![]() | 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
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.
DWright 71.48.141.230 ( 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.
DWright 71.48.141.230 ( talk) 19:44, 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.
DWright 71.48.141.230 ( talk) 00:36, 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.
DWright 71.48.141.230 ( talk) 14:43, 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;
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)
I turned this over to dispute resolution.
DWright 71.48.141.230 ( 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.
DWrignt 71.48.141.230 ( 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 WP:NOT3RR, edits that remove unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons ( WP:BLP) are not counted as reverts for the purposes of WP:3RR. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 12:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I just reverted a clear violation of Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons ( WP:BLP ). [2] I did this because another Mediator/Clerk on WP:DRN reminded me [3] that WP:BLPREMOVE says that negative unsourced information about living persons is to be immediately removed and that if it is necessary to do so multiple times that it is not edit warring to do so. I also asked at WP:BLPN and was told that I am on solid ground. [4] Please note that per WP:NOT3RR, edits that remove unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons ( WP:BLP ) are not counted as reverts for the purposes of WP:3RR. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 19:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Re: "Uh, weren't there 5 sources? Can't be BLP if there are multiple sources backing it up", the correct count is zero sources.
Yes, we have established that those who insist on violating WP:BLP are capable of googling up some random webpage that claims something else and putting REFs around it, but the easily-checked facts are that we have 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. None.
What we have are sources saying that:
[A] McQueary claims to have talked to police.
[B] Campus and borough police say they have no record of that.
[C] The grand jury that charged the other two with failure to report found McQueary's testimony to credible and did not charge him with failure to report.
(I invited the two editors who insisted an accusing McQueary in Wikipedia's voice to instead report A and B as they are in the sources with attributions, but they declined.)
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)
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 WP:BRD) and post an argument that is does support the statement, I would have no problem with that. 48 and 49, on the other hand, need to go. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 05:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
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 WP:DRN. Here one of the deleted legal threats:
"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)
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 wp:undue, but rather that it has not been given ENOUGH prominence in the article. Snertking ( talk) 00:41, 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. Gtwfan52 ( talk) 22:30, 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)
Did I miss something in the article? Why is this a part of the WikiProject Children's literature? Gtwfan52 ( talk) 05:31, 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)
I have opened a discussion at WP:BLPN.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 18:11, 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)
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)
Under "Awards and honors" the article says that the name of the Big Ten championship trophy was changed "in light of Paterno's purported involvement with the Sandusky child abuse scandal." In the next paragraph it says that the support for the Presidential Medal of Freedom was withdrawn "in light of Paterno's purported involvement with [sic] Sandusky child abuse scandal."
The Big Ten's announcement of the decision to take Paterno's name off the trophy never makes any mention of Paterno possibly being involved in the scandal. They just acknowledged that Paterno's name would make it controversial when the trophy was intended to be celebratory. They wanted to keep the focus on the players and not on the controversy. (See citation in article.)
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)
Take it up with Louis Freeh
|
---|
Joe Paterno's death does not absolve Wikipedia from the possibility of a suit do to the damaging an liabelous statements herein. They are offensive. Ask a civil litigant attorney to review the discussion, the references, and the resolution of the conflict with regard to Wikkipedia's vulnerabilty to civil suit for false and potentially libelous statements and follow the attorney's advice. Do any of the liabel slinging haters here have attornies? Nittany PRIDE! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.65.136.79 ( talk) 20:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Blood Libel is what you fools are doing to a great man! Its a shame that some editors feel the need to slam a great man after he's dead. We have 409 wins cuz of him. 409 fecking wins! I hope JoePa's family or fans decide to get a lawyer and sue all of you 24.228.231.16 ( talk) 23:06, 12 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)
I removed some of the bit about Paterno's retirement package. A lot of what was written was not in the original article and seemed to be original research, including a bit about paying taxpayers back. -- Jtalledo (talk) 14:20, 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)
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)
Restoring the lead as it is clearly supported by the citations, e.g., the NYT On 1-19-2012:
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)
Addition that mentions an overturn in Mohamed bin Hammam's ban seems to border on synth. Just because FIFA overturned the ban, doesn't mean that report was flawed and it largely has no bearing on Freeh's report on the Penn State situation. -- Jtalledo (talk) 18:30, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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 WP:RS now concerns Paterno's role in the sex-abuse scandal and cover-up conspiracy, not his coaching career. Therefore, in the lead, the coaching career should be discussed after the sex scandal, which is now more notable than the coaching, especially with 111 wins vacated. The relevant policy is here [5]. Qworty ( talk) 20:01, 24 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
usa-psu-child-abuse
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).psu-child-abuse
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).