Talk:People v. Turner

Light and Lenient sentencing

Regarding these edits [1], [2] the issue isn't sourcing, the issue is Voice. Whether or not a sentence was Light ,Lenient, Harsh, cruel or appropriate is a statement of opinion. Even if we have sources calling them that, it is still a statement of opinion, so per WP:SUBSTANTIATE we need to attribute the opinion if we're going to include it. So adding lenient instead of light is not an improvement, and we have the same problem as before. (on a blp at that) --Kyohyi (talk) 16:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

No, we don't. If a multiple sources state that a sentence is light, lenient, or even harsh, then it is not inaccurate, or inappropriate for us to report that it was a lenient sentence, nor is it inappropriate to state that the sentence created controversy. It is just the same opinion that there was controversy to state that it was lenient. In your argument everything could be construed as opinion. WIkiepdia is not an encyclopedia - it's only peoples opinion that it is - ad nauseum. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

No one is saying the sentence didn't create controversy so that's irrelevant. If everyone thought the sentence was lenient there would be no controversy at all. And no, not everything could be construed as an opinion. You saying "In your argument everything could be construed as opinion.", is a fact, and there is no way to construe that as an opinion. However your opinion that my argument everything could be construed as opinion, is an opinion (and a factually wrong one). It is CORE NPOV that we do not take sides, that we describe sides. If enough people have this opinion we should be able to attribute it easily enough. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Frankly I'm content with the current wording, and therefore see no reason to continue this. Your original edits removed the terms "lenient" or "light" altogether which would puzzle the reader into wondering why the two articles were linked. Apart from the fact opinion that the sentences were excessively lenient in each case there's no reason to connect them.

Sorry I couldn't use "opinion" as often as you managed though. I opine that it was most impressive. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

context needed for unconsciousness statements

On point 2, medical experts can extrapolate from later evidence

This was mentioned to me above. I am interested in knowing what expert extrapolations were actually made. When and by whom.

Last year I added the detail about the 11/15 score by the paramedic, for example. That is actually a specific detail. The kind we need.

We know that estimates were made based in the blood tests taken later in the day. Can we find a statement attached to this where the technologist interpreted the estimated levels as meaning unconciousness?

Another issue of context is when. Unconscious when the cyclists arrived vs. Unconscious 15 minutes prior to that for example. When specifically. The problem with a generalized "while unconscious" is that could mean at start, at finish, or start to finish.

The state of consciousness when Emily arrived in the alley is a key detail that we need specifics for since it distinguishes between "he dragged her there" vs "she walked there" interpretations. Just saying unconscious doesn't answer that.

What are the most specific statements we can find in our sources about when unconsciousness began and when it ended? Do they come from primary, secondary or both? Does all coverage reliably reach the same conclusion?

My prior approach of "just leave the sourced specifics in" hasn't worked since everts happen and these vague statements that don't explain the event progression get added back in.

I am hoping we can discuss this here without engaging in personal attacks. I am not doing this to marginalize Emily or defend Brock. I just want to make sure facts line up with the article since I put it out of mind and end several months without checking up on it. Ranze (talk) 08:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2017

Under the Victim-impact statement section the following sentence:

The New York Times described the statement as a "cri de coeur against the role of privilege in the trial and the way the legal system deals with sexual assault"

should be replaced with this:

The New York Times described the statement as a "cri de coeur against the role of privilege in the trial and the way the legal system deals with sexual assault".

Changes made:

1) Changed link for cri de coeur (a French term unfamiliar to most) from non-existent Wikipedia article to existing Wiktionary article.

2) Added full-stop/period after the sentence. 2405:204:1089:FC19:5430:F45D:9C00:3E01 (talk) 22:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done--John Cline (talk) 15:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Quoting the New York Times may seem acceptable as some believe it's an unbiased source, however, the quote does not stand on it's own as very logical to those who know the facts a bit. "Emily Doe" is from an apparently very wealthy family, she was living at home in her parent's $3M house in Palo Alto at the time of the alleged assault - Brock Turner's family own a $300K house in Ohio- additionally, Emily Doe had the leader of the Recall Persky movement, a tenured Stanford Professor, as a family friend - Turner was a kid from out of town with no local connections.

Finally, if quotes about the Victim Impact Statement are going to be included in the article, then the statement itself should be examined as a primary source, and compared to other primary sources - ie, the police and forensic reports. In her Victim Impact Statement, "Emily Doe" implies Turner injured her - talking about all the bandages she had on - this is not backed up by police or forensic reports. Additionally, she implies Turner shoved pine needles in her vagina, apparently in pure sadism - there is no basis for that in any police or forensic report either. In short, the "Emily Doe" victim impact statement is highly misleading - it's pretty well know "Emily Doe" was a Spoken Word artist - a person who writes their own one act/one actor plays and them performs them - and it's clear her "Everywoman' statement follows these lines and strays from the facts more than once - this should be pointed out, particularly if the New York Times' misleading quote is going to be included.

Do you have sources, or should I just overrule you because it's pretty well known you're a liar and it's clear I'm the Queen of Britain?Terukiyo (talk) 12:43, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Lede length seems excessive

The lede here can probably be shortened, but information in it but not present in the following text, should be preserved, eliminating any redundancy. Activist (talk) 04:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC) Can only an administrator now edit the article? There is a red text notice in the references, regarding the citation: Who is allowed to fix this? Activist (talk) 07:51, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Michele Dauber's part in this deserves it's own section

Stanford Professor Michele Dauber read the Emily Doe Victim Impact Statement before Emily Doe read it in court, and sent it out to the media about the same time - she should get some credit for that.