Talk:People v. Turner/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Location of assault relative to the dumpster(s)

Under the heading "Incident details" it states "According to Arndt and Jonsson, they surprised Turner behind a dumpster as he was on top of an unconscious woman." (emphasis added) The source provided for this statement is the Stanford Daily News article about Turner's conviction which in fact never mentions a dumpster. "Dumpster" is mentioned a further 3 times in the wiki, but nowhere does it establish where the assault took place, relative to a dumpster. Searching around on-line did not provide any clarity about the location of the assault, but a number of photographs have surfaced of the dumpster in question, as well as the "memorial park" which replaced it. It was actually what is commonly referred to as a "dumpster corral" -- an area somewhat larger than a dumpster (in this case, two dumpsters), with a curb surrounding it on three sides, to prevent the dumpsters from rolling away. There was also a bare wooden fence about six feet tall enclosing the dumpsters on the three closed sides, as can be seen in all of the contemporary photos. This dumpster corral was located across an asphalted driveway from the back of KA House, with the open, east side of the corral facing the driveway and parking lot, and the (paved) south side contiguous with the driveway. The west side was bordered by a steep dirt slope about fifteen feet wide, sloping down to a basketball court. To the north side of the corral was a flat area of bare dirt which had shrubbery as tall as the corral. The assault is consistently described as having taken place on grass; in some places, it is described as a "grassy hill". So there seems to be some confusion as to exactly where the assault took place. The only grassy area near KA House was to the west of it, well to the south of the dumpster corral. The use of the word "behind" is also problematic, since it requires context. After all, referring to an eclipse where the moon obscures our view of the sun, it is commonly said that "the sun went behind the moon" -- a notion that is entirely dependent upon our perspective from earth. If something is described from one position as having happened "behind a dumpster", it will necessarily not be happening "behind" it from all other perspectives. So whose perspective is being used to locate the assault? -that of the two Swedish cyclists who happened upon Turner and Miller? Presuming they were riding on the driveway that goes between KA House and the dumpster corral, it is unclear how they could have seen Turner and Miller, if Turner and Miller were "behind a dumpster". If they were riding north, view of any grassy area near the dumpsters would seem to have been blocked by the tall fence around the dumpster corral, as well as the shrubbery. If the two cyclists were riding south, they could have seen the nearest grassy area to the driveway, but it would not be "behind a dumpster". To be clear: I am in no way suggesting that Turner did not sexually assault Miller; that has already been established in court. Nor am I suggesting that the two Swedish cyclists did not discover them. My question relates entirely to the use in this article of the phrase "...behind a dumpster...", which does not seem to be supported by any primary sources that I can find, nor by photographs of the site taken before or after the assault. I am neither attempting, nor asking for, original research. I am looking for sources to back-up the assertion that the assault took place "behind a dumpster". The article does not provide any reliable sources to that being factual, only asserted. Google Earth view of the back of Kappa Alpha House showing area where assault took place Photo of "memorial park" showing grassy picnic area well beyond former dumpster corralPhoto of location of former dumpster corral, looking south towards Kappa Alpha House Photo of dumpster corral taken from direction of Kappa Alpha House, with basketball court visible beyond, to the left Bricology (talk) 00:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

"Stanford University student athlete" nixed

I have removed this part from the lead. I believe it was UNDUE, as Turner is not notable for any of his extracurriculars, including swimming. He is notable for committing felony sexual assault. Miller is not introduced by her university of affiliation or her extracurriculars, additionally. I therefore do not believe Turner's former status as a student athlete is appropriate for the lead, especially since so much media coverage of the case was criticized for focusing on his swimming accomplishments over his criminal actions. Let's leave it in the body. Or if it has to go in the lead, let's consider putting it after Turner's criminal convictions. Enwebb (talk) 14:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that addition could be classed as vandalism, not just undue. I've reverted back a stage further to what is a better description. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Chaheel Riens, right, so I'm saying we should not have the description "Stanford University student athlete" in the lead, especially not before why Turner is actually notable, which is for felony sexual assault. I believe that is undue. Miller is not introduced by university affiliation or extracurriculars. The media has been criticized for putting his status as a swimmer before his criminal actions, see here and here. Enwebb (talk) 14:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

e/c x 2 Additional - I quickly zapped the above to initially justify my dodgy reversions earlier. I think it is relevant to mention that he was a student athlete as - despite criticism - much comment was made of his potential athletic career and how it was over, due to his "20 minutes minutes of action". The article makes it clear that he was enrolled at Stanford on a swimming scholarship - I don't see it as being undue at all. Attending school under a sports scholarship does seem to suggest that you're an athletic student. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Chaheel Riens, I'm not saying it has to be scrubbed from the article, or that it's irrelevant. I'm saying it is not why he is notable, and it should not be put before that. Putting his extracurriculars before his criminal actions is undue. Enwebb (talk) 15:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I disagree - particularly because the campaign to recall the judge in this case was accused of favoritism towards Turner BECAUSE he was a student athlete at Stanford - that accusation was made again and again - AND, I would point out - the mass media reports about this case emphasized Turner was an athlete - and at Stanford, a super elite school. The fact the media emphasized it should not be ignored. Doesn't the article say how many times people looked at the Victim Impact Statement on Buzzfeed? Refusing to put it in seems to be a political decision more based on Chanel Miller's objections to him being identified as a student athlete, - explicitly made in her Victim Impact Statement, - rather than an objective evaluation of "weight" The "weight" has effectively already been assigned by the mass media coverage - and the Recall Persky campaign - and finally, I would argue, by Miller herself. When she complained it had been given undue weight in the media, SHE said it was an important issue. At the least, the article should explicitly says "Miller complained Turner's status as a world class swimmer was emphasized over her sexual assault" (Citation, her own Victim Impact Statement)

I just can't see not including something the mass media, Recall Persky, and Chanel Miller ALL said was important information, on the basis of including it would be "undue weight" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1cd0:1710:7492:efa4:e2e6:f1ca (talk • contribs) 16:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Um... while I agree with you, you replied to a conversation that is over a year old. The term "student athlete" is in the lead section. We can move on. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2021 (UTC)