Talk:People v. Turner: Difference between revisions

move page to an article about the crime and trial

Pretty much that, I agree that the page doesn't read like a biography. May I suggest redirecting the page to a page titled something like "Sexual Assault on Emily Doe by Brock Turner" which itself would have a small biographical section?

Rue-chan (talk) 23:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. This page is not currently, and should not be, a biography. it's an article about a crime, court-case, and subsequent public reaction. Wittylama 22:02, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I also agree. This article is about an incident and it not a biography. Casting it as a biography causes the article to be public condemnation of the Brock rather than an encyclopedia article. Though public condemnation is warranted, an encyclopedia/Wikipedia article is not an appropriate forum for it, and it makes wikipedia into a participant rather a presenter of encyclopedic information

36.229.254.208 (talk)

Each day this article has improved by becoming increasingly more informative, accurate, and neutral. Given the high level of emotion surrounding the incident, it is impressive to see the Wikipedia process functioning. Though the article still needs some work.

The title still purports to be a biography, when the material and thesis is about an incident. Indications that this is about an incident include the existence of the section on the repercussion to the judge, which do belong to a description of the incident, but are not germane to a biography on Brock. There may be additional information about the incident that has not made it into the article because it is cast to be on a different subject.

As another indication, the general reader is coming here to be informed about the incident. It is unlikely that Brock has applied for a prestigious position, or that a school child is writing about his swimming achievements and is looking for source material.

As a third reason this can not be a biography is that general source material such as that appropriate for basing an encyclopedia article is lacking. Perhaps in the future someone will write a book about Brock, and such source material will come into view. That day is not today.

As yet another example of how this is about an incident rather than being a biography, the biographical information does not flow and appears off topic in the sections where it occurs. This happens in the background section where most readers will expect to see background information about the incident, such as that Brock and Doe were students who attended a fraternity party (and a frat is what?) (and these parties are common? rare?) and that there was drinking. An on topic background section would facilitate a useful tie into other controversies stemming from this same context. Yet this background is missing. Instead we have something about swimming. Something that compared to sexual assault doesn't matter. Though the alcohol numbers (which only imply the drinking party) do appear, they are buried after the article wonders off subject to talk about the judge.

Because this it is forced into the mold of a biography, when it does not fit for the reasons just enumerated, it comes across as an attempt to create a wrap sheet with the purpose to stigmatize a person, rather than serving as an encyclopedia article that informs readers about this incident. The wrap sheet, and plenty of stigmatizing information exist in other forums, so there is no benefit to the encyclopedia to force this article into that form.

36.229.254.208 (talk) 18:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Strongly disagree: One of the three conditions for WP:BLP1E to be met is "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented...The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources."

It is pretty clear to everyone that the incident in question is highly significant considering relentless public interest and persistence of coverage. It was certainly significant enough for the Vice President of the country to weigh in. The significance of the incident stems from the fact that it has single-handedly converged public opinion and debate on a number of public pain points 1) Campus rapes/ rape culture 2) Public attitude towards sexual assault 3) The influence of alcohol among college students 4) The influence of alcohol in acts of sexual assault 5) Judicial prudence 6) The volume of punishment for individuals convicted of sexual assaults 7) Judicial performance 8) Impact of sexual assault on victims 9) The influence of race and background in convictions 10) The role of the Jury 11) The recall of Judges 12) Crimes and social-media activism, etc.

Brock Turner was the creator of this incident. If the incident is undoubtedly significant, due credit must be given to its creator for the purpose of facts and information. It is also very very important to understand that the "sentencing" which brought even more worldwide attention to the case, was partly justified by the Judge Aaron Persky, based on his evaluation of who 'Brock Turner' was as an 'individual'. A reader and researcher about this incident may need to study and understand the motivations and background of the person behind the incident to understand both his and the Judges decisions, and thus the incident. As the above paragraph highlights, the incident has had an influence on a number of facets of public life and it is essential to understand how a person like Brock Turner fits into the crime. A biography about Brock Turner, an adult convicted of a sexual assault in a highly influential case is by no means futile and in fact important.

The role of Brock Turner in the incident is also clearly substantial and very well documented.

I think the title of the page should either be left unchanged from "Brock Turner" or a new biographical page should be created on "Brock Turner". SB1304 (talk) 05:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

>This case is more notable than either parties involved. A biographical page solely for Brock Turner is unjustified and, albeit there are documented details, there is not enough about Turner to constitute a decent article. While Wikipedia should remain neutral, it isn't necessary for us to promote these entities. I object to "due credit must be given to [the] creator [a notable event]" in this situation. Brock may have a swimming career and this case to fill that page, it would be no better than the news article that promoted him and caused distress to the victim. Her letter says, "...And then, at the bottom of the article, after I learned about the graphic details of my own sexual assault, the article listed his swimming times. She was found breathing, unresponsive with her underwear six inches away from her bare stomach curled in fetal position. By the way, he’s really good at swimming. Throw in my mile time if that’s what we’re doing. I’m good at cooking, put that in there, I think the end is where you list your extracurriculars to cancel out all the sickening things that’ve happened...". Wikipedia requires no further articles related to this case at the present moment, only refinement in the current one. 163.47.13.242 (talk) 04:16, 21 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 controversyBrock 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)

• Support as nominator. McPhail (talk) 07:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support as editor and deletion-discussion participant. Although the topic was somewhat notable as a criminal case, it has obviously become much more notable in the wake of the sentence. Yakushima (talk) 07:29, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think it's poor style to use the word "controversy". I believe it is overused on Wikipedia. I prefer Sentencing of Brock Turner for sexual assault. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
• Stop moving this page until move discussion is closed. There's an active discussion on possible alternative names at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brock Turner. We need to centralize the discussion and come to consensus before choosing a name. User:Biosthmors and User:Somedifferentstuff are both jumping process by moving the page. Wait until the discussion is closed..--Carwil (talk) 13:12, 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)

• Oppose — Extensive coverage of the crime from distant sources (see this Google News search for coverage prior to May 1, 2016) indicates that the sexual assault met WP:GNG long before the sentencing, although WP:BLP issuses attached until we had a conviction. There was regional, national, and international coverage of Turner's arrest, plea, conviction, as well as the crime, campus climate, intervening bystanders, etc. It's notoriety increased at sentencing, but the crime is notable.
  I suggest Sexual assault by Brock Turner or Brock Turner sexual assault (on the model of Ariel Castro kidnappings), or January 2015 Stanford rape.--Carwil (talk) 14:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I like the name Sexual assault by Brock Turner, and I would support that title. Brock Turner sexual assault not so much. It seems unclear without a preposition. I suppose one could also go the long route with Sexual assault by Brock Turner and its sentencing, etc. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 14:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Withdrawing Brock Turner sexual assault--Carwil (talk) 14:49, 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.
  • California v. Brock Allen Turner names the legal case, not the assault, thereby excluding the crime, bystander intervention, and the survivor's treatment by medical officials and the media. Likewise, Prosecution of Brock Turner.
  • Sentencing of Brock Turner for sexual assault excludes the initial crime, Turner's arrest and plea, campus climate, intervening bystanders and the survivors commentary on other issues. Likewise, Brock Turner sentencing controversy
  • Separately, "Emily Doe" is a pseudonym (some court documents [1] use "Jane Doe"), not even a name used by the victim, and lacks the specificity of "by Brock Turner."
  • Only Sexual assault by Brock Turner or January 2015 Stanford sexual assault seem to cover all these issues.

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)
  • Note: sixteen !votes at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brock_Turner called for renaming the article around the case rather than this individual.--Carwil (talk) 16:19, 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 TurnerSexual 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)

• Move to "California v. Brock Turner" - I support the more neutral title of "California v. Brock Turner". --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:20, 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)

• Move to California v. Brock Turner. It is the best title to build the article upon until such time when a WP:COMMONNAME may emerge in reliable sources. You can rest assured that no reliable source will package their information in a writing that resembles a biography of Brock Turner.--John Cline (talk) 21:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
• Move to California v. Brock Turner.LM2000 (talk) 22:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: I do not oppose California v. Brock Turner, should any administrator want to close this move discussion early.--Carwil (talk) 01:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Move to California v. Brock Turner. Not ideal but better than the current situation; time may eventually give us a better choice. Erp (talk) 03:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Move to California v. Brock Turner. I could also stomach Sexual assault by Brock Turner, which is a better title than the current one. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC).
• Keep title as is. Like many biographies, the topic describes a person who is notable for a single reason. Mark Twain, for example, is not The writing of Mark Twain. Bill Clinton is not The Presidency of Bill Clinton. The same is true of Jeffery Dahmer, Jonathan Jay Pollard, and Tonya Harding. We should observe the same convention in this article. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 23:38, 13 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)

• Support. Not ideal, but better. The article fails WP:BIO1E, meaning that a full biography is not justified, and so it should not be titled to look like a biography. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support "California v. Brock Turner" or "Brock Turner sentencing controversy" or any reasonable title other than Brock Turner. I'm surprised it's still there as it still fails WP:BIO1E and needs to be moved without further delay. Jonathunder (talk) 03:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Echoing others who are in support of a move to California v. Brock Turner. Chase (talk | contributions) 20:30, 14 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[2] -- 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)

Update conviction with CA Penal Codes and links to details

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)

Does not seem neutral or balanced

Surely at some point during the trial, Brock himself must have given some kind of statement, his version of events, why am I unable to find this here? Instead we are only told the plaintiff's, the prosecutor's and family/friend.

Speaking as if he is guilty also doesn't seem very neutral, unless we can confirm Brock admitted to it. People are sometimes convicted of crimes they didn't do, so should Wikipedia always take the stance that a conviction is sound until it is overturned? Should Wikipedia always side with authority?

the person on trial is under no compulsion to present their side of the story, at least in the first person. their attorney may argue a position, but if the defendant chooses to speak, he is subject to cross examination. plenty of criminal defendants never take the stand.50.193.19.66 (talk) 20:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

This article is improved from just yesterday, but it has some ways to go to be neutral. Note for example the comments on moving the article to one about the incident, rather than as a false biography. Also:

The prosecution is quoted, but the defense is not. The circumstances described are shallow - the nature of the party is not described. The reader is given no clue as to how they ended up out back, which would be key to consent as it occured before Ms. passed out, so we want to know, and the mention of the dumpster (correctly attenuated from yesterday's verison) is misleading as all buildings on that street have such receptacles, and it appears to only be there for emotionally colouring the description. Any number of features of outside a building could have been used. The LA Times has done a good job at providing context, such as that which is needed here, particularly for international readers, (as this is really really hard to follow), see http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-daum-rape-stanford-turner-20160609-snap-story.html

36.229.254.208 (talk) 15:03, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The trial is over, and these were determined to be the facts. We are not retrying the case here. Epson Salts (talk) 23:05, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Jury decisions are not scientific declaration fo facts. IP 36.229 brings up valid points, just because the prosecution won doesn't mean only their statements are notable. Ranze (talk) 02:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Jury decisions are determinations of fact, as far as the legal system is concerned, and thus, as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Giving equal weight to the determination of fact by a neutral jry and the statements of the interested convicted felon is not something we should be doing Epson Salts (talk) 13:43, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Like for example, Arndt and Jonnson saying the woman was unconscious, does that make her being unconscious an indisputable fact? Does Brock give the same or a different account? Ranze (talk) 01:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

He was convicted, thus he is guilty. I am undoing the reprehensible apologetics you've just introduced. Epson Salts (talk) 03:47, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

These comments go a long way to explaining the absurd POV on this article. The comment above calling the defendent's version of events "rephrehensible apologetics" does not seem to represent a neutral or balanced viewpoint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.161.240.33 (talk) 20:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

@Epson Salts: you may be interested in reading list of exonerated death row inmates. Conviction is a declaration of someone's guilt by the state, we are not obligated to take a "the state is always right" stance here at Wikipedia. Ranze (talk) 06:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Many, many convicted people maintain their innocence, a few of them rightly. However, our weighting of these statements should not be based on primary sources and must not be WP:UNDUE. Mainstream RS are having no difficulty calling this a sexual assault, and it would be UNDUE to weight Turner's self-interested denials in primary sources over that consensus.

As I've done in the lead, we can strive to attribute judgments to those who have made them. However, Wikipedia is not the venue to re-litigate this case based on primary testimony and evidence. That's original research which is not allowed here.--Carwil (talk) 12:35, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

What weighting are you talking about here? Reliable secondary sources establish that Brock gave a different account of events to his parole officer after the conviction and that he made a statement to the judge. This establishes the notability of these primary sources if their transcripts can be located. I am not weighting Brock's testimony as more reliable than anyone else, just saying that we should take a step back and report on the actual known facts and not generalizations people feel comfortable making after a conviction. Ranze (talk) 02:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

"He was convicted, thus he is guilty ..." yes but that is irrelevant to the question of whether an expert determined that she was in fact unconscious. If you have a source that such a finding was made, add it, otherwise note it wasn't established. Furthermore, with such a citation you would still have not established that she was unconscious, but rather established that an expert found her unconscious, which is not the same thing. To add original synthesis by putting this in the article without citation or in over stating it, is not just morally wrong, but it opens the foundation up for liability [especially as the subject has been discussed on this talk page - hard to call it an accident].

36.229.254.208 (talk) 15:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Good point, we have the 2 grad students saying she looked unconscious (not sure if they did anything other than observe to assess this) and then the cops who arrived later said she was unconscious. I think one of them was trying some form of resuscitation according to the complaint. The problem being: being unconscious minutes later when the cops arrived doesn't mean she was unconscious when Brock was with her. Ranze (talk) 02:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

He was convicted of "sexually penetrating an unconscious person with a foreign object." The jury has spoken.--Carwil (talk) 16:09, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The jury having spoken is a known fact, do you have anything of value to add? Juries are sometimes wrong, so while we can reliably state their decision, we should not treat juries as reliable scientific experts. Ranze (talk) 02:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Juries are sometimes wrong, and if it turns out they were wrong here - like a reversal on appeal, we will note that. Until then, the finding of fact of the trial are that he was convicted of "sexually penetrating an unconscious person with a foreign object."Epson Salts (talk) 13:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

an expert is not needed to determine if she was unconscious, we have a jury to determine that. they did. end of story. i do not believe there is any credible third party source arguing this was a miscarriage of justice in the other direction. currently, any and all voices arguing for his not being "very" guilty, or deserving of a short sentence, or not being guilty at all, are being described by mainstream media and most sources as in line with the rape culture and patriarchy strongly pointed to here. for us to give weight to the rape culture and partriarchy, when it has no legitimate voice in the real world, would be POV.(mercurywoodrose)50.193.19.66 (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Juries determining something is not end of story, they aren't experts. We do not have to rely on sources to dispute the finding, we should simply avoid giving it excess consideration in the evaluation of events. A lot of POV-pushers are quick to label skeptics as rape-culture patriarchs, those personal attacks are of no importance here. Ranze (talk) 02:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

You actually do need to rely on sources if you want to dispute the findings, and there's nothing to be "skeptical" about - there was a trail and the facts were determined by it. Epson Salts (talk) 13:46, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

The way the article is currently written it makes it appear that Judge Persky decided not to follow the sentence recommendation of the prosecutors and, on his own, opted for a lighter sentence. According to the link below he was following the sentence recommendation of "probation officials." I believe it would be more accurate to include this information. I would suggest one additional sentence at the end of this paragraph:

On June 2, 2016, Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Aaron Persky sentenced Turner to six months in county jail[21] followed by three years of formal probation.[22] With good behavior, Turner may have to serve only three months of his sentence.[23]" Judge Persky followed the sentence recomendation of probation officials who based their decision on Mr. Turner having no prior criminal record and "their belief that he is genuinely remorseful.[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg Missile Man Watson (talk • contribs) 01:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

6 months is still a lighter sentence than what Kimberly M. Jackson received for a much more intimate encounter with an unconscious person in public, I don't see how protests that this is a slap on the wrist are credible when such sources are happy ignoring even lighter slaps. Ranze (talk) 02:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, he has admitted guilt[[4]] and expressed remorse, so claiming innocence doesn't work here, even if you don't buy the conviction. Also, now that we know more about the case from court documents, there's no ways to claim that the victim was conscious.[[5]] I don't know if the Reddit thread about him texting pictures of Jane Doe's breasts will be borne out, but very I'm truly perplexed by attempts to defend Turner. He lied about his past behavior, he was groping women at the party prior to the assault, and he was arrested by campus police in 2014. His defense was that "At no time did I see that she was not responding."[[6]] However, she was unconscious when found by the grad students and when the police arrived. This discussion is actually the whole point of the article, imho. Defendants of Turner need to understand that he assaulted an unconscious woman, texted a pic of her breasts to his buddies, and perpetrated previous unwanted advances towards towards women. Yet he received an incredibly light sentence bc of his class, supposed wholesome background, and skin color. As we dig through the 420 pages of court documents, I'm sure more statements from the defense will emerge, but they aren't going to exonerate Turner, and I'm baffled why anyone would claim that he needs defending. What does it take to convince you that this was not consensual? I'm actually afraid that the answer is nothing will convince you. I hope I'm wrong. --tassieg (talk) 09:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't see it as unreasonable to include some detail on Turner's original story, in the interests of encyclopaedic completeness, so long as a reliable source can be found to support that. However, the fact that he later admitted guilt should also be emphasised here to underline that there is no serious doubt that he committed the acts. Perspectives that Turner is somehow the victim or that the act was consensual here are extreme fringe views, and should be treated accordingly. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC).

Turner had more than one story, which changed more than once as the case went on. Eight male and four female jurors believed that he was lying, The Swedes gave a very different story. There was no testimony from his friends who were at the party that his advances found his victim receptive, but other attendees said he was rebuffed by other women, as did a woman who complained about his over-the-top aggressiveness eight days earlier at a Kappa Alpha party. Her internal and external bruises, and the victim's blood on his hands disprove his story. The narrative here should not be reduced to "he said, she said." The language I modified fairly represented what happened...that no one on the jury believed his trial testimony or his pre-trial statements. Activist (talk) 03:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Personal best swim times for various events and medalling achievements / representative honours

What are they? need to be highlighted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.159.163.60 (talk • contribs)

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.)[7]

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)

Sentence recommendation

The article makes no mention of the sentence recommendation made by probation officials. It was this recommendation that Judge Persky followed and not the recommendation made by the prosecution which, by contrast is discussed at length and even quoted.. As it is currently written, the article leaves the impression that the judge decided on his own to hand down a lighter sentence. I find this to be quite misleading. Here is a link to a source containing this information: http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_29962311/former-stanford-athlete-brock-turner-years-prison-or — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg Missile Man Watson (talk • contribs) 02:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

This appears to have been adressed now both in the intro and sentencing sections, both based on the Nick Anderson article on Washington Post. If you'd like your Mercury News source could possibly support it if you think that's not enough. Ranze (talk) 02:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Consider revising Ranze. There were three sentencing guides written. Prosecution. Defense. Probation officers. The Courts having now released 470 pages of documents, these 3 documents should be referenced with the key requests of each of the three groups. Then follow with the judges decision. Consider that the prosecutorial overreach may have harmed their standing with the judge - such as waiting until trial to drop the two rape charges that they had no evidence for. JohnDoe1122 (talk) 04:54, 21 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)

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)

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)

Criminal charges and convictions in infobox

Why does this criminal have charges *and* convictions listed in the infobox.

1. Firstly, is listing all charges that were made, including those that were subsequently dropped not misleading?The text of the article makes clear what charges were initially brought and what ones were dropped (for whatever reason).The 5 charges followed by 3 convictions in the infobox can lead someone wrongly to think that he was charged with but *acquitted of* the crimes listed as charges but not listed as convictions. (These being: Rape by an intoxicating, anesthetic or controlled substance, section 261(a)(3)[3]Rape of a victim unconscious of the nature of the act, section 261(a)(4)).
2. Secondly, US criminals responsible for many deaths, Timothy McVeigh for example, do not have lists of what their charges were in their infobox, only what their convictions were. Convicted of 8 murders, but responsible for more than 20 times as many deaths, but for good reasons the reader needs to at least read past the convictions part of the infobox to see what criminal acts were committed.

What is relevant about Turner is his criminal convictions and most important to his wikipedia notability, public reaction to length of sentence received. This is the key information about Turner, not crimes that he was not convicted of or tried for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Japanscot (talk • contribs) 14:21, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Epson Salts (talk) 14:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Wikipedia is being used as a SJW revenge medium. AFAIK, no other notorious criminal pages are set up like that. The lede reads like it was written by the victim's family, also. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done Removed the criminal charges from the infobox because it could mislead readers who don't read the page fully. Sy9045 (talk) 08:32, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Why don't we just list (dropped) next to the rape charges? It is important that people know that police accused him of rape based on witness testimony and then dropped those charges because evidence contradicted the witness testimony. Ranze (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Ranze - The initial police reports did not accuse him of rape. The prosecutors added that charge. The 2 claims were dropped the first day of trial because there was no evidence to support them. There was no witness testimony to support the rape claim. The testimony of both bicyclists was that they did not see his pants down or his privates exposed. That is why the initial police report was 'assault with intent to rape'. The defense attorney accused the prosection of misconduct on this issue in their sentencing guide. I agree that the charges should be listed, but there should also be a paragraph regarding why and by whoom they were dismissed. JohnDoe1122 (talk) 04:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

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)

Link to De Anza investigation article

In the section marked "Revisit of previous rape case", please add a link to the 2007 De Anza rape investigation article. --211.30.17.74 (talk) 01:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  02:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, @Becky Sayles:, but I'm not sure why consensus is needed to make a wikilink to the main article about the case - I thought consensus was only needed for controversial edits. The judge's article has a similar wikilink in a section that talks about his involvement with the case. --211.30.17.74 (talk) 02:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@211.30.17.74: The basis for the entire section seems to be questionable. "Details of a prior civil case heard by Judge Persky involving similar circumstances, were revisited after the sentencing." doesn't explain who revisited the prior case, or why it is relevant to this article. Adding a link would only add to a section that may not belong in the article. I'm also asking for consensus to be established about this requested edit because it may give undue weight.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  02:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@Becky Sayles:, Pings don't work for me, because I'm an IP editor, but I appreciate the thought. I agree with you that the entire section seems too big - a section more like the one in the judge's article seems more appropriate, but that requires consensus building, which I'm not sure how to do in an article like this one. Adding a wikilink allows readers to find out more at the article devoted to the 2007 case. It is not an edit which substantially adds to the article or creates any more undue weight than already exists - the point of adding the link is to show readers where they should be able to find more in-depth information. How would you suggest consensus be established for the addition of the wikilink? --211.30.17.74 (talk) 02:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Let it be known that the entire subsection was copied from the 2007 De Anza rape investigation article, with only some rewrites to improve the writing style of the mother article. The mother article is also up for deletion. Parsley Man (talk) 03:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@Parsley Man:, could you please edit the article to include a wikilink to the article about the De Anza investigation? --211.30.17.74 (talk) 03:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

You heard Becky Sayles. There needs to be a consensus established first before that's carried out. Parsley Man (talk) 03:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

And again, I don't know why adding a wikilink is so controversial that it requires a prior consensus. What are your thoughts on adding a wikilink in the main text to the article on the 2007 case? At least, while that article still exists as an article. --211.30.17.74 (talk) 03:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll hold an opinion off until an outcome is reached for the main article's deletion discussion. Parsley Man (talk) 03:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, @Parsley Man:. Parsley Man and @Becky Sayles:, how could I contact more people in an appropriate manner to try to establish a consensus? --211.30.17.74 (talk) 03:58, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

My personal experience says you can 1) just wait for people to see this (and chances are some might) or 2) create a new section on this talk page asking for a consensus. Parsley Man (talk) 04:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

It was the sentencing by Persky that has provoked international controversy. The inclusion of the judge's divisive actions regarding a similar high profile sexual assault civil case, five years earlier, enables the Wikipedia reader to get a far better understanding of context of what has been construed as the unfairness of the subsequent Turner sentence without having to consult the related article, which has nominated for deletion. I'll provide citations reflecting the parallels that establish that more thoroughly. Activist (talk) 21:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize there was discussion on the topic before making this edit. Seems clear to me that since an article on the 2007 De Anza rape investigation already exists we should link to it and have only a limited description in this article, focused on Persky's involvement. What needs to be done to get to consensus? Fnordware (talk) 00:14, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

You have done it: You made the suggestion, and it is perfectly in keeping with normal practice. I second the consensus. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 01:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• There is no reason to keep this edit-request open for ever. Reactivate the request, if required, when there is a consensus. This discussion is going nowhere, unless someone proposes some texts (backed by reliable sources and/or guidelines) and ask for support/oppose.

Consensus flowchart
Consensus-flowchart

Anup [Talk] 11:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

"Revisit of previous rape case" section

• Here is how I think the Revisit of Previous Rape Case section should read, taking material from this page and Aaron Persky:

Revisit of previous rape case

Main article: 2007 De Anza rape investigation

In 2011, Persky presided over a civil lawsuit against multiple members of the De Anza college baseball team, who were accused by the underage plaintiff of gang-raping her while she was unconscious until passersby intervened. During the trial, Persky decided that the jury should be allowed to view seven photos of the plaintiff taken at a party she attended approximately a year after the alleged gang rape, as per the defense's claim that this evidence contradicted the plaintiff's claims. An ABC News 20/20 episode aired on June 5, 2009, on the case. The jury found the defendants not liable.

Following Brock Turner's sentencing in 2016, the plaintiff's attorney in the De Anza case criticized Persky for allowing the photos into evidence and preventing other victims from testifying. Attorneys for "Jane Doe" said the photographs were not the only evidence that Persky unfairly permitted. Four of the baseball players had invoked Fifth Amendment rights not to self-incriminate during the discovery phase of the litigation. According to a lawyer for Doe, that was a critical juncture: it prevented the victim's team from obtaining evidence that could have helped them pursue their case. The original judge in the case ruled in 2010 that the defendants could refuse to testify, but that would also mean that they would be prohibited from subsequently testifying in the case. That ruling was, however, overturned by Persky after he took over the trial in 2011, a move that Doe's attorneys say undermined her case.

References

[Sorry, I don't know if there's a better way to format this for the Talk page. Fnordware (talk) 17:41, 16 June 2016 (UTC)]

@Fnordware: May be you should create a sub-section or a new section to discuss this change. The original section heading says about adding a link only what has already been done.

And I see no reason for an edit-request since you are autoconfirmed and able to edit the article yourself. I do not have any opinion on this matter, but there should others who could add their input here. If no one is coming to discuss your suggested changes, wait for a reasonable period of time (they live in diff. time-zones. wait at least 72hrs) before making the edit yourself (remember to link this discussion in edit-summary). Anup [Talk] 20:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I've put a section header above to separate the discussions, as there is a consensus for linking the De Anza investigation's page. As the 20/20 episode aired before the case went before Persky, "In 2011, Persky presided over a civil lawsuit against multiple members of the De Anza college baseball team, who were accused by the underage plaintiff of gang-raping her while she was unconscious until passersby intervened. During the trial, Persky decided that the jury should be allowed to view seven photos of the plaintiff taken at a party she attended approximately a year after the alleged gang rape, as per the defense's claim that this evidence contradicted the plaintiff's claims." needs to be cited to another source. Much of the rest of the summary doesn't seem to have the correct source next to the information presented. I suggest the following:

Revisit of previous rape case

Main article: 2007 De Anza rape investigation

In 2011, Persky presided over a civil lawsuit against multiple members of the De Anza college baseball team, who were accused by the underage plaintiff, "Jane Doe", of gang-raping her while she was unconscious until passersby intervened. During the trial, Persky decided that the jury should be allowed to view photographs of the plaintiff taken at a party she attended approximately a year after the alleged gang rape, as per the defense's claim that this evidence contradicted the plaintiff's claims of suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. The jury found the defendants not liable.

Following Brock Turner's sentencing in 2016, the plaintiff's attorneys in the De Anza case criticized Persky for allowing the photos into evidence. Attorneys for Doe said the photographs were not the only evidence that Persky unfairly permitted. Four of the baseball players had invoked Fifth Amendment rights not to self-incriminate during the discovery phase of the litigation. According to a lawyer for Doe, that was a critical juncture: it prevented the victim's team from obtaining evidence that could have helped them pursue their case. The original judge in the case ruled in 2010 that the defendants could refuse to testify, but that would also mean that they would be prohibited from subsequently testifying in the case. That ruling was, however, overturned by Persky after he took over the trial in 2011, a move that Doe's attorneys say undermined her case.

References

My proposed version has a stronger text-source relationship and keeps the focus on the attorneys' criticism of Persky, rather than the particulars of the De Anza case. What do you think, @Fnordware:, @Activist:? --211.30.17.74 (talk) 01:26, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

@Fnordware: This works for me. Thanks for your efforts. Activist (talk) 07:27, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Works for me! Thanks for your help, @Activist:. I'l make the edit with your version. Fnordware (talk) 18:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Lol, @Fnordware:, that was my version. Thanks for putting it in the article for me. --211.30.17.74 (talk) 05:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh right, well works for me, anonymous IP user. ;) Fnordware (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110927185003/http://www.foxreno.com/news/13424029/detail.html to http://www.foxreno.com/news/13424029/detail.html

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:04, 12 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)

Infobox

That Infobox is inappropriate and contains erroneous information. That Infobox looks like it was set up as a template for legal opinions, not for court trial cases. For example, Roe v. Wade is a legal opinion that was written by the Supreme Court. California v. Brock Turner is not a legal opinion or appellate case opinion. It is merely the name of a trial that took place in California. So, the Infobox does not seem appropriate and, as such, it has erroneous information. That Infobox seems set up for appellate opinions, not for court trials. Thoughts? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree. The template can be modified to include parameters relevant to criminal prosecutions seems like one possibility. What do you suggest?--John Cline (talk) 11:42, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't know much about Infoboxes. But, surely, we must have an Infobox for "criminals", no? I believe that I saw one on the Omar Mateen page. And the "criminal" Infobox probably has more appropriate parameters (for this article) than does the "appellate court decision" Infobox. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:42, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

On second thought, it looks like Mateen's Infobox is specific to murderers, but I am not 100% sure. I assume we still have an Infobox for criminals, generically, who are not murderers. I will check some famous people like O. J. Simpson or Bernard Madoff. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes. The Bernard Madoff page seems to have the correct type of Infobox. And, as a side note, the O. J. Simpson murder case has the same problems with its Infobox as we have here with Brock Turner. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:52, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Ethan Couch also has a good (appropriate) Infobox. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:54, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: The article has been re-titled to reflect the fact that the subject of this article is the criminal prosecution (i.e. the court case), rather than the defendant in the case. For that reason, I think we should keep an infobox that has information about the court case. The Madoff and Couch articles are not analogous, because the subject of those articles are the individuals, rather than the court cases in which they were involved. The O. J. Simpson murder case article, on the other hand, is about the case, rather than the individual. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

As I stated above, the O. J. Simpson murder case Infobox has the same problems at this Brock Turner page Infobox. It's not the appropriate Infobox. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

The basic difficulty here is that I'm not sure if there is an appropriate infobox for an article that is neither a biography of a criminal (this article is no longer a biography of a criminal) nor about an opinion handed down by an appellate court, but is instead about a trial at the trial court level. It doesn't seem to be an Infobox, but here is another article about a trial that gives another example of how this issue has been handled (correctly or not, I'm not sure): Rod Blagojevich corruption charges Dash77 (talk) 21:38, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

The Infobox used in Rod Blagojevich corruption charges is horrible. An Infobox is supposed to give someone a quick glance at the basic info. The basics are all compressed into a nutshell. That Rod Blagojevich corruption charges Infobox has far too much detail. It looks like it can be an article in and of itself. It's the exact opposite of what an Infobox should be! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:54, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Joseph A. Spadaro and Dash77, would you rather see this article with no infobox or an infobox that contains different information? In my opinion, the primary topic of this article is the Superior Court case (including the events that led up to Turner's conviction and the public's reaction to the case). Therefore, I think we should keep an infobox for the court case, rather than an infobox like the one found in the Rod Blagojevich corruption scandal article. There are many articles about trial court cases on Wikipedia, and in articles about trial court cases like this, it is standard practice to include an infobox with relevant details about that case. See, for example, Microsoft Corp. v. Harmony Computers & Electronics, Inc., Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., Trial of Michael Jackson (another California Superior Court case), and Scopes Trial. If you want to use entirely different parameters, one option would be to use Template:Infobox United States District Court case. Let me know what you think. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:10, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

It is not the case that I don't want to see an Infobox. Worded better, I would like to see an Infobox. But, I want an accurate and correct one. Two of the examples you gave above -- Microsoft Corp. v. Harmony Computers & Electronics, Inc. and Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc. -- are not trial court cases, as you claim. Those are both trial court decisions. They are not trial court cases. (Although, of course, the trial court decisions did necessarily spring from the respective trial court cases.) I guess that the Template:Infobox United States District Court case is the "best" that we have? I assume we do not have a state court/trial court template? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

@Joseph A. Spadaro: forgive me, but I don't understand why you are making a conceptual distinction between "cases" and "decisions" that result from those cases, and for that matter, why you think the articles mentioned above are not about both the underlying case/controversy as well as the decisions/rulings that came out of those cases. In an ideal world, what information would you like to see in the infobox for this article? Do you think it should focus more on the parties and the accusations that were made against Turner and less on the ultimate outcome of the case? To the best of my knowledge, there is no general purpose infobox for state court cases that are decided at the trial court level, though there are a few templates for various state supreme courts. Further down in the discussion below, John Cline offered to create a template for "criminal prosecutions," so we may soon have another alternative. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Let's say you have a trial. In this case, it is called "The People of the State of California versus Brock Turner". Or, typically in shorthand, State v. Turner. This simply refers to the actual trial itself. You know, jurors, witnesses, a judge, a plaintiff, a defendant, defense lawyers, prosecuting district attorneys, bailiffs, court reporters, etc., etc., etc., all coming together in a courtroom and giving testimony, examination, cross-examination, etc. This trial, however, may -- or may not -- lend itself to a published decision (opinion) about the trial. If it did, that published opinion would also be called State v. Turner. So there is a distinction between the trial and the legal decision/opinions that are published about that trial. The latter is simply a legal document that records the decisions and opinions of the judges regarding the trial. In a non-appellate court case (i.e., a trial), we typically do not see published decisions and opinions. Sometimes, we do. But that is very infrequent. At the appellate level, we do see these published appellate decisions and opinions (like, for example, Roe v. Wade). So, that's the distinction. The trial itself (the legal process and procedure) versus a judge's decisions/opinions about that trial. What we had before was an InfoBox that was designed for the appellate opinions/decisions. But we were trying to use that for the trial itself. So, the wording/terminology/etc. was incorrect. That was my concern. For example, we do not have a "holding" for a trial-level court case trial. We do have a "holding" for an appellate decision. Same for "opinion". Or "verdict". Etc. Some of these words apply to the trial (only). Some apply to the printed/published opinion (only). That was my concern. We were trying to squeeze a square peg into a round hole. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

• The distinction you are trying to make here seems to hinge on a fundamental misunderstanding. Trial court judgments are not "published" in that sense. Only the cases from the courts of appeal, including supreme courts, are published. In this case we have only a trial and a judgment. We do not have an opinion. "Holding" is an unofficial word that might be applied to both. "Decision" and "Ruling" are words commonly used everywhere to refer to any judge action prior to the Judgment (or the Opinion), which is commonly the penultimate act in a case. A judge in a criminal trial often does not issue a lengthy essay on the judgment. He simply enters a judgment without explaining or excusing himself. There is generally nothing to publish, and seems to be the case here. If the judge has something to say, it is usually oral from the bench in court. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 23:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
• TLDR: The "opinion" you seek is created only by a court of appeal, not a trial court. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 00:02, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

That is not entirely accurate. Typically, a trial court will not "publish" an opinion. But there are instances in which an opinion/decision will be published at the trial level. Not common. But, also, not rare. Let's call it "infrequent" and "atypical". In fact, two examples were given above: Microsoft Corp. v. Harmony Computers & Electronics, Inc. and Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc.. These are not appellate decisions. They are decisions of the trial court (in these cases, called the "District Court"). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:33, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

This is getting rather philosophical, but I think we are all pretty much on the same page here. I think we are all in basic agreement that (1) trial courts, including the Santa Clara County Superior Court, generally don't issue opinions that are published in an official reporter; (2) trial court rulings generally cannot be cited as binding precedent; (3) trial court rulings are (generally) qualitatively different from appellate rulings. I also think we agree that there is an "outcome" to cases that are decided in trial courts and, to the extent that a trial (or "case") is the topic of a Wikipedia article, we can still articulate the outcome (or "decision"/"ruling"/etc.) of that trial. In my personal experience, I have always seen trial courts issue some written record of the decision/outcome at trial, even though judges often make verbal statements that expand upon the reasons for the outcome in the case. That said, I have have few questions that hopefully can help resolve any remaining discontent with the current infobox:

1. The current infobox uses the term "outcome" to describe the result of the case. Should we keep this portion of the infobox, and should we continue to describe it as the "outcome?" If yes, should we state that Turner was convicted and list the offenses for which he was convicted?
2. What information that currently exists in the infobox should be removed?
3. What information that does not exist in the infobox should we include? Should we have separate sections for the "verdict" and the "sentence"?

Another option for formatting the infobox is to use Template:Infobox, which allows for a greater degree of freedom when formatting section titles. Let me know what you think. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:54, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Someone mentioned below that a basic item -- such as the criminal's sentence -- is a glaring omission from the Infobox. See below: Talk:People v. Turner#No sentence details in infobox. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:52, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Infobox "Opinion" is for appeals cases only

@Notecardforfree and Carwil: The judge in the superior court did not render an "opinion". That is what appeals and supreme courts render. The superior court renders a judgement. I know the template does not include that header, and that is our bad for having defective panel templates. Nevertheless, it looks silly as it is. How can we fix it? Also, it looks silly to have a numbered list on centered text. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 18:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

• Note: The comment listed above was initially posted at California v. Brock Turner after this page was moved, so I am pasting a copy of it here. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
• @Sfarney: You are absolutely correct about the distinction between trial court/appellate court opinions v. judgments (i.e. that trial courts make findings and appellate courts issue holdings). In my previous comment, I was simply arguing that the article should use an infobox for the Superior Court case, rather than a biographical infobox for Turner. In any event, I changed the "opinion" parameter in the infobox to "outcome" (though Template:Infobox court case says that this parameter is deprecated). I also agree that the list should be left-justified, but I can't figure out how to fix that. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Looking for page to correct that. How about this?

• I am busy in real life at the moment. Tonight I will create Template:Infobox criminal prosecution as a needed page. I'll present it in working form by morning, unless someone does it before then. Cheers.--John Cline (talk) 23:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

There IS no "real life" -- signed, The Wikipedia Monster (Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 23:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC))

You are correct, however, I suspect that would depend on what the definition of IS, IS. Nevertheless, I've missed my stated goal. I should be able to deliver on it soon I think; therefor I am. Cheers.--John Cline (talk) 15:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I was able to modify the rendered appearance of this infobox with the use of additional parameters. I think it is more aesthetically pleasing this way and should satisfy the concerns I've seen raised to date. If more is needed, more can be done. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 14:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Nice. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 17:22, 20 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:[8] Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 07:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Conviction reliability

@John Cline: you reverted the removal of unconscious in the info just because Brock was convicted of the charges. Juries are not medical experts so why should this be grounds to state this? I think it is enough to say he was convicted of the charges. It is not neutral to take the stance that all convictions are appropriate. There have been enough overturned convictions to show that jury decisions are not reliable assessors or reality. This is a particular concern with BLP articles. Ranze (talk) 01:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

RanzeIt should be grounds to state this because jury decisions are by definition what happened, until successful appeal. Wikipedia is not the place to conduct into appeals into convictions you believe may be wrongful. Your edits on this page have the tone of "Turner may not have committed a crime, we don't know. We need to maintain a NPOV on whether events occurred as the prosecution claim and the jury decided" Even if you are correct and prosecution and jury's version of events is merely one group's opinion, you still haven't shown any reliable sources to contradict them. The prosecution and victim (yes, victim is the appropriate word) are more reliable, because the jury agreed with them. That some appeals have been successful is no evidence at all that this conviction is unsafe. I suggest that you are beginning to stretch the boundaries of good faith.Japanscot (talk) 01:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

The 22 year old (if the impact statement is verified should we use the self-titled nickname "big mama"?) did not give an account disagreeing with Brock since she claims not to remember having interacted with him. Brock's testimony is also a reliable source which contradicts the 2 students who tackled him. Juries agreeing with a side, even if one were to accept the proposal this made the side more reliable, does not make the side so impeccable as to be something we should present verbatim as an ascertained truth. The only things we should talk about that way are things both sides have reached consensus about. Issues of dispute should not be judged, just neutrally reported on. Ranze (talk) 04:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello Ranze. Thank you for bringing your concerns here so we can discuss them; and decide what is best for this article. For context, it was this edit which I did undo. It was your contention that "there is no evidence of conscious state during penetration" whereas I felt the conviction for sexually penetrating an unconscious person was tantamount to evidence of the conscious state during penetration.

Although I agree that the US legal system is not infallible, I also understand that acts which are alleged in an indictment are said to have happened upon a conviction. While I agree that better prose is desirable for this article, I disagree with fact wrangling as a means to that end.

If you were to reinstate the edit, I wouldn't revert it again though I believe another editor would. I look forward to the opinions of others interested in this article regarding the issues raised by the BRD editing cycle we have invoked. Sincerely,--John Cline (talk) 08:02, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

felt the conviction for sexually penetrating an unconscious person was tantamount to evidence of the conscious state during penetration

This is largely what I take issue with. This is obviously an issue of wider scope as the problem of how to talk about court decisions applies to hundreds of articles. But we do need to start somewhere.

To use an example: if the state presses rape charges and fails to get a conviction, that doesn't necessarily mean that the accused did not commit the rape, or that the alleged victim is not a victim of rape. All it means is the arguments by the prosecution failed to sway the jury.

You'll note that in many cases where a jury returns not guty that we simply report that. To use OJ Simpson as an example we do not engage in OR like "OJ absolutely did not kill Nicole". Even though he got a not guilty result, that doesn't make the jury decision an arbiter of reality. Which is why we remain neutral and simply report about the decision instead of with it.

If we can acknowledge this "not guilty verdict does not mean we know not guilty as fact" then the reverse should also be true. A guilty verdict does not mean we know guilty as fact. This should be obvious logic even without relying upon the many examples of overturned cases. No result, guilty or not, is set in stone as an absolute fact.

Juries simply are not experts. There is politics in selecting them and pandering to them. Their feedback is notable but we should not treat it as if is a scholarly work. Juries are not scientists and not historians. This is of especial concern in cases with sealed records since that prevents them from being open to peer review. Court reporting is a reliable source on what courts do, but not necessarily the realities they interact with. Ranze (talk) 08:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with much of your assertions and have said the article was in need of better prose. I respect your willingness to question the conventional wisdom of the status quo and to engage the bandwagon mentality of the masses. It is a difficult thing that ultimately must be done.

I question your approach however, which is lacking in tact, and unnecessarily confrontational; needlessly undermining your own effort. You will not uplift the villain by vilifying the saints and you'll never build a city like Rome in one day. You can lose a few battles and still win a war but you'll never taste victory if you are stifled by peace.

The article identifies itself as a "successful prosecution", not a factual timeline. In that context, the things said are not vying to be a gospel of truth, but instead, spoils of a successful prosecution (SP). Don't rewrite them in gospel form as you are endeavoring to do, you will be reverted back to the SP form.

Instead, copy edit for clarity, or improved readability, and become a wordsmith as you write; creatively, leaving powerful prose in the wake of each edit saved. I guarantee you'll see fewer reversions this way. Similarly, I guarantee that each time you say it is bias to call the victim of a crime a victim, or suggest it is untoward to affix guilt on a convicted criminal, you will see it removed with ever increasing speed.

It is your prerogative to stubbornly stay the course you are on, in which case I'd like to sell you a bridge that I no longer need, or to come about hard, and keep a few dollars for yourself. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 14:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Not guilty and guilty are not mirror images. "Guilty beyond reasonable doubt" is the phrasing. The phrasing is not "guilty because a foolish jury fell for a trickster prosecutor and I can see through this with my cool, considered rationality". Turner is guilty, if he successfully appeals then that will be nice for him. Until then stop acting as if this is an unsafe conviction. Or Cite your reliable sources that demonstrate questions over the convict's guilt.Japanscot (talk) 09:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

The role of juries in the legal system is to determine the facts. If the jury accepted the evidence that she was unconscious, then that is legally a fact. Add to that the testimony of two witnesses (the two graduate students) that they intervened because they saw that the woman was unconscious, and it is absolutely correct to state in the article that she was unconscious. As for "A guilty verdict does not mean we know guilty as fact": as far as the legal system and the public record are concerned, yes we do. He was convicted by a jury which found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If you still harbor doubts, that is your privilege, but that does not mean this Wikipedia article should reflect them. Unless and until the conviction is appealed and overturned, the crime did happen and the accused was guilty of it. --MelanieN (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Facts must be presented in context of his sources. A person convicted of murder is not an absolute determinant that they did the murder, as death row exonerations have shown us. Twelve people saying something happened beyond a reasonable doubts only means THEIR reason did not form doubts, not that others' reason cannot. This is largely while appes processes exist.

We can say "the court finds she was unconscious" but not "she was unconscious" because that puts the court in an infallible role when court findings have shown to be an unreliable source in the short term.

In the long term is a different story. We can rely more heavily on court findings as fact sources when enough time has gone by for appeals to go through. This also conveniently coincides with having a different policy for biographies on dead people. Ranze (talk) 07:21, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@Ranze: All those arguments are dependent on primary sources. That is not wikipedian. Our primary data feed is secondary and tertiary sources, so let us state (in Wikpedia's voice) fact in accordance with the predominant statements of fact in secondary sources, conjecture as those sources conjecture, and defense statements likewise. The section on defendant's statement should include his statement to the police, his defense on the stand, his lawyer's statement to the court, hist statement to probation, and his statement to the sentencing court (briefly summarized from secondary sources, who have already sifted carefully for due weight). Right now, the topic includes only the defendant's statement after the trial -- and that is not as it should be. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 20:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Too much weight given to convict's claims?

Is it general wikipedia policy to give the convicted criminal's side of events so heavily? Surely this case's notability has nothing to do with perceived unsafeness of conviction, (I know of no reliable source suggesting this) but with the public reaction to the sentence handed down? It seems to me that there is far too much of Turner's side of events and too many insinuations that we "can't really know what happened." Turner was convicted by jury trial, and the only reason we are talking about a convicted sexual assaulter is that his light sentence caused an uproar. Japanscot (talk) 02:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Whatever it was that thrust him into limelight does not affect how neutral we shod be in discussing a BLP issue. This could serve as an example that on Wikipedia we spend too little effort presenting the accounts of the accused.

Think of OJ Simpson by contrast. Both prosecutor and defendant accounts are explored. Why should it be any different here? Ranze (talk) 04:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

You are spending your time protecting the rights of the convicted, not the accused. You have no evidence of any kind that this person was wrongfully convicted. Japanscot (talk) 09:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

the convicted are still a subgroup of the accused, I chose that since OJ was not convicted of murder and was speaking of them collectively. Yes I do think BLP concerns should be applied to convicts too. Even those who I think were rightfully convicted. Brock does not happen to be one of those, and I need only point out there is no evidence of righteous conviction either. Ranze (talk) 07:10, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, let us think of OJ "by contrast" -- the really big contrast is OJ was found not guilty. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 07:17, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Ranze - I do not see Turners version of events. That should probably be added back in. Followed immediately by the Bikers version of events. Then the key police accounts. Such as she was asleep/unconscious from being found until 4:15 am. The police or paramedic tried to wake her up every 15 minutes during that period. Also - Her blood alcohol was not taken until about 7. Article should report actual measured BAC. Then give the estimated level at 1am. With a not that they did not factor in the IV diluting the result. 05:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnDoe1122 (talk • contribs)

Relevance of cannabis and hash use

If Brock cited inexperience with alcohol why are we pointing out a history with nonalcoholic things as if that contradicts the citation? Only proof of prior alcohol use would do so. Yet another problem with the drug section. Can someone please help pin down the times that police took blood samples that were measured for alcohol percentage? The time that passed is relevant as they could have been higher before the Swede-tackling. How many minutes of metabolization occurred prior to the blood withdraws? Wee they done at the same time? Ranze (talk) 07:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Excuse, Ranze, but that sounds awfully close to original research. This article is now about the trial, not the man. The law took no notice of Turner's intoxication as culpable or exculpable evidence. Did the judge mention it during sentencing? Only the victim's intoxication was of interest. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 07:17, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

What are you calling OR? My objection or what I am objecting to? I am personally for removing the mention of drug use unless we can establish it relevance to the case. I agree it seems like alcohol is the main consideration as I have heard no mention of the blood tests showing drugs in either system.

The only immediate connection I see here is highlighted by Kaplan's choice of title, alleging he lied about drug use. Kaplan's article provides no transcripts for comparison though. It may assume readers had read some previous article where Brock denied recreational drug use. So its relation could be as an exams of in-court honesty. Ranze (talk) 07:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Here are RS on the contradictions on drug and alcohol use.[9] [10] Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 08:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I am dismayed by what has happened to the "drugs and alcohol" section of the article. For some reason it has been broken into two sections, drugs and alcohol, which the relative amount of information on the subjects does not deserve. The alcohol section doesn't quote what Turner himself said ("Coming from a small town in Ohio, I had never really experienced celebrating or partying that involved alcohol."), and doesn't mention the cell phone evidence that he was in fact a drinker in high school ("Finally, there is a text message exchange between Turner and his sister from June 3, 2014. She asked him, "Did you rage last night?" He responded, "Yeah kind of. It was hard to find a place to drink. But when we finally did could only drink for like an hour and a half."). The drug information is relevant only with regard to "partying" since drugs are not an issue in this case. I would like to see this restored to something more like what it was a day or two ago, "Turner cited his inexperience with alcohol as a factor in his judgement the night of January 18, 2015, but evidence from his phone indicates a years-long pattern of recreational drug and alcohol use. Turner frequently smoked cannabis and hash oil, and was found to have texted friends about wanting to use MDMA and cocaine.[61]". We should also give some thought to its placement in the article; IIMO it should not be a freestanding section (much less two sections), but a subsection somewhere. (There is literally nothing here about the actual trial, but maybe there should be). --MelanieN (talk) 17:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

If you want the wording of "but evidence from his phone... " without a 3rd party source, won't this be a little close to SYNTH I agree that evidence like this is relevant in the light of his statements about his inexperience with intoxicants legal and illegal , but surely it would need 3rd party refsJapanscot (talk) 18:17, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Please see the to RS I have provided above, 08:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC). Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 18:23, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

There are ample third party sources for these exact quotes. For example CBS News, San Jose Mercury News. --MelanieN (talk) 22:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Keep stuff about drinking history in, but the other stuff has no place in that discussion and only serves to distract from it. It seems like a way to malign his character like saying he likes ribeye steaks or ogled a swim team.

If it was something like him claiming to have never smoked hash and then.he is prove to smoke hash, put that in a new section about honesty and perjury. Its still not part of his alcohol history, even if he did swig a gulp of liquor after a bong hit. Ranze (talk) 07:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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."[11]
• "The probation officer’s report, including a recommendation for a “moderate” county jail term, were submitted to Superior Court Judge Aaron M. Persky."[12]
• "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."[13]
• "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."[14]

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)

"See also" section

Earlier today I added Melvin Carter to the "see also" section--a change that was quickly reverted by Sfarney with a request to direct any further discussion to this talk page. Although I agree that there are differences as noted between Carter and Turner, the intent of the "see also" section isn't to solely include topics that directly match the topic of the article. According to the Wikipedia guide for "See also" sections, tangentially related topics are acceptable in a "see also" section. I would argue that Carter is at least as tangentially related to Turner as is Ethan Couch--which page was left in the "see also" section. It is true that Carter was a serial offender and legally designated a rapist--unlike Turner. However Carter was certainly a sex offender--like Turner--and also like Turner committed his crimes in the area of the Stanford campus. Compare this with Couch--who also had multiple victims (like Carter and unlike Turner) but whose crimes were not sexual in nature and also didn't take place in the vicinity of the Stanford campus. It is hard to see a justification for including Couch--but not Carter--in the "see also" section. Dash77 (talk) 01:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I am typically very "liberal" in what I include in a "see also" section. As you state, the purpose of a "see also" is to include tangentially related material (it does not have to be directly related or directly similar). The reader can decide how similar or dissimilar it is to the instant article. Fine. Now, I myself included Ethan Couch. The reason was because these are both cases in which a young white affluent male was given a very light sentence and that sentence caused national -- if not, international -- outrage. So, the two cases are similar in that respect. They are dissimilar in many other respects (rape versus DWI, etc.). But the thrust is that a light sentence evoked public outrage and, also, that many questions/criticisms were directed at the judges. All that being said, I fail to see your case for including Melvin Carter. Just because he is a rapist? That seems very weak and tenuous. And, I am sure, Wikipedia must have scores of articles about "rapists". No? What I am saying is that my reason for including Couch is much stronger than your reason for including Carter. Unless I am not understanding your reason. Please clarify. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

In fact, I just went back and double-checked. When I added Ethan Couch to the "see also" list, I also included the following explanatory text: Ethan Couch, another convicted criminal whose light sentence spurred public outrage. Which supports what I stated in my post above. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:49, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Scores of articles about rapists, yes, but probably only a few in the same specific geographical area--the Palo Alto/Stanford area. As such Carter would have fallen under the jurisdiction of the same court as Turner. Carter's case was a long time ago but still gives some historical context as to how that particular court has judged rapists in the past. Dash77 (talk) 04:32, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I reverted the change because of a subjective reaction to the inclusion, and sensitivity to BLP. It seemed to be saying, "... and while you think about this case, you might want to read about (another) serial rapist,..." when in fact, Turner was neither rapist nor serial. The only similarity is Stanford University, though Carter was not a Stanford student. It makes me nervous, but I am quite willing to go with consensus on the matter. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 04:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

We are talking decades ago and not on the Stanford campus (College Terrace is vehemently not Stanford dating from the time the original owner refused to sell the land to Leland Stanford) nor involving a Stanford affiliated rapist nor a similar method nor a similar controversy. They would share a category of sexual assaults in Santa Clara County (assuming such a category exists). Erp (talk) 05:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

So far no consensus to add Carter back in to this section seems to be emerging so unless that changes it is probably best Carter remain off this list. I still say that Ethan Couch's connection to this case is also somewhat tenuous, though. If Carter and Turner share only one similarity (sexual assaults in Santa Clara County) then Couch and Turner also share only one similarity (public anger at what is perceived to be too lenient a sentence). The cases are otherwise very different. If mentioning Carter causes concerns due to sensitivity about BLP (Turner didn't rape anyone according to the legal definition of rape in CA), then mentioning Couch should arouse similar concerns (Turner also didn't kill anyone). Dash77 (talk) 15:36, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I would also argue that the controversy WAS somewhat similar in the Carter case. In Carter's case as well, a lenient judge was accused of giving Carter too light a sentence. Even the 12 years that Carter served before parole was deemed by many to be way too lenient given the huge number of women he terrorized. This resulted--as in Turner's case--in a push to tighten up rape laws--and in particular to an increase in the statute of limitations in CA for rape. The Turner case is resulting in--among other things--a further push to tighten up rape laws in CA. Unlike with Carter, it is too soon to say exactly where that will lead but to my mind there are clear similarities. Dash77 (talk) 16:30, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest including neither under "See also". The cases have a few similarities and many differences; reading them will not really add to anyone's understanding of this case. --MelanieN (talk) 16:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I am indifferent to Carter. He can stay or go. But someone above (Dash77) did make some persuasive points for his inclusion. I will very strongly object to the removal of Ethan Couch. (A) It is very similar. The whole point of the Couch controversy and of the Turner controversy is the public's strong reaction to light sentences in serious cases, handed down by liberal or biased judges, who were subsequently criticized and "forced" to step down, etc. (B) As stated above, the cases do not even have to be "similar" to be included in a "see also" list. I would argue that a reader who is interested in the thrust of Turner's case (i.e., how did a rapist get off so lightly?) will be equally interested in the Couch case (i.e., how did a multiple murderer get off so lightly?). I will strongly object to removal of Couch. It is the very definition of what a "see also" list is all about. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:39, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I guess it depends how you think about the Turner case. If you see the Turner case--as I do--primarily as part of a national and international conversation about sexual assault that is (or should be) happening then it is hard to see the connection with Couch--whose case was a different kind of crime--also serious but a different kind of crime. If you see these two young men primarily as examples of privilege for young, relatively affluent, white men being enabled by their parents--then there is a close connection. For now I plan to leave the "see also" section as it is because no clear consensus as to how to change it seems to be emerging. Dash77 (talk) 18:31, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I view the Turner and Couch cases from the latter perspective: namely, two young men primarily are examples of privilege for young, relatively affluent, white men being enabled by their parents. I do see your point about the rape/sexual assault angle. Yes. Ultimately, I think it's about a privileged kid getting away with a serious crime due to a liberal/biased judge. I think the specifics of the crime (rape, here) were only coincidental. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

alcohol percentages

http://www.staradvertiser.com/breaking-news/4-accounts-of-the-brock-turner-sexual-assault-case/ says that the actual blood tests were 0.12 for Emily and 0.13 for Brock. Hers taken 6 hours later and they guessed 0.24 so for them to guess a lower number for Brock one would assume the test for him was done sooner. It doesn't clarify how much though. Can we.find out who took the blood and when? Who did the estimates?

Does this mean any papers who falsy reported .17/.24 as real instead of estimates now have questionable reliability?

Gave alcohol subsection, is a big issue. Beyond percentages I think we should also mention what has been said about the actual type and quantity of beverage too. Ranze (talk) 09:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• "Star Advertiser"?? Really? Here is the police report. Page 9 lists the blood report on Turner as an attachment, but the attachment is not included. I suggest the police report is most authoritative and many copies are on the net. CNN reports:

  The victim finally regained consciousness about 4:15 a.m. at a hospital. Later that morning, doctors said her blood alcohol concentration was 0.12% -- and estimated her intoxication level at the time of the assault to be 0.22%.

  Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 17:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
• Here is what the jury was told: "Alice King — a supervising criminalist for Santa Clara County — also testified. Given nominally hypothetical situations corresponding to Doe and Turner on Jan. 18, King estimated that the Doe and Turner’s blood alcohol content (BAC) levels at 1 a.m. would have been .242 to .249 and .171, respectively."[15] I do not understand why they would not take a blood sample from an unconscious person at the time to determine drug/poisoning risk. I do not understand why Turner's blood was not sampled in the jail. These things are mysteries. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 17:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
• The agreement among all sources is this approximation, worded by The Atlantic: "Turner’s blood-alcohol level was double the legal limit at the time, and the woman’s was three times the legal limit."[16] I suggest we use the less precise statement rather than the higher precision with less accuracy. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 18:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Strictly speaking 'legal limit' is the legal limit for 21 and older driving (.08%). For Turner who was under 21 .01% would have been the legal limit for driving. Neither were driving though Turner was drinking illegally. It is a pity newspapers aren't clearer on their terminology. Erp (talk) 05:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is an odd reference for this context. But notice, when the doctor is quoted, the number for Doe is not the same as when Alice King is quoted. Maybe the papers are using this comparison to avoid the contradictions in numbers. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 07:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I would report the court testimony (Alice King) as the most reliable especially if it was not challenged by the other side during the trial. It is the least likely to suffer from clerical/reporting error and most likely to be checked by the best experts. BTW I note that a court order might have been needed to take a blood test of Turner and they may have wanted consent before taking a sample for the most reliable testing from Doe hence the delay. Erp (talk) 13:16, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Reactions section or article

Which is more appropriate? Interested in mentioning what widespread exposure the case has gotten. It was the opening topic of Nikki Glaser's show Not Safe this week for example. Guessing Daily/Full Frontal also discussed it. Comedy shows aren't reliable source material for the case but help to show the notability and impact it has had. Ranze (talk) 07:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC)