Jump to content

Talk:People v. Turner/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Religion = "Christian"

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2016

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)

Not done for now: Both files are the same... Sir Joseph (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Original research

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)

Well, so be it I added that in response to another editor's citation of it. But I also added the [according to whom?] tag. If we can agree that the term "convicted rapist" is problematic (since he wasn't literally convicted of rape) and can be avoided, I don't see an issue with removing this passage on WP:OR grounds. I never liked it anyway. Yakushima (talk) 13:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
We can't agree that. This circumlocution is an unnecessary replacement for the clear and factual "convicted rapist." Moreover, longwinded explanations of terminology should never be in the opening. Per MOS:INTRO "Editors should avoid … over-specific descriptions, since greater detail is saved for the body of the article."
We're witnessing a process in which the same editor (1) demands excessive qualifying text, then (2) supports deletion of the whole segment because said text is OR. My good faith is fraying.--Carwil (talk) 13:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I didn't "demand" excessive qualifying text. I added some text, and tagged it with [according to whom?] where I thought it might veer into WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. Nobody has verified against RS that Brock Turner would have been convicted of rape rather than sexual assault at the federal level, and the FBI's categorization of his crime for statistical reporting purposes does not define federal law, which instead uses a definition that looks more like California law. I would support restoring the FBI reporting definition, and characterizing the crime as rape on that basis, if someone could find RS from some legal authority establishing what's required here: that under federal law, Brock Turner would have been convicted of rape. So far, however, you haven't come up with that RS, despite opportunity. Nobody else has either.
There is no requirement that an article be perfect at every stage, and I often focus on adding facts at the expense of style when important facts are missing. Several were. And one of them is the overriding fact for this discussion: Turner was not convicted of rape. He was convicted of sexual assault, a distinction made in roughly equivalent ways in both the California and in federal codes. The prosecutor arguing "Emily Doe's" charges actually dropped the formal rape charges. Stating in the biography of a living person (or in any article) that a person has been convicted of a crime different (and possibly worse) than the one he was actually convicted of -- that's a WP:BLP violation if there ever was one. And a million linkbait headlines getting it wrong doesn't make it right. Yakushima (talk) 14:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Per the link from the FBI cited above:
  • “This new, more inclusive definition [of rape] will provide us with a more accurate understanding of the scope and volume of these crimes,” said Attorney General Eric Holder. Proponents of the new definition and of the omission of the term “forcible” say that the changes broaden the scope of the previously narrow definitions by capturing (1) data without regard to gender, (2) the penetration of any bodily orifice, penetration by any object or body part, and (3) offenses in which physical force is not involved. Now, for example, instances in which offenders use drugs or alcohol or incidents in which offenders sodomize victims of the same gender will be counted as rape for statistical purposes.
  • "According to David Cuthbertson, former FBI Assistant Director of the CJIS Division, “As we implement this change, the FBI is confident that the number of victims of this heinous crime will be more accurately reflected in national crime statistics.”"
  • "the revised definition, unlike the legacy definition, includes offenses of rape, sodomy, sexual assaults with objects, and offenses in which males were the victims"
--Carwil (talk) 14:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
What that does not constitute, unfortunately, is RS stating explicitly that Brock Turner would have been convicted of rape in federal court, if such a court had jurisdiction in this case. It is a change of wording about how crimes will be reported, made by some unelected officials, not by legislators or judges. I happen to think it's a laudable change of wording, but that's neither here nor there for this discussion. And I am not alone in preferring that Wikipedia be circumspect for the sake of avoiding charges of defamation of a living person. Note that, as I write this, the Washington Post does not call Brock Turner a convicted rapist, nor does it say he was convicted of rape. [1]. Note also that the New York Times does not call him a rapist, and like the Washington Post, says that he was convicted of sexual assault.[2]. Even The Guardian, which has been the source of key documents in the controversy, seems to have employed term "rapist" only under the byline of an opinion columnist, rather than in straight news reporting.[3] None of these sources show any tendency to downplay the crime. They do, however, seem to feel constrained to report the legal outcome only in strictly factual terms. And those terms are pretty clear. There was a judicial event: a conviction. On charges: three of them in the category of sexual assault, none of them defined as rape under any relevant jurisdiction, state or federal. Wikipedia is held to an even higher standard than these publications, since it cannot publish opinion pieces as encyclopedia articles. Yakushima (talk) 15:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
First, we aren't engaged in convicting but in describing Brock Turner, and his criminal action, which has been repeatedly described as "rape" and him as a "rapist." So, if the FBI is an authority on defining crimes, their reporting definition is fine.
Second, yes RS have been using "rape" and "rapist" in their news sections. Witness LA Times: "the rape victim of a former Stanford University swimmer", NBC News , NY Daily News: "after he was found guilty of raping an intoxicated and unconscious woman", CBS News, etc. --Carwil (talk) 17:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
While the sources you link to do use the word "rape" in their headlines, the article text more accurately says his conviction is for "sexual assault" or "assault with intent to commit rape." I don't know if this is considered to be dubious journalistic practice or standard practice to shorten headlines, but it is clear that "sexual assault" is what he was convicted of, and we should simply say that. Fnordware (talk) 17:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I inserted two in-text quotes above, showing it's not just headlines. See also [Mic]: "Brock Turner, the former Stanford University swimmer and convicted rapist."--Carwil (talk) 17:49, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Carwil, you want to use the description "convicted rapist." The LA Times story does not speak of Turner being convicted for rape. In fact, the photo caption reads, "Former Stanford University swimmer Brock Turner, right, was convicted of sexually assaulting a woman after both attended a fraternity party."
The NBC news story says he was "convicted in March of assault with intent to commit rape of an intoxicated woman, sexually penetrating an intoxicated person with a foreign object and sexually penetrating an unconscious person with a foreign object." It does not say he was convicted for rape, or that he was a "convicted rapist", which you insist is the most accurate phrase.
As for whatever MIC.com is, please note that when I reached the article, it contained the following corrigendum: "Correction: June 7, 2016. A previous version of this story mischaracterized Brock Turner's conviction. Among other charges, he was convicted of assault with intent to commit rape."
The New York Daily News is a tabloid, which incoherently describes the assault as both "blatant" (AKA "obvious") and "behind a dumpster (AKA "hidden".) "Blatant"? The jury deliberated for two days, with one juror reporting that the panel was quite anguished, as they realized that any verdict they gave was likely to completely shatter one of two already-half-shattered young lives -- they only had the Hobson's Choice of which demolition to finish. The New York Daily News runs headlines like "God Isn't Fixing This"[4] (in response to people offering their prayers after the San Bernardino shooting"). They also described NRA executive Wayne LaPierre as a "terrorist."[5] Whatever one may think of LaPierre (and I don't think much of him), he's not a terrorist. NYDaily? I don't think we're looking at any model of accuracy for Wikipedia editing.
"Convicted rapist" is interchangeable with "person who was convicted of rape." Brock Turner wasn't. We can't say that he was. This is WP:BLP.
It is incontestable that the crime has been widely characterized as rape and that the charges initially included formal rape charges. Feel free to treat those facts in an article that's likely to end up being about the case and the sentencing, rather than a Biography of a Living Person. Note that when the photo-inset infobox included "The Stanford Rapist" under "other names", I didn't edit out, because many headlines do refer to him that way. Nor did I try to remove all of the headlines using the term "rape" and "rapist", even after he was convicted. We also have that quote from the prosecutor who said "Rape is rape. And I will prosecute it as such." (Note, however, that it was this same prosecutor who ended up prosecuting it as sexual assault, after dropping the formal rape charges.) We can quote all we like. But in an article about a person or a crime, when we describe the person or the crime, what we should use is the actual legal conviction. Yakushima (talk) 02:21, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

"allegedly written"

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)

Registered sex offender?

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)

Where to comment on whether this article should be deleted

If you would like to comment on whether this article should be deleted, please do so on the [Articles for Deletion: Brock Turner](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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:

  1. 1. The actions of Brock Turner gained national and international media attention.
  2. 2. The case is significant in that there is controversy over the sentencing.
  3. 3. Brock Turner is a recognised athlete (reference 3), not some nobody.
  4. 4. There is no factually inaccurate or disputed information on the page.
  5. 5. All information presented in the page is done so in an unbiased manner.


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)


Delete cannot be said there any more because it's archived and redirects back to here. In short, arguments for it included the above, arguments against were more along the lines below:
  1. 1 WP:CRIME - fails the guidelines for articles on a crime or naming a living person
  2. 2 WP:SENSATION and WP:NOTNEWS - a 3-day old twitter storm fails the guidelines on news headline chasing or breaking events is not the guideline nor indicating this will be an encyclopedic entry of WP:Duration or have further significane equivalent to Trayvon Martin case for example.
  3. 3 WP:SOAPBOX - many editors arguing from stances or emotion rather than WP guidelines, and seems more about advocacy showcasing or scandal mongering than a topic of scholarly works.
  4. 4 WP:BLP or BLP1e, verging on WP:Cyberbullying
  5. 5 Merge/rename - as said above, article seems to not be on the person or bio data, so is it better merged into Campus sexual assault, or named sentencing controversy ...

Markbassett (talk) 11:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Photo

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

It'd have to meet all ten criteria of WP:NFCCP, which seems likely to fall at the first ("no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose"). --McGeddon (talk) 20:15, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

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)

The photo used for this article is not the mug shot, but a photo taken at his sentencing trial. See update at bootom of http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/06/06/3785310/brock-turner-mug-shot/ 5.173.186.228 (talk) 09:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC) Jan
I've requested to change the image to be the actual mugshot, per standards set by similar articles with mugshots, and to match the text. –Rep354676 (talk) 09:56, 7 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)

That is a really messed up claim to make. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.175.223.123 (talk) 00:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
It's reasonable to complain about Wikipedia unfairly using or not using mugshots, as you did in on that talk page, but I don't see why it's useful to pretend like Wikipedia has it out for white Stanford men. Seems like white Stanford men who didn't rape anybody are doing just fine. FPTI (talk) 17:58, 8 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)

Protect the page?

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)

There's already an RPP pending. Thanks, Garchy (talk) 22:27, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

"The Superior Court of California filed the initial complaint.[49]"

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 recall

"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)

Not to mention that contiguously placing those two sentences makes it sound like he faces campaign to recall him, because he was also a student and athlete at Stanford University. If that's the case, it should be stated explicitly, along with sources. -- ChamithN (talk) 09:12, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
agreed, i read it too and it made no sense. Is there a real campaign to do so? Not just some online petition? And have there been any real traction on a conflict of interest in the ruling because he's an Alumni of some sorts? Otherwise its just WP:SYN --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 18:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

"convicted rapist"?

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)

Not a bad point. A highly legalistic one, unfortunately. In several sources[6][7], it's pointed out that the prosecution dropped the charges of rape, presumably because it would have been too easy to introduce reasonable doubt. It's not clear that the charges would have been dropped in some other jurisdictions, however, since state laws vary on the definition of rape. As for characterizing a person as a "rapist" even if his actions met anyone's criteria for rape, the ice might be a little thin here too -- it's common for other victims to come forward when one victim does. No other woman has come forward. In any case, "convicted sex offender" would be more accurate. Yakushima (talk) 15:54, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Turner was convicted of unlawful sexual penetration. A rapist is defined as "a person who commits unlawful sexual intercourse or any other sexual penetration of the vagina, anus, or mouth of another person, with or without force, by a sex organ, other body part, or foreign object, without the consent of the victim.” So while Turner was convicted of "sexual penetration where victim was intoxicated" (289.e), "sexual penetration where victim was unconscious" (289.d), and "assault with intent to commit rape" (220.a.1) and the charges of "rape where victim was intoxicated" (261.a.3) and "rape where victim was unconscious" (261.a.4) were dropped during preliminary hearings, I feel that calling Turner a rapist is correct and would not a violate WP:BLP. Also, here is link to the actual charges. --Pinxi (talk) 21:18, 9 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)

For its Uniform Crime Reports, the FBI defines rape as “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.” [8] California has separate statutes for sexual penetration under different circumstances, and "Most states choose to label the crime of rape as sexual assault."[9]. So, yes, "convicted rapist" is the most succinct, yet still precise way of identifying him.--Carwil (talk) 18:55, 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)

I provided the definition used by the United States' national law enforcement body, the FRI, which coordinates among multiple jurisdictions with different wordings. The FBI is quite clear that sexual penetration with an object (literally word for word the charge Turner was convicted of) is rape. In next year's Uniform Criminal Report, his conviction will be counted as a rape conviction. The first sentence should provide a clear, concise summary and "convicted rapist" is completely accurate and also concise. --Carwil (talk) 01:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
If an authoritative body specifically lists him under people with a rape conviction then the description makes sense. There is still the issue that the convicting agency, california court, convicted him of three sexual assaults. But "rapist convicted in 2016 of three counts of sexual assault in california" might be too long, but it might perhaps draw attention to california describing differently what other authorities describe as rape. Japanscot (talk) 01:49, 7 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)

I've since made changes to reflect these ambiguities, uneasily, with "would be considered rape" flagged with "according to whom". I'm not sure this gets me out of WP:BLP violation, but it's the best I can think of right now. The article might eventually be redirected to an article about the case, so I count these apparent hair-splitting distinctions in the lede as an improvement. Yakushima (talk) 03:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
At the federal level as well[10], it does appear that Brock Turner would have been convicted on federal charges of sexual assault rather than rape, unless his "assault with intent to commit rape" included "unlawful force." Did it? Lying on top of someone in a standard sexual position and thrusting your hips (which is all that was witnessed) is not ipso facto unlawful force. One could argue that if she was unconscious and therefore incapable of resisting, no force was being applied anyway, thus it couldn't have been unlawful force even if it was unlawful activity. Could it still have been unlawful activity, even criminal activity? I believe so. Remember, strictly speaking, even just touching a person without permission can, in some circumstances, be considered criminal, and part of perpetrating assault and battery. (I'm starting to understand why the jury deliberated for two days over a case that's being characterized as open-and-shut.) I think the best we can do here is note that he's widely considered a rapist, while also noting the finer legal distinctions about the official statistical categorization of sex crimes by the FBI versus the actual conviction under California law, which was obtained after the formal charges of rape were dropped. Yakushima (talk) 05:55, 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)

I'm aware of the scores (might be hundreds, by now) of articles calling this a rape case. And I've added your point about the FBI's statistical categorization, which very probably applies. The problem is with calling a living person a "convicted rapist" on Wikipedia when in fact, by due process of law, they haven't been convicted on an actual charge or rape; when in fact, the two charges of rape were actually dropped by the prosecution at the preliminary hearing, leaving these sexual assault charges. Saying "convicted rapist" could be a WP:BLP violation in this case. I don't know. I'm trying to stay on the safe side, while not violating common sense. In the process, I'm probably breaking some rules, but at least I'm breaking less serious rules -- like accusing someone of a crime without a jury verdict to support it. You're free to attempt your own edits, in as much conformance with policy and guidelines as possible, under WP:BLP. Yakushima (talk) 12:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Yakushima, your stated concern above was 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.
Well, we do know this: Brock Turner was convicted of "Sexual Penetration of an Unconscious Person" which means the jury concluded "The defendant knew that the other person was unable to resist because (he/she) was unconscious of the nature of the act."[11] (It should be obvious, but just to spell it out, someone who consents to a sexual act while awake does not therefore consent to that sexual act continuing if they pass out.) And Brock Turner was convicted of "Sexual Penetration of an Intoxicated Person" which means the jury concluded "The defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the effect of that substance prevented the other person from resisting the act."[12] That is what these convictions legally mean.
Further, the latter statute also states, "A person is prevented from resisting if he or she is so intoxicated that he or she cannot give legal consent. In order to give legal consent, a person must be able to exercise reasonable judgment. In other words, the person must be able to understand and weigh the physical nature of the act, its moral character, and probable consequences. Legal consent is consent given freely and voluntarily by someone who knows the nature of the act involved."
Really, it's not up to us to parse and re-parse "consent" or to parse and reparse "rapist." RS have done that for us. But getting into the details only reinforces the common sense view taken by many, many RS.--Carwil (talk) 13:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
This issue isn't in any parse or re-parse of a single word. (How do you parse a single word?) It's whether "convicted rapist" is a WP:BLP violation, according to the definitions of rape under the law(s) under which the criminal was convicted. Since Brock Turner was not convicted of rape (how many times do you need to read that the rape charges were dropped?), "convicted rapist" is factually incorrect. This is why, for example, your citation of MIC.com below, fails the test: they retracted that wording, and corrected it to say that it was a sexual offense, not rape. Yakushima (talk) 04:49, 8 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)

I agree, but the current issue is what's not a WP:BLP violation. This phrasing almost certainly isn't. Yakushima (talk) 04:49, 8 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.

The first paragraph is embarrassing for an encyclopedia. The last sentence of that paragraph is a non-sequitur and sticks out as a "you got to know this!!! MY GOD!!!" The number of references is ridiculous.
The one thing this article never describes is what is supposed to have happened. I'm told 50+ times he is convicted. That was apparent from the get go, once would have been enough. But I came here to first read what was supposed to have happened, from at least two views, with a sympathetic telling for both views, then to find out how the authorities interpreted it.

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)

Biased Article

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)

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)

Already done ChamithN (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Second and Third opening paragraph bloat

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)

Who is Wider?

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2016

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)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:18, 12 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

To explain my revert of IP edit ...

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)

It is worth noting that he was CHARGED with rape. The initial complaint makes those charges against him (my guess due to the 'pelvic thrusting' one of the Swedes claimed to have seen), but it was diminished to a non-rape charge. Perhaps there was no evidence of sexual intercourse? Ranze (talk) 02:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
That is correct. His DNA was not found on the victim, though she was thoroughly examined. See VOX link above. I presume this was a HUGE factor in the sentencing. Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 23:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 7 June 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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)

I agree. Some of the deletion discussion now makes no sense because it's framed in WP:BLP terms. WP:BLP still applies to what's said about Brock Turner (and others), but the issue is about notability of the person, whether a BLP is merited, and that should conclude first. Yakushima (talk) 13:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I won't move it again anytime soon, but I prefer being wp:bold and actually making improvements over herding cats. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Ping: User:GeneralizationsAreBad User:Bus stop User:Jami430--Carwil (talk) 17:42, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

  • A case could be made for naming the article after the case: California v. Brock Allen Turner; in my opinion.--John Cline (talk) 21:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - I support any title other than "Brock Turner", until it is proven that he is notable. "California v. Brock Turner" would suffice. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I absolutely think it should be moved from Brock Turner to a title about the case itself. I agree with some people above that the sexual assault itself was notable before the sentencing. The sentencing makes sense to have as a major section within an article about the sexual assault. I would support "Sexual assault by Brock Turner." Then again, a lot of the source titles include "Stanford sexual assault" or "Stanford rape case" (though that almost implies there's only been one), which would mirror the Steubenville High School rape case article. I'm torn, but I absolutely think it should not be "Brock Turner." Shall we not give young boys notability for raping their peers? ;) Jami430 (talk) 00:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, although I could also live with Sentencing of Brock Turner for sexual assault or California v. Brock Allen Turner. This should not have been moved back to its present title as an "uncontroversial" move. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC).
  • Support but I prefer California v. Brock Allen Turner.LM2000 (talk) 00:51, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support as the whole reason this story went viral was the sentence Brock Turner received for his conviction.--tassieg (talk) 05:35, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose specific move. I prefer this: the media was using "Stanford rape case" a lot, so thats a good precedent. I don't think the article should be named for the man, as he is really not very notable. the rape was not particularly egregious (as if any are not), and the circumstances around the whole ordeal, including the conviction, are nothing worth placing here. it was the controversy over the judge's sentence that makes this notable, so if not "Stanford rape case", perhaps "Stanford rape case controversy" or "Stanford rape case sentencing controversy", "Stanford rape case sentencing", or "2016 Stanford rape sentencing". too much of this article will always be about the sentencing uproar, which has nothing to do directly with the perp, so shoehorning it into an biographical article is inelegant.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:55, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support though for a move to something like California v. Brock Allen Turner or Prosecution of Brock Turner or we could have Stanford Emily Doe sexual assault. I will note that the event went viral because of Emily Doe's statement in combo with the light sentence (the latter alone only made it locally controversial). I note that the defendant may well appeal the conviction in which case the conviction as well as the sentencing are controversial. Questions have also been asked about the treatment of Emily Doe and the actions of Stanford University (there has been an ongoing discussion at Stanford about sexual assault even if that hasn't bubbled up to the greater news circuit yet). Erp (talk) 06:34, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment — As I noted above there was regional, national, and international coverage of the initial crime, Turner's arrest, plea, conviction, sentencing, and its as well as the campus climate and intervening bystanders. Each of the foregoing has received separate mainstream media coverage. The survivor's open letter addresses her treatment by medical officials, police, prosecutors, the media, and the perpetrator.
We have several "Sexual assault of…" articles, several "Location sexual assault" articles, and at least one perpetrator-named sexual crime (Ariel Castro kidnappings).--Carwil (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't think an article about the case itself would preclude any of the information you suggest. Peripheral information is often relevant, and included; for example: Public reactions and such. If a better name emerges in reliable sources, the article can be moved again; at that time. In my opinion, it should not remain as a biography for the interim.--John Cline (talk) 17:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support moving to something that focuses on the crime, trial, and subsequent public reaction. It should not be classified (and named) as a biography. Wittylama 22:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support because this is not a biography, it is about public reaction. Comfr (talk) 23:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support: Any title other than Brock Turner looks better for an encyclopedia to me. I still do not understand how this is not WP:BIO1E. Darreg (talk) 23:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support the article (and title) should primarily be about the crime, the sentencing and the worldwide reaction to it, not the rapist per se. Commiting such a crime shouldn't make someone notable. Optimale Gu 14:30, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I initially voted delete on the article, but new developments (e.g. his dad's heroically dumb letter) have made me feel that this is enough of a case study in awfulness to be happy with it being kept. That said, I think that the topic is not limited to the lenient sentence - the dad's letter, for example, would have attracted attention no matter what sentence was issued. Blythwood (talk) 20:21, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose, that is useless bloat of a page title which unnecessarily narrows its scope. There is more notable about Turner than just sentencing controversy. The incident itself, the statements by his dad and "Emily", etc. Keeping the title as is is the simplest compromise when the issues are multifaceted. Ranze (talk) 01:41, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - I support moving this bio article to an event title but disagree with the suggested title. It must be something that included "sexual assault", because that's what this article is about and various reliable sources name it. Sentencing controversy is only one or two paragraph and constitutes a trivial part of article. Anup [Talk] 08:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. It's the sentencing that makes Turner notable. StAnselm (talk) 18:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support the above proposal per WP:BIO1E. —  AjaxSmack  03:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Refining title, June 10, 2016

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)

Although I agree that title is neutral, I believe the article focuses mainly on the aftermath of the trial. Most of the sources are about events after the verdict reading. I think either having Brock Turner or the current article title is more appropriate. -- LuK3 (Talk) 19:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
California v. Brock Turner is perfectly suited to include information regarding the trial's aftermath as well as the other peripheral information relevant to the case. I am not aware of any information that manifest in the current article; to date, that wouldn't fit in an article titled California v. Brock Turner.--John Cline (talk) 21:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
I just undid Sometimes the sky is blue's bold move to Brock_Turner_sentencing_controversy. The discussion is still open and awaiting an outcome. Anup [Talk] 19:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
I wanted to comment on this even though it looks like consensus has now been reached and a decision to move to California v. Brock Turner has already been made. Tonya Harding, although of course primarily notable because of the assault of Nancy Kerrigan, would still be notable for her achievements in figure skating independent of Kerrigan. Harding is a two time Olympian. By contrast Turner seems significantly less notable as a swimmer than Harding is as a figure skater. It looks unlikely--at least at this point--that Turner will ever be remembered even secondarily for anything other than this case. In the case of Dahmer and Pollard, it seems that their actual crimes were deemed notable. I'm not sure that Turner's actual crime is considered notable--it is sadly all too common on college campuses. What is notable is the huge publicity generated by the case--publicity that seems to have been caused by a combination of the controversial sentence and the strong reactions to the differing statements of the victim and the father. More so than with the other criminal defendants you've mentioned, it is the legal case--rather than the crime or the defendant--that seems notable in California v Turner. Dash77 (talk) 20:16, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Swimmer"

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)

Whether it's "whitewashing" or not, the fact is, this article started as a biography (WP:BLP), and it is still in that category, even if the bulk of the text might end up being moved to an article about the case and the sentencing. The fact that Brock Turner was swimming for Stanford is a biographical detail, even if it's very doubtful that he would have qualified as notable enough for a biography on Wikipedia under WP:ATHLETE. If the article survives as a biography, it will probably mention that he was a competitive swimmer, as well as his conviction, then link to an article about case. However, I also found the early emphasis on athletics a little jarring, and would prefer that such details be in an introductory paragraph to the main text, perhaps saying only "swimmer" in the lead paragraph. But we've had bigger fish to fry so far, and style sometimes falls by the wayside for a while.
By the way: there is no such person as "Wikipedia." You will find shamefully bad editing, and heroic editing. The former tends to get fixed; the latter tends to get supported. There is no Cabal[15] -- You are free to edit this article too. Yakushima (talk)
Stand by for the move and the shift in focus of this article to the rape or the trial. For now, if the topic is BT, you get this stuff in the lead. After a move, the biographical information will be shunted to a "perpetrator" section.--Carwil (talk) 15:52, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
agreed with Carwil. This awkwardly placed biographical info is a good demonstration of why the article ought not be a biography, but an article about the trial and public reaction. Currently the article is masquerading as a biography and the infobox:biography and swimming details are required to maintain this pretence. Wittylama 22:13, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
The athletic details have cultural relevance in the body, not for praising Caesar, but for showing how the rich, privileged (Stanford, for Pete's sake) jocks in America are given de facto license to treat women as chattel concubines. So it has been in America's high schools and professional sports. So also in the universities, and every RS mentions the athletic facts for this reason. None ignore these facts. Notice how the university and swim clubs had exaggerated reactions even before the sentencing -- like alcoholics refusing a drink. Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 21:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Emphasizing swimmer makes sense to do since a lot of the sources covering this case highlight that aspect. Ranze (talk) 02:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

The title of this article should be People v. Turner

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)

The article does not state the long name as being former; but instead: formally.--John Cline (talk) 11:30, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Ah, my mistake! I read the word "formally" as "formerly." Nevertheless, the proper title for this page is People v. Turner. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 13:42, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I believe the page is currently move protected; requiring an admin to move the page. In referencing the California Style Manual as shown, page 4 begins "The General Rules of Citation" and includes paragraphs [A], [B], [C], [D], [E], and [F]. Of the many examples shown, paragraph [D] shows an example cited as California v. Romero. What am I failing to understand about this cited example?--John Cline (talk) 15:27, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
@John Cline: Romero was a case that ultimately reached the Supreme Court of the United States. Because several states use the "People v. ______" style of case titles (New York and Illinois are two others that come to mind), the Supreme Court re-titles cases by replacing "People" with the name of the state that is prosecuting the defendant. However, if a criminal case is still pending in California Courts, it should be styled as "People v. ______" (see also the examples of case titles provided in the advisory committee comment below rule 8.900 of the California Rules of Court). I was not aware of the move protection in place, but I'm sure we can find an admin to help with the page move; if not, we can always request a move at the appropriate forum. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:47, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Notecardforfree. You have convinced me with sound reason that People v. Turner is the better title. I would think it is an uncontroversial move but that is for another to decide. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 16:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks John Cline! I just posted a move request at WP:RM/TR. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:19, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I believe the case is in fact being appealed so won't it be Turner v People when being appealed? Usually the party--plaintiff, appellant, etc--who is seeking to change the status quo is listed first and the party defending against that change--defendant, appellee, respondent, etc--is listed second. In this case Turner stands convicted--however controversial his actual sentence--and is seeking to change that. For example in the case re the 2000 presidential election it was called Bush v Gore because--although Gore initially was the one to challenge the election results and demand a recount--the final appeal was made by Bush against a lower court ruling in Gore's favor. Dash77 (talk) 17:52, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
@Dash77: In California, the order of the party names is not switched on appeal (even if the defendant is the appellant). See, e.g., the list of case names on the list of recently published appellate decisions from California. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I've moved it. (Accidentally moved it at first to People v. Brock Turner so that is now a redirect also.) --MelanieN (talk) 18:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

substitute for bystanders

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)

Actually the term "bystander intervention" seems to be fairly common in education about sexual assault prevention (and bullying prevention) judging by a quick googling. The more confusing bit is that they were more "passers by" not standing around. Another term would be "third parties" but that might be too legalistic sounding. And yet another "strangers". Erp (talk) 03:11, 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)

Bystander just means they were neither of the parties involved. I sense an agenda to try to differentiate this case as much as possible from language commonly used around sexual assault. But that language is obviously appropriate, and not even connotationally a BLP problem post-conviction (connotation isn't part of BLP rules anyway). If you need RS referring to their actions as a textbook case of "bystander intervention," I'm sure I can supply it. --Carwil (talk) 11:39, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
My copy of the new oxford american dictionary calls a bystander "a person who is present at an event or incident but does not take part."The key information about the two persons who intervened is that that they *intervened*. The bystander effect is the one where people do not intervene Japanscot (talk) 13:49, 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)

my guess is someone removed it in the 12 hours prior to your response as the article is very active. Ranze (talk) 01:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Dailymail/Intouch stuff

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)

@Arkon: I had read of local rumors of the problems Turner had with the women's swim team days ago, and of the University administration's warnings to keep quiet. You may not like In Touch Weekly, nor the Daily Mail, nor the New York Post. I personally don't, and wouldn't spend a nickel of my own money on any of them. However those opinions don't disqualify them as reliable sources. Activist (talk) 23:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
They all come back to the InTouch source. Has nothing to do with my liking of any source, but you need better to include it here. As it stands it is incredibly Undue. Arkon (talk) 23:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
This has some of that material. what do you think of this source? Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 23:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree with removing this. In Touch Weekly is a "gossip magazine" according to Wikipedia's article. We do not report gossip here. Especially not when it is unsubstantiated negative comments about a living person. Yes, even if we personally feel negatively toward that person. --MelanieN (talk) 00:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
P.S. Grammar, I don't find anything about these allegations in the Vox article; am I missing something? --MelanieN (talk) 00:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I had intended a different article that I cannot find now. Sorry for wasting your time. If I find again, I will post here.. Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 00:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Here is the one I had remembered:[16] Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 07:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Emily sis alias

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)

No sentence details in infobox

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)

Expensive transcript controversy

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)

Court transcriptions are expensive to produce and to purchase, and they are usually copyrighted. The people complaining probably have not dealt with transcriptions before, but it is not worth mentioning. Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 07:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Court transcriptions are expensive to produce, but the cost of supplying them once produced, is minimal. However, the court stenographer can charge whatever they like, I presume. In federal cases they're available on-line through Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER). However, in a case like this, where the trial transcripts may have run into the many hundreds of pages each day, the per-page cost is considerable. With PACER, the cost is free if it's under $15.00 (100 pages, I think) in any quarter. I attended a long federal trial a couple of years ago and the stenographer supplied them for free to the media who attended. Activist (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Remove the editorializing please

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.

I have edited the opening sentence to try to make it sound a little more neutral. Let me know if you have other suggestions for improvement. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I wrote the adjective in question and let me be clear, I intended to be descriptive rather than editorial. Prosecutors (and their prosecutions) succeed when the convict and fail when they don't. We need this element of the case in the first sentence. The revision seems wordy but acceptable to me.--Carwil (talk) 01:52, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Suspended sentence?

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:

  • The line originally read "Santa Clara County probation officials, including Monica Lassettre, his probation officer, recommended that Turner be given a "moderate" county jail sentence:""
  • User:Pmcc3 changed it to "recommended that Turner be given a moderate suspended sentence with formal probation," with the edit summary "added rec' that sentence be suspended, per court record".
  • I changed it to "a moderate jail sentence with formal probation," with the edit summary "they did not recommend a "suspended" sentence"
  • Pmcc3 re-added "suspended" saying "The probation officer's recommendation that the sentence be suspended is on page 13 (or 98) in the sentencing packet available at http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/06/12/us/document-SentencingPacket.html?_r=0" That is how it currently reads.

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:

  • "The county probation department interviewed the victim and Turner, researched sentences in similar cases and recommended Turner get less than a year in jail."[17]
  • "The probation officer’s report, including a recommendation for a “moderate” county jail term, were submitted to Superior Court Judge Aaron M. Persky."[18]
  • "The probation report, which recommended a county jail term, cited 20-year-old Turner's youth, high level of intoxication (twice the legal blood-alcohol level) and lack of a criminal record."[19]
  • "Her recommendation to the judge was that he receive a "moderate county jail sentence," three years of probation, and be forced to register as a sex offender."[20]

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)

Calling them would be Original Research and we can't do that; we need to rely on what has been published by reliable sources. As for the probation officer's recommendation (a primary source), it is very unclear. Page 13, the page you reference, says "Imposition of sentence to be suspended. Formal probation to be granted for three years. A County Jail sentence to be imposed." But page 12 says "A moderate county jail sentence, formal probation, and sexual offender treatment is respectfully recommended." That appears to be what all the news reports relied on. Furthermore, in the same paragraph on page 12 it also says "This officer suggests the defendant be remanded (i.e., taken into custody) today." That certainly does not suggest that the jail sentence is to be suspended. --MelanieN (talk) 16:47, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that the probation report was very poorly researched and written and was signed off on by the P.O.'s supervisor who also failed to give the report a proper attention and review. A typical felony sentence is for prison, with that sentence suspended and county jail time (no longer than one year in California) imposed. If the probation is violated, the suspension may be lifted and the offender sentenced to state prison which normally includes post-release parole. Activist (talk) 08:36, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
I see. So "imposition of sentence to be suspended" in this document (page 13) means that a state prison sentence should be suspended, while the offender is given county jail and probation. And that explains why one of the sources I cited above says "less than a year" in jail. So "suspended" does not mean that the county jail sentence should be suspended and the offender spend no time in custody at all - which is how most laypeople would understand "suspended sentence". In this case it seems to be a legalistic explanation for why they are recommending against state prison. Thanks for the explanation. I'm going to remove "suspended" from the article, pending further discussion here. --MelanieN (talk) 15:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:People_v._Turner/Archive_1&oldid=1146336701"