Talk:Joe Paterno/Archive 5

Paid editing by an attorney for the Paterno family
I have received credible information that the Paterno family has hired an attorney to do paid editing on this article about disgraced football coach Joe Paterno. This is a clear WP:COI. More can be read about it at. I'll post the relevant policy here:

If you fit either of these descriptions: you are receiving monetary or other benefits or considerations to edit Wikipedia as a representative of an organization (whether directly as an employee or contractor of that organization, or indirectly as an employee or contractor of a firm hired by that organization for public relations purposes); or you expect to derive monetary or other benefits or considerations from editing Wikipedia; for example, by being an owner, officer, or other stakeholder of a company or other organization about which you are writing; then you are very strongly discouraged to edit Wikipedia in areas where there is a conflict of interest that may make your edits non-neutral (biased). Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy states that all articles must represent views fairly and without bias, and conflicts of interest may significantly and negatively affect Wikipedia's ability to fulfill this requirement. If your financially motivated edits would be non-neutral, do not post them. If you have a financial interest in a topic (either as an employee, owner or other stakeholder) it is advised to provide full disclosure of your connection, and to use the "discussion" pages to suggest changes (using the Request edit template to request edits) rather than editing articles directly. Requested edits will be subject to the same editorial standards by neutral editors (which means they are not guaranteed to be carried out) and will help avoid situations of advocacy and related problems. Qworty (talk) 19:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Funny, although it doesn't surprise me. Given that sourcing is required, it really is of little consequence in the long run. All editors are held to the same standard.AVR2012 (talk) 00:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Self-Published Source Inquiry
A paragraph from the Wikipedia article was removed by Mosmof on the basis that it cited a self-published source. The cited article http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/07/the-case-against-joe-paterno-part-two.php appeared in http://www.powerlineblog.com/.

There is a Wikipedia article about the source itself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Line It was named "Blog of the Year" by Time Magazine in 2004 and appears to have other awards.

Wikipedia input on self-published sources says that "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."

The author of the article appears to be an attorney who has written articles for the Washington Post and the Weekly Standard: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Mirengoff

All of the writers for the source have published materials in many well-know publications and professional journals: http://www.powerlineblog.com/about-us

Is this Powerline source an appropriate citation for Wikipedia articles? Srj4000 (talk) 21:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I still want to avoid Powerline as a source for an issue as controversial as this - I'd be a lot more comfortable if a reliable third party source were citing Mirengoff's opinion. But I'm happy to let other users weigh in on this. --Mosmof (talk) 23:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Any opinion on this article - http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/whitecollarcrime_blog/2012/07/freeh-report-on-paterno-lacks-substantial-evidentiary-basis.html Srj4000 (talk) 04:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * At best it would be an opinion piece, an op-ed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. All this represents is the opinion of a random attorney.AVR2012 (talk) 00:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Opinion re Freeh report
Just a courtesy heads up to the editor: The following is gone "Some of the Freeh team's findings with regard to Paterno, Curley, and Schultz were based on circumstantial evidence and the report was intended to help people draw their own conclusions and to provide a guide to assist in identifying areas for further investigation and exploration." This was cited from an unnamed source claiming to be part of the Freeh group. The Freeh Group has officially denied the statements (https://chronicle.com/article/Freeh-Group-Member-Criticizes/133213/). AVR2012 (talk) 00:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Wins vacated
Just a placeholder to remind editors to fix Paterno's win-loss record to reflect vacated wins from 1998-2011 IAW NCAA sanctions.68.34.210.83 (talk) 13:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Also to remove his D1-A Wins record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.55.30 (talk) 13:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I actually think the actual wins (i.e. 409) should be the W-L-T record. Obviously the NCAA have subsequently those wins should be vacated, but that doesn't changed the fact that he won those games. I would suggest this article should reflect the actual WLT record with a footnote or brackets indicating the NCAA record. - Rehnn83 Talk 14:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The official record is no longer 409 wins, so I think the record should reflect 298 with asterisk pointing to information about vacated wins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.129.66 (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Please don't zero out Paterno's yearly win totals. The way this has been handled with other coaches has been to leave the records on the site, with an asterisk noting the vacating of wins, and totals changed to reflect the change. See: John Calipari. Mrfeek (talk) 14:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree with consensus view of reporting both official and unofficial values in the Paterno Football Records table. It makes sense to me to report the official NCAA sanctioned values in the table as the primary values,  with the unofficial previous "pre-sanction" records shown with (_-_*).  e.g. 2001 values show:  Overall Record: 0-6 (5-6*) and Conference Record: 0–4 (4-4*) to allow future readers to see both values.  Proposed changes currently entered to reflect both current and prior values.The Good Doctor Fry (talk) 14:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The article says Eddie Robinson is now the Division 1-A record holder. Actually, that is not true.  He is the Division 1-AA record holder, which is for smaller Division 1 schools.  I believe the Division 1-A record holder is now Bobbie Bowden(FSU). This is a small but important distinction.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.156.159.10 (talk) 15:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I see a change was made correcting the error mentioned above; however, the correction is also incorrect. Eddie Robinson is not the coach with the most victories by an NCAA football coach. That incredible distinction goes to Coach John Gagliardi(still coaching) of St. John's University (Read Eddie Robinson WP article).  Eddie Robinson only holds the record for most wins in Division 1-AA, period.  If you want to state who currently holds the record, previously held by Joe Paterno, in Division 1-A, that would be Bobby Bowden.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.156.159.10 (talk) 22:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Bowden's article provides an example of how this has typically been handled (rather than the 0's and parenthetical values in the current version of the article). Jbening (talk) 15:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Bowden's article does indeed show that in the yearly listing, but not in the school and career totals. Should not the totals lines (both for Bowden and Paterno) have parenthetical totals and a footnote (‡)?  → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 16:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Ironically, Bowden's article was edited after I posted here, making it like the Paterno article rather than like it's been since his wins were vacated. I just now changed it back. Traditionally, the totals for Bowden (and I think other similar situations, but I haven't checked) added up to the total wins in the table minus the 12 vacated wins, without further explanation or parenthetical annotation. I think it works fine that way, but one could include the same footnote symbol there as were by the records for individual years. Jbening (talk) 17:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Not surprisingly, there appears not to be a WP standard practice for this. The article on Jerry Tarkanian lists the season records as though wins hadn't been vacated, without footnote symbol but with a comment at the end of the table. The articles on Todd Bozeman and Leonard Hamilton ignore the vacation of wins altogether. The articles on John Calipari, Mike Jarvis, and Steve Fisher list original season records with footnote symbols, as Bobby Bowden has for some time. On the other hand, the List of Ohio State Buckeyes men's basketball seasons article has the totals with vacated wins subtracted and symbols to footnotes that give the original records. Based just on my small sample, the Bowden approach seems to be the most common, but one could research it more thoroughly than I have, using this list as a starting point. Jbening (talk) 17:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Since there is no WP standard for reporting such things, we can use this opportunity to create a good workable standard that fits the needs of future Wikipedia users.  Since Wikipedia users are not sports hounds, looking for voluminous ready-references to sports statistics, then these WP entries should not default to the conventions used in sports statistics compendiums.   One of WP's purposes is to present useful information in forms easily understood and fully grasped by ordinary general readers.  The form of reporting a single unofficial win-loss number with an asterisk *, tells only part of a bigger story, and forces the reader to unnecessarily and repeatedly jump to footnotes to try to understand the points, does not serve the general WP readers.   Instead, reporting both numbers together in a clean, uniform, easily-understood format makes good sense to allow the readers to quickly see the impacts of the NCAA sanctions in a single tabular form - no jumping from table to footnotes, back and forth, over and over.

The remaining question then is:
 * Should the official NCAA result be the primary entry (e.g for 2001 "0–4 (4-4*)" ), or should the unofficial result be listed as the primary entry  (e.g. for 2001 " 4–4 (0-4*)" ).
 * If one lists the unofficial result first (as the primary entry), then this makes it appear that the unofficial result is the important, approved and officially sanctioned number - which will mislead some future readers. Listing the official number first, with the temporary unofficial results with an * asterisk, leave no doubt as to which is the official number.
 * I would think using the revised, 'We were always at war with Eurasia' numbers would be more misleading. Shouldn't the article reflect reality, with "But because Paterno turned out to be a bad person, the NCAA refuses to acknowledge some of those wins." Andrewkantor (talk) 12:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * As this section header describes "Vacated Wins", the NCAA sanctioned vacated wins are a key part of the Paterno story, and they should not be relegated to a footnote.The Good Doctor Fry (talk) 15:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The paragraph starting with "On November 6, 2010, Paterno recorded his 400th career victory with a 35–21 victory over Northwestern" should be removed. He did not record these victories and all this paragraph is about is achieving marks that have been removed. Jamorse 99 (talk) 17:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please also note that all of his Big 10 championships and wins must be vacated. So he actually won 2 big 10 championships, not 3. Movein  date (speak) 17:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * He certainly did win those games. They were recorded -- I'm sure you can find a newspaper clipping. The fact that the wins were subsequently 'unrecorded' is a separate issue. (In other words, just 'cause the NCAA says something didn't happen, doesn't _mean_ it didn't happen.) Andrewkantor (talk) 12:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * No, he didn't win those games. I can find a newspaper clipping of Dewey defeats Truman also but that doesn't make it reality.  The fact the NCAA unrecorded them is the issue.  If the NCAA says he didn't win those games, he didn't.  They were NCAA games following NCAA rules and the entire point of vacating them is so he doesn't get credit. 12.190.240.131 (talk) 17:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Some of the post-1998 bowl victories have been noted inn the text as vacated, but two post-1998 wins are still listed (Fiesta and Outback, as I recall). Are they exempt, or was the cleanup incomplete? And do the colleges that lost post-1998 now get their statistics revised, including bowl "victories?" Edison (talk) 19:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Outback and Fiesta Bowl wins from the 1998-2011 sanction period have been updated to reflect the July 2012 NCAA ruling vacating all PSU football wins during that period.The Good Doctor Fry (talk) 22:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * A game that is vacated does not change the result for the opponent, only the win is removed from the penalized team's record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.81.25.227 (talk) 21:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you also changed the individual players' stats (if they have Wikipedia articles) to reflect these changes? That should be done as well.Andrewkantor (talk) 12:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The NCAA didn't say the games didn't occur, which would mean the stats from the games were also removed, just that Penn State doesn't get credit for the wins. The losing team still gets a loss, the opposing coach still gets a loss, the players involved in the game still get credit for touchdowns, receptions, yards, etc that they achieved.  Patken4 (talk) 13:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The Gerald Ford award was also vacated. 67.117.146.199 (talk) 20:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I followed what happened with the Reggie Bush article and added a comment the award was revoked by NCAA. Patken4 (talk) 00:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The article should reflect reality first, and the NCAA revision of history second, but include both. One way we could achieve that is by separating the columns in the table. place an NCAA Record column first, followed by an actual record column. While it will be a pain to generate the modified table without using the templates, it is the right thing to do. Monty  845  15:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The parenthetical statements in the table have his actual record. This is probably the best way of distinguishing between his official record and his actual record.  Patken4 (talk) 13:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

As a recent New York Times article noted. , it is Orwellian to say that the Penn State wins never existed. The record should be presented with all the information. Just because the NCAA says wins that did occur did not happen, does not mean Wikipedia should expunge things that did take place, as a punishment for something that occurred later and did not involve the actual games themselves. Wikipedia should not cooperate in this censorship of sports records. I agree that either way, WP needs to have a policy when referring to official records when an organization decides to vacate records and there could be disagreement as to the appropriateness of such deletions of history, as the Times author and professor, Gary Fine, points out(And OJ did score those touchdowns, no matter if he committed a murder or not).


 * Agree completely. The reality is, Paterno and Penn State won those games. That's fact, and this article should reflect it. The NCAA's decision to not _acknowledge_ the wins is something else entirely, but it doesn't change the team's actual record. As for setting a precedent for these kinds of events, I should hope they're few enough that we can simply include something to the effect of "Actual Wins" and "NCAA Acknowledged Wins." Andrewkantor (talk) 12:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Andrewkantor


 * Paterno's actual wins are still there. His official total is 298, his actual total is 409.  The sidebar says he has 298 wins and 111 wins were vacated, while his head coacing record box has the 409 wins in parenthesis.  So I don't see where people are saying that the article has expunged the wins or the article doesn't reflect it.  Patken4 (talk) 13:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The actual number of wins should be what he or his team did win. If some arbiter says those are not really wins, that can be indicated separately. However, in general baseball statistics are determined by MLB and the leagues, and I'm quite sure no one has ever made a distinction, and by the way what about Jim Thorpe and the olympic medals, which apparently is still in controversy, according to his WP article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.72.186 (talk) 03:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Re "arbiter": For better or worse, many sports have official governing bodies. The participating institutions or teams apply to join, agree to abide by the rules, and agree to abide by the rulings of those official governing bodies - or quit. Penn State's governing officials clearly agreed to join the NCAA and they also have agreed to abide by the NCAA's rulings. It is a mis-characterization to refer to the NCAA as as a simple "arbiter". It is their league, so, they are not just judges. Further, the NCAA holds the official and final power to declare if wins are legitimate. The official governing body (NCAA) has clearly decided that Penn State does not deserve to record the football wins from 1998-2011, due to a decade of malfeasance by the PSU football and athletics departments, and malfeasance by PSU administrators. It stretches to point to compare Jim Thorpe to PSU officials and coaches: Jim was an honest athelete, who made a minor and fully-legal error to pay his room & board for a summer  vs.  Penn State officials and coaches who committed felonies to protect a valuable asset.187.155.19.233 (talk) 16:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Many would consider it ugly to equate the honorable Mr. Thorpe with a child molesting serial predator and a group of coaches and administrators who lied to police, and committed felonies by lying under oath to protect their multi-million dollar personal compensation and their $10's million of football revenues. Instead of creating false apples to kiwis comparisons, it is better to follow what the NCAA and Penn State governing bodies have chosen and accepted. Another critical difference: Mr. Thorpe contested the NCAA ruling, while Penn State has accepted the NCAA ruling. 187.155.19.233 (talk) 16:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I do not believe this discussion should be talking about who is comparable to Joe Paterno, whether OJ, Barry Bonds, Jim Thorpe or anyone else. The issue is whether a ruling body has the unconditional right to declare what the records are, and whether the "truth" is something else. I believe that Wikipedia should be dedicated to Truth, not to the decisions of some arbitrary ruling organization or government. Certainly, contrary opinions should be presented, but I don't believe that the arbitary body's decisions should be accepted without questions, as was often done in the past. Another example is Babe Ruth's "extra" home run. The SABR group (baseball statisticians) found an old case where Babe Ruth had an unrecorded home run, because the rules didn't give a home run in the past where the score was tied in extra innings, and the home run drove in a runner on base. A single was awarded in that case. Now, a home run is always awarded. MLB decided not to change the records, ruling that the statistics should be based on the rules at the time. I believe that is the proper ruling, but, many might suggest a different interpretation. My main concern with the NCAA case is that they wiped out many games from the records based on something not directly related to the playing of the game, and, as the NY Times article pointed out, it is way over the line of an officiating body. Where that takes place, Wikipedia should decide what is the proper way to list the records, and many unbiased people, not Penn State fans, agree that the action was way over the line. Suspensions, firings, monetary penalties, kicking out of a leagure all acceptable. Not electing to a Hall of Fame, acceptable. Changing the listings of outcomes of games or contests, NOT acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.72.186 (talk) 17:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 July 2012
As a recent New York Times article noted. , it is Orwellian to say that the Penn State wins never existed. The record should be presented with all the information. Just because the NCAA says wins that did occur did not happen, does not mean Wikipedia should expunge things that did take place, as a punishment for something that occurred later and did not involve the actual games themselves. Wikipedia should not cooperate in this censorship of sports records. I agree that either way, WP needs to have a policy when referring to official records when an organization decides to vacate records and there could be disagreement as to the appropriateness of such deletions of history, as the Times author and professor, Gary Fine, points out(And OJ did score those touchdowns, no matter if he committed a murder or not).

67.169.72.186 (talk) 02:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I can't see the reference because the website in in the blacklist and if used in the article will cause problems. Please provide another source. Floating Boat   (the editor formerly known as AndieM)  08:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC) (edit: The link provided is a redirect and even the direct link is in the blacklist 08:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC))


 * There are a couple problems with that source. First and foremost is that it is an opinion piece.  Opinion pieces are generally not used by Wikipedia as sources unless there is widespread agreement with the opinion. The second problem is that Paterno's "actual" record is still there in parenthesis (409-136-3), so it hasn't been expunged from the page. Patken4 (talk) 12:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yea, this seems like a non-issue. I don't think anyone is advocating that the "wins" be erased from the page. The only discussion to be had is how/where that information is presented (an issue which I frankly am ambivalent about.)    Joel Why? (talk) 13:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The least that should be done is to change the wording to "Paterno no longer holds the "official" record for most wins". No one can deny that he does have the most wins, after all.
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template.--Canoe1967 (talk) 09:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

This is what drives me crazy on Wikipedia. I don't know what this means, and for those of us who don't want to spend all our time on Wikipedia, it is meaningless. I made a suggestion, if people don't like it, I wish they would just say so! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.72.186 (talk) 19:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Long story short, they think it's fine the way it is and they don't think the opinion piece is a reliable source of info (Presumably because it wasn't written by Maureen Dowd? Just kidding.) The sentence now says "Based on the criteria used by the NCAA, Paterno no longer holds the record for most victories by an NCAA football coach." So I guess that's OK. --Jtalledo (talk) 23:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I just added Division I to that sentence since John Gagliardi held the record even before the NCAA vacated Paterno's wins. Patken4 (talk) 14:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What is there is fair to both sides. It lists both his official and actual win total.  There is no reason to put the word official in quotes.  Patken4 (talk) 14:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Opinions that Paterno "Lied" under oath to grand jury
The sentence reading that the emails uncovered by Freeh "indicate that Paterno lied to the grand jury" is not neutral. The Sally Jenkins column is an opinion piece and blurs the distinction between what Paterno testified to at the grand jury and what Paterno said to her personally in her interview. Plus she is only a columnist and is not qualified to make judgements to be cited in Wikipedia as fact. She also has as personal interest in the story. The AP article about whether Paterno could have faced charges relies on a quote from a lawyer who is actually representing one of Sandusky's victims and thus has a specific interest in promoting the idea that Paterno could have been exposed to perjury charges. Aside from the quotes, the AP article is written more neutral saying that the report "called into question the truthfulness" of his testimony and noting how difficult it would be to prove perjury.

It is also inappropriate for the Wikipedia article to characterize his testimony as being "unaware of any possible child abuse by Sandusky prior to 2001" when he says in his actual testimony that he did not know of other incidents of inappropriate sexual conduct by Sandusky but in regard to a rumor he said "You did mention - I think you said something about a rumor. It may have been discussed in my presence, something about somebody. I don't know. I don't remember, and I could not honestly say I heard a rumor." The AP article includes this portion of his testimony for fair context of his statement.

The part about this rumor is significant because the only lie he could tell would be about the rumor. The suspicions about sexual conduct in the 1998 incident were reported to authorities and fully investigated. Both the child's family and Sandusky were interviewed by child services experts. For Paterno to be caught in a lie, it would have to be a lie about a "rumor" of an incident that was fully investigated by the district attorney who decided not to prosecute.

Either way, the Wikipedia article should not say the evidence indicates that Paterno "lied" without attributing it to the opinion of somone who says he lied or modifying it to say that he "may have" lied or that the emails "called into question" whether he mislead the grand jury. The sentence should also be expanded to include his testimony about a rumor, which had been included in the Wikipedia article earlier but was removed by another editor for unknown reasons.Srj4000 (talk) 18:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Paterno testified to the Grand Jury that (1) he had no knowledge of the 1998 Sandusky investigation and (2) that he had only spoken with Tim Curley once regarding the 2001 incident-- both of which are clearly contradicted by the emails uncovered by the Freeh report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AVR2012 (talk • contribs) 07:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea where you're finding in the grand jury testimony that Paterno said he spoke with Curley only one regarding the 2001 incident. I haven't seen any secondary source stating that either. Please provide a source for it if you're going to use it. Plus he was asked in front of the grand jury if he had knowledge of any incidents "other than" 2001. The 2001 incident doesn't factor into whether he lied about previous incidents. I think you're confusing the issue of whether he lied about 1998 with the issue of whether he concealed information about 2001. They're completely separate incidents.

With respect to whether he lied about 1998 in his testimony, you can read his complete testimony above about not remembering whether it was discussed in his presence and not being able to honestly say whether he heard a rumor about something that was already investigated with a finding by child services that there was no abuse and a determination by the district attorney that there was no evidence to prosecute. There hasn't been a single news report cited that says he lied. It's only been opinion columns. It's fine to cite to opinion columns but it should be clearly indicated within the text of the Wikipedia article that it is an opinion. Srj4000 (talk) 19:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Refer to the Freeh report if you have questions regarding Paterno's testimony to the Grand Jury and the emails that contradict his testimony.AVR2012 (talk) 21:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

That's not an answer. What answer did Paterno give in his grand jury testimony about only talking to Curley once about the 2001 incident? Where in the Freeh report does it say he testified to talking to Curley only once about the 2001 incident? Can you provide a single secondary source that has any mention at all about Paterno testifying that he talked to Curely only once about the 2001 incident? Srj4000 (talk) 23:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Here is a source that says Paterno only spoke to Curley once, in early February. Patken4 (talk) 00:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

"Forfieiting wins"
Given the NCAA penalities handed down this morning, what is the process for handling the 13 years of football victories that have been vacated from his record as a coach? I follow MN athletics, and when penalities were handed down to the Gophers basketball team the affected seasons were left in tact but altered to account for forfeited victories. I also point to Bobby Bowden, who has items in his page indicating 12 vacated victories. I don't commonly edit sports related articles, hence why I started the discussion prior to digging into the article. -- TRTX T / C 13:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking at John Calipari, the wins are still listed during the seasons in question, however with an asterisk leading to a footnote explaining the vacated wins. Also, the wins are removed from the total (in this case, while totaling Paterno's wins would give 409 wins, the total is listed as 298, after the removal of 111 wins). Mrfeek (talk) 13:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand the wins have been vacated but do they get listed as Loses in the NCAA eyes? If not how about just a * in those years with no W-L info?216.81.94.77 (talk) 13:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No. They are not changed to losses. With vacation, the NCAA removes wins.  It is not forfeiture.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjbuzz (talk • contribs) 14:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, they did not vacate losses, only wins. Mrfeek (talk) 14:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is that the NCAA vacating wins signals that in their eyes, the wins never happened. Therefore, by today's judgement, Paterno never held the record for FBS wins, in the NCAA's eyes, at least.ArchieOof (talk) 14:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

This also means the "conference records" do not all change to "0 - 8" as well. Can someone fix them? Also did anyone count the vacated bowl games up? Collect (talk) 14:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And when a schools wins are vacated, that does not retroactively remove the corresponding loss from an opposing team's record does it? Trying to learn more about how this works period (not just within the context of WP). Also, do they vacate bowl wins? As it appears Paterno's bowl record has not been modified based on this ruling. -- TRTX T / C 14:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm a little late responding, but no, the loss is not removed from the opponent's record, unlike a forfeiture. So the above user's statement that "the wins never happened" is incorrect - the wins happened, but just not awarded to Penn State or Paterno. --Mosmof (talk) 16:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It is distressing to me that the wins are deleted, given that it was not Paterno who alone won the games: the many student football players actually did that, and the deleting of those records is unfair to them. The logic of punishing many people for the actions of one does not seem proper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.72.186 (talk) 03:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please keep in mind that talk pages are not a forum to discuss your view on a particular topic. Please keep your input specific to improving the article. --Mosmof (talk) 03:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

As a recent New York Times article noted. , it is Orwellian to say that the Penn State wins never existed. The record should be presented with all the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.72.186 (talk) 12 August 2012‎
 * You've made this same exact point several times in this talk page while ignoring responses from other editors. But anyway,
 * That's awesome. But Wikipedia is guided by consensus, not a single op-ed piece. It's a nice point to reference, I guess, but saying the same thing over and over and over and over and over again borders on spamming.
 * It's kind of a straw man argument. Nobody is suggesting that we wipe away those Penn State wins.
 * We are presenting all the information - the NCAA record and the actual win-record. In fact, it would be rather dishonest and unhelpful to readers to not show that the NCAA vacated those wins.
 * You say "Orwellian" like it's a bad thing.
 * How is this relevant to this specific subtopic? Mosmof (talk) 04:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm suggesting it. How is a vacated win an actual win? What's the point of vacating a win in the first place if it's not to correct the record of a win that was attained through dishonest acts? The article is skewed toward recognizing cheating if it so much as mentions a number that includes vacated wins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.4.238 (talk) 05:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it's important to not conflate forfeited wins and vacated wins. Forfeited wins are truly ill-begotten wins that are handed over to the side that had lost the actual contest. Vacated wins are punitive - the NCAA acknowledges the team that wins on the field, and removes the win in spite of it. Think of the difference between a judge awarding a punitive damage as opposed to actual damages. The latter is a figure based on the calculated economic cost of a wrongdoing, the former is an additional figure meant to discourage the behavior. Vacated win is more analogous to punitive damages.
 * But this is really all besides the point. We know what the NCAA record book says. We also have sources that tell us Penn State won those games on the field. So the NPOV way to do it, in my opinion, is to acknowledge the official record after the vacated wins, but also mention the number of wins that were vacated. --Mosmof (talk) 13:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The essential difference between a vacated win and a forfeit is that the vacated win is enacted when systemic corruption over a period of time is later exposed. If the corruption is uncovered real-time, then the forfeit is the result where the opponent can be awarded the win. Awarding the win to the opponent in the case of vacated wins would affect multitudes of established records and is simply impractical. The whole point of vacating a win is the same as forfeiting a win...correcting the record of an achievement attained through nefarious and illegal means. Correcting the record means for future documentation - like this article. The wins never happened. They aren't actual wins. Relating a "win" and then stating that it was vacated as a sidenote as this article does is incredibly biased toward the promotion of cheating and massively in contradiction with reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.4.238 (talk) 13:18, 13 September 2012‎
 * I think you're still making a philosophical argument that's mostly moot for our purposes. The vacated wins are part of recorded history. And we do put the post-punishment records front and center, while acknowledging that some wins were removed from the books. Pointing that out is not "promotion of cheating", and to not talk about the fact that the NCAA vacated a certain number of wins for the purpose of avoiding "promotion of cheating" would be clear WP:POV. Wikipedia can't worry about whether mentioning facts has on society. --Mosmof (talk) 15:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

How to indicate vacated wins in head coaching record box
It seems there is some disagreement with how to differentiate between Paterno's (and others) official win total after the NCAA vacates wins and the actual total the coach achieved. I think we all are in agreement that both the official win total and actual win total need to be recorded. Since the NCAA has vacated wins for other coaches before (and probably in the future), perhaps this could turn into how it is done for other coaches. If there are other proposals, please add them. The proposals so far seem to be:


 * Proposal #1: Parenthetical statements list the actual win total, with the NCAA recognized win total outside it.
 * Proposal #2: Parenthetical statements list the NCAA recognized win total, with the actual record outside it.
 * Proposal #3: New columns in info box for "NCAA recognized" and "Actual total", presumably for both the season and conference play.
 * Proposal #4: Use symbols and notes to indicate what seasons/wins were vacated.

What does everyone think? Patken4 (talk) 13:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * #3 is my first choice, but I would find 1, 2, or 3 acceptable, the key for me is that the a actual total should appear as a number, and not require that the reader derive the actual totals from the NCAA recognized numbers. Monty  845  14:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * All of them are imperfect solutions that are a bit confusing, but #3 seems to be the easiest to read. --Jtalledo (talk) 15:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * My preference is #1 or #3, but yeah, eliminating the actual win total because NCAA said so seems extremely unhelpful to the reader. --Mosmof (talk) 16:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking at the articles on Jim Tressel and Pete Carroll though, those two articles use footnotes to indicate that wins were vacated from the previous record. --Jtalledo (talk) 16:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Could there please be examples so we can actually see what it suggested? That would help me, at least. Thanks, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 23:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The current Joe Paterno article has proposal #1. Bobby Bowden is an example of #4.  I don't know of any examples for #2 or #3.  Patken4 (talk) 23:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree that the NCAA or any other body should be the final arbiter. A win is a win is a win, unless there is some actual cheating in the game itself, I don't feel the league or anyone else should be allowed to change the outcome, after the fact. Further, is Joe Paterno the winningest coach in college football history? The NCAA says not. But it is clear that his teams did win more games than any other coach's teams, and it is questionable whether any league or association should be allowed to change that fact, absent actual cheating. I am not a fan of Penn State or Mr. Paterno, if anyone cares about that. This also brings up the question of who shall be the arbiter of sports records, no doubt a controversial subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.72.186 (talk) 03:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The official NCAA win totals should be the primary listing for the following reasons. Penn State applied to be a part of the NCAA. To become an NCAA member, Penn State agreed in written contracts to follow NCAA rules. For over a decade, the Penn State officials, Penn State coaches, and Athletic Dept administrators, individually and collectively broke the NCAA rules on appropriate behavior by football coaches and administrators. The NCAA spokesperson clearly stated that the coaches' and administrators' actions were consistently very inappropriate for the period from 1998-2011. The spokesman went on to say that the football program at Penn State had played far too big a role, showing a lack of accountability, and exerting too much influence on campus. According to NCAA statements, the wins were vacated, not because of Jerry Sandusky's actions, but instead due to the inappropriate athletic department actions and excessive football-focused culture of the 1998-2011 period. Penn State has not contested the ruling of the NCAA. As the governing body for Penn State athletics, the NCAA is not just a simple arbiter - they are the "owner" of the records and they make the rules, as agreed upon by their members. The games were played by NCAA rules. The coaches and administrators are required to follow NCAA rules and standards. The coaches and athletic administrators accepted those rules and standards. Later, Penn State football coaches and administrators actively chose to break those rules, and they fell short of long established standards for over a decade. The NCAA ruling establishes the official wins and losses, and the official numbers are clear and are not disputed by either Penn State or the NCAA. The official NCAA numbers should be listed first, as described by Option 1 and as they are currently presented in this article.The Good Doctor Fry (talk) 03:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia is not bound by such interpretations. As a recent New York Times article noted. , it is Orwellian to say that the Penn State wins never existed. The record should be presented with all the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.72.186 (talk) 12 August 2012‎
 * I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve by repeating this over and over. It's true that Wikipedia is not bound by a prescriptivist view of NCAA rulings. But it's also not bound by a view of one NY Times op-ed piece (yes yes, I get that it's "recent"). Wikipedia content is driven by verifiability. And the verifiable facts are:
 * Joe Paterno has this win-loss record.
 * And that win-loss record reflects the games his teams won and lost (and tied), and NCAA sanctions imposed after the fact.
 * Not sure what's Orwellian about presenting these straightforward facts here. --Mosmof (talk) 04:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not about the "facts", so-called. There should be a presentation in the article about the controversy over listing or not listing, or qualifying "wins". Some people feel, including a writer for the New York Times, that allowing an officiating body the right to arbitrarily change the result, such as of a football game, based on an official finding that, in actuality, had nothing to do with the competition itself, is wrong, or, at least, that other discerning citizens and publications should not necessarily recognize that determination. It is akin to allowing China to delete information about the Tiananmen Square protest, just because the organizers did not get a permit for such protest. In fact, they have deleted all references. Whether the NCAA has more or less legitimacy in its actions than China has nothing to do with it; the games were played and were won or lost, and results should not be changed due to irrelevant related actions. The Lance Armstrong case is more on point, though there is certainly a lot of doubt in that case, as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.72.186 (talk) 05:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

NCAA official reports have found that the PSU football program under Paterno broke NCAA rules between the period of 1998 - 2011, and as such, the NCAA decided that the wins during that period should be vacated. When a team breaks rules to win, and the officials subsequently determine that the team broke the rules to win, then the previous wins are invalidated.

The Penn State President, the Penn State Board, the Penn State Athletics program, and the PSU football program have all officially agreed to the NCAA rulings and they officially neither dispute nor do they protest the findings and rulings vacating the wins, due to PSU football program "rules violations" and ongoing and substantial problems with the "integrity" of Penn State football and athletic department leaders.

"Wins" that occur due to official rule breaking and integrity problems should not be made the primary listing, but deserve mention in a secondary role. The Good Doctor Fry (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Time to unprotect?
Now that the heat has died down, and there isn't as much interest, hows about we unprotect the article? FiveSidedFistagon (talk) 18:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Dunno. It'll probably flair back up soon once Penn State's football season starts and talk inevitably turns to Paterno. And then for Sandusky's sentencing. --Jtalledo (talk) 19:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No. Still too much heat given Paterno family's recent attempt to appeal NCAA decision and the above reasons mentioned by Jtalledo. AVR2012 (talk) 06:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that the trials for Curley and Schultz haven't even started yet. We haven't even been dealing with tested evidence yet.Srj4000 (talk) 20:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Coaching History and Reporting of Salary Missing Paterno's $5 million Payment to End His Contract
3 weeks ago the Joe Paterno article used to have a section describing how Paterno initiated unscheduled negotiations with the Penn State Board for a non-contractual extra $3 million payment, when he first found out that there was a police investigation into Penn State's handling of Jerry Sandusky's illegal predatory sexual behaviors with juveniles. The NY Times reported that the PSU Board was surprised at Paterno's new request for buying out his contract over a year earlier than scheduled for substantially more money than was owed contractually. Paterno and his attorneys continued the negotiations and bargaining for the following 9 months, ultimately agreeing to a $5 million package payout for Paterno to resign. The Paterno article's section on "Coaching" and its description of his monetary compensation is missing the key $5 million compensation, along with the unusual and suspect timing of Paterno's demands. The NY Times reported that Paterno and his attornies intentionally timed and pushed to get an agreement in place before the results of the police investigations were made public. This Wikipedia article's current reporting of Paterno's smaller donations to Penn State are disproportionate to the reality of his actual financial demands and actual payments. Can the deleted paragraph describing Paterno's key actions in his final year be restored or re-written to reflect the key events and public legal agreements (initiated and pushed through by Paterno) that led up to his early resignation?

Is the deletion of the factual events that led up to Paterno's resignation an example of inappropriate editing, possibly deleted by paid representatives of the Paterno family, as alleged above in this talk page? By citing his relatively small $500K a year salary, and citing his smaller financial donations to PSU, it seems odd for the Wikipedia Paterno article to then delete the much larger $5 million "surprise" early contract buyout package requested by Paterno and his family.

The information on Paterno's requirements and early payoff was reported by the NY Times on July 14, 2012, Title: Paterno Won Sweeter Deal Even as Scandal Played Out The Good Doctor Fry (talk) 03:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)The Good Doctor Fry (talk) 04:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's still there in the "Posthumous findings" section. --Mosmof (talk) 05:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe that the $5 million "surprise" early resignation package should be included up with the other monetary (salary and donation) information about Paterno's dealings with Penn State. The current placement of the "golden parachute" resignation payments information in the Posthumous Findings sections makes a very disjointed presentation of key information, by placing it far from the article's other salary reports and other reports of Paterno's fiscal dealings (donations) with PSU.  By placing the $5 million extra non-contractual payment far from the other related fiscal data, it makes the reader jump all over the article to assemble the key "follow the money" principle in determining what was actually happening.  When large extra non-contractual payments, demanded personally by Paterno, exceed his donations, it is strong evidence of Paterno's actual intents and purposes towards Penn State.  Further, placement of the report of the 10 extra years worth of salary to resign early in the "Posthumous Findings" section, makes it sound like these payments were not factual/real and makes it sound like they are possibly just the conclusions/opinions of some investigators.

The payments were real and substantial (10 years worth of annual salary), were a noteworthy "surprise" to PSU the Board, and are one of the few facts that are not disputed by the Paterno family and Paterno lawyers. As undisputed facts that were a key part of Paterno's fiscal dealings with Penn State, I believe that the $5 million "surprise" early resignation package should be included up with the other monetary (salary and donation) information about Paterno's dealings with Penn State.

The old sayings: "Follow the money",  "Money talks, BS walks", "Put your money where your mouth is"  seem to apply here. The Paterno article would be better organized and have a tighter presentation by placing the key aspects of PSU/Paterno fiscal matters all within reasonably close proximity vs. scattering the data across the breadth of the article and burying the single largest item late in the article.The Good Doctor Fry (talk) 13:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that would border on synth. That is, saying in one set of sentences that he made x amount of dollars in pay and donated x amount of dollars, then directly after saying something to effect of "but he renegotiated for even more money." The intention is not to imply one way or other that Paterno cared more about the millions of dollars or the wellbeing of the university. What is certain is that he renegotiated due to the scandal, and that's why it's in the scandal section. Readers are likely drawn into the scandal section more so than the other sections anyway, so it's not like anything is being hidden from them. --Jtalledo (talk) 15:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Jtalledo's points would make more sound sense if the Posthumous Findings section were given a different title. "Posthumous Findings" seems to say that these are potentially minor footnotes (to an otherwise fine career), and only the potentially non-factual, after-the-fact findings/opinions.  I am not trying to synthesize any conclusions, but to present relevant facts of the same nature together.  Can someone propose a different title for the current "Posthumous Findings" entry?

"Consequences of Penn State Football and Athletic Program Malfeasance under Paterno's Tenure" ??

This sort of title would fit with the NCAA findings that the PSU football program operated and controlled by Paterno was the single most powerful entity at PSU, and that the Paterno and the football program exerted far too much influence and power for the period of 1998-2011, which is why the NCAA vacated all of the football program's wins during the period. According to their official press releases: The NCAA's decision and penalties were not about inappropriate sex with minors by a person in a position of authority. The penalties were assessed to the entire PSU football program (past, present, and future), due to abuses and malfeasance by Paterno and Athletic Department officials - which explains why the period of vacated wins was not just limited to the years when Coach Sandusky was actively abusing minors.

The official NCAA statement on this "addresses the integration of the athletics department into the greater university community" and "the university will be required to enter into an “Athletics Integrity Agreement” (AIA) with the NCAA and the Big Ten Conference, which obligates the University to adopt all of the recommendations in Section 5.0 of the Free Report as described in the above paragraph and, at a minimum, the following additional actions: ..." where the serious problems with the integrity of Penn State football under Joe Paterno are the central axle around which the NCAA penalties revolve.

The central role of NCAA's concerns over the lack of integrity in the Penn State football program is further buttressed by the NCAA's forced "(a)ppointment of an independent Athletics Integrity Monitor for a five-year period." "The (Athletics Integrity Monitor) will be selected by the NCAA" and "will have access to any university facilities, personnel and non-privileged documents and records", and "will have the authority to employ legal counsel, consultants, investigators, experts".

If Paterno's problems were only about sexual misconduct by the PSU coaching staff, then there would be no need for 5 more years of aggressive investigations and monitoring of the PSU athletics department.

I report these factual issues to support a change in the overly understated "Posthumous Findings" current section title. If the section were instead given a more factually appropriate title describing the years of malfeasance by Paterno and PSU Athletic dept staff, then I propose entering the key NCAA findings that determined the harsh and ongoing penalties. 187.155.26.211 (talk) 15:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Understated? How about NPOV? It's a neutral heading title that describes that contents of the section. Again, it's important to not let personal opinions and analysis spill over into the article. --Jtalledo (talk) 15:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * $60 million of fines, the most severe NCAA penalties in over 100 years of NCAA history, penalties assessed primarily due to serious problems with the integrity of entire programs at a university, and over $5 million of "surprise" non-contractual demands made by Paterno are not "personal opinions".  They are simple undisputed facts.   It is not constructive to devolve a dialogue by mis-labeling key substantial facts as "personal opinion" and  "analysis".  The Paterno article is currently missing reports on the degree of the most serious penalties in the history of the NCAA, it is missing descriptions of the reasons for the NCAA fines (serious problems with integrity at Penn State), it is missing the main reasons that the fines and penalties were assessed due to Paterno's and his football program's excessive and inappropriate personal influence at PSU.  The NCAA's official press reports raise these integrity issues as central points, yet the points about serious integrity issue problems seem to have been either unstated, understated, and consistently under-reported in the Wikipedia Paterno article, likely due to past pro-Paterno advocates' editing.

The Good Doctor Fry (talk) 16:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I was merely pointing out that you last post includes an extensive analysis of the situation and seems to go off on a tangent. Just reminding everyone to not let their own personal views spill over into the article. I'm done with this topic. Something wrong with the article? So fix it. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

This is not just "personal views". It goes to the heart of what Wikipedia is supposed to be, a neutral presentation of the facts. I do not see why everyone is now saying Wikipedia must accept the "facts" as decided by some omnipotent body, such as with Lance Armstrong or the NCAA. We don't accept the facts as they were interpreted by the Soviet Union. How are these other things different? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.72.186 (talk) 23:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

It is surprising that much of the mis-information found int his article is still listed here. 1-First Paragraph: "His career ended with his dismissal from the team for his role in the Penn State child sex abuse scandal.[1][2][3][4][5]"  According to the Penn State Board of Trustees, Joe Paterno was not fired he was retired 3 weeks early.  2-Any citing, mention or reference of the Freeh Report should be removed as the Freeh Report has been shown to be fundamentally flawed, not just by the governor of the state, and not just by the FBI, but also by the Freeh Group themselves in their Errata sheet which they released (quietly) a few weeks after the original release after the MANY mistakes that had been found in there were brought to light.    3-It is also irresponsible of any journalist reporting on this topic not to include the Clemente report-which is a comprehensive study of how a pedophile operates  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Try2teach (talk • contribs) 01:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Removal of cited content in the lead section
Correct me if I am wrong, but someone who appears to be from Springfield, PA has been repeatedly removing information about the Freeh report. This is well-sourced, and removing information about the Freeh report from the lead section is, I feel, to be very unacceptable. I believe we should keep this information in the lead. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Was there anything removed that was not quickly restored? I've reverted a number of these deletions, but if I've missed any please let me know.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what I meant was the mentioning of the Freeh report in the lead section, which led to this page being protected. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, still confused. The lead includes discussion of the Freeh report.  Is something important missing?  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, but an IP repeatedly removed information pertaining to the Freeh report from the lead, citing it as "unfounded". This led to a bit of a content dispute, but we should discuss this here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The Freeh Report is not a credible source for citing, as it has been found to be flawed-both by the Governor of the state, the Freeh company themselves, and other various credible sources which are all listed here.  Here is a live video of Governor Corbett speaking as to the "incompleteness" of the Freeh report 

Also in the FIRST paragraph it states:  "His career ended with his dismissal from the team for his role in the Penn State child sex abuse scandal.[1][2][3][4][5]"  This is fundamentally inaccurate as well. Here is a site from one of the members of the Penn State Board of Trustees who states publicly "Joe Paterno was not fired-he was retired 3 weeks early"   Try2teach (talk) 01:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)Melinda Wright

Here is a report which should be read by anyone who considers themselves qualified to write or comment on this article in an effort to look at all of the facts from an unbiased position.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Try2teach (talk • contribs) 00:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The lead is an accurate summary of news and other accounts of Paterno's dismissal - these are sources that meet WP:RS. The New York Times on Januay 19, 2012 published an article interviewing 13 of the trustees that reported that vice-chair of the Penn State Board of Trustees "Surma announced that an agreement appeared to have been reached to fire Paterno, too — the trustees having determined that he had failed to take adequate action when he was told that one of his longtime assistants had been seen molesting a 10-year-old boy in Paterno’s football facility. Surma, those present recalled, surveyed the other trustees — there are 32 — for their opinions and emotions before asking one last question: “Does anyone have any objections? If you have an objection, we’re open to it.” No one in the room spoke. There was silence from the phone speakers." [Note that Governor Tom Corbett was one of those on speaker phone, and was Attorney General when Sandusky was initially investigated, so that neither he nor the Paterno family can be called neutral parties]. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 April 2013
The phrase "Penn State child sex abuse scandal" needs to be updated to "Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal" to reflect the proper name/term used to describe the events that took place following the decision to stop referring to Penn State in the scandal name.

66.71.57.136 (talk) 01:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Not done: Please provide evidence of the "decision" that you are referring to.—Bagumba (talk) 01:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I am supporting the above poster--Please correct this article. The Scandal was a "Jerry Sandusky" scandal. Mr Sandusky was the person who did the crime. I am supplying references for both myself & the above poster. Also as previously requested & cited-Joe Paterno was not fired "due to his roll in the Penn State sex scandal" He was retired 3 weeks early as stated in the Penn State University press release. (references below) The Freeh Report has been identified as an incomplete report with several mistakes. It would be irresponsible for Wiki to allow this entry to stand without also adding the Clemente Report & continuing with the law suits that are presently being filed against the NCAA.

cited references listed below


 * http://paterno.com/Resources/Docs/CLEMENTE_FINAL_REPORT_2-7-2013.pdf
 * http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/01/13/hoge-joe-paterno-was-never-fired/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Try2teach (talk • contribs) 19:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Several points:
 * Content from the first link shouldn't be used without referencing a third party source, per WP:PRIMARY. It's okay to mention the Clemente Report but not treat any content as fact.
 * Criticism of the Freeh Report are already noted, as are recently filed lawsuits.
 * The second link, about the firing isn't quite as cut and dry as you make it appear. What appears to have happened is, the board terminated his role as head coach, but kept him on the payroll (and it's worth keeping in mind that Paterno try to stay on for the remainder of the season). The article paints a picture of the board trying to pull a fast one, appeasing the public by letting Paterno go as coach while also appeasing Paterno loyalists by giving him a cushy parachute. It seems more accurate to say he was effectively let go, nevermind the technicalities.
 * But anyway, please suggest a specific edit that should be implemented. --Mosmof (talk) 20:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I feel that the current nomenclature is accurate. Jerry Sandusky committed the abuse, other staff at Penn State covered it up. Therefore it is more accurately the "Penn State child sex abuse scandal" as the scandal was not simply the abuse, but the cover up as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.133.160.189 (talk) 02:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Paterno as AD
I came here looking for info on Paterno's tenure as PSU AD, ca. 1980 to ???. Not here. I think that's just a bit important to the whole story. Can someone update this. I do not have a source or I would. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.100.51.86 (talk) 14:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Addition to Posthumous Findings because of new lawsuit filed by Paterno family on May 30, 2013
On September 13 2012, a group of alumni and supporters called Penn Staters for Responsible Stewardship released a review of the Freeh Report that was critical of the Freeh Group's investigation and conclusions. Paterno's family subsequently released another report in February 2013, disputing Freeh's investigative methods and the portrayal of Joe Paterno in his findings. In response, Freeh called the Paterno family's report "self-serving" and said that it did not change the facts and findings of his initial investigation.

Bob Costas, a journalist and NBC sportscaster, noted that after reading the Freeh Report in its entirety, that “What Freeh did was not only gather facts but he reached a conclusion which is at least debatable from those facts and then he assigned a motivation, not only to Curley and Schultz and Spanier, but he specifically assigned a very dark motivation to Joe Paterno, which seems like it might be quite a leap. . . . A reasonable person will conclude that there is some doubt here and that the other side of the story deserves to be heard.”

On May 30, 2013, the Paterno family and members of the Penn State community filed a lawsuit in the Common Pleas Court of Centre County, Pennsylvania in an attempt to overturn sanctions against Penn State University. The lawsuit asserts that the NCAA and the other defendants breached their contractual obligations, violated their duties of good faith and fair dealing, intentionally interfered with contractual relations, and defamed and/or commercially disparaged the individuals filing the lawsuit.

Stillnessdaze (talk) 20:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Your edit proposal has been incorporated with some minor rewords and new cites. --Mosmof (talk) 04:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request June 16, 2013
Thank you Mosmof|Mosmof for addressing the concerns over the verbiage in the use of this article. Again thank you for your attention.
 * 1) The language now stated here lends somewhat of a clearer version.  However the First paragraph, last sentence:  "His career ended with his dismissal from the team for his role in the Penn State child sex abuse scandal.[1][2][3][4][5]"  and the first sentence in the 3rd paragraph:  "In November 2011, he was fired by the Penn State Board of Trustees as a result of the child sex abuse scandal involving his former assistant coach Jerry Sandusky.[6]" Are now in contradiction of one another.  If the scandal is to be referred to as the "Jerry Sandusky Scandal" OR "The Penn State Scandal" that needs to be continued throughout the article in order to maintain clarity.
 * 2) In Paragraph 3 sentence 2 & 3:  An investigation conducted by former FBI director Louis Freeh concluded in July 2012 that Paterno concealed facts relating to Sandusky's sexual abuse of young boys.[4][5] The investigation also uncovered information that Paterno may have persuaded university officials not to report Sandusky to authorities in 2001.[7][8]  Your instruction above states allowing the use of the Clemente Report as a source but to "not treat any content as fact" if we are to agree on that decision then all statements in the article which cite the Freeh report as fact need be adjusted:  In sentence 2:  "An investigation conducted by former FBI director Louis Freeh CONCLUDED"--I would suggest the word "concluded" be changed to "ALLUDED".  Again in the 3rd sentence the language presently used: "The investigation also uncovered" and in the 4th sentence " On July 23, 2012, the NCAA vacated all of Penn State's wins from 1998 through 2011 'as part of its punishment for the child sex abuse scandal'"  By stating "as part of it's punishment" we are accepting the Freeh report again as fact.  This was a report-not a legal document, Mr Freeh did not have subpena power nor were any of his interviews conducted under oath, he was not given jurisdiction to act as an officer of the court-it was an independent report that he was hired to perform on behalf of the Penn State Board of Trustees, which at this juncture is being challenged on several legal avenues. My suggestion would be to remove the 3rd sentence entirely & adjust anything related to either the Freeh report or Clemente report until the trials have not taken place & there is a legal decision given.

Try2teach (talk) 23:46, 16 June 2013 (UTC)Try2teach

Vacated wins
Vacated wins are an anomaly in sports. Since real world events cannot be undone, but are only vacated in official record keeping, it would be better for the wins to all be listed as they happened in reality and then provide parentheses or * to indicate they have been vacated by one standards body. The games actually happened, people attended, scores were kept, so it is more "reality based" to list them as such and attach modifiers. For example, for Paternos wins it would be more accurate to say he won 409 games, and then attach an * saying the NCAA vacated some games, not the other way around which assumes that the NCAA dictates reality instead of has a proposed view of them. The past is not modified by press releases, the games happened, players played and they were wins for everyone until the second the NCAA vacated them, now they are still wins just not in the NCAA vernacular. Current reading seems to give undue credence to NCAA worldview. If Congress vacated the Iraq war, would we change all the wiki articles to say the war never happened? If in some alternate reality we discovered the president was actually born outside the US and Congress vacated his election victories would we change the articles to say they had not happened - that he had not actually gotten more votes and won the elections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thxr234 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Good points, but we need to be consistent about this across Wikipedia. Please see WikiProject College football/Vacated victories and feel free to discuss there or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football.  Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 14:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2014
The part of the article that discusses the Fresh report states that emails referred to talking to "Joe" and therefore the administration decided to handle the situation differently. However the emails did not refer to "Joe" they referred to "Coach". Please change to name "Joe" to "Coach" in order to make this more accurate. Joe was never named in the emails. Thank you!

Ke2551 (talk) 21:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The second paragraph of the Posthumous findings section is the only paragraph in the article that mentions email. Wikipedia's article says,


 * Freeh's team also discovered a 2001 email from Curley: after a meeting in which Curley, Schultz and Spanier had decided to have Curley report McQueary's information to the state Department of Public Welfare, Curley wrote in a subsequent email that, having discussed the plan with "Joe", he had now changed his mind about this plan of action. Since, the Freeh investigation reported, this was “the only known, intervening factor” with the apparent result that no report was made to the state Department of Public Welfare in 2001, this was widely inferred by the press to mean that Paterno had persuaded Curley (and Schultz and Spanier) not to report the incident to authorities outside the university.


 * Per this citation provided in the article,
 * But Curley later said in an email that he changed his mind "after giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe."
 * In an email captioned "Jerry," Curley asked Schultz: "Anything new in this department? Coach is anxious to know where it stands."


 * So, in separate emails, both "Joe" and "Coach" were used. As I believe that it is a quote from the first email that the Wikipedia article is paraphrasing, I don't think anything needs to be corrected. If you find another source that says otherwise, I can reassess your request.
 * Regards, Wbm1058 (talk) 18:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Correction
With Oklahoma's Sugar Bowl victory last night, Bob Stoops now shares the distinction as a winning coach in the Orange, Rose, Fiesta and Sugar Bowls. Like Paterno, Stoops has also won a Cotton Bowl too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.92.77.234 (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ – I changed "only" to "first". See Bob Stoops to confirm. – Wbm1058 (talk) 18:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Clean up of the wording in the 'Bowls and Championships' section
The third paragraph in this section is needlessly clunky and difficult to read. We all know some of the wins were vacated, but do we necessarily need FOUR repeated disclaimers of that fact in the span of one paragraph when only one would suffice?

It read...

Penn State under Paterno won the Orange Bowl (1968, 1969, and 1973 (with a 2005 win vacated*)), the Cotton Bowl Classic (1972 and 1974), the Fiesta Bowl (1977, 1980, 1981, 1986, 1991, and 1996), the Liberty Bowl (1979), the Sugar Bowl (1982), the Aloha Bowl (1983), the Holiday Bowl (1989), the Citrus Bowl (1993 (with the 2010 win vacated*)), the Rose Bowl (1994), the Outback Bowl (1995 (with the 1998 & 2006 wins vacated*)) and the Alamo Bowl (1999 (with the 2007 win vacated*)).

I have changed it to read...

Penn State under Paterno won the Orange Bowl (1968, 1969, 1973 and 2005*), the Cotton Bowl Classic (1972 and 1974), the Fiesta Bowl (1977, 1980, 1981, 1986, 1991, and 1996), the Liberty Bowl (1979), the Sugar Bowl (1982), the Aloha Bowl (1983), the Holiday Bowl (1989), the Citrus Bowl (1993 and 2010*), the Rose Bowl (1994), the Outback Bowl (1995, 1998* and 2006*) and the Alamo Bowl (1999 and 2007*). * wins from 1998 to 2010 were vacated due to NCAA sanctions. Thanks. TreySuevos (talk) 16:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Reversal of edit regarding "forced resignation" and citations of state law
Regarding the undoing of the edits by HangingCurve (talk)

The citation provided actually confirms the firing of Paterno.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/18/us/penn-state-reaches-to-florida-state-for-new-president.html

Also the hyperlink in the citation given that reads 'November 2011 resignations' links to another NY Times article which states that Paterno was fired in the first paragraph.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/10/sports/ncaafootball/-joe-paterno-and-graham-spanier-out-at-penn-state.html?pagewanted=all

Because of this, the wholesale removal of any references to Paterno's firing is not supported.

Lastly, if we're going to reference the following of Pennsylvania state law, we at least need the citation of the law to go with it and a citation showing that the law referenced is what guided the actions of those involved.

Thanks, TreySuevos (talk) 16:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

In March of 2012 HangingCurve (talk) had removed citations which acknowledged that Paterno had followed the legal requirements, although at the minimum. Is there any specific reason why those citations of Paterno's following the law were removed, only to reinsert a more favorable stripped down version without a citation now?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joe_Paterno&diff=482561257&oldid=482438485

Thanks, TreySuevos (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Wrong
Joe Paterno had nothing to do with the monster that Jerry Sandusky was. He was the reason Penn State is what it is today. He graduated his players unlike most other schools and cared about them after they GRADUATED. Ask Adam Telefaro if Joe would ever not help anyone as Joe went to see him once a week after he was seriously injured in a game. Please do not reference this as a "Penn Stat e Scandal" as it was the monster who put shame to our great University. Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.54.211 (talk) 04:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

"Since, the Freeh investigation reported, this was “the only known, intervening factor” with the apparent result that no report was made to the state Department of Public Welfare in 2001, this was widely inferred by the press to mean that Paterno had persuaded Curley (and Schultz and Spanier) not to report the incident to authorities outside the university."

This statement is so wrong that it not even funny, just another attempt by highly biased parties to conjure up the notion that the whole Paterno-Sandusky phenomenon is just some "invention" of the media. The media has nothing to do with it. This was not the media's conclusion. It was Freeh's conclusion. He included Paterno as a party to the coverup. Nor did Freeh draw it out of thin air. Investigative workplace reports are required as a work product to produce fixes to an acknowledged problem. In so doing to draw such conclusions if the authors believe in good conscious the facts (all of them, not just the email) so warrant. In all likelihood, any investigative team, under the same legal and moral mandate, would have reached the same conclusion.

This statement in no way reflects an objective reporting of facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.210.119 (talk) 16:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2014
The date for the firing of Joe Paterno is wrong. He was actually fired on Wednesday November 9, 2011.

208.180.252.72 (talk) 10:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done The source given says he was fired "tonight" (article post 3am 10th Nov), so Nov 9 is correct. Stickee (talk) 10:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2014
"title=Curley, Schultz, Spanier, Paterno aware of 1998 Sandusky investgation"

"INVESTIGATION" MISPELLED66.74.176.59 (talk) 08:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Stickee (talk) 10:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2014
"title=Curley, Schultz, Spanier, Paterno aware of 1998 Sandusky investgation" -- investigation misspelled66.74.176.59 (talk) 05:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC) 66.74.176.59 (talk) 05:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If you click the link to the article, it actually does say "investgation". Stickee (talk) 05:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Paterno's wins have been returned
On January 16, 2015, the NCAA repealed the consent decree as a part of a court settlement in the Corman v. NCAA lawsuit. With this, Paterno's wins were returned: http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/ncaa-reaches-proposed-settlement-corman-lawsuit/


 * I read "proposed settlement...subject to board approval from Penn State." Jweiss11 (talk) 19:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I suppose it can wait, but why? The board isn't likely to turn this down. Reverting this over and over (if it happens), isn't productive. Gerry D (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2015
You need to change the number of Big Ten Titles back to 3. It's still only listed as 1. Thank you.

130.64.40.156 (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  08:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2015
On Friday January 16, the NCAA restored Joe Paterno's 111 wins. This replenishes his victories to 409.

71.114.162.7 (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  08:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Whether administrator emails prove that Paterno "lied"
In the Posthumous findings -

I think we should change this revision by Rockypedia: "E-mails uncovered by the independent investigators indicate that Paterno lied to the grand jury when testifying that he was unaware of any possible child abuse by Sandusky prior to 2001."

Saying Paterno "lied" is a conclusion and interpretation of what university administrators' emails mean and what Paterno's grand jury testimony means. Instead of making a judgment, we should just keep the remainder of the paragraph that explains the emails without interpretation and provide Paterno's testimony without interpretation to enable people to know the issue and draw their own conclusions. News media reports contemporaneous with the release of the Freeh report are not as reliable as more recent media reports because the Freeh report has since been questioned and there is a difference between the evidence in the report and the opinions and conclusions that the report asserts based on that evidence.

The remainder of the paragraph can read as follows with the same citations that are currently included:

"When Paterno in a 2011 grand jury investigation was asked, other than the incident that Mike McQueary reported to him, whether he knew of any other inappropriate sexual conduct by Sandusky with young boys, Paterno testified: 'I do not know of anything else that Jerry would be involved in of that nature, no. I do not know of it. You did mention — I think you said something about a rumor. It may have been discussed in my presence, something else about somebody. I don't know. I don't remember, and I could not honestly say I heard a rumor.'[88] But Freeh concluded that Paterno had knowledge of an earlier investigation of Sandusky in 1998 based on a May 1998 email exchange between Tim Curley, the athletic director and Gary Shultz, a campus administrator, with a caption 'Joe Paterno' in which Curley states that he has 'touched base with coach.'[89][90]" See page 48 of the Freeh report for Freeh's explanation of what news articles are trying to explain. http://progress.psu.edu/assets/content/REPORT_FINAL_071212.pdf

Srj4000 (talk) 05:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

edit request
Under the section Head coaching record it says

"The 112 wins were returned to Joe Paterno on January 16, 2015 as a part of a settlement between the NCAA and Penn State. Those 112 wins make Paterno the most victorious coach of all time in NCAA football with a total of 409 wins".

John Gagliardi has 489 wins. The most in NCAA football. Please edit the page so it reads

"The 112 wins were returned to Joe Paterno on January 16, 2015 as a part of a settlement between the NCAA and Penn State. Those 112 wins make Paterno the most victorious coach of all time in FBS NCAA football with a total of 409 wins".

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.135.241.45 (talk) 10:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for pointing that out. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Of the 112 restored wins, 111 were when Paterno was head coach and 1 was from the one game that Tom Bradley served as the interim head coach after Paterno was no longer coach. It should read something like "112 wins were returned to Penn State, 111 of which were when Paterno was still head coach, . . . . Those 111 wins . . . ." If Paterno were incorrectly credited with 112 his total would be 410, but his total is 409.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/penn-state-joe-paterno-to-get-wins-restored-under-proposed-deal/

Please clarify that only 111 of the 112 restored wins are credited to Paterno. Srj4000 (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Got it. I changed "112" to "111" in that section. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 17:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)