Talk:Jerry Sandusky

Old comment

I added a comment on Jerry's son and link to his son's bio on the Eagles page. I believe that it should be mentioned...--Quinzy (talk) 19:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Recent charges

Jerry Sanduskey was formerly the rhythm guitar player in the band 'David Arvedon and The Psychopaths.' David Arvedon is a 900 pound cannibal. He walks up and down the streets of Pittsburg eating people. What a shark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.123.41 (talk) 16:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC) I took out the part in the first sentence that described him as a "retired football coach and boylover." He has not been actually convicted of anything yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.24.142.128 (talk • contribs) Lol, when he is convicted can that be officially the first sentence? 65.96.75.136 (talk) 22:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I think this should not be described as "anal intercourse". This implies consent. This was a ten year old boy. This was sexual assault. He was sexually assaulting a ten year old boy. Joe771 (talk) 10:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with this comment and intend to change "anal intercourse" to rape unless these is a well argued objection, "having anal intercourse" assumes the victim was capable of consent which as a minor he would not be. Exok (talk) 16:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The formulation I have seen that would be more appropriate is: "subjecting a ten-year old boy to anal intercourse". This is certainly better than "having anal intercourse with...", for avoiding implication of consent. I also think it is better than rape -- we might want to wait for the courts to establish that what he did was indeed the crime of rape. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a good compromise, although there's no need to make any judgement about Sandusky's actions to say that what was allegedly witnessed - whether it was actually witnessed or not - would have been rape. Exok (talk) 17:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, checking a bit deeper, the word "intercourse" implies mutuality. Without consent it's not intercourse, it's rape, see here.. So I'm not sure I agree.Exok (talk) 17:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I really have no personal objection to the idea that it was rape, and I hope it's clear I'm not trying to defend or protect this guy. But I'm not sure we should use the word rape until a court says it's rape. Another possibility would be "subjecting a ten-year-old boy to anal penetration". In any event, I won't stand in your way if you insist on using "rape" -- but I suspect other editors might. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

No, of course, you're just addressing the expression for the allegation, not the nature of the allegation. I appreciate your help. I'm going to do the edit and if there's further discussion, fine. Exok (talk) 18:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for thoughtful changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe771 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Having sex with a 10-year-old can be reasonably called rape even if the child accepts the activity. This is a lot different than a teenager who is just under the age of consent. That said, I'm uncomfortable with the phrase "anally raping" linking to an article on anal intercourse. Would a reference to vaginal rape link to vaginal intercourse? It should link to the article on rape. I don't know how to link text myself, but if someone agrees with me, maybe they could change the link? Lauriellen (talk) 09:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Link to a book called "Touched"?

There is a link on this Wiki to a book supposedly for sale on Amazon. http://www.amazon.com/Touched-Jerry-Sandusky-Story/dp/1582613575

Is it real or a joke? I'm guessing a bad joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.181.149.44 (talk) 16:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

No, it's 100% real, ironically. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow that's hilarious hahahaha. ThurstAsh13 (Malk + Montributions) 23:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Retirement in 1999?

wondering if this was an actual retirement or if he was forced out. He was only 55 years old at that point and many coaches at that level would try to coach as long as they can.

also, probably not too relevant but he is credited with authoring at least 3 other books according to Amazon:

a) Developing Linebackers the Penn State Way b) Coaching Linebackers c) 101 Linebacker Drills

107.43.94.230 (talk) 00:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I've added the books.   Will Beback  talk  01:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: Retirement in 1999; Jerry was told by Paterno that he would not be Paterno's successor therefore he would not become Penn State's next Head Coach, this is referenced in the Grand Jury report, Sandusky retired shortly thereafter. (FYI; The friendship between Paterno and Sandusky had eroded over the years leading up to this, however this is not widely known or reported.) (CaptBillWilson (talk) 15:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)).

May need to mention the disappearing district attorney

apparently there was a district attorney that looked at the Sandusky case a long time ago and declined to prosecute and this d.a. then later disappeared and was never heard from again. 107.43.94.230 (talk) 00:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

That information, if sourced, would be better placed in the Penn State sex abuse scandal article.   Will Beback  talk  01:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-702355 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddyteddy33 (talk • contribs)

The district attorney referred to above was Ray Gricar. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC))

Maureen Dowd - you've got to be kidding

nice job of blaming catholic church for coverup to protect their brand samer old far left crazy ad hominem attck, must be removed, unless the NY Times is your bible — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.103.237.209 (talk) 13:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The Dowd quote is irrelevant and should be removed. It is also unclear how many children Sundusky has. Does he have only 6 adopted children or has he adopted 6 children but has more some of whom are biological. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.123.44 (talk) 13:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Since when has Maureen Dowd been a scholarly reference about anything. My twelve year old daughter writes better researched, more sophisticated book reports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.251.116.51 (talk) 02:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC) New York times is a WP:RS. 107.3.62.19 (talk) 09:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC) Agreed her comment is irrelevant and inflammatory. 76.117.116.171 (talk) 15:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Redirect to Gaddafi

Can someone explain this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.76.5.55 (talk) 18:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 12 November 2011

A Maureen Dowd editorial comment does not constitute 'significant media criticism' and her reference to the Catholic Church's problems\'brand' is both irrelevant and inappropriate. Recommend the entire section be removed. Joevi (talk) 08:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Not done: It is an example, quite typical of the kind of criticism that has been filling up newspaper pages, and there's nothing wrong with it, particularly as it is properly attributed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Done I just removed it for two reasons.

One, I read the word "significant" in this context to mean both "important and influential" and "many." Dowd is one person.

Two, I strongly disagree that "there's nothing wrong with it" since I can come up with at least two things wrong with it. Conflating the actions of a few confused, pathetic people (Paterno, Curley, McQueary, etc.) with the actions of the Catholic authorities is, if nothing else, a disgusting way of ignoring the sheer number of the Church's victims. The grand jury lists eight victims of Jerry Sandusky. Some news reports are using numbers like 17 and 20. Father John Geoghan, whose decades of abuse were knowingly, intentionally covered by his superiors, assaulted at least 86 children and possibly 130, and that's just one guy.

It reads like Dowd, rather than consider what she was implying, just went to the most obvious, well-known case of a cover up of child molestation. She writes, "Like the Roman Catholic Church, Penn State is an arrogant institution hiding behind its mystique." Uh, that's basically a description of every single old, huge church, college, company, etc. She never explains specifically how the two are relevant to each other.

My first concern can be easily addressed since "criticism...has been filling up newspaper pages." But this column, specifically, is a bad example of good criticism. CityOfSilver 01:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

By "nothing wrong" I mean it is entirely in conformity with relevant policies/guidelines. Your own dislike for it, evident here, is not relevant, and it's surprising that an experienced editor such as yourself believes it would be. Dowd's comment is a good example of the kind of commentary this case has been receiving and belongs in the article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

So one article is "significant coverage?" For what it's worth, your guess is precisely wrong about how I reacted to the article. On a personal, doesn't-matter-to-anybody-else level, I mostly agree with its sentiment. (Do I agree with Dowd that these people are all awful? I do.) I just don't see how it adds anything to readers' understanding of Sandusky, or even how it supports the "significant coverage" standard we're trying to meet. CityOfSilver 23:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

As I have explained, it is an example of the kind of coverage this incident is receiving. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion here. CityOfSilver IS acting as an experienced editor - he is separating OpEd from Fact. Wikipedia is an 'Encyclopedia' not an editorial page. Dowd's comments offer up nothing more than her opinion of similar scandals. The reader gains no additional insight into the subject or his actions. Would comments from Jon Stewart or Rush Limbaugh also represent 'good example[s]' of relevant content for Wikipedia?Joevi (talk) 21:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Wait, who is confused? The comment from Maureen Dowd (a notable commentator) is properly attributed to her and is not being asserted as fact. If there are relevant comments by Limbaugh or Stewart to discuss, then fine -- but I don't know that they have had anything to say about Sandusky. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant information in the "Sexual assault charges" section

In the paragraph describing Sandusky's bail and possible prison term there is a sentence describing the proximity of his house to an educational institution. I'm having trouble seeing the relevancy here. Am I missing something? Knoxjeff (talk) 20:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Sandusky is charged with being a pedophile (i.e., molesting young children) ... as I understand it, his house neighbors an elementary school ... perhaps not coincidentally. I don't agree that this information is irrelevant. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC))

"anal penetration" vs rape

Why is the following worded this way:

According to the indictment, in 2002 assistant coach Mike McQueary, then a Penn State graduate assistant,[21] walked in on Sandusky subjecting a ten-year-old boy to anal penetration. The next day, McQueary reported the incident to Paterno, who informed Curley. Ultimately, it is alleged, the only action Curley and Schultz took was to order Sandusky not to bring any children from Second Mile to the football building, an action that was approved by school president Graham Spanier.[citation needed] The indictment accused Curley and Schultz not only of failing to tell the police, but also of falsely telling the grand jury that McQueary never informed them of the alleged sexual activity.[22]

instead of "raping a ten-year-old boy"? It's not possible for it to be consensual, and undeniably sexual. Nonconsensual sex is called "rape," and the fact that it is anal makes it anal rape, rather than "subjected to ... anal penetration". The euphemism is not really appropriate here. 50.16.85.221 (talk) 00:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's the exact wording from the grand jury report, specifically the section titled "Victim 2" that starts on page 6. This is in regards to Mike McQueary's testimony: "He saw a naked boy, Victim 2, whose age he estimated to be 10 years old, with his hands up against the wall, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky." So the grand jury is reiterating testimony from McQueary, who didn't, as far as we know, use the word "rape." (Is there a transcript of McQueary's testimony anywhere?) So literally speaking, with no other considerations, the text is correct.

But the text is, as you said, not correct. The article's wording, "According to the indictment, in 2002 assistant coach Mike McQueary, then a Penn State graduate assistant,[21]walked in on Sandusky subjecting a ten-year-old boy to anal penetration," is wrong since it is saying, basically, "McQueary walked in and saw" when the indictment says, in not so many words, "McQueary says he walked in and saw."

And I know, this has little to do with your concern. You're saying that the overriding truth here is that there is no such thing as a 58-year-old having sex with a 10-year-old that isn't rape. I agree, although I can't find any precedent allowing me to say so in the article per WP:OBVIOUS. I'm going to be bold and include the word "rape," but I'm also going to make sure the text says that McQueary, not the grand jury, said that. (Although WP:OBVIOUS might also cover such an edit, since the grand jury said, and I quote, "The Grand Jury finds the graduate assistant's testimony to be extremely credible," then went on to indicate that this finding is why they indicted Tim Curley and Gary Schultz.) CityOfSilver 00:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

appreciated; the article is protected and i couldn't edit it. I'm aware of WP:BOLD and so on, but it kind of seemed to me that WP:OBVIOUS leaned in the direction of it being phrased as rape rather than penetration, but i'm really an ardent foe of wikilawyering and suchlike. thanks for noticing. 50.16.85.221 (talk) 19:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Any sexual activity between an adult and a minor is statutory rape. The problem with "Sexual assault" is that it is not specific as to the nature of the act. Groping someone could be considered sexual assault, but that is very different from anal penetration. If we want to intentionally obfuscate the nature of the act then "sexual assault" is suitably vague. But if we want to be informative then "anal penetration" is a more accurate and precise term.   Will Beback  talk  23:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I've made my support for that option clear above; "sexual assault" is less informative and fails to convey what is commonly used in sources covering this issue. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to express that what allegedly happened is a bright-line violation of the law. The editor who started this thread said, and I strongly agree, that unless it's explicitly stated that a crime occurred, it's too wishy-washy. Someone might interpret what we're saying as, "Uh, well, we know anal penetration occurred, but we can't say 'rape' or 'assault' until Sandusky is convicted." So how do we word it so that the "anal penetration" fact is there, as is an unequivocal statement that such an act is a crime? I'm going to go with "anally raping" instead, since I also agree that "sexually assaulting" reads a little like censorship, even though I definitely did not mean to censor anything. CityOfSilver 20:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Why not just use the term sodomized? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.227.29 (talk) 22:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

If people are wondering why Sandusky is so reviled, they can come here and get the specific, graphic details. In the US, the word "sodomy" doesn't specifically indicate what happened. CityOfSilver 23:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Based on McQueary's testimony at the perjury trial of Curley and Schultz, as well as his pre-grand jury written statement, as well as his testimony at the actual trial, he DID NOT witness Sandusky raping a boy. McQueary stated he heard skin on skin slapping sounds (now easily explained by the testimony of Victim 4, Brett Swisher Houtz, who stated that he and Sandusky often slap boxed in the showers) and that he glanced in the shower to see Sandusky standing behind the boy. However, McQueary's testimony is disputed by the testimony of Dr. Dranov, who stated Mike McQueary never told him about seeing any such thing. Also, the layout of the shower confirms the Dranov testimony of a boy sticking his head around a corner and being pulled back.71.179.105.108 (talk) 03:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I noticed today that there is a CNN piece that specifically addresses this very topic. It's from 20 Nov: [1].. Evenrød (talk) 00:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

seriously guys..this is like too graphic. i think there should be a warning or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.60.240.201 (talk) 17:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Jerry Sandusky's ethnicity.

Where does it say that Jerry Sandusky is actually Polish? His last name Sandusky is spelled with "sky" not "ski" ("sky" is not Polish, but this spelling was used by Jews, Russians, and Ukrainians). A vague reference is made to his grandparents, but no location is named... and the source that's cited as reference for the alleged Polish background does not actually name the ethnicity. This seems to be very poor editing, and can even be considered misleading. But, the page is locked preventing honest users from removing the claim until further research can be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.227.161 (talk) 13:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Sandusky writes in his book "Touched" that his grandparents came from Poland, see p.22-23. They spelled it "Sendecki" and the spelling apparently changed with their son.[2]. See also [3]--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• The reference material that was provided above only proves my point. The book does state that his grandparents came form Poland, but it does not say that they were ethnic Poles. Don't forget that Poland before WWII was a multi-ethnic country where Poles, Germans, Ukrainians, Belorussians, Jews and even Lithuanians (who commonly spelled their names in Polish) lived within the borders of the Polish state, and Poles only comprised 55 percent of the population. So, to say that his grandparents were "Polish immigrants" implies that they were ethnic Poles. So, I ask that the entry be amended to note that. The article should state: "His paternal grandparents emigrated from pre-war Poland." Thus, acknowledging their nationality, but not necessarily their ethnicity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.227.161 (talk) 00:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• If Sandusky was a molester, its not because he was Polish. He refers to his grandfather in the book as "Jaja" which is a polish term for grandfather. "Bucka" is probably a species of similar Polish terms used for grandmother, which is term he uses. He also talks about his grandfather going to the Pulaski club where "older Polish men" would meet. Only ethnic Poles would be members of a Pulaski club.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
• But my question is this... why then is his family's Polish nationality highlighted, while his Irish background on his mother's side Evelyn Mae (née Lee) quietly omitted. It's seems very odd that you only decide to concentrate on one side of someone's background and totally omit the other? Just to be a bit sarcastic... it's like having a Barak Obama wiki page that lists his Irish background, and leaves out his Kenyan ancestry. So, again I ask that this entry be revised to create a more balanced description. I think that my issue with this page is very reasonable, and the way this article is written does raise questions as to how this section was edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.227.161 (talk) 23:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the reason it is highlighted is because Sandusky self-identifies primarily with his Polish heritage, just like Barack Obama is called black when he is technically half-white, and just as white as he is black. But again, who cares if he is Polish? Your main concern seems to be something about "omg someone of polish heritage is a child molester," which is not what the story is about.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Cleaned up the wording of the family bio section to make it a bit clearer.--Microedt (talk) 04:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Milowent you clearly have an agenda here, I do not know why you reverted the earlier edit which shows that Sandusky is an American of mixed back ground, and not Polish first and foremost. Then you went ahead and locked the page despite that fact that there was no vandalism committed. I want you to explain your decision to do so. Also, your decision to change the wording of the section without adding any new material show clear bias. There was no reason whatsoever for you to make those changes and lock the page. As you notice that the original edit mentioned his mother first, and the father second. But, you went ahead and changed the order of things, than start accusing other people of bias?

Not only that, your edit is created a break in the content. Originally, the section mentioned his mother, than his father... and proceeded to discuss the father's accomplishments. You by accusing others of bias and to the detriment of the article went ahead and changed the order of how things are presented, in turn creating a confused and poorly worded section. Again, you accuses others of bias? Thus I request that the Milowent edit be reverted, since the change did not actually add anything to the section, and in the process diminished the clarity of the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.227.161 (talk) 16:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Question: Why oh why do the majority of Wikipedia entries about people include the parent's and grandparent's ethnicity at all? I assume to many readers, like myself, it seems strange. Year by year, generation by generation, we are all becoming mixed breeds, and families are moving from country to country. The controversy about his parents being "Polish" or "from Poland" is, to me, hilarious. Who cares? Why would an encyclopedia entry in the year 2011 include this kind of info? Should we trace back his roots and see if he is Aryan? Or a descendant or Moses? Or Neanderthal instead of Homo sapien? It seems to me it is pretty un-PC to over-focus on people's lineage, let alone it being useful in any way. Susan.dicey.k (talk) 05:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Susan.dicey.k

Edit request from , 18 November 2011

The last line of the following quote is incorrect.

"Sandusky answered Costas when asked if he is sexually attracted to young boys:

COSTAS: "Are you sexually attracted to young boys, to underage boys?" SANDUSKY: "Am I sexually attracted to underage boys?" COSTAS: "Yes." SANDUSKY: "Sexually attracted, you know, no. I enjoy young people. I love to be around them. But no I'm not sexually attracted to young boys.""

The last line of the quote per reference 40 is --

SANDUSKY: "Sexually attracted, you know, I—I enjoy young people. I—I love to be around them. I—I—but no I'm not sexually attracted to young boys."

Vienna1027 (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Done It's strange, every one of those sources wrote it out slightly differently but definitely there was some stuttering there that should be in the article if it's a quote. --Ella Plantagenet (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Per reference 37 it is "You know … no I enjoy young people I … I love to be around them. " Confirmed by reference 39. I would recommend that we not remove the negation, even if reference 40 does. Sean (talk) 10:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

While some other major sources including the one mentioned, reference 37 or various others [4], [5], [6] do include the negation.Sean (talk) 10:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm undoing it. Another reliable reference is this transcript from NBC Philadelphia, and the pattern-of-speech stuff isn't there. It was re-added here, according to Ella Plantagenet, because "there was some stuttering there that should be in the article if it's a quote". Why? With the stuttering included, what Sandusky said and meant are rendered less coherent. I removed that stuff the first time because I honestly had to read those bits two or three times to understand what was being said.

That's also a pointlessly over-sourced section, with apparently each of those six sources serving to do nothing but confirm the quotes. I'm adding NBC Philadelphia, leaving the page with the video embedded, leaving the CNN transcript with the stutter, and removing the other four since their presence serves no purpose. CityOfSilver 19:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I added the stuttering in because it was in the sources, but also because it seems reflective of the strange response Sandusky gave to that question (wouldn't most people just say, "No" without thinking?) Anyways, I'll defer to those more active in this thread, I certainly didn't think it would be a contentious edit request when I answered it (should have known better :)) Ella Plantagenet (talk) 13:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

This was also discussed at Penn State sex abuse scandal with similar results. I think it may be appropriate for the unquoted prose to reflect Sandusky's hesitance, rather than the quote; the manner in which he answered was well-covered in the sources and probably deserves inclusion in some form, but consensus is that it shouldn't be in the quote itself to preserve the clarity of its meaning.--~TPW 13:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

After reviewing the talk page for the Penn state sex abuse scandal page, I see what you're talking about, though not anything about this particular quote. However from your valiant efforts to "inject common sense" into the conversation over there, it's clear you have a firm grasp on how consensus has been shaped wrt this scandal, and your explanation makes sense to me. It is definitely more elegant to have the phrase as it currently exists. Ella Plantagenet (talk) 14:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Early life and family

Can someone change the order of the family bio, a proper biography will list the mother first, and then the father. But, for some reason user: Milowent went in and changed this order, creating a bit of confusion in how the section is presented. --76.118.227.161 (talk) 22:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• The article originally only listed the father's heritage, because numerous sources show that Sandusky identifies with his paternal Polish heritage. Reversing it because of you are part of a Polish Protection Brigade is WRONG WRONG WRONG. (See [7] - this was before the above IP complainer started claiming they probably weren't Polish even though they were from Poland, which I completely and utterly debunked with this funny thing called sources)--Milowent • ^hasspoken 23:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• Yup, I just checked the link that you provided above, and as a matter of fact here it is:

Sandusky was born in Washington, Pennsylvania, the son of Evelyn Mae (née Lee) and Arthur Sandusky. His paternal grandparents were Polish immigrants and his mother came from a small coal-mining town.

And look at that... his mother is listed first, just like most biographies list the mothers first, before you changed it. And you call other people bias! This is too much, you are discrediting yourself my friend. --76.118.227.161 (talk) 01:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually I suspect that Milowent is more literate, so that if he wanted to describe someone as holding ideological predispositions, he would know how to construct an adjective by using the past participle of the word in question, rather than simply throwing in the simple verb in an ungrammatical way. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• Mr. IP continues to ignore much, but I reordered the first sentence of the section listing the parents names to assuage him. I urge him to read Touched if he has any questions about Jerry Sandusky's Polish heritage and the same's emphasis of it in the book.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Easy with the personal attacks user: Nomoskedasticity... you see, not everyone is as good as you when it comes to editing and grammar, not even Milowent... who has also committed a serious error of "redundancy" when writing an earlier edit (see user: Runame's fix). I guess we need to send that to the Department of Redundancy Department. --76.118.227.161 (talk) 00:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, I fully expected that intentional redundancy to be rightfully removed. But I knew it would drive Mr. IP crazy. I see the mom's background has been moved back the way Mr. IP would like it by someone, so presumably he is now satisified. I tried to figure out what the mother's hometown really is, but could not. The Touched book is the source of the small Pennsylvania coal mining town claim. His parents actually got married in Wellsburg, W. Va. in 1942, perhaps because Evelyn Mae Lee's family was living there at the time, but I cannot verify that.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Coaching Career at Penn State

" Inspired to honor Sandusky, the defense produced an outstanding effort and the Nittany Lions shut out Texas A&M, 24–0, the only bowl game shutout victory for Penn State under Paterno..." Saying that the effort is outstanding violates POV. Somebody who can edit please change this. 24.112.138.114 (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

That was written by the original author of the article who apparently liked the word "outstanding": "he coached many outstanding defensive squads", "Penn State gained a reputation for outstanding linebacker play", "the defense produced an outstanding effort". I'll see about doing some copyediting to tone it down.   Will Beback  talk  20:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The second paragraph in this section, "Sandusky officially retired shortly after this investigation, and was awarded "both an unusual compensation package and a special designation of 'emeritus' rank that carried special privileges, including access to the university’s recreational facilities."[26] Spanier approved a lump-sum payment to Sandusky of $168,000.[26]" appears to have been an erroneous copy-and-paste, and clearly does not belong in the "Coaching Career" section.

Ray Gricar disappearance?

I am not suggesting adding this to the article, as it is most likely tendentious, and there is probably more crucial information about Second Mile, insurers etc. We know that there is no actual relation between Ray Gricar's disappearance and the Penn State scandal. References for this info easily found but I'm not looking for them as I'm not thinking this fits into any reasonable article, just storing it here to think about. Personally I'm confused why JS does not confess and save what he can of Second Mile. Anyway...

Sandusky was overheard in 1998 saying of a child 'I wish I was dead.' Sandusky claimed that the word had been mis-heard. The DA Ray Gricar disappeared 20 years later without ever having filed an indictment, and the phrase is the first accusation in the indictment filed by his successor. On 25 July 2011 Ray Gricar's closest relative, his adopted daughter, accepted that he is legally dead.

In 1996 Debra Long alerted authorities that Sandusky is a 'source of fear' for her son Matt, and obtained a court order as recently as 2011. When he turned 18 years old Matt Sandusky declared Jerry legally dad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Createangelos (talk • contribs) 16:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Sexual Assault Charges

Hi,

I'm requesting some clarification for why this section is so long esp. as things are not yet clarified in a court.

Some things seem irrelevant, such as impressions from a phone in program of what is the nature of Sandusky's attraction towards kids. Him being one of the percentage of people who is attracted to children the wrong way if that is true would be a necessary condition for abuse, but not a sufficient condition.

Here are two references, http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11352/1197680-454.stm quotes J. Lauro, of the State Department of Public Welfare, who looked into the issue of Sandusky showering with children in 1998, he decided there was no abuse, and he did not 'indicate' Sandusky.

And http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11345/1196149-455-0.stm?cmpid=news.xml#ixzz1goTw9iAm includes a detailed description of the evidence and investigation at the time, and the decision of the DA that there was no case against Sandusky.

A great amount of this evidence appears to be agreed as true on both sides. The presentment states very precisely that (in the 1998 case) they had been wrestling, then later:

"While in the shower, Sandusky approached the boy, grabbed him around the
waist and said, 'I'm going to squeeze your guts out,'"

"Sandusky bear-hugged the boy from behind, holding the boy's back against
his chest. Then he picked him up and put him under the showerhead to
rinse soap out of his hair."

Later in a wiretapped overheard conversation the mother of the child asked, if Sandusky gave the child a bear hug in the shower, did his private parts contact the child, he answered "I don't think so....maybe," and he refused to agree to cease showering with children.

The facts of these events, and most of the events in the Presentment, are acknowledged by Sandusky; such events are in fact described recently as 'perp by admission' in one of the articles by an authority. Therefore the facts in these earlier cases are agreed, and the issue was one of moral disagreement: Sandusky refused to cease treating children in this way, believing that it constitutes appropriate love and care.

We also know (see the McQueary article) that the recent Mike McQueary testimony is consistent with the Pennsylvania Nephrologist's Dr. Dranov's testimony that he was present when McQueary reported to his father, and what McQueary had reported at the time was hearing slapping sounds in the shower and later seeing Sandusky with his arm around the child's waist. There is no disagreement here about what was actually observed to take place. Very precisely, McQueary reported hearing 'two or three' slapping sounds, before going into the shower room. He did not see Sandusky's hands touching the child but used the word 'fondling' when he reported it because of the overall position of their bodies http://www.dauphincounty.org/_files/3193.pdf.

Also others at the University including a Senior Vice President and the director of Security testified that McQueary himself had only reported seeing Sandusky and the child 'horsing around.' (In fact there is the upcoming perjury trial about it because the presentment calls their testimony 'unreliable.' McQueary himself testified in the preliminary hearing to not having seen any physical sexual contact between Sandusky and v2, and in the earlier case of the child listed as v6, neither did the child himself or his mother).

On the other hand, there is some very explicit testimony in the presentment, which is or was denied by Sandusky, such as Victim 4. Then it is a fact supported from references that either Sandusky (or victim 4) must be lying.

One has to be careful about suggesting a victim may be lying, and if it is an axiom that child victims do not lie, this means that Sandusky is lying about victim 4.

I am sorry to go on at such boring length and so precisely about issues that are emotive to people, but an article should be more clear about reporting facts, statements, and stated beliefs even if they are moral beliefs.

I do not think that Wikipedia is meant to be a conduit for moral beliefs, but to clarify things by giving a clear and non-contradictory account of what is in the references.

For example, all the discussion here on the talk page about particular types of rape in a shower seems irrelevant unless there is a reliable reference for such an event.

Createangelos (talk) 00:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I think your point, to the extent I understand it, could be addressed via WP:NOTNEWS -- with deletion of some of the excessive detail, including the selection of transcript from the interview. Even the vandalism of his home is not particularly relevant to an encyclopedia. Some editors are likely to be offended by removal of sourced information, so I would suggest waiting to see whether there is further support here before performing edits along these lines. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your reply. I note that there is already a similar edit request to mine in the section Talk:Jerry Sandusky#Irrelevant information in the "Sexual assault charges" section. I agree with your interpretation in terms of WP:NOT#NEWS. Journalism such as tabloid journalism isn't helpful.

In the absence of any account of the perjury trial, or factual issues about whether McQueary reported seeing a rape (which are details it is OK to omit in this section I guess as they currently are), I want someone to consider deleting some of the following items of essentially tabloid style news.

(1.) "According to the indictment...." This is good but it should be clarified that the whole paragraph is according to the indictment (if so).

2. "...a televised phone interview..." delete? (see justification above also). Although admittedly having it in print clarifies it so maybe keep this after all.

3. "...Karl Rominger tried to explain..." delete

4. "...Inside edition reports...lives near an elementary school." delete? Living near an elem school is not notable, maybe though the fact that Inside Edition reported it is notable.

There are factual issues about what McQueary saw, what he said to Paterno or not etc currently not included in the Sandusky article here and that is OK, maybe more relevant to the penn state controversy article.

But the four things above especially 3. (which has unmatched quotation marks also and is vague) and 4. are not about notable facts. (note my recent strikethru's having given more thought to three of the four).

Createangelos (talk) 14:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• Can't say I'm exactly sure how you'd change the article. Maybe you should make some changes being WP:BOLD, they'll be reverted or modified if others disagree. But citing "Inside Edition" in the text of any article is rather sad. Do we report the "teaching proper hygiene" defense floated by his attorney in the article yet? That's golden.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

OK I have made the one edit that seems reasonable, which is to replace Rominger's explanation of the eight charges in the indictment with Sandusky's from the more recent NY Times article 'in his own words.' Surely Sandusky's own explanation is more notable than the one given by his new lawyer on first meeting. I wasn't sure how to deal with the quotation marks, to specify briefly who is speaking. Without quote marks it runs into the final sentence of the article (thx whoever fixed that). Welcome to revert if anyone disagrees with this edit.

Also a second and very unimportant edit, the discussion of the 13 December press conference by Amendola which was attended by witnesses...seemed to have a poor content to verbiage ratio as it didn't include any information except that the press conference took place, and the text was inserted into the article at around that time, so this is WP:NOT#NEWS. The earlier edit is more important as the defendant's own statement is surely notable. Createangelos (talk) 08:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

"However, as of November 16 there are no legal restrictions on his travel, according to Penn State.[33]" - The linked article says nothing of the sort and why would anyone cite Penn State as the source for legal restrictions on his travel? Irish Melkite (talk) 07:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually the article does make this point, though you're correct to say that it is not attributed to Penn State. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Additional Charges and Trial

I see that this page has not been edited in a while, and there is now more information that should be included in this article. Sandusky's trial begins Monday for one thing. There is much info in the article that is now out of date and some minute detail that probably does not need to be included. I have added one paragraph about the addtional 12 charges filed in December, and I was going to add a section about the trial. I may spend some time cleaning up and updating info if time permits. Minor4th 01:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 June 2012

I find this line (not including the quotation marks):

"Sandusky and his wife have also served as foster parents. ."

Please remove the extra period at end.

128.63.16.82 (talk) 16:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done, thanks for pointing it out--Jac16888 ^Talk 16:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Copyedit scandal section

The section on the scandal is getting too long. Some of the stuff is a bit long-winded like the initial paragraphs. The reaction section is largely unnecessary. Most of the details are already in the Penn State sex abuse scandal. I'd edit it, but I don't want to have to get involved in yet another edit war/whinefest on this topic. --Jtalledo (talk) 19:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 June 2012

Clearly, the opening sentence should be changed now to: ... is a convicted child sex offender 45 times over. Let's tell the truth people. It's not slander or libel. It is a fact as of tonight, Friday, June 22 2012. Sandusky is a convicted child sex offender.

98.21.71.90 (talk) 04:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I checked other articles which used the phrase "child molester". its usually linked to child sexual abuse, which is a phrase which wont work in this context, as in "person convicted of child sexual abuse". we have used the phrase "child molester" repeatedly, in relation to people found guilty of such acts. i dont think its too informal a phrase, even if the word "molest" is very imprecise. This is essentially what he is known as now, regardless of its political correctness. so i agree, and made the suggested change to the first sentence. I dont agree we need to state "45 times over", just like we didnt list how many years he was a coach in the first sentence. Oh, wait, im sorry, you listed it as "child sex offender", which is less commonly used, but somewhat more accurate. i have changed it to your chosen phrase.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Done Andie ▶Candy◀ 09:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

For addition to [Category:LGBT sportspeople from the United States]

Coach Jerry has objectively qualified into its coverage in similarity of example to Ray McDonald04:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.193.236.38 (talk)

Inmate number

Should Sandusky's inmate number be added to the article somewhere? It's 12-0529. Patken4 (talk) 19:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't think so... I don't believe that other articles about prison inmates have their numbers. I can't think of a context in the article in which it would be relevant, as it's only used for internal record keeping purposes. It's not like an ISBN that you can punch in to get more info... --Jtalledo (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Juror "seeds of doubt" but not any reasonable doubt

(I have removed my comment, as it was inappropriate for an ongoing case)

Lede

I recently made some changes to the lede, and as promised in the edit sumary, I'll now attempt to sum up and explain what I couldn't have fit very well into an edit summary:

• Removed "retired": Opening lines do not typically comment on how "active" one is in one's profession, one's vocation, or whatever it is makes one notable; rather they say what one is notable for. And Sandusky isn't notable for retiring; he's notable for coaching football. Fellow convict Phil Spector is still a record producer even if he isn't actively producing records, and Ted Kaczynski is still a mathematician even if he isn't actively...mathematizing? For the sake of comparison, consider Robert Hanssen. He could not be correctly described as "an FBI agent" anymore, because (to the extent that "agent" is synonymous with "employee") he no longer is employed as such and because (insofar as "agent" means something like "representative") Hanssen evidently did not fully represent the interests of the FBI in the first place. The FBI is, after all, an "agency" in its own right, and it decides who acts on its behalf. But "football" is not "agentic" in that sense, and one does not become (or cease to be) a "coach of football" (or a "producer of records") in the genetive sense that one can be hired, fired, or retired as an "agent of the FBI". Sandusky established himself as a football coach and will always possess that identity, regardless of whether he is actively coaching or is inactive because he is retired, imprisoned, committing a crime, taking a nap, or anything else.

• Added "philanthropist and author". Because Sandusky, in addition to coaching football, founded a charity and wrote books. If this comes across to some as "whitewashing", I can certainly empathize with those who feel this way. It's not easy to describe someone who's recently been conviced of child abuse as a "philanthropist". I wasn't personally, subjectively "comfortable" adding those words. Objectively, however, those words are true, and as far as I'm aware they are, really, wholly uncontroversial: Nobody denies that he founded "The Second Mile" or wrote books on coaching.

• Removed "convicted child sex offender" from opening line. There is HUGE WP:BLP issue here, but in order to see that it exists at all one has got to read between the lines. Yes, of course Sandusky was convicted of sexually abusing children, and yes, of course there is a dictionary-definition sense of "criminal" or "offender" which denotes those who have been convicted or found guilty of a crime, irrespective of whatever innocence or guilt might ultimately be "proven" by some test of truth more penetrative than reasonable-doubt. To say that "Jerry Sandusky is a convicted child sex offender", then, is to make an assertion which is, semantically speaking, wholly verifiable. However, there may be better ways than the preceding to get the point across, and in a BLP it is prudent not to confuse sensitivity with censorship. WP:BLP exists for a reason, and that reason lends its "L" to "BLP": Jerry Sandusky is alive. Wikipedia editors and Wikimedia donators are alive. Living people tend to affect other living people, and to be affected by other living people, too. Sometimes, living people even do things on the Internet which affect the ways--and, yes, the odds--that other people will continue living. The fact of the matter is, prison life is not kind to those who have been convicted (or even suspected) of child abuse or sexual abuse. And that may sound like a classic case of "not-our-problem"; but, if a freshly-incarcerated inmate happened to recall one day that Wikipedia had tagged his cell mate as a "child sex offender", then that cell mate (or his estate) has the potential to cast some sort of blame upon the fragile Wikimedia Foundation if any harm were to befall him. It is in our own best interest (if not otherwise in our intuition) to be "sensitive" here. There is a sense in which referring to somebody as a "convicted child sex offender" is--or sounds--like a way of burying in adjectives the core assertion that (regardless of the jury's thought) someone unambiguously committed an offense. Instead, why not take a breath, wait a moment, and spell out the facts which are unambiguous: "Sandusky was arrested and charged with 52 counts of sexual abuse of young boys over a 15-year period...Sandusky was found guilty on 45 of the 48 charges"? Indeed, the lede's third paragraph already does exactly that. However, even if we grant that "convicted child sex offender" is intrinsically appropriate and accurate, we may still find it somewhat...sub-encyclopedic. Sandusky did not become famous as a football coach "and" a convicted criminal. The scandal/trial may have enhanced his notability, but that notability did not skyrocket at the moment when the jury read its verdit. Sandusky is just as notable now as he was in the seconds before he officially became a "convicted criminal". His conviction warrants mention in the lede, no doubt, but his criminal status is not the crux of his notability and does not, I think, need to preempt the lede's mention of his other endeavours or to preempt the "objective" third paragraph, which arrives in due time.

• Removed the term "grand jury" from the phrase, "following a two-year grand jury investigation". "Grand jury invesitagtion" made for some fairly poor phrasing, because a grand jury doesn't "investigate". The investigators investigate; the grand jury then decides if the investigators on the prosecution's side have investigated sufficiently well to earn "themselves" an indictment. In Sandusky's case, the invesitagtion did indeed go on for two years, but grand-jury involvement spanned just seven months. Perhaps my approach (i.e., removing "grand jury" outright) was not ideal, but it was at least accurate.

• Removed third paragraph's piped links to Penn State sex abuse scandal and child sexual abuse. Here, complete removal was not my original intent. I had begun an effort to fix a legetimate problem with these links (more on that in a second), I got sidetracked, and I submitted the edit too soon. For that I apologize, although my subsequent effort to remedy the problem was halted by an edit conflict with a wholesale revert of all my changes. The links that I removed do (I acknowledge) belong somewhere in the general vicinity of where they were (and, now, are); however, they should not be piped from terms which don't imply essentially the same topical scope as the linked articles' own titles. The link "Penn State sex abuse scandal" had been piped from the phrase "arrested and charged", the latter of which indicates nothing about either a university or a scandal and which, therefore, renders the former a surprise of sorts. Meanwhile, the words "sexual abuse" had linked to "child sexual abuse". Here, either A) the right half of the pipelink would have to include the currently-delinked words "of young boys" (so as to provide an equivalent to the word "child" on the left) or B) the word "child" would have to have been part of the visible link (so as not to "easter-egg" the term). These two linkage issues, in particular, are easy to remedy, but since I was reverted I'm probably going to WP:0RR, especially since my editing has been somewhat sporadic for some time and I don't know how active a part I'd be able to play in any immediately upcoming discussions. I've also come to find almost anything in excess of WP:1RR to be destructive to a necessary spirit of editorial community. But I do invite said community to consider whether I might have made some valid points and proposals here, and if so then to allow them to be implemented or applied. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Dunno. I don't agree that there's a BLP problem, primarily since, as you said, his conviction is a verifiable fact. It is also what he seems to primarily be known for as well. Deleting that and adding all those other titles instead seems a bit much. --Jtalledo (talk) 12:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

What I'd like to see addressed is later in the article, regarding his conduct at the 1999 Alamo and Outback bowls. Perhaps I missed it, but there is mention about there not being double jeopardy to bringing federal charges against Mr. Sandusky. The question I think that this article needs to answer is "Why doesn't or wouldn't double jeopardy apply here?" Does it have something to do with the federal legal system? A brief mention would suffice and answer this question. Otherwise, the other concern is in the Freeh Report section, which -- although I'm sure the first editor(s) thought it may have been implied that the quotes are solely the findings of Freeh -- even with the footnotes/sources, it still appears (at least by casual read) that it may be the opinion of whoever wrote it and not the conclusions of the Freeh report. Perhaps even better formatting can remove this doubt. Thanks! [[Briguy52748 (talk) 03:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)]]

Hi Briguy52748, I'll edit that section in order to make it more clear that it is the Freeh report that is being quoted. The reasoning behind how it is currently written is to better tie in the specific wording of the report and Freeh's remarks with the rest of the narrative flow of the Sandusky article; and to lessen a copy and paste approach. If there's a risk of it being viewed as opinion, then yeah better to rewrite it now. Your feedback is very much appreciated. Evenrød (talk) 04:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Will try to check it out later. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 01:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)]]

It seems there are still several issues with this entire article, and the lede in particular. There's definitely a 'front page news' feel to it, with entirely too many details about the recent trial and conviction for an appropriate summary. Given that two sports journalists are apparently cited as "legal experts", this tone is decidedly journalistic and not encyclopedic. If the court case and conviction deserve to dominate this article, then these legal matters certainly deserve better references than ESPN. There are multiple typos, which are to be expected when an article is hastily rewritten and updated. Some of the prosecution's trial arguments are stated as facts, and unsourced at that. A conviction, acquittal or any other result of a trial does not automatically verify anything other than a jury's decision. I believe this NPOV subsection on Accusations is extremely relevant, especially as it uses child abuse as an example. Compare to the leading sentence in this article. I'll try to lend some editing support, but frankly I know very little about Sandusky or the case in point, so I'm sure other editors could do more than just a little cleanup. On a personal note, I find it especially unfortunate to come across a contentiously worded article that verges on decrying something as universally reviled as child molestation. This is exactly the type of subject where NPOV is utterly crucial. [[AveVeritas (talk) 18:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)]]

Victims going back to the 1970's

Note: We shouldn't list the names of Sandusky's victims unless they come forward and make their story public. I couldn't find any sources that the name that was added here had come forward, so I have deleted the message and replaced it with this one. Patken4 (talk) 15:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Reports are coming out that there some victims are coming forward saying Sandusky abused them as early as the early 1970's source. These would be the first victims from before the 1990's. How should this be added to the article? Patken4 (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the way that it has been added is fine to start. Once more is made public about these allegations, and sources develop, this section will be improved and more added. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 02:56, 17 July 2012 (UTC)]]

Sandusky and child pornography

Reports coming out today that Sandusky is being investigated by the US Postal Service and FBI for sharing child pornography with others as well as sending "seductive" letters to victims across state lines. Should this be added to the article? Patken4 (talk) 17:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and added it to the Further allegations section, and investigations to that sections title. Patken4 (talk) 13:08, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Responsibility of State College Police Dept. in the scandal

From reading the Freeh Report, the State College Police Dept. was involved in the investigation of Sandusky in May, 1998 (page 45). Despite the fact that the State College Police Dept. had jurisdiction over the campus, it declined to pursue criminal action against Sandusky, nor did it apparently refer the matter to Pennsylvania State Police. At the heart of the scandal is the power granted to the University to provide government services on its campus, i.e., the power to hire and supervise a police department. The power and right of the university to operate the campus police had been challenged in court unsuccessfully. (See Rogalski v. PSU, Middle District of Pennsylvania 1988-89) The difference is that when a state actor like a municipal corporation, i.e. State College, fails to properly investigate a crime, it is protected by sovereign immunity from legal liability, but a state affiliated university, has no such immunity.

The State College Police should not get a free pass in their conduct here, which implicitly permitted Sandusky to continue his actions, including his off-campus actions in State College Borough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctor Franklin (talk • contribs) 18:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The State College Police do not have jurisdiction over the campus. The campus is policed by its own police force, the University Park Police Department, who are all trained police officers. Also, PSU houses a deputy sheriff's training academy on its campus. In the 1998 case, the State College Police assisted the UP Police on two sting operations. That was the extent of its involvement. However, based on the evidence in this case, the UP Police performed admirably in its investigation and did MORE than any other entity involved. If there was anyone at fault for blowing the 1998 investigation, it was Jerry Lauro of the Pennsylvania Department of Public welfare. 71.179.105.108 (talk) 04:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Images of this man?

I'm new here, but I've been trying to find a free-to-use image of Jerry to put in this article. However, I haven't been able to find any through Wikipedia's Free Image Search Tool or through the top half dozen or so General Collection Links in the Wikipedia:Public_domain_image_resources or through Google's Advanced Image Search for "free-to-use or share" images of Jerry Sandusky.

A general image search shows that a lot of the images being used out there are either from police reports or the Associated Press. Does anyone know if there is already a prior policy/protocol on how to use/not use these photos on Wikipedia? I've been scrolling through Wikipedia:Image_use_policy and it's related links. And I think I'm just getting more and more confused. Should I just wait for someone who took a photo of the guy by him/herself to post the guy's face here? Airelor (talk) 07:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Airelor. It would be advisable to wait. Per WP:NFC#UUI, pictures of living people are not covered under fair use. --Jtalledo (talk) 14:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Most likely, it would have to be one someone has taken already. It will be nearly impossible to get one now or in the future.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 15:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Added. His mugshot is public domain as a work of the United States government while somebody was performing their duties as an officer. Regards, — Moe ε 04:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I'm going to request the mugshots deletion since I was sure it was a federal work. It turns out that wasn't the case and it was a work of the county. I'll be searching for replacement pictures. Regards, — Moe ε 03:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

"A profile emerges"

I have serious concerns about the title of this section and the placement of the content in it. The title is sensationalist and the content should be worked into other parts of the article post haste. causa sui (talk) 00:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. No idea how to integrate it though. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Construction of statements under imprisonment

It is fair to say that Jerry Sandusky is currently housed in prison. My issue comes with the subsection "Imprisonment" (under the "Child sex abuse scandal" heading) with the following sentence: "He will be housed in protective custody." Beings as he has been at the SCI Greene since October 30, 2012, shouldn't the going-to future tense of this statement be changed to – assuming its true and it is or has been verified through reliable sources – "He is being housed in protective custody," or some other form of present tense? Just a thought – thanks! [[Briguy52748 (talk) 01:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)]]

• Also, I saw under a previous section that a search was on for free use/public domain mugshots of Mr. Sandusky? How is that search coming along, seeing as there is no photo of him currently on this page. Thanks! [[Briguy52748 (talk) 01:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)]]

Personality Disorder???

Didn't Joe Amendola try to claim that Sandusky suffered from some kind of personality disorder as a part of his defense??? This should be included. It was a very obscure personality disorder and I have forgotten what it was.User:JCHeverly 14:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I remember this as well. I don't remember if he was actually diagnosed with it or his lawyer claimed he had it. If he was diagnosed with it, then it could be added. If he is lawyer just said he had it, I'm not sure. It would seem odd to have a comment "Joe Amendola, Sandusky's lawyer, claimed Sandusky suffered from a personality disorder" and not have it come from a doctor. Another potential question is if the disorder is recognized by the AMA or another medical organization. Patken4 (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Sandusky had been examined by a psychiatrist retained by Amendola and the report was entered as evidence. In Pennsylvania, expert testimony is not allowed, unless that individual has direct knowledge of incriminating or exculpatory evidence. That's why Sandusky is serving his sentence in prison and the George Zimmerman Circus dominates cable news right now. I would just like to know what the personality disorder was that he was diagnosed with??? I'm certain it is in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association.User:JCHeverly 05:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

His lawyers claim he had Histrionic Personality disorder199.133.43.238 (talk) 19:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

A chunk left out

The second paragraph in the Coaching career at Penn State section talks about "this investigation," but no investigation has yet been mentioned. Clearly, some text has been deleted or moved; as it stands, the paragraph doesn't make sense. Gorthian (talk) 07:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2013

The link to "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_in_prison" in the sentence "He will not be eligible for parole until he serves at least 30 years; at his age, this all but assures he will die in prison" is surely pointless and unnecessary.

67.171.24.107 (talk) 21:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Done RudolfRed (talk) 05:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Not only pointless but factually untrue. It is well within Sandusky's life expectancy to live to 98 years old and beyond meaning it is not an "effective life sentence". Boilingorangejuice (talk) 13:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Doubts About Testimony Being From Repressed Memory Recovery

Dear editors, there is a new article by Mark Pendergrast, a well known author of several books, examining whether the testimony used against Sandusky was derived from repressed memory recovery techniques. For those who are authorized to edit, it seems to be the newest and biggest recent news on the subject, and can perhaps be added. the source is: http://thecrimereport.org/2016/09/07/why-jerry-sandusky-may-be-innocent/

Change "child prostitute" to "child sex trafficking victim". Children can not consent so can not prostitute themselves

The section I am referring to

In September 2012, former Philadelphia child prostitute Greg Bucceroni alleged that in 1979 and 1980 Philadelphia philanthropist Ed Savitz brought him from his New Jersey residence to State College Second Mile fund raiser for the purpose of child trafficking.[120] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertheadley (talk • contribs) 13:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

First Sentence: Probability in Justice System

Dear editors, since there is a lock on the page, I cannot make the simple correction.

"American convicted serial..." should be changed to "American convicted of serial..."

this is due to jury decisions being made on probabilities that never completely equal 1.