed now. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Interviewing him prior to his death is irrelevant. Her perspective (i.e. her personal opinion on Paterno) has NO place in this article. Her noting he belonged to the Catholic Church is only relevant in so far as it evidences that he was a member of the Catholic Church. Her belief that this somehow demonstrates how isolated he was is something that is fine to include in an opinion piece. It is clear bias to include this opinion in his Wiki bio.JoelWhy (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I see no problem with attributed opinion of a sports columnist. However, one person's opinion should not have so much weight and can be summarized more succinctly. The play-by-play of the interview is excessive.—Bagumba (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• The heading was changed from "Paterno Defenses," which I felt was accurate and allowed for opinion, to "Assessment,: The section should be neutral. The fact that the content is currently not neutral does not mean the section name should also be biased and encourage further biased edits. A {{POV-section}} tag is already on the section, so this should not be an issue while it is being discussed and improved.—Bagumba (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Btw, I made this criticism of the "Assessment" heading based only on how it currently appears --AVR2012 (talk) 00:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

More considerations

Thank you for your comments Leboudv. I am concerned that you appear to be operating under an assumption that what Sally Jenkins says is fact (not opinion), so we need to flesh out her history a bit more. Also, I appreciate your being forthright (on my user talk page) and honestly stating you sympathize with Paterno ("...I can sympathise with his sad and tragic end. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)). I think it’s safe to say we all agree the entire episode is tragic.

• Jenkins bias is already established.

Jenkin's prior column in the Washington Post (which was met by a large outcry from readers) is in fact entitled: “Blame for the Penn State scandal does not lie with Joe Paterno” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/blame-for-the-penn-state-scandal-does-not-lie-with-joe-paterno/2011/11/08/gIQADqMF3M_story.html). Interestingly, the reason she won the Paterno interview was because Paterno’s handlers, DC based criminal defense attorney Wick Sollers and PR guru Dan McGinn were aware of her pro-Paterno stance. (http://dcist.com/2012/01/why_did_sally_jenkins_land_that_pat.php). In all, the interview was widely considered to be a well orchestrated “puff piece” (Sollers and McGinn were both present) in order to garner sympathy for him (note the entire first page is devoted to his failing health and his warm family life before the scandal is even mentioned). Interestingly, it took Paterno 65 days from the beginning of the scandal to finally step forward.

• The interview only provides Paterno's version of events.

It’s important to note that Paterno’s side of the story was never subjected to any cross-examination given that he died prior to the trials. Andrew Cohen, a legal analyst for CBS News and contributor to the Atlantic, called the Jenkins interview a “controlled media rehabilitation” and in the following Atlantic article raises some very serious questions about the purported “truth” of Paterno’s version of events (http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/01/thus-begins-the-rehabilitation-of-joe-paterno/251435/).

So, in the end, yes, I agree a much shortened portion of Jenkins interview should be included. Even if it is a “puff piece” designed to garner sympathy for Paterno , it is now a historical document given that it was Paterno’s last interview. That being said, if you do decide to include her extensive editorializing, then you are obligated to inform readers either (1) that she had a prior history of sympathy for Paterno (as outlined above) or (2) make it eminently clear that comments are attributable to her opinion in order to distinguish the piece from objective reporting. It might be easier, given that in 50 years no one is going to care what “Sally Jenkins thought” about the events at Penn State, to simply include the statements Paterno made himself. That, after all, is all that matters in this piece.

In any event, I’ll draft a counterpoint section for consideration which will include some of the above. This should provide more balance to this section.

Also, on a final note, I appreciate your deleting the Yvonne Fulbright section, but it still seems to be there. Assuming you’re going to take this out based on your earlier comment to this effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AVR2012 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Describing points of view, "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." Jenkins views are notable as they provide context on Paterno's quotes, but need due weight.—Bagumba (talk) 21:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree (as I did previously regarding the inclusion of the Jenkins article). However, per Wikipedia:Describing points of view, "Rather, the article should represent the POVs of the main scholars and specialists who have produced reliable sources on the issue." This disqualifies Yvonne Fulbright, who is neither a specialist nor has produced any reliable sources on the issue (vs. Jenkins, who produced Paterno). See my previous comments on Yvonne Fulbright. Anyway, once opposing views are included, it might be good to break the section down with subheadings into some version of "pros" and "cons" so as not to confuse readers, or start it off with something like "Opinions of Paterno's behavior were widely varied...." after a brief paragraph from the Jenkins interview with the salient comments by Paterno. --AVR2012 (talk) 00:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Criticism sections are generally not a good idea; even the standalone "Assessment" section would be better integrated into the article, but is better than separate pro and con sections.—Bagumba (talk) 00:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Where would you integrate the "Assessment" section?--AVR2012 (talk) 01:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Joe Paterno#Sandusky scandal and dismissal. Add POVs as the sequence of events are being discussed. —Bagumba (talk) 02:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Ideal, but I think this is problematic from an editorial and layout standpoint given that there are many pieces to this puzzle and each has its own sympathizers and detractors. I would still keep opinion in one section. At least readers will know what they're dealing with. --AVR2012 (talk) 03:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I would prefer to see it taken out entirely, but if you're going to include this, I'm sure it'll be no trouble finding prominent writers who have taken the opposing viewpoint.JoelWhy (talk) 17:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Sally Jenkins is prominent because she is a Washington Post reporter and the WP is a major paper in the US (WP:RS). She was the only person to interview the ailing Paterno prior to his death. So, at least, one gets her views on Paterno's actions (or lack thereof) in his biography here. Some people say that PSU was Joe Paterno but this is not correct. PSU tried to fire him in 2005 and did fire him over the phone in November 2011. This shows that PSU ultimately ran the football program and not vice versa. By 2011, Paterno was treated as a respected elder in the PSU football program but he didn't control PSU's decision making process. So, to take out her article would be somewhat of a disservice....although you can summarise them if you wish. Remember, the prosecutors in the upcoming Sandusky trial claim that Paterno cooperated fully with them. That says a lot...although we don't know if the evidence will ever be heard since the defence won't get a chance to cross examine Joe. Joe was a good coach but out of his league in confronting charges of child abuse. He was human. Let the record state that. That's what Jenkins says and this is fair but any rebuttal is welcome in his wikipedia article too. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

You've repeated a number of statements in your comments to this section that are factually incorrect and speculative that I think warrant some correction:

• Paterno's power at Penn State. Sally Jenkins does not "know Paterno is Not PSU." It is well known (and I'm surprised you weren't aware of it) that the university had already attempted to remove Paterno previously in 2004 in a widely publicized incident where Graham Spanier and other board members went to his house and were promptly thrown out by Paterno. The direct quote from the NYT is: "... the Sunday before Thanksgiving Day 2004, Spanier and three top university administrators went to Paterno's home, suggesting he retire, although he had been given a four-year contract extension the previous spring. In an interview with The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette late in 2005, Paterno said he had told the school officials that Penn State was close to returning as a national power. “They didn't quite understand where I was coming from or what it took to get a football program going,” Paterno said. “I said: ‘Relax. Get off my backside.' They did.“ (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/23/sports/ncaafootball/joe-paterno-longtime-penn-state-coach-dies-at-85.html?pagewanted=all). As the Associated Press described it: "Paterno's doorbell rang Nov. 21, 2004 – a Sunday – only one sunrise separating the coach from the conclusion of a 4-7 football season. Four high-ranking Penn State officials, including university president Graham Spanier and athletic director Tim Curley, walked into Paterno's home and told him, for the second time in less than two weeks, that they wished him to stop coaching, either at that minute or very soon.....So Paterno, speaking to the four school officials only briefly that day, stressed several things. He refused to quit." (http://apse.dallasnews.com/contest/2005/writing/100-250/100-250_features_second.html). Also from the same article: "Power corrupts, drop-kicking proud men from high places, and Paterno knew this even before he sat down in his home for what threatened to be the last fight of his career. In previous decades, Paterno grabbed all the power and reverence a coach could ever imagine. He studied power and, even as it grew, eclipsing that of his official superiors, he guarded it. He feared corruption, and his instincts helped him avoid it... In staff meetings, he pleaded for confrontation. He proposed outlandish personnel changes "just to see if anybody had the guts to tell me 'no.' " He hoped loyalties toward him were founded on respect and friendship, not fear. He used his clout sparingly – only as a last resort." I'm not sure what kind of job you have, but I assure you if my supervisors walked into my office to fire me, I could not throw them out and refuse. So I hope this puts to rest your misconception that Paterno did not have ultimate power at Penn State.

In any event, I've already stated that a short portion of Jenkins article should be included, in particular Paterno's statements. But taking Sally Jenkins word for things will get you into trouble, just as it did in regard to the "power" issue.

• FBI Rape Definition. If you're suggesting that Paterno couldn't have known men could rape other boys because there was no "official FBI definition" until 2011, then that would apply to the entire country, right? So how is it that the rest of us know that same sex rape happens (never having consulted any formal definitions by the FBI)? It's kind of like saying, "Well, the FBI didn't formally define first degree murder until 1975, so until then no one could conceive of it happening." This argument makes no sense to me. --AVR2012 (talk) 06:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• No. That was Fulbright saying that the FBI's defined rape as being an act between a man and a woman but since the FBI is an agent of authority--that people refer to--is indirectly relevant. Even Jenkins doubts that Paterno didn't know about child rape but she could understand why he would find this so hard to believe that a trusted former assistant would betray him. You state that a short portion of the Jenkins' article can be included including quotes from Paterno. Yes, I'm all for that since its important. But a litle context from Jenkins' does help. So, feel free to trim her interpretations a little if you wish but let the reader get the gist of what she's saying. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I apologize in advance for being caustic (if I was). It's obvious there are strong feelings on both sides of this bio. I agree with you about including the Sally Jenkins article - it is important, and any forthcoming edits I make will include her overall point of view. I am less charitable (as you already know) to the Yvonne Fulbright section, but I think once we arrive at a more balanced "Assessment" section you can decide how much of her statement you actually want to include. Be forwarned that what I have to add for Paterno is not necessarily pretty... but in the long run I hope we can meet somewhere that reflects the truth. --AVR2012 (talk) 06:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Sure. Please feel free to trim or edit the Fulbright section...and make whatever minor changes you wish to the Jenkins section. I didn't know that Fulbright was a PSU graduate (she didn't say this in her on-line article--only in the comments) but I suppose both she and Jenkins are trying to give the reasons behind Paterno's actions (or lack thereof). Jenkins, however, is more critical of Paterno though she empathises with his decisions. (ie. see someone else's perspective from their point of view) Its just a pity that the PSU police, who have the authority to arrest people on campus, didn't investigate further after Paterno contacted them about McQueary's statement to him. So, you get these smears by some people claiming that Paterno 'protected' Sandusky when the record seems to indicate that he was maybe the only guy who did something...but it wasn't enough. What a tragedy! Good luck with your edits, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The campus police are actual police. They aren't security guards or something -- they have the rights to arrest people just like any other cop, because they are just like any other cop. That being said, Paterno never contacted them. He contacted a school administrator who had oversight over the campus police. The administrator was not a cop, had no authority to arrest anyone, investigate a crime, etc. Of course, the administrator should have informed the police. But, one of the main reasons Paterno has been criticized is because he never went to the cops.JoelWhy (talk) 14:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the clarification Joel. I thought that Paterno actually contacted the head of security at PSU but I suppose he contacted his immediate superiors to investigate further as most people usually do. They then should have contacted the campus police but didn't. Joe didn't pursue the matter further since he didn't know if Jerry was innocent or guilty if what Joe told Jenkins is true...and I think it probably is since he expected an investigation to find the truth. Why was there no investigation...that's the million dollar question now sadly. Only a trial now can possibly uncover this. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I very much support the edit request. A reference to the Jenkins article is appropriate, why copy and paste the whole article though? Nothing but the two main quotes by Paterno are notable.

The bulk of the Jenkins article is an opinion piece along the lines of 'we should view Paterno as a hero but a flawed hero.' Other opinion pieces might say his reaction to McQueary was his finest hour, or that it was like Andy of Mayberry calming down an over-anxious Barney Fife.

The same could be accomplished in less space by giving the Paterno quotes, a reference and a link. Createangelos (talk) 10:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

As it presently stands, this section is not an "Assessment". It's a couple of people coming to Paterno's defense.JoelWhy (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Its an assessment given especially by Jenkins because she interviewed Paterno. Jenkins is not a PSU graduate (unlike Fulbright) and is trying to give some reasons for his actions...or lack thereof from his point of view. Her views and Paterno's quotes are not unreasonable. --Leoboudv (talk) 22:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Joe Paterno Website

I believe the website www.coachjoepa.com should be added to Joe Paterno for external links. the website has a great blog about Joe Paterno. people are leaving comments on the blog and it should be included in the joe paterno wikipedia article so people can view ccomments about joe paterno as there is no joe paterno website i could find other than www.coachjoepa.com www.coachjoepa.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.110.166.57 (talk) 19:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

It looks like a fan website. That's not an appropriate external link on his Wiki page.JoelWhy (talk) 19:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Split out Sandusky allegations to a separate article

The Sandusky allegations were a minor part in Paterno's overall life and Paterno played a small part in this scandal. Although they bear mentioning, they should not be described in such a manner that they occupy 1/3 of the article. Instead, a more appropriate way to deal with them is to mention them and provide a cite to the article where they can be discussed in detail. As such, I have removed the ridiculously large section on the scandal and inserted a more appropriately lengthed paragraph. CavalierLion (talk) 22:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Penn State sex abuse scandal deals with the case in general, and doesnt have some details on Paterno that are in this article. We should look to preserve information, whether it be here or another article. Readers would want to know what and when Paterno knew, and what others' opinions are. Agreed that details non directly involving him should be summarized here only. Also, note that his coaching career could could use more detail, which would make this section not seem as big.—Bagumba (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. We should write up a one paragraph summary of the scandal and provide a link to the main article. As for expanding the coaching details, the info is out there, we just need an editor with the time and interest. I have plenty of interest, but little time. --Gerry D (talk) 02:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I would not split out the Sandusky/Penn State issue from Paterno's bio given that most persons who frequent Wikipedia are not familiar with college football and in fact only know of Joe Paterno as a result of the scandal itself, hence its overall importance in his overall career. His grand jury testimony states that he was aware of Sandusky's actions regarding Victim 2 in 2002, a period that spans an entire decade of his coaching career and this is not an insignificant time span. (http://sportsbybrooks.com/transcript-joe-paterno-grand-jury-testimony-29933)

AVR2012 (talk) 02:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The New York Times article that interviewed the Board of Trustees has important material on why they thought fit to fire him. Only the "We are Penn State" chant is in here currently. It can be balanced with other viewpoints on why the move was deemed improper. I wouldnt doubt if Penn State firing of Joe Paterno could be an article in itself with more details/sources than either Penn State sex abuse scandal or Joe Paterno can handle.—Bagumba (talk) 03:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Bagumba - It appears it is unanimous that this scandal should be summarized in only a paragraph form in this article. I stayed away for a while to see what others thought. And, it appears unanimous that the proper place for most of this material is elsewhere. I personally think it belongs in the Penn State sex abuse scandal article. I'll give it another day or so before editing the main page in case others want to comment.CavalierLion (talk) 21:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Not unanimous, just been discussed before and I didn't feel like responding yet again. This is what the guy is now known for, like it or not. Obviously, this in addition to his coaching career, but it's not like this is some minor asterix mark on the guy's record. For the foreseeable future, few people are going to mention Paterno without immediately associating him with a child sex abuse scandal.JoelWhy (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Unanimous? Myself, AVR2012, and now JoelWhy disagree, while you and Gerry D agreed. Hardly a consensus that anything is broken.—Bagumba (talk) 22:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with splitting out the Sandusky scandal for the obvious reasons. The Sandusky allegations are a key part of the Paterno bio - in fact what most people actually know him for given that only sports fans follow college football. Would you split out the "steroid scandal" part of Barry Bond's bio (or sexual abuse allegations in the Sandusky bio given that most of Sandusky's career was devoted to coaching)? Hardly. Furthermore, the focus here is on Paterno's involvement himself (not the overall history of Sandusky's abuses) and the events described are a key part of the JOE PATERNO story whether they appeal to people or not. There is no reasonable rationale for excluding them - and I'm not comfortable with attempts to whitewash the bio or un-write history.--AVR2012 (talk) 02:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Condense scandal

Considering this is a biographical article it should definitely be included, but not at the level of detail it is currently. We already have an article on the scandal Penn State sex abuse scandal and Paterno played a rather small part in it (and this is detailed in that article). Right now the scandal on his page takes up about 1/3 of the content. Can we agree it should be cut significantly to about a paragraph or two? Hate to say it but the way it is now reeks of WP:COATRACK. Redredryder (talk) 02:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

You are correct. It should be smaller. Previous attempts to make it shorter were unsuccessful. Perhaps now such a change would be better received. --Jtalledo (talk) 02:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)