![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Nothing in the subject's social media, family statements or news articles indicate any identified religion for Brock Turner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.41.89.234 ( talk) 05:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Brock Turner has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change File:Brock Turner.jpeg to File:Brock Turner.jpeg. The caption reads "Mug shot of Brock Allen Turner after being booked for sexual assault." The new, proposed photo is the correct mugshot taken after being booked, not the re-done picture taken days after. Changing the photo displayed is in keeping with similar policies on other articles as well as keeping the caption true and accurate. Rep354676 ( talk) 09:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
We need a secondary source, not a wp:primary one, for the wp:original research I just excised out of the article:
Turner was convicted under California state law on the three assault charges, two of which would be considered according to whom? rape under U.S. federal crime reporting guidelines. "FBI Rape - Uniform Crime Reports". www.fbi.gov. Federal Bureau of Investigation. 2013. Retrieved 2016-06-07.
As the FBI defines rape for reporting purposes, it is "penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.
Thanks. Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Why are the letters stated to be "allegedly written"? How far must we go to says they were written by Dan A. Turner and Leslie Rasmussen themselves? Cantab1985 ( talk) 08:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
I've seen news stories saying he'll be required to register. I haven't seen stories saying he's already registered. The article suggests he has, calling him a registered sex offender, without citation best I can tell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:C109:D00:791B:167F:3271:5F1A ( talk) 08:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
If you would like to comment on whether this article should be deleted, please do so on the [Articles for Deletion: Brock Turner]( /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brock_Turner) page. Doing so will make your voice heard. Commenting here may mean that your comments will be ignored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strand ( talk • contribs) 20:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
For a number of reasons:
I think the main issue with this page is that it doesn't have a complete biography, its a page that could be improved upon but not one that should be deleted.
Ajusticecause ( talk) 15:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Markbassett ( talk) 11:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Is it conformant with wikipedia fair use policy to include his photo, copyright Stanford, which has been widely published by news organizations?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryptobiotik ( talk • contribs) 21:04, 4 June 2016
His mugshot is released now by the police http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/06/06/3785310/brock-turner-mug-shot/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.175.223.123 ( talk) 23:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
No it isn't. But wikipedia has an _agenda_. Notice that they will not print mugshots of people actually convicted of rape. (See /info/en/?search=Murders_of_Channon_Christian_and_Christopher_Newsom). Wikipedia has a specific agenda: White Men who go to Stanford are _all_ evil. Anything that promotes that agenda (like exposing the admittedly evil Brock Turner) is fair game. Anything that doesn't is off-limits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.131.45.219 ( talk) 01:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm confused about two things (which make use of a photo worth questioning). I was under the impression from the resolution on the deletion talk page that this article would redirect to to [Brock Turner sentencing controversy], not the other way around. If that's the case, then using his mug shot isn't in keeping with how perpetratotors of campus killings are handled (see the 2011 and 2014 Isla Vista killings). At the very least, his picture doesn't belong at the top of the page if the article really is about the sentencing (which is what makes it notable). -- tassieg ( talk) 04:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
The hype train is rolling on this guy today on social media, I can only see the trolling getting worse. --BLACK FUTURE ( tlk2meh) 20:10, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
I think this is misleading because it seems like it is saying the court brought the charges. The DA brings the complaint to be filed and the superior court "files" it only insofar as the clerk of the court is required to file stamp a document brought to him or her by the DA. It should read: "The District Attorney of Santa Clara County filed the initial complaint" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:CD80:1190:BD8E:E31F:EF2B:74C8 ( talk) 01:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
"Judge Aaron Persky now faces a campaign to recall him. Judge Persky was also a student and athlete at Stanford University."
This is poorly written and should be flushed out or removed. Seems to be quite well detailed on Aaron Persky. Kgr123 ( talk) 03:46, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
The article describes Turner as a "convicted rapist". Is this description accurate, given that his conviction is for sexual assault with intent to rape? A person convicted of attempted murder would not be accurately described as a convicted murderer. 2A02:C7D:8B5:E700:E1E0:19D6:BE1C:779F ( talk) 15:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
I totally agre with Yakushima, the terms "convicted sex offender" or "convicted sexual abuser" would be more accurate and precise. — Holothurion ( talk) 18:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! Finally someone else gets it. Starting the article out with that immaculate statement only underscores my point that the purpose of this listing is to publicly shame Mt.Turner. This is is not why one uses an encyclopedia and if the editors are so upset about the sentence perhaps they should refrain from editorializing. Witschi1 ( talk) 18:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
I changed the language to reflect his conviction of three felony counts of sexual assault.-- tassieg ( talk) 21:24, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
This person is convicted of sexual assault, not rape. So, convicted rapist is simply factually wrong. His description at the start is misleading regarding what his criminal conviction is, and if there is to be a distinction between rape and sexual assault then referring to this person as a rapist leads to removal of the distinction. That there should be no distinction may be the view of many, but the law as it currently stands does make the distinction for good or bad reasons.
Carwil above made reference to "Most states choose to label the crime of rape as sexual assault." as evidence that since the criminal was convicted of sexual assault he is thus by definition a rapist. Firstly it says most states, not California, secondly proving that by legal definition all rapes are sexual assaults does not say that by legal definition all sexual assaults are rapes.
Japanscot (
talk)
23:39, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
The FBI definition for reporting purposes (statistical, but not necessarily judicial) is indeed "penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim." However, two of the three charges on which Turner was convicted state that the condition of criminality is that the perpetrator could not have reasonably concluded that the victim was capable of informed consent at the time of the act itself -- not at the time of consent, if there was any. Was there any? We don't know. This was a blackout drinking episode during which the victim could not remember events well before the actual assault. The victim might have given some kind of confused consent to some kind of penetration, but then turned semi-conscious and then passed out. (After all, BAC levels can continue to rise rapidly after someone has stopped drinking.) Whether Turner intended it (rather unlikely) or not, the introduction of pine needles into the victim's vagina as the "foreign object" is not likely to have been something she'd consent to even if stone cold sober. And the penetrations would still have been a crime if the still-conscious person had proceeded on the basis of previous consent, presumably because the victim fell into in a state of mind in which she would have been unable to retract consent, as would be her right.
So, we've got several problems here:
(1) Is the FBI definition for REPORTING purposes the same as what federal law says the actual CRIME is?
(2) Do the charges under California law actually fall under the FBI definition for reporting purposes?
(3) If the FBI definition for reporting purposes is not the federal crime charge, can Turner truly be said to be a "convicted" rapist in federal terms? To which I might add:
(4) If we supply text saying that two of the charges (those of sexual penetration) fit the FBI reporting-purposes definition, isn't that WP:SYNTH unless we have RS that also says so? (Note: I am not a lawyer.)
Under WP:BLP, we're empowered (actually, required) to immediately remove controversial statements that might be defamatory. I'll reword the initial sentence(s) in accordance with that policy, as I understand it. Yakushima ( talk) 02:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
There are scores if not hundreds of RS articles referring to this as a "rape" case and the conviction as a "rape" conviction. WP:SYNTH only applies of Wikipedia editors make determinations rather than Reliable Sources.-- Carwil ( talk) 12:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
The current wording of "convicted sexual assailant" is clumsy. Shouldn't it be "convicted sex offender" as suggested above? Truhvi ( talk) 22:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
This guy might be a monster, but it is not possible to tell from this article. This article is a highly biased emotionally filled assassination piece rather than a neutral report. If the topic makes you mad and all emotional, then you should be blogging not writing wiki articles. Don't worry it will still get written - let some people with more distance put together an encyclopedia article.
But here is a bigger question, what threshold of crime justifies an encyclopedia article? And is this metric being applied evenly? Is wikipedia to become a crime reporting site? At what point does a wikipedia article become a tool of social bullying, vehicle of false righteous indignation, or a hysterical attack? Wherever that threshold may be, and I don't know, this article has certainly crossed it. 1.171.254.101 ( talk) 18:07, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
This article seems to have a strong POV which is discouraged on Wikipedia. It needs to be rewritten from a neutral point of view. For example there is a long and detailed section about the victim's statement but nothing about Brock's defense or the fact that the girl allegedly consented to sexual intercourse. It's clear the authors have an agenda to push and this article's attempted character assassination makes that more than blatant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.215.235 ( talk) 21:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Brock Turner has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change conviction in info box to include CA Penal Codes and links to details:
Extended content
|
---|
{{Infobox criminal | name = Brock Turner | image = | caption = Turner on the night of his arrest<ref>{{cite news|url=http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/06/no-brock-turner-mug-shot.html|work=[[New York (magazine)|New York ''magazine'']]|title=Brock Turner Mug Shot Finally Released|date=June 6, 2016|first=Dayna|last=Evans}}</ref> | birth_name = Brock Allen Turner | other_names = | occupation = Former college student, swimmer | birth_place = [[Oakwood, Montgomery County, Ohio|Oakwood]], [[Ohio]], [[United States of America|U.S.]] | birth_date = {{Birth date and age|mf=yes|1995|8|1}}<ref>{{cite court | litigants = The People of the State of California, Plaintiff vs. Brock Allen Turner, Defendant | court = Superior Court of California | date = January 28, 2015 | url = https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/1532973/complaint-brock-turner.pdf | accessdate = June 7, 2016 | quote = }}</ref> | conviction = 1. assault with intent to commit rape (220.a.1)<ref>{{cite web|title=CHAPTER 6. Assaults With Intent to Commit Felony, Other Than Assaults With Intent to Murder [220 - 222]|url=http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=220.&lawCode=PEN|website=leginfo.legislature.ca.gov|accessdate=9 June 2016}}</ref> 2. sexual penetration where victim was intoxicated (289.e)<ref>{{cite web|title=CHAPTER 5. Bigamy, Incest, and the Crime Against Nature [281 - 289.6]|url=http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=289.&lawCode=PEN|website=leginfo.legislature.ca.gov|accessdate=9 June 2016}}</ref> 3. sexual penetration where victim was unconscious (289.d)<ref>{{cite web|title=CHAPTER 5. Bigamy, Incest, and the Crime Against Nature [281 - 289.6]|url=http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=289.&lawCode=PEN|website=leginfo.legislature.ca.gov|accessdate=9 June 2016}}</ref> | sentence = 6 months imprisonment; 3 years probation }} |
Pinxi ( talk) 21:53, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
The second appears to rehash a non-NPOV summary of the encounter along with the arrest, the third on the conviction and response. If we're going to talk about these anyway in their respective sections, do they need to be so very long to the point where I have to scroll down to see the full table of contents? They're both longer than the initial paragraph which seems off aesthetically. Ranze ( talk) 02:51, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
I've changed "Wider's publication of her letter" to "The publication of her letter", because neither this article nor the referenced Dayton Daily News article say who that is. Does anyone know who Wider is, and whether we should include any mention of this person? I'm wondering if the apostrophe-S is a mistake, and it was only supposed to be "Wider publication of her letter". Concrete Cloverleaf ( talk) 11:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Brock Turner has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like Brock Turner's actions on the night of January 15th, 2016 to be listed as rape and not sexually penetrated with his fingers. The statement is false seeing as he was found by two cyclists having sex with an unconscious Doe. Qwerty12312 ( talk) 22:51, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Brock Turner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Rape is not identical to sexual assault. We might add this info to the article. Quoted from Vox:
State laws on rape and sexual assault are very different from one another, and can be very confusing
Under California state law, Turner was indeed convicted of sexual assault rather than rape. In California, the definition of rape includes "sexual intercourse," whereas "forcible acts of sexual penetration" is a separate crime. So that's why some headlines refer to Turner as a "sex offender" rather than a rapist, or talk about the "sexual assault" he was convicted of committing.
Specifically, Turner was found guilty of assault with intent to commit rape of an intoxicated person, sexually penetrating an intoxicated person with a foreign object, and sexually penetrating an unconscious person with a foreign object. (The "foreign object," oddly enough, was Turner's finger; California is one of many states that include body parts that aren't sexual organs in its statutes on penetration with a foreign object.) [13]
Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 23:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved to California v. Brock Turner. There is a clear consensus that the current title runs afoul of BIO1E. Where it gets a bit muddier is where to move the article to – several acceptable alternatives were suggested, but the one that got the most votes and strongest arguments explicitly in favour of it was "California v. Brock Turner". Because this was a rather messy RM with so many alternatives, I'll say there is no prejudice against a new RM (as long as the proposed title is not "Brock Turner" or anything that tries to frame it as a biography) but it might be worthwhile waiting a couple of months when things have died down a little. Jenks24 ( talk) 08:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Brock Turner →
Brock Turner sentencing controversy – This is more in line with the naming of other articles on crimes and also reflects the fact that the notoriety of the case is not due to Turner himself but to the sentence and the two letters informing it.
McPhail (
talk)
07:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Ping: User:GeneralizationsAreBad User:Bus stop User:Jami430-- Carwil ( talk) 17:42, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Brock Turner → Sexual assault by Brock Turner – For reasons stated above, the crime was notable before the sentencing and a large body of RS are discussing aspects of the crime and the case that go beyond the sentencing. For ease of counting, I'm creating this new section for people to give an up or down vote on this new title.-- Carwil ( talk) 16:19, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Is it really at all in good taste for 1/3 of the lead to emphasize what a good swimmer he was? He's not famous for being a swimmer, he's famous for violating a girl, and it's not representative of the body of the article in any way.
It really comes off as completely inappropriate whitewashing, of the kind specifically decried by the victim in her public statement. For shame, wikipedia. 204.11.142.106 ( talk) 22:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Per
MOS:LAW, articles about court cases "should be titled according to the legal citation convention for the jurisdiction that handled the case."
In California, criminal cases are styled (in the short form of their title) as "People v. ______" and not "California v. _____." See, for example,
page 4 of the 2000 edition of the California Style Manual.
The article incorrectly states that the former title of the case is People of the State of California v. Brock Allen Turner and that the current title is California v. Turner. Unless the title is changed on appeal, this is still the correct title of the case (see also the title printed on the Santa Clara County DA's sentencing memorandum). To comply with MOS:LAW and to stay consistent with other articles for California criminal cases (see, e.g., People v. Diaz & People v. Ireland), we should change the title of this case to People v. Turner. Ordinarily, I would be bold and make the change, but given the recent move discussion I thought I should open this up for discussion in case there are any objections. Best, -- Notecardforfree ( talk) 02:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I think we ought to stop calling Arndt and Jonnson "bystanders". That term implies someone who stands by and doesn't intervene. Given that they intervened there has to be a more accurate term here. Any ideas? Ranze ( talk) 02:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
The thing about bystander intervention is I think it means more like you WERE a bystander but then intervened, at which point you're an intervener... but I don't feel comfortable calling them that since whether or not there was something to intervene in is disputed by the defendant. "Apprehenders" perhaps since all parties agree that the 2 Swedish grad students apprehended Brock. Then again 2 other guys helped... "initial apprehenders" maybe since they were first on the scene? Ranze ( talk) 05:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
where are they called 'bystanders'? I don't see that used in the article at all. Epson Salts ( talk) 14:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
I removed this portion of text since it is sourced mostly to Intouch (the Dailymail references the Intouch article), which appears to mostly be tabloid-ish, and certainly hasn't received the coverage needed for such allegations to be present. Arkon ( talk) 21:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I have noted how the 22 year old (now 23) elder sis is called "Jane Doe 1" and her younger 20 year old (now 21) "Jane Doe 2".
Doe 1 is subsequently referred to as "Emily Doe". Last night I recall coming across a news source which also introduced a non-Jane non-numbered Doe alias for the sister. Something like "Caroline Doe" or whatever. Unfortunately I did not think of mentioning it at the time and can't recall what the name was or where I saw it.
If in researching this case anyone comes across this could you share a link here? I am interested in looking into the source of this alternate name and who came up with it. I don't think it was from the letter to Brock since the scan I saw of that had a name crossed out and said Jane Doe 2 but maybe it came from some other statement. Ranze ( talk) 14:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Why is the length of sentence not in the infobox? That is the very reason this case has a wikipedia page. A crime of this nature committed by a university level swimmer would not be wikipedia - notable if not for the sentence handed down and the public reaction to it. It needs to be in there. Japanscot ( talk) 16:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
A lot of newspapers have covered the strange $2,000+ fee needed to publish the transcript of the sentencing hearing. There is criticism that the transcribers are cashing in on the news making victim impact statement. Is this worth mentioning?
Seen no mention of any presentencing transcripts. I guess those are sealed for privacy concerns? Or is there a redacted version? I figure the template field of transcript is intended for the trial itself not the initial complaint or subsequent sentencing. Ranze ( talk) 07:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I came here for general information about the events and the FIRST SENTENCE offends me! It contains the phrase "is the successful prosecution ". OK now. Let's analyze. Why is it "successful prosecution" and not "conviction"? "Conviction" would state the fact neutrally and without point of view. But it's been changed to "successful prosecution" for one of two reasons, NEITHER of which is proper in Wikipedia. One reason might be that someone is trying to editorialize that he did in fact commit the crime, that the trial was fair, he was not railroaded, the jury wasn't rigged, etc. Since a WRONGFUL conviction is still a conviction, but a factually erroneous verdict can't be called a "successful prosecution", since (unlike Defendants who are supposed to seek acquittal regardless of the facts) Prosecutors are NOT supposed to regard wrongful convictions as "successes", changing "conviction" to "successful prosecution" is saying "convicted and he really did do it" instead of just "convicted". But MY offense stems from a completely DIFFERENT reason, which is 180 degrees opposite: the "prosecution" was not successful because the sentence is laughable. The sentencing judge took the "successful" AWAY from the Prosecutor and jury. So, if you believe that Turner didn't do it and that this is all political nonsense, you are (a) wrong on the facts but (b) correct in your assertion that Wikipedia is obligated to change "successful prosecution" to "conviction"; and if, like me, you demand that a "successful prosecution" can consist only of a conviction FOLLOWED by several decades in prison, then you are ALSO quite correct in demand that Wikipedia change "successful prosecution" to "conviction". And NOW, curses, I have to read the REST of the article not even GUESSING how much more I cam going to have to post about sentence #2, sentence #3, etc. Once again Wikipedia meets the standards I've come to expect. 2604:2000:C682:B600:F18E:94C5:60E0:1971 ( talk) 21:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson.
Another editor and I are in a good-faith disageement about whether to say that the probation officer recommended a suspended sentence, i.e., no jail time. Here's the history of our edits:
I am bringing this here to get others' opinions. Apparently the ONLY source for "suspended" is buried deep in a primary document. No one seems to have noticed it. I was unable to find any secondary source that mentioned a recommendation for a suspended sentence. On the contrary, Independent Reliable Sources are unanimous in saying that the probation officer recommended jail time:
So this is an odd one: do we go with something in a primary reference that apparently nobody noticed, or do we go with the unanimous reporting from Independent Reliable Sources? I favor going with the Independent Reliable Sources and leaving out "suspended".-- MelanieN ( talk) 00:25, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Pmcc3 ( talk) 05:37, 18 June 2016 (UTC) comments: It appears that the probation officer's recommendation was for a three year sentence with some portion of it to be suspended, i.e. probation. Calling the probation officer would be a way to assist with the correct interpretation of her report. The judge's rationale appears here: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/14/stanford-sexual-assault-read-sentence-judge-aaron-persky Pmcc3 ( talk) 05:37, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Nothing in the subject's social media, family statements or news articles indicate any identified religion for Brock Turner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.41.89.234 ( talk) 05:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Brock Turner has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change File:Brock Turner.jpeg to File:Brock Turner.jpeg. The caption reads "Mug shot of Brock Allen Turner after being booked for sexual assault." The new, proposed photo is the correct mugshot taken after being booked, not the re-done picture taken days after. Changing the photo displayed is in keeping with similar policies on other articles as well as keeping the caption true and accurate. Rep354676 ( talk) 09:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
We need a secondary source, not a wp:primary one, for the wp:original research I just excised out of the article:
Turner was convicted under California state law on the three assault charges, two of which would be considered according to whom? rape under U.S. federal crime reporting guidelines. "FBI Rape - Uniform Crime Reports". www.fbi.gov. Federal Bureau of Investigation. 2013. Retrieved 2016-06-07.
As the FBI defines rape for reporting purposes, it is "penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.
Thanks. Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Why are the letters stated to be "allegedly written"? How far must we go to says they were written by Dan A. Turner and Leslie Rasmussen themselves? Cantab1985 ( talk) 08:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
I've seen news stories saying he'll be required to register. I haven't seen stories saying he's already registered. The article suggests he has, calling him a registered sex offender, without citation best I can tell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:C109:D00:791B:167F:3271:5F1A ( talk) 08:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
If you would like to comment on whether this article should be deleted, please do so on the [Articles for Deletion: Brock Turner]( /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brock_Turner) page. Doing so will make your voice heard. Commenting here may mean that your comments will be ignored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strand ( talk • contribs) 20:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
For a number of reasons:
I think the main issue with this page is that it doesn't have a complete biography, its a page that could be improved upon but not one that should be deleted.
Ajusticecause ( talk) 15:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Markbassett ( talk) 11:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Is it conformant with wikipedia fair use policy to include his photo, copyright Stanford, which has been widely published by news organizations?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryptobiotik ( talk • contribs) 21:04, 4 June 2016
His mugshot is released now by the police http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/06/06/3785310/brock-turner-mug-shot/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.175.223.123 ( talk) 23:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
No it isn't. But wikipedia has an _agenda_. Notice that they will not print mugshots of people actually convicted of rape. (See /info/en/?search=Murders_of_Channon_Christian_and_Christopher_Newsom). Wikipedia has a specific agenda: White Men who go to Stanford are _all_ evil. Anything that promotes that agenda (like exposing the admittedly evil Brock Turner) is fair game. Anything that doesn't is off-limits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.131.45.219 ( talk) 01:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm confused about two things (which make use of a photo worth questioning). I was under the impression from the resolution on the deletion talk page that this article would redirect to to [Brock Turner sentencing controversy], not the other way around. If that's the case, then using his mug shot isn't in keeping with how perpetratotors of campus killings are handled (see the 2011 and 2014 Isla Vista killings). At the very least, his picture doesn't belong at the top of the page if the article really is about the sentencing (which is what makes it notable). -- tassieg ( talk) 04:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
The hype train is rolling on this guy today on social media, I can only see the trolling getting worse. --BLACK FUTURE ( tlk2meh) 20:10, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
I think this is misleading because it seems like it is saying the court brought the charges. The DA brings the complaint to be filed and the superior court "files" it only insofar as the clerk of the court is required to file stamp a document brought to him or her by the DA. It should read: "The District Attorney of Santa Clara County filed the initial complaint" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:CD80:1190:BD8E:E31F:EF2B:74C8 ( talk) 01:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
"Judge Aaron Persky now faces a campaign to recall him. Judge Persky was also a student and athlete at Stanford University."
This is poorly written and should be flushed out or removed. Seems to be quite well detailed on Aaron Persky. Kgr123 ( talk) 03:46, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
The article describes Turner as a "convicted rapist". Is this description accurate, given that his conviction is for sexual assault with intent to rape? A person convicted of attempted murder would not be accurately described as a convicted murderer. 2A02:C7D:8B5:E700:E1E0:19D6:BE1C:779F ( talk) 15:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
I totally agre with Yakushima, the terms "convicted sex offender" or "convicted sexual abuser" would be more accurate and precise. — Holothurion ( talk) 18:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! Finally someone else gets it. Starting the article out with that immaculate statement only underscores my point that the purpose of this listing is to publicly shame Mt.Turner. This is is not why one uses an encyclopedia and if the editors are so upset about the sentence perhaps they should refrain from editorializing. Witschi1 ( talk) 18:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
I changed the language to reflect his conviction of three felony counts of sexual assault.-- tassieg ( talk) 21:24, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
This person is convicted of sexual assault, not rape. So, convicted rapist is simply factually wrong. His description at the start is misleading regarding what his criminal conviction is, and if there is to be a distinction between rape and sexual assault then referring to this person as a rapist leads to removal of the distinction. That there should be no distinction may be the view of many, but the law as it currently stands does make the distinction for good or bad reasons.
Carwil above made reference to "Most states choose to label the crime of rape as sexual assault." as evidence that since the criminal was convicted of sexual assault he is thus by definition a rapist. Firstly it says most states, not California, secondly proving that by legal definition all rapes are sexual assaults does not say that by legal definition all sexual assaults are rapes.
Japanscot (
talk)
23:39, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
The FBI definition for reporting purposes (statistical, but not necessarily judicial) is indeed "penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim." However, two of the three charges on which Turner was convicted state that the condition of criminality is that the perpetrator could not have reasonably concluded that the victim was capable of informed consent at the time of the act itself -- not at the time of consent, if there was any. Was there any? We don't know. This was a blackout drinking episode during which the victim could not remember events well before the actual assault. The victim might have given some kind of confused consent to some kind of penetration, but then turned semi-conscious and then passed out. (After all, BAC levels can continue to rise rapidly after someone has stopped drinking.) Whether Turner intended it (rather unlikely) or not, the introduction of pine needles into the victim's vagina as the "foreign object" is not likely to have been something she'd consent to even if stone cold sober. And the penetrations would still have been a crime if the still-conscious person had proceeded on the basis of previous consent, presumably because the victim fell into in a state of mind in which she would have been unable to retract consent, as would be her right.
So, we've got several problems here:
(1) Is the FBI definition for REPORTING purposes the same as what federal law says the actual CRIME is?
(2) Do the charges under California law actually fall under the FBI definition for reporting purposes?
(3) If the FBI definition for reporting purposes is not the federal crime charge, can Turner truly be said to be a "convicted" rapist in federal terms? To which I might add:
(4) If we supply text saying that two of the charges (those of sexual penetration) fit the FBI reporting-purposes definition, isn't that WP:SYNTH unless we have RS that also says so? (Note: I am not a lawyer.)
Under WP:BLP, we're empowered (actually, required) to immediately remove controversial statements that might be defamatory. I'll reword the initial sentence(s) in accordance with that policy, as I understand it. Yakushima ( talk) 02:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
There are scores if not hundreds of RS articles referring to this as a "rape" case and the conviction as a "rape" conviction. WP:SYNTH only applies of Wikipedia editors make determinations rather than Reliable Sources.-- Carwil ( talk) 12:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
The current wording of "convicted sexual assailant" is clumsy. Shouldn't it be "convicted sex offender" as suggested above? Truhvi ( talk) 22:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
This guy might be a monster, but it is not possible to tell from this article. This article is a highly biased emotionally filled assassination piece rather than a neutral report. If the topic makes you mad and all emotional, then you should be blogging not writing wiki articles. Don't worry it will still get written - let some people with more distance put together an encyclopedia article.
But here is a bigger question, what threshold of crime justifies an encyclopedia article? And is this metric being applied evenly? Is wikipedia to become a crime reporting site? At what point does a wikipedia article become a tool of social bullying, vehicle of false righteous indignation, or a hysterical attack? Wherever that threshold may be, and I don't know, this article has certainly crossed it. 1.171.254.101 ( talk) 18:07, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
This article seems to have a strong POV which is discouraged on Wikipedia. It needs to be rewritten from a neutral point of view. For example there is a long and detailed section about the victim's statement but nothing about Brock's defense or the fact that the girl allegedly consented to sexual intercourse. It's clear the authors have an agenda to push and this article's attempted character assassination makes that more than blatant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.215.235 ( talk) 21:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Brock Turner has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change conviction in info box to include CA Penal Codes and links to details:
Extended content
|
---|
{{Infobox criminal | name = Brock Turner | image = | caption = Turner on the night of his arrest<ref>{{cite news|url=http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/06/no-brock-turner-mug-shot.html|work=[[New York (magazine)|New York ''magazine'']]|title=Brock Turner Mug Shot Finally Released|date=June 6, 2016|first=Dayna|last=Evans}}</ref> | birth_name = Brock Allen Turner | other_names = | occupation = Former college student, swimmer | birth_place = [[Oakwood, Montgomery County, Ohio|Oakwood]], [[Ohio]], [[United States of America|U.S.]] | birth_date = {{Birth date and age|mf=yes|1995|8|1}}<ref>{{cite court | litigants = The People of the State of California, Plaintiff vs. Brock Allen Turner, Defendant | court = Superior Court of California | date = January 28, 2015 | url = https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/1532973/complaint-brock-turner.pdf | accessdate = June 7, 2016 | quote = }}</ref> | conviction = 1. assault with intent to commit rape (220.a.1)<ref>{{cite web|title=CHAPTER 6. Assaults With Intent to Commit Felony, Other Than Assaults With Intent to Murder [220 - 222]|url=http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=220.&lawCode=PEN|website=leginfo.legislature.ca.gov|accessdate=9 June 2016}}</ref> 2. sexual penetration where victim was intoxicated (289.e)<ref>{{cite web|title=CHAPTER 5. Bigamy, Incest, and the Crime Against Nature [281 - 289.6]|url=http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=289.&lawCode=PEN|website=leginfo.legislature.ca.gov|accessdate=9 June 2016}}</ref> 3. sexual penetration where victim was unconscious (289.d)<ref>{{cite web|title=CHAPTER 5. Bigamy, Incest, and the Crime Against Nature [281 - 289.6]|url=http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=289.&lawCode=PEN|website=leginfo.legislature.ca.gov|accessdate=9 June 2016}}</ref> | sentence = 6 months imprisonment; 3 years probation }} |
Pinxi ( talk) 21:53, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
The second appears to rehash a non-NPOV summary of the encounter along with the arrest, the third on the conviction and response. If we're going to talk about these anyway in their respective sections, do they need to be so very long to the point where I have to scroll down to see the full table of contents? They're both longer than the initial paragraph which seems off aesthetically. Ranze ( talk) 02:51, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
I've changed "Wider's publication of her letter" to "The publication of her letter", because neither this article nor the referenced Dayton Daily News article say who that is. Does anyone know who Wider is, and whether we should include any mention of this person? I'm wondering if the apostrophe-S is a mistake, and it was only supposed to be "Wider publication of her letter". Concrete Cloverleaf ( talk) 11:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Brock Turner has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like Brock Turner's actions on the night of January 15th, 2016 to be listed as rape and not sexually penetrated with his fingers. The statement is false seeing as he was found by two cyclists having sex with an unconscious Doe. Qwerty12312 ( talk) 22:51, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Brock Turner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Rape is not identical to sexual assault. We might add this info to the article. Quoted from Vox:
State laws on rape and sexual assault are very different from one another, and can be very confusing
Under California state law, Turner was indeed convicted of sexual assault rather than rape. In California, the definition of rape includes "sexual intercourse," whereas "forcible acts of sexual penetration" is a separate crime. So that's why some headlines refer to Turner as a "sex offender" rather than a rapist, or talk about the "sexual assault" he was convicted of committing.
Specifically, Turner was found guilty of assault with intent to commit rape of an intoxicated person, sexually penetrating an intoxicated person with a foreign object, and sexually penetrating an unconscious person with a foreign object. (The "foreign object," oddly enough, was Turner's finger; California is one of many states that include body parts that aren't sexual organs in its statutes on penetration with a foreign object.) [13]
Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 23:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved to California v. Brock Turner. There is a clear consensus that the current title runs afoul of BIO1E. Where it gets a bit muddier is where to move the article to – several acceptable alternatives were suggested, but the one that got the most votes and strongest arguments explicitly in favour of it was "California v. Brock Turner". Because this was a rather messy RM with so many alternatives, I'll say there is no prejudice against a new RM (as long as the proposed title is not "Brock Turner" or anything that tries to frame it as a biography) but it might be worthwhile waiting a couple of months when things have died down a little. Jenks24 ( talk) 08:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Brock Turner →
Brock Turner sentencing controversy – This is more in line with the naming of other articles on crimes and also reflects the fact that the notoriety of the case is not due to Turner himself but to the sentence and the two letters informing it.
McPhail (
talk)
07:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Ping: User:GeneralizationsAreBad User:Bus stop User:Jami430-- Carwil ( talk) 17:42, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Brock Turner → Sexual assault by Brock Turner – For reasons stated above, the crime was notable before the sentencing and a large body of RS are discussing aspects of the crime and the case that go beyond the sentencing. For ease of counting, I'm creating this new section for people to give an up or down vote on this new title.-- Carwil ( talk) 16:19, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Is it really at all in good taste for 1/3 of the lead to emphasize what a good swimmer he was? He's not famous for being a swimmer, he's famous for violating a girl, and it's not representative of the body of the article in any way.
It really comes off as completely inappropriate whitewashing, of the kind specifically decried by the victim in her public statement. For shame, wikipedia. 204.11.142.106 ( talk) 22:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Per
MOS:LAW, articles about court cases "should be titled according to the legal citation convention for the jurisdiction that handled the case."
In California, criminal cases are styled (in the short form of their title) as "People v. ______" and not "California v. _____." See, for example,
page 4 of the 2000 edition of the California Style Manual.
The article incorrectly states that the former title of the case is People of the State of California v. Brock Allen Turner and that the current title is California v. Turner. Unless the title is changed on appeal, this is still the correct title of the case (see also the title printed on the Santa Clara County DA's sentencing memorandum). To comply with MOS:LAW and to stay consistent with other articles for California criminal cases (see, e.g., People v. Diaz & People v. Ireland), we should change the title of this case to People v. Turner. Ordinarily, I would be bold and make the change, but given the recent move discussion I thought I should open this up for discussion in case there are any objections. Best, -- Notecardforfree ( talk) 02:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I think we ought to stop calling Arndt and Jonnson "bystanders". That term implies someone who stands by and doesn't intervene. Given that they intervened there has to be a more accurate term here. Any ideas? Ranze ( talk) 02:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
The thing about bystander intervention is I think it means more like you WERE a bystander but then intervened, at which point you're an intervener... but I don't feel comfortable calling them that since whether or not there was something to intervene in is disputed by the defendant. "Apprehenders" perhaps since all parties agree that the 2 Swedish grad students apprehended Brock. Then again 2 other guys helped... "initial apprehenders" maybe since they were first on the scene? Ranze ( talk) 05:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
where are they called 'bystanders'? I don't see that used in the article at all. Epson Salts ( talk) 14:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
I removed this portion of text since it is sourced mostly to Intouch (the Dailymail references the Intouch article), which appears to mostly be tabloid-ish, and certainly hasn't received the coverage needed for such allegations to be present. Arkon ( talk) 21:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I have noted how the 22 year old (now 23) elder sis is called "Jane Doe 1" and her younger 20 year old (now 21) "Jane Doe 2".
Doe 1 is subsequently referred to as "Emily Doe". Last night I recall coming across a news source which also introduced a non-Jane non-numbered Doe alias for the sister. Something like "Caroline Doe" or whatever. Unfortunately I did not think of mentioning it at the time and can't recall what the name was or where I saw it.
If in researching this case anyone comes across this could you share a link here? I am interested in looking into the source of this alternate name and who came up with it. I don't think it was from the letter to Brock since the scan I saw of that had a name crossed out and said Jane Doe 2 but maybe it came from some other statement. Ranze ( talk) 14:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Why is the length of sentence not in the infobox? That is the very reason this case has a wikipedia page. A crime of this nature committed by a university level swimmer would not be wikipedia - notable if not for the sentence handed down and the public reaction to it. It needs to be in there. Japanscot ( talk) 16:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
A lot of newspapers have covered the strange $2,000+ fee needed to publish the transcript of the sentencing hearing. There is criticism that the transcribers are cashing in on the news making victim impact statement. Is this worth mentioning?
Seen no mention of any presentencing transcripts. I guess those are sealed for privacy concerns? Or is there a redacted version? I figure the template field of transcript is intended for the trial itself not the initial complaint or subsequent sentencing. Ranze ( talk) 07:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I came here for general information about the events and the FIRST SENTENCE offends me! It contains the phrase "is the successful prosecution ". OK now. Let's analyze. Why is it "successful prosecution" and not "conviction"? "Conviction" would state the fact neutrally and without point of view. But it's been changed to "successful prosecution" for one of two reasons, NEITHER of which is proper in Wikipedia. One reason might be that someone is trying to editorialize that he did in fact commit the crime, that the trial was fair, he was not railroaded, the jury wasn't rigged, etc. Since a WRONGFUL conviction is still a conviction, but a factually erroneous verdict can't be called a "successful prosecution", since (unlike Defendants who are supposed to seek acquittal regardless of the facts) Prosecutors are NOT supposed to regard wrongful convictions as "successes", changing "conviction" to "successful prosecution" is saying "convicted and he really did do it" instead of just "convicted". But MY offense stems from a completely DIFFERENT reason, which is 180 degrees opposite: the "prosecution" was not successful because the sentence is laughable. The sentencing judge took the "successful" AWAY from the Prosecutor and jury. So, if you believe that Turner didn't do it and that this is all political nonsense, you are (a) wrong on the facts but (b) correct in your assertion that Wikipedia is obligated to change "successful prosecution" to "conviction"; and if, like me, you demand that a "successful prosecution" can consist only of a conviction FOLLOWED by several decades in prison, then you are ALSO quite correct in demand that Wikipedia change "successful prosecution" to "conviction". And NOW, curses, I have to read the REST of the article not even GUESSING how much more I cam going to have to post about sentence #2, sentence #3, etc. Once again Wikipedia meets the standards I've come to expect. 2604:2000:C682:B600:F18E:94C5:60E0:1971 ( talk) 21:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson.
Another editor and I are in a good-faith disageement about whether to say that the probation officer recommended a suspended sentence, i.e., no jail time. Here's the history of our edits:
I am bringing this here to get others' opinions. Apparently the ONLY source for "suspended" is buried deep in a primary document. No one seems to have noticed it. I was unable to find any secondary source that mentioned a recommendation for a suspended sentence. On the contrary, Independent Reliable Sources are unanimous in saying that the probation officer recommended jail time:
So this is an odd one: do we go with something in a primary reference that apparently nobody noticed, or do we go with the unanimous reporting from Independent Reliable Sources? I favor going with the Independent Reliable Sources and leaving out "suspended".-- MelanieN ( talk) 00:25, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Pmcc3 ( talk) 05:37, 18 June 2016 (UTC) comments: It appears that the probation officer's recommendation was for a three year sentence with some portion of it to be suspended, i.e. probation. Calling the probation officer would be a way to assist with the correct interpretation of her report. The judge's rationale appears here: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/14/stanford-sexual-assault-read-sentence-judge-aaron-persky Pmcc3 ( talk) 05:37, 18 June 2016 (UTC)