Talk:Joe Paterno/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Sexual allegations against Jerry Sandusky

So far, Paterno's part in this boils down to this: he was informed of the accusations and informed Tim Curley. He hasn't been charged with anything, but has been criticized for not doing enough. That's all there is to it right now, and that's all the article should say. Any other details not directly involving Paterno belong in either Jerry Sandusky's article or a new article about the scandal itself. There is no "whitewashing" here. --Jtalledo (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Unless one considers that informing Curley instead of the police is itself questionable. Sandusky was no longer an employee. Are we to believe the Paterno's only interest in this is whether or not Sandusky should have continued access to PSU athletic facilities? Also, regarding your header, sex with a 10-year-old is rape, not "sexual".--Reedmalloy (talk) 21:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Rape is "sexual". But I'm not debating you on that. As I said, the article mentions all this already. It mentions that he has been criticized for just notifying Curley. We're not here to express our own beliefs or debate the topic in general. The section states all that is known about Paterno's part in all of this. --Jtalledo (talk) 21:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

While the following quote does accurately reference the NBC article, footnote 18, the NBC article itself is incorrect as the grand jury does not mention anything that could be construed as praise to Joe Paterno. "Although prosecutors have reported that Paterno is not accused of any wrongdoing,[19] and was praised by the grand jury for informing Curley,[18] advocates for sexual abuse victims have called for charges to be brought against him for not contacting the police himself.[20" This is a dishonest entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.117.51 (talk) 12:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

You are correct. The article that is cited says the grand jury praises Paterno in the indictment; I read through the indictment (skimmed, really...too stomach churning to actually read.) Paterno is briefly discussed under Victim 2. They say he learned of the incident and reported it to his superior. That's it. Nothing in there could be viewed as condemnation or praise. I'm removing the phrase, but if you can find something by the grand jury that does constitute praise, feel free to point out where and add it back to the article.JoelWhy (talk) 16:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't the name of the GA who witnessed an incident an reported it to Paterno be included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.77.78 (talk) 17:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so. I mean, I'm not against including it, but it doesn't seem particularly relevant to the article on Paterno. (Then again, I haven't been paying all that much attention to this story, so if there's something particularly significant about the identity of the person who informed Paterno, please enlighten me.)JoelWhy (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it's relevant - considering that the witness was reportedly Mike McQueary, former Penn State QB and now an assistant coach with the team. --Jtalledo (talk) 19:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Is the implication that if they fired Paterno they should have fired the assistant, too? Regardless, seems like a fact that would be appropriate for the page on the actual scandal, but a bit too detailed for the general Paterno page. That being said, I don't see any harm with adding it if people want to add it.JoelWhy (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

No, that's not the implication. But I get what you're saying. The scandal page is linked anyway. --Jtalledo (talk) 20:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

From a legal standpoint Paterno followed protocol based on the information he was given, which was vague and didn't include the word "rape." When Commissioner Noonan stated, "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. 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 was misusing his position to give authority to his own indignation. As far as I can tell, the first dissenting voices were silenced with mace and no others have dared speak. Dreadfullyboring (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

As noted in the Sports Illustrated writeup in November, and consistent with everything we've heard since, Paterno had come to feel like it was his school to run. Yes, he gave 4 million to the school - but with "strings attached": He bought power. As regards the 2002 situation, it's clear that everyone in the chain of command (McQueary, Paterno, and the guys above him) were all in denial about the gravity of the situation, which worked to the advantage of the alleged perp - and Paterno's response this past November indicated that he still did not understand the enormity of the problem. When the trials are over and some time has passed, the many positives of his career at Penn State will eventually outshine the negatives. But that's for later. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I second the preceding comment. The PAterno entry read before the comments here, reads like a defensive semi-whitewash. A beloved figure in sports does not protect a child but rather the sports enterprise. If this were your kid, would you find Paterno a person whose shiny legend should be kept clean from the tarnish of reality? The comparisons many have made to the behavior of the Church are completely apt.Actio (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

It's really not Wikipedia's job to judge. So, however we feel about "what if it was my kid" shouldn't really impact the entry. However, I have long felt the information presented here regarding the scandal is clearly written from a Paterno fan POV.JoelWhy (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Termination

Joe Paterno was fired around 10:15 PM November 9, 2011 by the Board of Trustees of Penn State. (cite ESPNEWS)

Scrawney (talk) 03:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)Scraweny

Once/if the details are known/released about the terms of his departure -- aside from the fact that he has now been fired -- are known, those items should be added to the article (e.g., severance pay, whether he keeps his pension, etc.), these details should be added to the article. Same goes with the complete statement from the board of trustees regarding what led to their decision. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 04:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)]]

Edit request from , 10 November 2011

Punctuation fix per standard punctuation rules: Comma is needed after "2011" in phrase: November 9, 2011

76.166.175.105 (talk) 03:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Apparently done; all occurrences of that date have the comma as far as I can see.  Frank  |  talk  04:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Tenure as head coach

There should be good notification that Paterno's win 409 was his last game at Penn State. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportsanimal (talk • contribs) 06:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey guys, I am talking about "Paterno was on Penn State's coaching staff for 704 of its 1,225 games, 57.5% of all games played by the program dating back to its inception in 1887, 44.7% as head coach." Someone forgot to add two games to make it's 1,227 games. Overall record from 1887-2011 is 826-358-43 at end of the Joe Paterno era. Fbi205agent (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Since the percentage will only decrease over the coming years, it is better to remove the trivia.—Bagumba (talk) 22:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

If he started coaching in '66, that would make his head coaching tenure 45 years, not 46. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.191.30.124 (talk) 20:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Chronological order

The Scandal is too close to the top. It should be towards the end of the article. This is an encyclopedia not about news. As much as the news says JoePa had a life and career before the scandal. 24.36.110.176 (talk) 08:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Scandal should even be closer to the top. It has and will define him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.66.144 (talk) 04:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Students react to termination

After the news of the firing on November 8, 2011, students congregated outside Penn State administration offices to show support for the football coach. The demonstration turned physical and police tried to control the crowd with mace. Protesters brought down lampposts, one of which fell into a group of students. Police tried using mace to control the crowd, to which some students responded with rocks, cans of pop and road flares. Other students blew vuvuzelas and air horns and a reveille was heard from a trumpet. Some were shouting “Tip the van!” and “Flip it over!” in regards to a news van.

Nichpaul (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit suggestion re: firing for the lede

I think the current prose re:Paterno's firing is a bit too lengthy for the lede, and some of the details should be moved down into the dismissal subsection. It currently reads:

"In conjunction with the Jerry Sandusky child sexual abuse scandal, he announced on November 9, 2011, that he intended to retire at the end of the 2011 football season,[2] but was fired from his position by Penn State trustees later that night."

Instead I think something like this would be more appropriate:

"Paterno was fired from his position as head coach the of Penn State football team on November 9, 2011 for his role in the Jerry Sandusky child sexual abuse scandal."

Thoughts? SGMD1 ^Talk/_Contribs 18:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that "In conjunction with" is awkward -- my initial thought was just to change it to "In response to" -- but your phrasing is fine. jheiv ^{talk contribs} 23:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I find the current phrasing of the lede to be a bit ambiguous as far as the role Sandusky played at Penn State. Sandusky was under Paterno for a full thirty years, while the current phrasing, "one time coach," can be misleading for readers not familiar with the situation, while giving a concrete time period may provoke calls of bias one way or another. So it may be best to either be slightly less specific ("a subordinate") or more specific ("former defensive coordinator"). Thoughts? DMull387 ^{talk contribs} 16:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I think "former defensive coordinator" sounds good. As I've said before, I don't think their relationship is particularly important for purposes of this article (as opposed to the article specifically dealing with the scandal.) But, you are correct that "one time coach" leaves a false impression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoelWhy (talk • contribs) 16:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

History repeating....

This story just goes to show how article details may change but the principle facts remain the same. A notable sporting coach is dragged down by tenuous links to a sordid kiddie fiddler case. I make this point because the ignoble end to the career of Mr Paterno has the hallmarks of the Jock Stein case (see talk page). Stein, who was a respected and adored Scotland soccer coach of both domestic and national teams, has had his legacy tarnished because the question remains to be answered how much did he know that a coach called Jim Torbett was abusing youngsters at the Celtic FC's boy club. Although Paterno is sacked because he allegedly failed to do more, or check that his complaint had been investigated, his name will be always inexplicably linked with the despicable behaviour of another.

Therefore heed this, the question of what he knew, when he knew it, and why he let sleeping dogs lie (sic the Jock Stein debacle) will lead to edits wars and page blocks unless a hard editorial line is taken now to wheedle out press speculation, supposition and local rumours. Your have been warned! 109.158.253.105 (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

If you see any 'press speculation, supposition and local rumors,' please edit the page appropriately. But, if you're just against a guy's reputation being sullied because you don't think he had a duty to call the cops when he knew a pederast was regularly admitted to the premises...well, you're entitled to your opinion, but you don't get to cover up the facts because you don't agree with the outcome.

I actually think the current section on the matter in this page is quite excellent -- it's not overly long, nor is it the main focus of the page. But, it doesn't try to bury the issue, either. Also, it doesn't condemn Paterno's actions (or inaction) nor does it defend him. I'm actually surprised by how even-handed it is given how hotly debated it's been. My hat's off to the Wiki editors on this page.JoelWhy (talk) 20:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I would like to add that a reporter from pennlive.com, Sara Ganim, has probably done the most legwork on the scandal story. She worked for the Cenre Daily Times before going to The Patriot News. She and others at pennlive broke the story in March 2011. She has personally interviewed a couple dozen of the principle people. Some of the entries in the article are referencing natioinal news articles that I have found to be lacking in the diligence of Ms. Ganim's work. I don't have time to contribute edits. here are some links: http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/11/penn_state_child_sex-abuse_sca.html http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/11/who_knew_what_about_jerry_sand.html Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by SirDerpsalot (talk • contribs) 20:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Paterno's Tenure as Athletics Director

Shouldn't Paterno's tenure as athletics director from Mar 1, 1980 to Mar 1, 1982 be included in the article? I found the press claims of Joe Paterno's influence at PSU difficult to follow until I understood the nature of relationship with his last two athletic directors, and the fact that he was actually athletics director for a period.

History of Athletics Directors during Paterno's Tenure as Coach and Assistant Coach:

Carl P. Schott - July 1, 1936 - July 1, 1952

Selected Charles A. (Rip) Engle, 42, as head football coach in April 1950 after the resignation of Joe Bedenk, who only held the position for 1 year after Bob Higgins departed due to health issues. Rip went on to serve 16 years as head coach. He also brought Paterno to Penn State in 1950 as the backfield assistant coach, with special focus on quarterbacks.

Ernest (Ernie) McCoy - July 1, 1952 - July 1, 1969

External hire from Michigan in 1952. Promotes Joe Paterno to head coach in February 1966, a succession move that was expected for many years.

Edward M. Czekaj - July 1, 1969 - March 1, 1980

Played varsity basketball and football at Penn State in 1946 and 1947. Joined Penn State athletics as an employee in 1954. Promoted to associate athletic director in 1967 and athletic director in 1969.

Joe Paterno - March 1, 1980 - March 1, 1982

Joins Penn State as assistant football coach in summer of 1950 at age 23. (Milwaukee Journal article dated May 27, 1950 indicates that Paterno will join Engle the following month at Penn State.) June 17, 1964 promoted to associate football coach. On February 19, 1966 Paterno is named head coach, succeeding Engle. Following a reported 3 way power battle with Czekaj and Robert Scannell, makes demand to Penn State president, John Oswald, that he be made AD or he would leave. (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Jan 15, 1980 - Paterno Appointed Penn State AD)

Jim Tarman - March 1, 1982 - December 30, 1993

External hire from Princeton, Tarman joined Penn State in August 1958 as director of sports publicity. On May 26, 1970 he was named assistant athletic director and director of athletic public relations. Selected by Paterno, Tarman became athletic director in 1982, technically reporting to John Oswald.

Timothy M. Curley - December 30, 1993 - current (administrative leave since November 6, 2011)

Native of State College, reports claim that he grew up across the street from the then Penn State football stadium and was involved in selling programs and parking cars from a young age. Played football for State College Area High School, undefeated in his senior season, 1971. Entered Penn State University in 1972. Walked onto football team, but had career shortened by injuries. After graduating in 1976 with a bachelor's degree in health and physical education became a graduate assistant coach whole pursuing his master's degree in counselor education. Left program after one year and became Lion's first full-time football reciting coordinator. Became assistant athletic director in 1981. Chosen to succeed Tarman in 1993. The first athletic director of PSU to be born in State College, and during Paterno's tenure as a coach at PSU.

Hbajwa (talk) 23:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Statue

We have a picture of the statue, but nothing in the article about when it was built, who built it, etc. There's also a news story circulating saying the statue will be removed by Thanksgiving, but the school has denied having any form of discussions about the statue. There may not be any need to add the info about the proposed removal of the statue, especially if it turns out to just be a rumor. However, regardless of whether it's removed, we should add something about the statue to the article. (I'll try to get around to doing it myself, but don't have time to do the research at the moment.)JoelWhy (talk) 17:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Bias

There is a heavy slant towards the idea that Paterno covered it up, which is nothing but conjecture by the sensationalist media. Omitted, however, is that he in addition to notifying Tim Curley, also notified Gary Schultz, who was the head of the university police at the time. There should not be any information stating about how some "feel" that Paterno was part of the coverup. Well, some people "feel" that Obama is the anti-Christ, but that kind of crap isn't in any articles, and for good reason too. Print both sides or neither at all. Wikipedia is NOT the National Enquirer, so there should be no printing of inciteful language or sensationalist weasel words. This is a professional encyclopedia. All that should be mentioned is the following.

1. Paterno notified AD Tim Curley and head of the university police Gary Schultz. 2. Paterno wishes he would have done more, some believe what he did was the right thing to do, others believe it wasn't (optional). 3. Admission that not all facts are yet known.

There should be NO opinions stating that he swept it under the rug. Since it has been proven false, Wikipedia and others who spread this misinformation can be sued for libel. The most that can be said is that maybe Paterno didn't press hard enough, but only if the opposing view that he followed protocol is presented and why following protocol might have been "the right thing to do". The media focus on Paterno with crap like that had some thinking that HE was the one who allegedly molested the boys, not Jerry Sandusky. All poor JoePa did was follow protcol which at worst may not have been quite enough, but we don't know what he did afterwards.

It's stuff like this that the encyclopedia has the reputation it has. Want Wiipedia to stop being a punchline in a joke involving misinformation? Print ALL the known facts and ELIMINATE the conjecture. This is not an opinion column. This is an encyclopedia. Thank you, and good night. 71.162.62.66 (talk) 09:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, claims of bias from those who are most biased -- the irony gods are pleased. Schultz was not head of the university police. Part of his job duties as VP of the school was oversight of the university police. There's a world of difference (i.e. the head of the police is a cop!) So, in other words, he knew Sandusky was raping children and didn't ever bother to notify the police. But, feel free to point to any specific references that don't comply with Wiki policy.JoelWhy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC).

It's funny how you're so biased that you don't even see that you're so anti-Paterno that you're trying to split hairs just to villify the man. The man oversaw the University police which as far as a University is concerned, is like being the head of the police. You have no understanding of the subject matter, yet you profess yourself as an expert. You do realize that just because you say something it doesn't make it true, right? All we know about is the Grand Jury report, which is not a full testimony, but a list of items from the prosecution looking for an indictment. There are rumors (again rumors that we can't print) that all of the filling in the blanks that people like yourself have done is grossly inaccurate. It's sad that people who are only given marginal information decide to fill in the blanks with "Paterno did not follow up" rather than "We don't know if Paterno followed up but we would assume he did". But if you think you're unbiased, I bet you think Michael Moore or Rush Limbaugh (depending on your politics) is unbiased. Once again, the GJ report does NOT say whether or not Paterno did or did not follow up so pretending that you know everything makes you look like an arrogant moral crusader that probably hasn't donated a dime to charities for children. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.62.66 (talk) 03:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Enough! Let's not engage in flame wars. Let's just edit the article if we see something we feel violates Wikipedia policy. Claiming personal bias from either side is not going to help one's cause. MVillani1985 (talk) 04:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Good point, let's stick with the facts. Based on the information available, Paterno never notified police (last time I checked, the VP of a school wasn't empowered to arrest anyone or conduct a police investigation, so let's try to keep grounded in reality here.) If someone has any facts which counter this, I urge you to include it in the article.JoelWhy (talk) 13:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

In actuality, Schultz does oversee the campus police (although he is not "chief"), which is why Paterno contacted him. If he had no power or say in an investigation, why contact him? I understand that you don't want the article to be a complete defense of Paterno, and agree since we are Wikipedia, but we need to put our own conclusions and opinions on the matter aside. I know how you feel about Paterno and I personally disagree. But I agree with your desire to be encyclopediac. The other person here I may agree with their stance but not the manner of handling it. All of us need to not let our personal biases decide what's admissible as fact or fiction. In a situation like this, iet's best to trim away the gray area and just stick with what we know. 10:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

How I feel about Paterno? I really don't care about Paterno one way or the other, which is why I decided to come edit this page after the news coverage. I'm an NFL guy, I really don't watch (or care about) college ball. As a human being, I wish he had contacted the police, but it's not as if I think he should be vilified as if he were the pedophile either. So, I came here because I suspected there would be college football fans streaming here to either burn him in effigy or (as I believe is becoming the case here) portray him as a victim.JoelWhy (talk) 13:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's best to do your homework beforehand. The story many (I'm not saying you, just many I've talked to) have is that Paterno witnessed the event and just passed it on to Tim Curley and forgot all about it. The truth is, the man that witnessed it, Mike McQueary had a MUCH bigger responsibility in this case. The only thing I think Paterno is a victim of is people taking their attention off of Sandusky and putting it on Paterno. I've seen a poll that showed 17% of people thought that Paterno was the one accused of molesting little boys. That's why I take issue with showing the side of the story that Paterno didn't do enough and sweeping under the rug the side that he did. I'm not suggesting fair and balanced coverage, of course, since that isn't our job. I'm suggesting no coverage, just get rid of most of the "but we feel" stuff on either side and that should eliminate most of the issues people have. Meaning, no "Paterno should be charged" as well as no "Paterno went the extra mile". MVillani1985 (talk) 15:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone wish to defend this addition?: "However, many feel that by contacting Gary Schultz, he did notify the police, as Schultz oversaw the University police. It should also be remembered that a grand jury report is not comprehensive and did not state whether or not Paterno did or did not follow up." "Many feel..."? "It should also be remembered that..."? Would this article be improved if we were to include sentences that say "many feel Paterno should be burned at the stake;" and "It should also be remembered that a grand jury testimony is not comprehensive and did not state whether or not Paterno participated in ritual sacrifices" this editorializing should be removed.JoelWhy (talk) 13:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

There is discussion in the article about many advocates for child sexual abuse saying that charges should be brought against Paterno. I left that in but also presented the side that many feel that he did do enough. This isn't an opinion column, we either post "both sides" or no sides, the latter is actually preferrable. MVillani1985 (talk) 10:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

This article from the Altoona Mirror details Paterno's discussion with Schultz. It supports the quoted statements. But I really don't think any of the conjecture needs to be in this article. We don't know the facts yet. We just have lots of anger, shrillness, but very little facts. Nobody has been convicted... yet. Gerry D (talk) 15:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying you can't find people who don't feel this way, I'm saying it's not appropriate in this type of article. Or, if it is, then you feel it is equally appropriate to include articles from people who feel he should be criminally charged, or that the law should be passed which criminalize his conduct (I have little doubt there are articles quoting people who feel this way). Of course, what is more appropriate to include is the facts. He was informed by assistant coach of the incident. He reported this incident to Curley and Schultz. The only people who seem to question whether he then contacted the police (it is fairly clear he did not) are a few Paterno supporters. If you want to argue his reporting to the administration should suffice, that's a valid opinion. But, this article isn't supposed to be about adding our opinions or defending the man's legacy. (I'm not implying that this is what you are advocating, Gerry; only that this article has quickly turned from being fairly objective a week ago to a Paterno apologist article.)JoelWhy (talk) 16:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

A Grand Jury report is meant to give a summary of the events that happened, not a complete account, so "it is clear he did not" is drawing conclusions. It's natural to draw conclusions, but as I said before, we should either post both "views" on this or neither at all, and I would actually prefer the latter since we are not the media. I'm not saying you can't have your opinions, and I'm not saying the other guy can't have his opinions, but let's not allow our personal biases to decide what is admissible. If Gerry's source is not admissible, then neither are the statements that Paterno "should have charges brought against him". MVillani1985 (talk) 10:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

According to the police, Paterno never contacted them. As referenced in this Wiki article, 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...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." Again, it's quite clear he did not go to the police. He did go to the VP of the school, a civilian who had oversight of the campus police. Plenty of places have civilians (or civilian committees) with oversight of the police. These people are NOT cops. They do not investigate crimes, make arrests, or take police reports. Should this have been enough? It's not for me (or the article) to say. But, ultimately, we have it on good authority that he never went to the police.JoelWhy (talk) 13:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I've never seen anything that states that Paterno never contacted police either way. However, I did see an article that says that the state police did not hear from McQueary in 2002 and that nobody reported the 1988 incident. That was only the state police, we don't know about the State College PD either way. I'm not trying to be antagonistic when I ask this, but why would someone contact the man who oversees campus police when they're not required to if that person has nothing signifficant to do with the police? Yes, sometimes civilians oversee police, but they still have the authority to decide what to do with the information they're given, hence why Schultz has been indicted. All I'm saying is that we're not getting much info yet, all we've gotten are sound bites from the media, and not the ones who did the fact-checking. I will agree with the one line, it's not for me, you, the article, or anyone to say on anything, so really we should probably snip out all of the "but we feel" stuff from either side. MVillani1985 (talk) 15:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you. Why don't you give re-writing this section a shot. There is way too much speculation here, there, and everywhere. Gerry D (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The statement from the State police commissioner makes it clear that the police were never notified. I don't think it constitutes a synthesis violation to make the leap that according to the State police commissioner, no one ever notified police means Paterno did not notify the police. I agree with much of what you're saying, though. Paterno didn't molest anyone, nor did he witness the sexual abuse. He didn't overtly cover up the information. He did report the information. His primary failure in this matter, if you consider it a failure, is that he did not notify the cops. He's clearly not as culpable as Schultz. But, that's not really the point.JoelWhy (talk) 17:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Frank Noonan is pretty new to this role as the comissioner of the state police, since he was appointed by Tom Corbett in January of this year, so he may have made the statement before looking deep into the files or to see if the State College borough police were notified. I don't know, just wild guessing at this point. I do know that Frank Noonan is a veteran, with a history working for the federal government, so his statement might have more validity than a total newbie's might, but it came out so early, that combined with his non-Pennsylvania background is what makes me not take this at face value. Now, if the state college police chief says "Paterno didn't contact us either" then I have no choice but to admit I was wrong here. But at this point it's just total cobjecture to say anything other than an analogy like "We have a 1000 piece jigsaw puzzle, it came in a bag so we don't know what the final picture looks like, and we THINk we've assembled 100 pieces correctly so far". You might be right, I'm not afraid to admit here that I might be totally off base. Since we're working with a partially assembled jigsaw puzzle.

But ultimately, anything either of us says is just trying to guess if the jigsaw puzzle is a horse or a mountain or a banana split, ah you get the idea. So further discussion is kind of pointless. The real discussion should be do we keep or trim out the parts about the Sandusky case other than the established facts which are "Joe Paterno contacted Curley and Schultz after getting second hand information from Mike McQueary" and "JoePa was fired by thr trustees who felt it was in the best interest of the university to remove Paterno from the head coaching position". Personally I feel that opinions on either side need to go. MVillani1985 (talk) 01:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but whether you take his statement at face value or not is irrelevant. According to the State police commissioner, Paterno never contacted the police. There was no police investigation at the time. There's no indication that he went to the police in the grand jury report. It seems as though the only people on the planet who question whether he went to the police are the editors of his Wiki page.JoelWhy (talk) 14:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Anyways, I think we both said enough about whether he did or didn't contact the police. I'm sure you'll agree that our opinions don't matter here, although we can keep Noonan's quote as a valid source obviously. This could go on forever until the trial's over. Until then, the debate is "keep" or "delete" for the additional information. I say we should get rid of the for and against talk about Paterno. Including stuff I may agree with, because on here above all, I'm a Wikipedia editor, not a politician. MVillani1985 (talk) 20:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Gerry D (talk) 23:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there's no point in debating the issue about whether he went to the police or not. But, I'm adding back the quote from the police that makes it quite clear Paterno never contacted them.JoelWhy (talk) 23:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I never deleted Noonan's quote, regardless of how early it came out, it's still valid as per Wikipedia guidelines as we both know. I don't know who erased it. I only snipped the stuff about people saying they feel he should be charged or actually any opinion based stuff outside of Noonan's quote. MVillani1985 (talk) 04:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I restored the sentence about how some feel about Paterno having gone to Schutlz. I removed the speculation about the grand jury testimony. I added the Mirror reference for the Schultz conversations. I hope this is a good compromise. Gerry D (talk) 15:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort, Gerry, but I still must object. If we feel it is appropriate to include that sentence("However, many feel that by contacting Gary Schultz, he did notify the police, as Schultz oversaw the University police") then it also must also be appropriate to include the following information: "A new Newsweek/Daily Beast poll reveals that there’s a broad-based consensus among the American public that former Penn State football coach Joe Paterno should have alerted the police when he learned of the assault allegation against former assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky in 2002—and that he had a moral responsibility to do more than just report the claim to university administrators."

We have presented the information. Paterno reported information to VP. VP had oversight of the police. What purpose does this sentence serve other than to sway the opinion of the readers?JoelWhy (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the reference and accompanying sentence from the Daily Beast being included and will add it now. Gerry D (talk) 16:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough.JoelWhy (talk) 16:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)