This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Joe Paterno article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
I think that the quotation box at Joe Paterno#Child sex abuse scandal and dismissal presents a neutrality issue. It features two pulled quotations, one directly from the accused and one taking the position that the accused was innocent. I don't think a quotation from the Freeh report should be added—because I think then the impulse will be to add a quote from the response to the Freeh report, and a response to the response, on end—but I'd suggest that the box should be removed entirely (or perhaps limited to the Paterno quotation).--2604:2000:1742:A11F:E8F1:593B:E169:738F (talk) 01:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
In the "Posthumous Findings" subsection, Freeh's findings are labeled a "mischaracterization" for unclear reasons and wording that specifies "press" as the ones "inferring" from it further baselessly spins a subtly doubtful undertone. The three sources for this line are two news articles that do not suggest that the Freeh report "mischaracterized" anything (presumably, this is supposed to evidence the "inferred by press" line) as well as a broken link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FRKatona (talk • contribs) 18:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. Reads like this was written by a cabal of PS alums. Gag. No one us fooled. But that is wiki for you. Never an issue it can't bias. NaySay (talk) 18:29, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
More history of ignoring sexual assault on his watch.
https://www.espn.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/32496588/before-jerry-sandusky-penn-state-football-had-another-serial-sexual-predator-untold-story-crimes-fight-bring-justice — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.212.231.250 (talk) 01:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
This is a comment about the issue regarding a misinforming fact. Joe Paterno at no point concealed any information about Sandusky. This was cleared in 2015 during the reinvestigation when they returned his titles to Penn State. A more accurate representation of Paterno's name is that he was used as a scape goat. It is widely known that this is true. I don't mean to be rude about all this, but it is horrible that you paint Penn State and Paterno in such a horrible light in this article. Paint Snadusky in that light, not Paterno. 2600:1700:840:5DD0:392F:8529:9317:FD93 (talk) 03:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)