Talk:Turpin case

Is it crazy?

Is that January 14, 1988 you're talking about right now? --I Have Always Been a Twin (talk) 20:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Is it crazy for me to ask who was 29 years old on January 14, 2018? --I Have Always Been a Twin (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Journals section

Hello,
A January 14 article from USA today points out a few items that will likely lead to further evidence of the alleged crimes, here is some of the content from the USA Today article:

• Their depraved parents allowed them to do only one thing, prosecutors said. They could write.
  
• Authorities have recovered hundreds of them.
  
• ...have sparked the interest of academics who research trauma and language.
  
• ...journals was, quite possibly, what allowed the children to survive a life of fear, hunger and torture
  
• ...will also have tremendous value for the criminal investigation, even though they may not be admissible as evidence.
  
• ...attempting to interview the children, a delicate process, could start with the journals, asking about entries that imply abuse,
  
• Additionally, if either of the parents were to testify in their own defense, prosecutors could use the journals to cross-examine them.
  

Riverside County law enforcement officials now are combing through those journals. District Attorney Mike Hestrin said he believes they will be very significant to the coming court case and will provide “strong evidence of what occurred in that home.”

— Hundreds of journals found in home with 13 captive children, USA Today article

Any thoughts on creating a separate section regarding the journals?
Vwanweb (talk) 12:53, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I agree this is one of the most remarkable aspects of the case. The journals will lead to books, papers, documentaries etc.. -- GreenC 18:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Education/Work/Unemployment/Financial Information Lacking

I think there needs to be more detailed information on the Education/Work/Unemployment/Financial histories of all members of the Turpins (grandparents to children). I believe there is more to this story and this would tie this case to several other articles dealing with economics and scarcity. Septagram (talk) 02:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Go ahead and find sources on that information. However, trying to pretend there's a tie between economics and scarcity with child abuse is quite a reach. Don't try to politicize this case of remarkable child abuse. Natureium (talk) 15:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Not an excuse for child abuse but an indicator that should have been investigated. There is a connection between economic difficulties and hoarding which some news reports mention was being practiced by the Turpins. I believe there is room to mention their other serious problems. Septagram (talk) 06:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Lives of the children

There are 13 children (some adults) and they will each have varied and extensive lives. It is beyond the scope to keep reporting their college choices, etc.. this article is about the Turpin case which has concluded. The children themselves are probably protected by WP:BLP privacy guidelines and not individually notable. It remains to be seen maybe they will publish books that are made into TV specials, that kind of stuff is re-portable. -- GreenC 20:07, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I would say that the scope doesn't need to be strictly limited to the court case. We could also include some information about the affects of the abuse and the children's recovery. Maybe a short paragraph mentioning that some of them are going to college and learning basic life skills, without turning it into 13 mini-bios.

It's clear that all involved have been careful about what is released to the media. I've seen very little written about the minors, and the public statements from the attorney and two older siblings don't seem to raise BLP concerns. –dlthewave ☎ 21:38, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes they will also graduate college. And get a job. And married. And have children. All will be followed and reported on for years and decades. The attorney statements were made as part of the case the topic of this article. The case is over, their normal lives begin. See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy we favor privacy for individuals like this. They are known for 1 event per WP:BLP1E. There is WP:BLPNAME (names were already posted). If there are not many sources that should tell us something. We do include some information but rolling news updates about their ongoing lives? I'm ok with a short paragraph the problem is it will be expanded upon with no end. -- GreenC 22:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Revisions

Large portions of this article appear to have been revised with unnecessarily snarky edit summaries. I haven't noticed them all, but I don't see why their current prison locations aren't relevant and can't be included the article. PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk) 21:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Why, are you planning to visit them or help them break out? David Turpin was in X prison and then he was in Y prison and now he's in Z prison. So what? What does the reader learn from that? If one of them was transferred because of, say, some kind of interesting misbehavior, that might be worth including, but otherwise this article is about the what these parents did to their children, not unexplained actions taken by the California Department of Corrections. EEng 21:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand the question, "What does the reader learn from that". There's nothing in policy that says we only include things that readers need to learn for the purpose of taking action (are you planning to visit them or help them break out?). It's information that editors believe is relevant to the article, it's been added or re-added by four editors thus far (the original, two more, plus me). That's a good signal any consensus discussion would probably go for inclusion. And we'd get more attention to improve and expand the article which is currently woefully brief, given the amount of sourcing available. I could see it being expanded to featured content. Look forward to working with you on that. -- GreenC 21:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Content deletions

This section is for discussing these deletions and many others that recently occurred to the article. -- GreenC 21:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Bold changes were made to the article, at least 50% of the article content was deleted. Some of the deletions have been contested, and Restored. Now we can Discuss per the WP:BRD cycle. -- GreenC 13:22, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

(Apologoes, the following was composed last night but somehow not posted.)

By presenting the edits I made in two gigantic, conglomerated diffs you obscure the fact that they were a series of careful – and mostly small and surgical – edits accompanied by edit summaries. Instead of reviewing the individual edits and undoing (with explanation) any individual ones you found problematic, you simply mass-reverted to your preferred version, thus throwing away another editor's careful work. That's not OK. And because you did that in a single edit, the resulting diff is completely uninterpretable [1] so it's impossible to know exactly what you did. That's also not OK. And you did all this twice (first with edit summary "restore relevant" and then with edit summary "disagree with these deletions").

What you will need to do is, well, what I just said: review the individual edits and (possibly) undo (with explanation) any individual ones you find problematic. In the meantime, to the extent your mass-reversions added details (though it's impossible to tell because of the meaninglessness of your diffs), keep in mind that the WP:ONUS is on you to justify inclusion of challenged material. Until then I've removed it again.

Specifically regarding the Media influence section – which includes someone's appearance on Dr. Oz, a Law & Order episode, and other such stuff – MOS:CULTURALREFS provides:

The consensus is very clear that a secondary source is required in almost all cases. A tertiary source is even better, if available. In the rare case that a primary source is judged to be sufficient, it should be properly cited. The source(s) cited should not only establish the verifiability of the pop culture reference, but also its significance.

No such sources are cited. I've removed the section again. EEng 14:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Media section

This section is relevant as these are major media appearances and help to demonstrate how widespread the media attention was on this story. -- GreenC 13:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

We can debate whether Dr. Oz counts as a major medial appearance, but anyway see MOS:CULTURALREFS as quoted above. EEng 15:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Re:this edit[2] the defense attorney is being quoted (attributed) and it was reported in a secondary source, it is acceptable even encouraged to provide multiple POVs on Wikipedia for NPOV purposes, and it helps reinforce the extraordinary amount of media attention the case received. -- GreenC 13:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

There's no dispute that there was intense media interest, and the article says that. That a defense attorney agreed (a) adds nothing and (b) is completely unsurprising because they always say that in high-profile cases. EEng 15:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Re: this edit[3] the source does confirm there was intense media coverage, that is what media circus means. -- GreenC 13:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

You've misinterpreted the source, which doesn't say the case was a media circus, merely that the street outside the Turpin home became a media circus after the rescues. The article says There was intense media coverage of the event, which is correct. EEng 15:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

A single sentence "There was intense media coverage of the event" is about as minimalistic as one could achieve, and goes a long way to obfuscate the reality of how intense the media coverage actually was. I added a clarification tag to better understand, what does that mean exactly. The best way to do that is provide salient examples. -- GreenC 00:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Escape and rescue section

This section was so gutted it no longer made sense, reading it raised more questions than it answered - what exactly happened? The events of that night are factually dramatic, stating what happened might even sound dramatic, but that is what happened and we can report what reliable sources say. -- GreenC 13:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

What details do you think are needed? EEng 15:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I readded those details. The police raided the house, based in part on the physical evidence of the pictures shown to them by the escapee. There they found three things: the condition of the house, children and parents. Our article listed the first two but you deleted the third. It has been restored. And re-added who was doing the raiding. -- GreenC 00:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine with all that with one exception: [4]. EEng 02:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Re this edit[5] yes I did review the talk page and see zero comments. See why it was restored immediately above. -- GreenC 13:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, as mentioned in my post at the top of the thread, somehow that post didn't... well... didn't post last night. Long day. EEng 15:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Is David Turpin dead?

I checked the CDCR public Inmate Locator for David Turpin and he is nowhere to be found in the database.

I found Louise, but not David. Did something happen to him?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.220.199.205 (talk • contribs)

Hard to image that would go without public notification. I could believe he might be so notorious for his own protection he is incognito within the system (sort of like witness protection), but that's pure speculation. -- GreenC 23:13, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

David Turpin still not in the California inmate locator

Ditto. I just checked California's inmate locator. Louise Turpin shows up, but he does not. (In my opinion, the public has a right to know; after all, we're paying for his rent, meals, and medical care.) He either died or his record has been hidden for some reason. It would not surprise me if the INMATE table has a HIDDEN (y/n) field. That's possible. --CousinJohn (talk) 17:38, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Rename?

Should this article be called "Turpin child abuse case" instead? --Jennica✿ / ^{[User_talk:Jennica| talk]]} 21:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

It's complicated because while they were the children of the Turpin's, they were not all legally children for the case. And while the case included six counts of child abuse, it also included twelve counts of torture, twelve counts of false imprisonment, seven counts of abuse of a dependent adult. I think just "Turpin case" is fine as it's short and easy per the naming guidelines which prefers shorter over longer titles. -- GreenC 23:09, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Equivamp: I guess you decided to do it anyway without a RFM despite the concerns above raised. I wonder if the seven adults who were imprisoned and tortured would object to being a "child" on Wikipedia? At best you might call it the "Turpin children abuse case". Then is "abuse" even an appropriate term for imprisonment and torture. -- GreenC 16:47, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@GreenC: I actually didn't realize there was an ongoing(ish) discussion on the subject; my move of the article was a WP:BOLD edit. For the sake of the discussion I'll self-revert once I'm no longer on mobile. Anyone is free to revert me sooner. Equivamp - talk 19:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh I see. I don't know why we don't call it Turpin family instead of "case". At this point they have exceed concerns about one event as they have continuing coverage including some members who have gone high profile seeking press attention. -- GreenC 21:11, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

The article is not about the subsequent events, though. It is about the thing which obtained significant coverage - the initial case. And while it's true that some of the Turpin's children were adults and still undergoing abuse when it came to light, they were of course children when it began (and are still the Turpin's children - their adult children). I can see how it might not be the best title because of that, but I think that it needs a more descriptive title. Wikipedia naming conventions suggest that the sources should be consulted to find a common name. A few of the sources do call it the "Turpin case". One refers to the "California torture house". Several refer to the "House of Horrors". I don't think the latter two are very helpful. A few of the sources call it the "Turpin captivity case", which is clearer about what kind of "case" the article is about but without being overly long or potentially confusing to readers. Would this be an acceptable article title? --Equivamp - talk 13:06, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - I have just filed a move request below. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:12, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@Jax 0677: 1) When it was moved without discussion you don't a formal consensus 30 day discussion to move it back, particularly when the move back is non-controversial. 2) There was a proposal that rather than "Turpin case" it be "Turpin family" which would require a consensus discussion. I am going to move it back to Turpin case, and change the discussion to be about the family. -- GreenC 15:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• Reply - Please do not alter a comment that I signed. What I wrote did not make sense in the context of the new RM. An RM is 7 days, not 30. At a minimum, you should close my RM, then start a new one. Even so, it says not to move the page during an RM. This became a problem for Waukesha parade attack Move Request. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:27, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

You can change what you wrote, no one has voted yet. There is no controversy to rename back to the original Turpin case, an RM is not needed. Except for the family proposal. I can't close your RM you would need to do that. -- GreenC 16:39, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• Reply - uPeople can make suggestions about which title they would like to see instead of Turpin case. You can make your title suggestion below, and we'll see how things play out. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Exactly if someone wants to rename it from Turpin case to something else they should discuss and/or start a RM. This article has always been called Turpin case and the recent rename to Turpin child abuse case was done without consensus, without an RM and was controversial. I am renaming it back to what it always was, Turpin case, any changes from Turpin case need to go through a RM process. -- GreenC 17:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• Reply - Thank you. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:03, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 17 December 2021

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Invalid. An uncontroversial RM started only for bureaucratic reasons. GreenC 16:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

---

Turpin child abuse case → Turpin case – There is only one case involving Turpin, the latest move was done without a proper discussion, and further move discussions should be properly announced. Jax 0677 (talk) 12:07, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possibility of parole

There are two sources: one says after 22 years 4 months, the other says 25 years. I think the People article is suspect. This article goes into more specifics and explains why it's 25 years. -- GreenC 21:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Where are the rest of children?

They got abused again by foster family, what happened to that Foster family? Where are those 3 children? Are children in safety now? 176.42.133.187 (talk) 22:04, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I hope the case against the Olguin family -- the family alleged to have abused the Turpin children who were placed in their home via the foster care system -- is updated as it makes its way through the courts.

https://www.pressenterprise.com/2022/07/20/turpin-children-suffered-beatings-sexual-abuse-in-foster-home-lawsuit-alleges/

One unanswered question is, "Who were the Olguin family and how were they approved as a foster family?" Another question is, "What is the status of the case against the Olguin family now?" Catherineyronwode (talk) 01:21, 7 December 2023 (UTC)