![]() | 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 |
Surely at some point during the trial, Brock himself must have given some kind of statement, his version of events, why am I unable to find this here? Instead we are only told the plaintiff's, the prosecutor's and family/friend.
Speaking as if he is guilty also doesn't seem very neutral, unless we can confirm Brock admitted to it. People are sometimes convicted of crimes they didn't do, so should Wikipedia always take the stance that a conviction is sound until it is overturned? Should Wikipedia always side with authority?
Like for example, Arndt and Jonnson saying the woman was unconscious, does that make her being unconscious an indisputable fact? Does Brock give the same or a different account? Ranze ( talk) 01:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
The way the article is currently written it makes it appear that Judge Persky decided not to follow the sentence recommendation of the prosecutors and, on his own, opted for a lighter sentence. According to the link below he was following the sentence recommendation of "probation officials." I believe it would be more accurate to include this information. I would suggest one additional sentence at the end of this paragraph:
On June 2, 2016, Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Aaron Persky sentenced Turner to six months in county jail[21] followed by three years of formal probation.[22] With good behavior, Turner may have to serve only three months of his sentence.[23]" Judge Persky followed the sentence recomendation of probation officials who based their decision on Mr. Turner having no prior criminal record and "their belief that he is genuinely remorseful. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg Missile Man Watson ( talk • contribs) 01:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Actually, he has admitted guilt[ [2]] and expressed remorse, so claiming innocence doesn't work here, even if you don't buy the conviction. Also, now that we know more about the case from court documents, there's no ways to claim that the victim was conscious.[ [3]] I don't know if the Reddit thread about him texting pictures of Jane Doe's breasts will be borne out, but very I'm truly perplexed by attempts to defend Turner. He lied about his past behavior, he was groping women at the party prior to the assault, and he was arrested by campus police in 2014. His defense was that "At no time did I see that she was not responding."[ [4]] However, she was unconscious when found by the grad students and when the police arrived. This discussion is actually the whole point of the article, imho. Defendants of Turner need to understand that he assaulted an unconscious woman, texted a pic of her breasts to his buddies, and perpetrated previous unwanted advances towards towards women. Yet he received an incredibly light sentence bc of his class, supposed wholesome background, and skin color. As we dig through the 420 pages of court documents, I'm sure more statements from the defense will emerge, but they aren't going to exonerate Turner, and I'm baffled why anyone would claim that he needs defending. What does it take to convince you that this was not consensual? I'm actually afraid that the answer is nothing will convince you. I hope I'm wrong. -- tassieg ( talk) 09:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Earlier today I added Melvin Carter to the "see also" section--a change that was quickly reverted by Sfarney with a request to direct any further discussion to this talk page. Although I agree that there are differences as noted between Carter and Turner, the intent of the "see also" section isn't to solely include topics that directly match the topic of the article. According to the Wikipedia guide for "See also" sections, tangentially related topics are acceptable in a "see also" section. I would argue that Carter is at least as tangentially related to Turner as is Ethan Couch--which page was left in the "see also" section. It is true that Carter was a serial offender and legally designated a rapist--unlike Turner. However Carter was certainly a sex offender--like Turner--and also like Turner committed his crimes in the area of the Stanford campus. Compare this with Couch--who also had multiple victims (like Carter and unlike Turner) but whose crimes were not sexual in nature and also didn't take place in the vicinity of the Stanford campus. It is hard to see a justification for including Couch--but not Carter--in the "see also" section. Dash77 ( talk) 01:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
That Infobox is inappropriate and contains erroneous information. That Infobox looks like it was set up as a template for legal opinions, not for court trial cases. For example, Roe v. Wade is a legal opinion that was written by the Supreme Court. California v. Brock Turner is not a legal opinion or appellate case opinion. It is merely the name of a trial that took place in California. So, the Infobox does not seem appropriate and, as such, it has erroneous information. That Infobox seems set up for appellate opinions, not for court trials. Thoughts? Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 05:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
@ Notecardforfree and Carwil: The judge in the superior court did not render an "opinion". That is what appeals and supreme courts render. The superior court renders a judgement. I know the template does not include that header, and that is our bad for having defective panel templates. Nevertheless, it looks silly as it is. How can we fix it? Also, it looks silly to have a numbered list on centered text. Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 18:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Pretty much that, I agree that the page doesn't read like a biography. May I suggest redirecting the page to a page titled something like "Sexual Assault on Emily Doe by Brock Turner" which itself would have a small biographical section?
Rue-chan ( talk) 23:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Each day this article has improved by becoming increasingly more informative, accurate, and neutral. Given the high level of emotion surrounding the incident, it is impressive to see the Wikipedia process functioning. Though the article still needs some work.
The title still purports to be a biography, when the material and thesis is about an incident. Indications that this is about an incident include the existence of the section on the repercussion to the judge, which do belong to a description of the incident, but are not germane to a biography on Brock. There may be additional information about the incident that has not made it into the article because it is cast to be on a different subject.
As another indication, the general reader is coming here to be informed about the incident. It is unlikely that Brock has applied for a prestigious position, or that a school child is writing about his swimming achievements and is looking for source material.
As a third reason this can not be a biography is that general source material such as that appropriate for basing an encyclopedia article is lacking. Perhaps in the future someone will write a book about Brock, and such source material will come into view. That day is not today.
As yet another example of how this is about an incident rather than being a biography, the biographical information does not flow and appears off topic in the sections where it occurs. This happens in the background section where most readers will expect to see background information about the incident, such as that Brock and Doe were students who attended a fraternity party (and a frat is what?) (and these parties are common? rare?) and that there was drinking. An on topic background section would facilitate a useful tie into other controversies stemming from this same context. Yet this background is missing. Instead we have something about swimming. Something that compared to sexual assault doesn't matter. Though the alcohol numbers (which only imply the drinking party) do appear, they are buried after the article wonders off subject to talk about the judge.
Because this it is forced into the mold of a biography, when it does not fit for the reasons just enumerated, it comes across as an attempt to create a wrap sheet with the purpose to stigmatize a person, rather than serving as an encyclopedia article that informs readers about this incident. The wrap sheet, and plenty of stigmatizing information exist in other forums, so there is no benefit to the encyclopedia to force this article into that form.
36.229.254.208 ( talk) 18:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Strongly disagree: One of the three conditions for WP:BLP1E to be met is "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented...The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources."
It is pretty clear to everyone that the incident in question is highly significant considering relentless public interest and persistence of coverage. It was certainly significant enough for the Vice President of the country to weigh in. The significance of the incident stems from the fact that it has single-handedly converged public opinion and debate on a number of public pain points 1) Campus rapes/ rape culture 2) Public attitude towards sexual assault 3) The influence of alcohol among college students 4) The influence of alcohol in acts of sexual assault 5) Judicial prudence 6) The volume of punishment for individuals convicted of sexual assaults 7) Judicial performance 8) Impact of sexual assault on victims 9) The influence of race and background in convictions 10) The role of the Jury 11) The recall of Judges 12) Crimes and social-media activism, etc.
Brock Turner was the creator of this incident. If the incident is undoubtedly significant, due credit must be given to its creator for the purpose of facts and information. It is also very very important to understand that the "sentencing" which brought even more worldwide attention to the case, was partly justified by the Judge Aaron Persky, based on his evaluation of who 'Brock Turner' was as an 'individual'. A reader and researcher about this incident may need to study and understand the motivations and background of the person behind the incident to understand both his and the Judges decisions, and thus the incident. As the above paragraph highlights, the incident has had an influence on a number of facets of public life and it is essential to understand how a person like Brock Turner fits into the crime. A biography about Brock Turner, an adult convicted of a sexual assault in a highly influential case is by no means futile and in fact important.
The role of Brock Turner in the incident is also clearly substantial and very well documented.
I think the title of the page should either be left unchanged from "Brock Turner" or a new biographical page should be created on "Brock Turner". SB1304 ( talk) 05:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Why does this criminal have charges *and* convictions listed in the infobox.
What is relevant about Turner is his criminal convictions and most important to his wikipedia notability, public reaction to length of sentence received. This is the key information about Turner, not crimes that he was not convicted of or tried for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Japanscot ( talk • contribs) 14:21, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Done Removed the criminal charges from the infobox because it could mislead readers who don't read the page fully.
Sy9045 (
talk)
08:32, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Why don't we just list (dropped) next to the rape charges? It is important that people know that police accused him of rape based on witness testimony and then dropped those charges because evidence contradicted the witness testimony. Ranze ( talk) 01:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Ranze - The initial police reports did not accuse him of rape. The prosecutors added that charge. The 2 claims were dropped the first day of trial because there was no evidence to support them. There was no witness testimony to support the rape claim. The testimony of both bicyclists was that they did not see his pants down or his privates exposed. That is why the initial police report was 'assault with intent to rape'. The defense attorney accused the prosection of misconduct on this issue in their sentencing guide. I agree that the charges should be listed, but there should also be a paragraph regarding why and by whoom they were dismissed. JohnDoe1122 ( talk) 04:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
The article makes no mention of the sentence recommendation made by probation officials. It was this recommendation that Judge Persky followed and not the recommendation made by the prosecution which, by contrast is discussed at length and even quoted.. As it is currently written, the article leaves the impression that the judge decided on his own to hand down a lighter sentence. I find this to be quite misleading. Here is a link to a source containing this information: http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_29962311/former-stanford-athlete-brock-turner-years-prison-or — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg Missile Man Watson ( talk • contribs) 02:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the section marked "Revisit of previous rape case", please add a link to the 2007 De Anza rape investigation article. -- 211.30.17.74 ( talk) 01:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
B E C K Y S A Y L E S
02:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Let it be known that the entire subsection was copied from the 2007 De Anza rape investigation article, with only some rewrites to improve the writing style of the mother article. The mother article is also up for deletion. Parsley Man ( talk) 03:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Consensus flowchart
|
---|
Anup [Talk] 11:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
References
WaltersWongLevin
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).[Sorry, I don't know if there's a better way to format this for the Talk page. Fnordware ( talk) 17:41, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
References
My proposed version has a stronger text-source relationship and keeps the focus on the attorneys' criticism of Persky, rather than the particulars of the De Anza case. What do you think, @ Fnordware:, @ Activist:? -- 211.30.17.74 ( talk) 01:26, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Which is more appropriate? Interested in mentioning what widespread exposure the case has gotten. It was the opening topic of Nikki Glaser's show Not Safe this week for example. Guessing Daily/Full Frontal also discussed it. Comedy shows aren't reliable source material for the case but help to show the notability and impact it has had. Ranze ( talk) 07:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
If Brock cited inexperience with alcohol why are we pointing out a history with nonalcoholic things as if that contradicts the citation? Only proof of prior alcohol use would do so. Yet another problem with the drug section. Can someone please help pin down the times that police took blood samples that were measured for alcohol percentage? The time that passed is relevant as they could have been higher before the Swede-tackling. How many minutes of metabolization occurred prior to the blood withdraws? Wee they done at the same time? Ranze ( talk) 07:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
What are you calling OR? My objection or what I am objecting to? I am personally for removing the mention of drug use unless we can establish it relevance to the case. I agree it seems like alcohol is the main consideration as I have heard no mention of the blood tests showing drugs in either system.
The only immediate connection I see here is highlighted by Kaplan's choice of title, alleging he lied about drug use. Kaplan's article provides no transcripts for comparison though. It may assume readers had read some previous article where Brock denied recreational drug use. So its relation could be as an exams of in-court honesty. Ranze ( talk) 07:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I am dismayed by what has happened to the "drugs and alcohol" section of the article. For some reason it has been broken into two sections, drugs and alcohol, which the relative amount of information on the subjects does not deserve. The alcohol section doesn't quote what Turner himself said ("Coming from a small town in Ohio, I had never really experienced celebrating or partying that involved alcohol."), and doesn't mention the cell phone evidence that he was in fact a drinker in high school ("Finally, there is a text message exchange between Turner and his sister from June 3, 2014. She asked him, "Did you rage last night?" He responded, "Yeah kind of. It was hard to find a place to drink. But when we finally did could only drink for like an hour and a half."). The drug information is relevant only with regard to "partying" since drugs are not an issue in this case. I would like to see this restored to something more like what it was a day or two ago, "Turner cited his inexperience with alcohol as a factor in his judgement the night of January 18, 2015, but evidence from his phone indicates a years-long pattern of recreational drug and alcohol use. Turner frequently smoked cannabis and hash oil, and was found to have texted friends about wanting to use MDMA and cocaine.[61]". We should also give some thought to its placement in the article; IIMO it should not be a freestanding section (much less two sections), but a subsection somewhere. (There is literally nothing here about the actual trial, but maybe there should be). -- MelanieN ( talk) 17:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Keep stuff about drinking history in, but the other stuff has no place in that discussion and only serves to distract from it. It seems like a way to malign his character like saying he likes ribeye steaks or ogled a swim team.
If it was something like him claiming to have never smoked hash and then.he is prove to smoke hash, put that in a new section about honesty and perjury. Its still not part of his alcohol history, even if he did swig a gulp of liquor after a bong hit. Ranze ( talk) 07:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Is it general wikipedia policy to give the convicted criminal's side of events so heavily? Surely this case's notability has nothing to do with perceived unsafeness of conviction, (I know of no reliable source suggesting this) but with the public reaction to the sentence handed down? It seems to me that there is far too much of Turner's side of events and too many insinuations that we "can't really know what happened." Turner was convicted by jury trial, and the only reason we are talking about a convicted sexual assaulter is that his light sentence caused an uproar. Japanscot ( talk) 02:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
@ John Cline: you reverted the removal of unconscious in the info just because Brock was convicted of the charges. Juries are not medical experts so why should this be grounds to state this? I think it is enough to say he was convicted of the charges. It is not neutral to take the stance that all convictions are appropriate. There have been enough overturned convictions to show that jury decisions are not reliable assessors or reality. This is a particular concern with BLP articles. Ranze ( talk) 01:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
The 22 year old (if the impact statement is verified should we use the self-titled nickname "big mama"?) did not give an account disagreeing with Brock since she claims not to remember having interacted with him. Brock's testimony is also a reliable source which contradicts the 2 students who tackled him. Juries agreeing with a side, even if one were to accept the proposal this made the side more reliable, does not make the side so impeccable as to be something we should present verbatim as an ascertained truth. The only things we should talk about that way are things both sides have reached consensus about. Issues of dispute should not be judged, just neutrally reported on. Ranze ( talk) 04:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
This is largely what I take issue with. This is obviously an issue of wider scope as the problem of how to talk about court decisions applies to hundreds of articles. But we do need to start somewhere.
To use an example: if the state presses rape charges and fails to get a conviction, that doesn't necessarily mean that the accused did not commit the rape, or that the alleged victim is not a victim of rape. All it means is the arguments by the prosecution failed to sway the jury.
You'll note that in many cases where a jury returns not guty that we simply report that. To use OJ Simpson as an example we do not engage in OR like "OJ absolutely did not kill Nicole". Even though he got a not guilty result, that doesn't make the jury decision an arbiter of reality. Which is why we remain neutral and simply report about the decision instead of with it.
If we can acknowledge this "not guilty verdict does not mean we know not guilty as fact" then the reverse should also be true. A guilty verdict does not mean we know guilty as fact. This should be obvious logic even without relying upon the many examples of overturned cases. No result, guilty or not, is set in stone as an absolute fact.
Juries simply are not experts. There is politics in selecting them and pandering to them. Their feedback is notable but we should not treat it as if is a scholarly work. Juries are not scientists and not historians. This is of especial concern in cases with sealed records since that prevents them from being open to peer review. Court reporting is a reliable source on what courts do, but not necessarily the realities they interact with. Ranze ( talk) 08:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Facts must be presented in context of his sources. A person convicted of murder is not an absolute determinant that they did the murder, as death row exonerations have shown us. Twelve people saying something happened beyond a reasonable doubts only means THEIR reason did not form doubts, not that others' reason cannot. This is largely while appes processes exist.
We can say "the court finds she was unconscious" but not "she was unconscious" because that puts the court in an infallible role when court findings have shown to be an unreliable source in the short term.
In the long term is a different story. We can rely more heavily on court findings as fact sources when enough time has gone by for appeals to go through. This also conveniently coincides with having a different policy for biographies on dead people. Ranze ( talk) 07:21, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
GLH am with you on covering as much as we can about statements from various points in time. Particularly since some criticism exists with some accusing him of adding detail in later accounts. We must be very careful if we are to paraphrase them though. Where possible direct quotes should be referenced accompanying any summary of them to allow readers to judge the fairness of the abbreviation.
Sources we use are only reliable so far as to report court results though, not to uphold the veraciity of the court result. Neutrally we can report that many sources agree with the verdict if not the sentence. Verdicts are not scientific truth though. When there is no consensus among witnesses about aspects of the case it would be wrong to speak of it as known. Ranze ( talk) 05:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I changed the intro text to "decrying Judge Persky's sentence for leniency and alleged judicial bias favoring social privilege.[18]" This is due to the passage in the main body of the article Khan further stated that "Persky's reputation among public defenders (a group closely attuned to racial inequities in the courtroom) is that of a fair-minded jurist", saying "No one has been able to cite an example so far of him where a similarly situated minority client has been treated harshly by him. We appreciated...the judge's understanding of Brock Turner's humanity...and we would want any judge to do the same for our clients."[51][19] Both sides of the story have to be respected in the case of the judge, considering that legal experts have supported his decision. JoshDonaldson20 ( talk) 17:46, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
I added some new information backed by sources on the claim of 5 entire Rolling Rock beers and 2 (sips/swigs) of Fireball Whiskey from Brock. A total of 9 beers is also given by sources but I was not able to find mention in sources of what the other 4 beers were.
Has anyone been able to find a source which mentions this?
I seem to recall some source mentioning specific types and numbers for Doe but I can't recall where. If anyone recalls which source could you highlight it here? I couldn't find it in the impact statement so I think it must have been an article reporting on the preceding in-court testimony. It would balance out the incident details if we had reporting on the consumed drinks from both parties and not just Brock, if both are available somewhere.
Brand names are useful details to include since they include things like alcohol by volume. In the case of Rolling Rock the article says 4.4%. One missing detail is the size of the beers, they appear to come in 7oz small and 12oz regular. Does anyone recall mention in one of the existing sources as to whether these were small or regular beers?
The whisky's article says 33% alcohol by volume but given the vagueness (sip/swig depending on source ) it isn't as informative, wouldn't be a point looking into the size of bottles since he doesn't describe drinking a whole or measurable fraction of the bottle. Ranze ( talk) 04:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
@ Jonathunder: please stop levying a straw man like that. Witnesses (primary source) mentioned the brands to police, who paraphrased their statements in the initial complaint (secondary source) and news sites then reported on this (tertiary source) so this isn't in any way WP:ORIGINAL as you accuse. WP:SYNTHESIS refers to combining sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by the sources. What conclusion are you saying is reached this way?
My asking if anyone knows of any sources specifying can size as small/regular or 7/12 is not synthesis, it is a request for input by people who might have read articles I haven't, or recall details of existing sources that I haven't, in case it is possible to list these details. Ranze ( talk) 18:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
The last thing I want to see is this cluttered further with things not directly part of the trial, but given that there is presently a People_v._Turner#Repercussions_to_the_judge with a "Revisit of previous rape case" section, should we also include the case covered by this?
It also seems to fall under the 'repercussions' idea. Although I am going to nominate that we export these things to a new page so this article can focus on the case. Please add input re my addition of template:split section there. Ranze ( talk) 01:43, 7 July 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 |
Surely at some point during the trial, Brock himself must have given some kind of statement, his version of events, why am I unable to find this here? Instead we are only told the plaintiff's, the prosecutor's and family/friend.
Speaking as if he is guilty also doesn't seem very neutral, unless we can confirm Brock admitted to it. People are sometimes convicted of crimes they didn't do, so should Wikipedia always take the stance that a conviction is sound until it is overturned? Should Wikipedia always side with authority?
Like for example, Arndt and Jonnson saying the woman was unconscious, does that make her being unconscious an indisputable fact? Does Brock give the same or a different account? Ranze ( talk) 01:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
The way the article is currently written it makes it appear that Judge Persky decided not to follow the sentence recommendation of the prosecutors and, on his own, opted for a lighter sentence. According to the link below he was following the sentence recommendation of "probation officials." I believe it would be more accurate to include this information. I would suggest one additional sentence at the end of this paragraph:
On June 2, 2016, Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Aaron Persky sentenced Turner to six months in county jail[21] followed by three years of formal probation.[22] With good behavior, Turner may have to serve only three months of his sentence.[23]" Judge Persky followed the sentence recomendation of probation officials who based their decision on Mr. Turner having no prior criminal record and "their belief that he is genuinely remorseful. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg Missile Man Watson ( talk • contribs) 01:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Actually, he has admitted guilt[ [2]] and expressed remorse, so claiming innocence doesn't work here, even if you don't buy the conviction. Also, now that we know more about the case from court documents, there's no ways to claim that the victim was conscious.[ [3]] I don't know if the Reddit thread about him texting pictures of Jane Doe's breasts will be borne out, but very I'm truly perplexed by attempts to defend Turner. He lied about his past behavior, he was groping women at the party prior to the assault, and he was arrested by campus police in 2014. His defense was that "At no time did I see that she was not responding."[ [4]] However, she was unconscious when found by the grad students and when the police arrived. This discussion is actually the whole point of the article, imho. Defendants of Turner need to understand that he assaulted an unconscious woman, texted a pic of her breasts to his buddies, and perpetrated previous unwanted advances towards towards women. Yet he received an incredibly light sentence bc of his class, supposed wholesome background, and skin color. As we dig through the 420 pages of court documents, I'm sure more statements from the defense will emerge, but they aren't going to exonerate Turner, and I'm baffled why anyone would claim that he needs defending. What does it take to convince you that this was not consensual? I'm actually afraid that the answer is nothing will convince you. I hope I'm wrong. -- tassieg ( talk) 09:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Earlier today I added Melvin Carter to the "see also" section--a change that was quickly reverted by Sfarney with a request to direct any further discussion to this talk page. Although I agree that there are differences as noted between Carter and Turner, the intent of the "see also" section isn't to solely include topics that directly match the topic of the article. According to the Wikipedia guide for "See also" sections, tangentially related topics are acceptable in a "see also" section. I would argue that Carter is at least as tangentially related to Turner as is Ethan Couch--which page was left in the "see also" section. It is true that Carter was a serial offender and legally designated a rapist--unlike Turner. However Carter was certainly a sex offender--like Turner--and also like Turner committed his crimes in the area of the Stanford campus. Compare this with Couch--who also had multiple victims (like Carter and unlike Turner) but whose crimes were not sexual in nature and also didn't take place in the vicinity of the Stanford campus. It is hard to see a justification for including Couch--but not Carter--in the "see also" section. Dash77 ( talk) 01:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
That Infobox is inappropriate and contains erroneous information. That Infobox looks like it was set up as a template for legal opinions, not for court trial cases. For example, Roe v. Wade is a legal opinion that was written by the Supreme Court. California v. Brock Turner is not a legal opinion or appellate case opinion. It is merely the name of a trial that took place in California. So, the Infobox does not seem appropriate and, as such, it has erroneous information. That Infobox seems set up for appellate opinions, not for court trials. Thoughts? Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 05:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
@ Notecardforfree and Carwil: The judge in the superior court did not render an "opinion". That is what appeals and supreme courts render. The superior court renders a judgement. I know the template does not include that header, and that is our bad for having defective panel templates. Nevertheless, it looks silly as it is. How can we fix it? Also, it looks silly to have a numbered list on centered text. Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 18:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Pretty much that, I agree that the page doesn't read like a biography. May I suggest redirecting the page to a page titled something like "Sexual Assault on Emily Doe by Brock Turner" which itself would have a small biographical section?
Rue-chan ( talk) 23:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Each day this article has improved by becoming increasingly more informative, accurate, and neutral. Given the high level of emotion surrounding the incident, it is impressive to see the Wikipedia process functioning. Though the article still needs some work.
The title still purports to be a biography, when the material and thesis is about an incident. Indications that this is about an incident include the existence of the section on the repercussion to the judge, which do belong to a description of the incident, but are not germane to a biography on Brock. There may be additional information about the incident that has not made it into the article because it is cast to be on a different subject.
As another indication, the general reader is coming here to be informed about the incident. It is unlikely that Brock has applied for a prestigious position, or that a school child is writing about his swimming achievements and is looking for source material.
As a third reason this can not be a biography is that general source material such as that appropriate for basing an encyclopedia article is lacking. Perhaps in the future someone will write a book about Brock, and such source material will come into view. That day is not today.
As yet another example of how this is about an incident rather than being a biography, the biographical information does not flow and appears off topic in the sections where it occurs. This happens in the background section where most readers will expect to see background information about the incident, such as that Brock and Doe were students who attended a fraternity party (and a frat is what?) (and these parties are common? rare?) and that there was drinking. An on topic background section would facilitate a useful tie into other controversies stemming from this same context. Yet this background is missing. Instead we have something about swimming. Something that compared to sexual assault doesn't matter. Though the alcohol numbers (which only imply the drinking party) do appear, they are buried after the article wonders off subject to talk about the judge.
Because this it is forced into the mold of a biography, when it does not fit for the reasons just enumerated, it comes across as an attempt to create a wrap sheet with the purpose to stigmatize a person, rather than serving as an encyclopedia article that informs readers about this incident. The wrap sheet, and plenty of stigmatizing information exist in other forums, so there is no benefit to the encyclopedia to force this article into that form.
36.229.254.208 ( talk) 18:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Strongly disagree: One of the three conditions for WP:BLP1E to be met is "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented...The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources."
It is pretty clear to everyone that the incident in question is highly significant considering relentless public interest and persistence of coverage. It was certainly significant enough for the Vice President of the country to weigh in. The significance of the incident stems from the fact that it has single-handedly converged public opinion and debate on a number of public pain points 1) Campus rapes/ rape culture 2) Public attitude towards sexual assault 3) The influence of alcohol among college students 4) The influence of alcohol in acts of sexual assault 5) Judicial prudence 6) The volume of punishment for individuals convicted of sexual assaults 7) Judicial performance 8) Impact of sexual assault on victims 9) The influence of race and background in convictions 10) The role of the Jury 11) The recall of Judges 12) Crimes and social-media activism, etc.
Brock Turner was the creator of this incident. If the incident is undoubtedly significant, due credit must be given to its creator for the purpose of facts and information. It is also very very important to understand that the "sentencing" which brought even more worldwide attention to the case, was partly justified by the Judge Aaron Persky, based on his evaluation of who 'Brock Turner' was as an 'individual'. A reader and researcher about this incident may need to study and understand the motivations and background of the person behind the incident to understand both his and the Judges decisions, and thus the incident. As the above paragraph highlights, the incident has had an influence on a number of facets of public life and it is essential to understand how a person like Brock Turner fits into the crime. A biography about Brock Turner, an adult convicted of a sexual assault in a highly influential case is by no means futile and in fact important.
The role of Brock Turner in the incident is also clearly substantial and very well documented.
I think the title of the page should either be left unchanged from "Brock Turner" or a new biographical page should be created on "Brock Turner". SB1304 ( talk) 05:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Why does this criminal have charges *and* convictions listed in the infobox.
What is relevant about Turner is his criminal convictions and most important to his wikipedia notability, public reaction to length of sentence received. This is the key information about Turner, not crimes that he was not convicted of or tried for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Japanscot ( talk • contribs) 14:21, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Done Removed the criminal charges from the infobox because it could mislead readers who don't read the page fully.
Sy9045 (
talk)
08:32, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Why don't we just list (dropped) next to the rape charges? It is important that people know that police accused him of rape based on witness testimony and then dropped those charges because evidence contradicted the witness testimony. Ranze ( talk) 01:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Ranze - The initial police reports did not accuse him of rape. The prosecutors added that charge. The 2 claims were dropped the first day of trial because there was no evidence to support them. There was no witness testimony to support the rape claim. The testimony of both bicyclists was that they did not see his pants down or his privates exposed. That is why the initial police report was 'assault with intent to rape'. The defense attorney accused the prosection of misconduct on this issue in their sentencing guide. I agree that the charges should be listed, but there should also be a paragraph regarding why and by whoom they were dismissed. JohnDoe1122 ( talk) 04:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
The article makes no mention of the sentence recommendation made by probation officials. It was this recommendation that Judge Persky followed and not the recommendation made by the prosecution which, by contrast is discussed at length and even quoted.. As it is currently written, the article leaves the impression that the judge decided on his own to hand down a lighter sentence. I find this to be quite misleading. Here is a link to a source containing this information: http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_29962311/former-stanford-athlete-brock-turner-years-prison-or — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg Missile Man Watson ( talk • contribs) 02:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the section marked "Revisit of previous rape case", please add a link to the 2007 De Anza rape investigation article. -- 211.30.17.74 ( talk) 01:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
B E C K Y S A Y L E S
02:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Let it be known that the entire subsection was copied from the 2007 De Anza rape investigation article, with only some rewrites to improve the writing style of the mother article. The mother article is also up for deletion. Parsley Man ( talk) 03:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Consensus flowchart
|
---|
Anup [Talk] 11:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
References
WaltersWongLevin
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).[Sorry, I don't know if there's a better way to format this for the Talk page. Fnordware ( talk) 17:41, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
References
My proposed version has a stronger text-source relationship and keeps the focus on the attorneys' criticism of Persky, rather than the particulars of the De Anza case. What do you think, @ Fnordware:, @ Activist:? -- 211.30.17.74 ( talk) 01:26, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Which is more appropriate? Interested in mentioning what widespread exposure the case has gotten. It was the opening topic of Nikki Glaser's show Not Safe this week for example. Guessing Daily/Full Frontal also discussed it. Comedy shows aren't reliable source material for the case but help to show the notability and impact it has had. Ranze ( talk) 07:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
If Brock cited inexperience with alcohol why are we pointing out a history with nonalcoholic things as if that contradicts the citation? Only proof of prior alcohol use would do so. Yet another problem with the drug section. Can someone please help pin down the times that police took blood samples that were measured for alcohol percentage? The time that passed is relevant as they could have been higher before the Swede-tackling. How many minutes of metabolization occurred prior to the blood withdraws? Wee they done at the same time? Ranze ( talk) 07:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
What are you calling OR? My objection or what I am objecting to? I am personally for removing the mention of drug use unless we can establish it relevance to the case. I agree it seems like alcohol is the main consideration as I have heard no mention of the blood tests showing drugs in either system.
The only immediate connection I see here is highlighted by Kaplan's choice of title, alleging he lied about drug use. Kaplan's article provides no transcripts for comparison though. It may assume readers had read some previous article where Brock denied recreational drug use. So its relation could be as an exams of in-court honesty. Ranze ( talk) 07:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I am dismayed by what has happened to the "drugs and alcohol" section of the article. For some reason it has been broken into two sections, drugs and alcohol, which the relative amount of information on the subjects does not deserve. The alcohol section doesn't quote what Turner himself said ("Coming from a small town in Ohio, I had never really experienced celebrating or partying that involved alcohol."), and doesn't mention the cell phone evidence that he was in fact a drinker in high school ("Finally, there is a text message exchange between Turner and his sister from June 3, 2014. She asked him, "Did you rage last night?" He responded, "Yeah kind of. It was hard to find a place to drink. But when we finally did could only drink for like an hour and a half."). The drug information is relevant only with regard to "partying" since drugs are not an issue in this case. I would like to see this restored to something more like what it was a day or two ago, "Turner cited his inexperience with alcohol as a factor in his judgement the night of January 18, 2015, but evidence from his phone indicates a years-long pattern of recreational drug and alcohol use. Turner frequently smoked cannabis and hash oil, and was found to have texted friends about wanting to use MDMA and cocaine.[61]". We should also give some thought to its placement in the article; IIMO it should not be a freestanding section (much less two sections), but a subsection somewhere. (There is literally nothing here about the actual trial, but maybe there should be). -- MelanieN ( talk) 17:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Keep stuff about drinking history in, but the other stuff has no place in that discussion and only serves to distract from it. It seems like a way to malign his character like saying he likes ribeye steaks or ogled a swim team.
If it was something like him claiming to have never smoked hash and then.he is prove to smoke hash, put that in a new section about honesty and perjury. Its still not part of his alcohol history, even if he did swig a gulp of liquor after a bong hit. Ranze ( talk) 07:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Is it general wikipedia policy to give the convicted criminal's side of events so heavily? Surely this case's notability has nothing to do with perceived unsafeness of conviction, (I know of no reliable source suggesting this) but with the public reaction to the sentence handed down? It seems to me that there is far too much of Turner's side of events and too many insinuations that we "can't really know what happened." Turner was convicted by jury trial, and the only reason we are talking about a convicted sexual assaulter is that his light sentence caused an uproar. Japanscot ( talk) 02:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
@ John Cline: you reverted the removal of unconscious in the info just because Brock was convicted of the charges. Juries are not medical experts so why should this be grounds to state this? I think it is enough to say he was convicted of the charges. It is not neutral to take the stance that all convictions are appropriate. There have been enough overturned convictions to show that jury decisions are not reliable assessors or reality. This is a particular concern with BLP articles. Ranze ( talk) 01:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
The 22 year old (if the impact statement is verified should we use the self-titled nickname "big mama"?) did not give an account disagreeing with Brock since she claims not to remember having interacted with him. Brock's testimony is also a reliable source which contradicts the 2 students who tackled him. Juries agreeing with a side, even if one were to accept the proposal this made the side more reliable, does not make the side so impeccable as to be something we should present verbatim as an ascertained truth. The only things we should talk about that way are things both sides have reached consensus about. Issues of dispute should not be judged, just neutrally reported on. Ranze ( talk) 04:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
This is largely what I take issue with. This is obviously an issue of wider scope as the problem of how to talk about court decisions applies to hundreds of articles. But we do need to start somewhere.
To use an example: if the state presses rape charges and fails to get a conviction, that doesn't necessarily mean that the accused did not commit the rape, or that the alleged victim is not a victim of rape. All it means is the arguments by the prosecution failed to sway the jury.
You'll note that in many cases where a jury returns not guty that we simply report that. To use OJ Simpson as an example we do not engage in OR like "OJ absolutely did not kill Nicole". Even though he got a not guilty result, that doesn't make the jury decision an arbiter of reality. Which is why we remain neutral and simply report about the decision instead of with it.
If we can acknowledge this "not guilty verdict does not mean we know not guilty as fact" then the reverse should also be true. A guilty verdict does not mean we know guilty as fact. This should be obvious logic even without relying upon the many examples of overturned cases. No result, guilty or not, is set in stone as an absolute fact.
Juries simply are not experts. There is politics in selecting them and pandering to them. Their feedback is notable but we should not treat it as if is a scholarly work. Juries are not scientists and not historians. This is of especial concern in cases with sealed records since that prevents them from being open to peer review. Court reporting is a reliable source on what courts do, but not necessarily the realities they interact with. Ranze ( talk) 08:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Facts must be presented in context of his sources. A person convicted of murder is not an absolute determinant that they did the murder, as death row exonerations have shown us. Twelve people saying something happened beyond a reasonable doubts only means THEIR reason did not form doubts, not that others' reason cannot. This is largely while appes processes exist.
We can say "the court finds she was unconscious" but not "she was unconscious" because that puts the court in an infallible role when court findings have shown to be an unreliable source in the short term.
In the long term is a different story. We can rely more heavily on court findings as fact sources when enough time has gone by for appeals to go through. This also conveniently coincides with having a different policy for biographies on dead people. Ranze ( talk) 07:21, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
GLH am with you on covering as much as we can about statements from various points in time. Particularly since some criticism exists with some accusing him of adding detail in later accounts. We must be very careful if we are to paraphrase them though. Where possible direct quotes should be referenced accompanying any summary of them to allow readers to judge the fairness of the abbreviation.
Sources we use are only reliable so far as to report court results though, not to uphold the veraciity of the court result. Neutrally we can report that many sources agree with the verdict if not the sentence. Verdicts are not scientific truth though. When there is no consensus among witnesses about aspects of the case it would be wrong to speak of it as known. Ranze ( talk) 05:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I changed the intro text to "decrying Judge Persky's sentence for leniency and alleged judicial bias favoring social privilege.[18]" This is due to the passage in the main body of the article Khan further stated that "Persky's reputation among public defenders (a group closely attuned to racial inequities in the courtroom) is that of a fair-minded jurist", saying "No one has been able to cite an example so far of him where a similarly situated minority client has been treated harshly by him. We appreciated...the judge's understanding of Brock Turner's humanity...and we would want any judge to do the same for our clients."[51][19] Both sides of the story have to be respected in the case of the judge, considering that legal experts have supported his decision. JoshDonaldson20 ( talk) 17:46, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
I added some new information backed by sources on the claim of 5 entire Rolling Rock beers and 2 (sips/swigs) of Fireball Whiskey from Brock. A total of 9 beers is also given by sources but I was not able to find mention in sources of what the other 4 beers were.
Has anyone been able to find a source which mentions this?
I seem to recall some source mentioning specific types and numbers for Doe but I can't recall where. If anyone recalls which source could you highlight it here? I couldn't find it in the impact statement so I think it must have been an article reporting on the preceding in-court testimony. It would balance out the incident details if we had reporting on the consumed drinks from both parties and not just Brock, if both are available somewhere.
Brand names are useful details to include since they include things like alcohol by volume. In the case of Rolling Rock the article says 4.4%. One missing detail is the size of the beers, they appear to come in 7oz small and 12oz regular. Does anyone recall mention in one of the existing sources as to whether these were small or regular beers?
The whisky's article says 33% alcohol by volume but given the vagueness (sip/swig depending on source ) it isn't as informative, wouldn't be a point looking into the size of bottles since he doesn't describe drinking a whole or measurable fraction of the bottle. Ranze ( talk) 04:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
@ Jonathunder: please stop levying a straw man like that. Witnesses (primary source) mentioned the brands to police, who paraphrased their statements in the initial complaint (secondary source) and news sites then reported on this (tertiary source) so this isn't in any way WP:ORIGINAL as you accuse. WP:SYNTHESIS refers to combining sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by the sources. What conclusion are you saying is reached this way?
My asking if anyone knows of any sources specifying can size as small/regular or 7/12 is not synthesis, it is a request for input by people who might have read articles I haven't, or recall details of existing sources that I haven't, in case it is possible to list these details. Ranze ( talk) 18:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
The last thing I want to see is this cluttered further with things not directly part of the trial, but given that there is presently a People_v._Turner#Repercussions_to_the_judge with a "Revisit of previous rape case" section, should we also include the case covered by this?
It also seems to fall under the 'repercussions' idea. Although I am going to nominate that we export these things to a new page so this article can focus on the case. Please add input re my addition of template:split section there. Ranze ( talk) 01:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)