Talk:People v. Turner

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)

25 citations in the lead

I am aware of WP:LEADCITE says. I feel that having 25 citations in the lead is a sign of this article being a low-quality article. This case is closed except for Turner's probation and there has been no recent news about that. If he does get accepted to a school or gets a job, then that should be mentioned in some follow-up section. The victim seems to be proceeding on with her life as a student. This article is supposed to focus on the court case. That can be summed up pretty quickly as opposed to the current state of affairs where lead is flooded with procedural details. At most, the lead should have one sentence on the publicity and one sentence about the stuff that Persky had to go through. Perksy was completely exonerated by the proper authorities of any wrongdoing. If those still determined to pursue a recall on Persky make any further progress, well, then that deserves one more sentence at most if it ever happens. Persky has his own BLP and that kind of stuff belongs almost completely in his BLP. Again, if the page title has any meaning whatsoever, this article is suppose to be first and foremst about THE COURT CASE.--185.55.65.228 (talk) 19:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Removal of sourced info

So I reverted edits by User:70.248.28.108. I kindly ask all involved parties to discuss the matter here first. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 23:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Seems unlikely given the user's edit summaries. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Sociological, feminist and academic analysis of case

If somebody wants to create a lengthy new section with such a title at the end of this article, I indicate that they are welcome to do so.--70.248.28.108 (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, no... That's not the issue here. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

two edits

@Erp: since you reverted I would like to know why you think:

1) we should only mention Doe's intoxication in the lede when we can just as efficiently convey they were both inebriated. Why are we leaving out Brock's intoxication here?

2) why we should state Doe was unconscious at the time of penetration when no medical analysis of her state of consciousness was performed until after penetration had stopped. Any such expressions should describe her state of being when actually examined and not indulge speculation about what it was when no medical experts were present

3) why we should use cluttersome phrase like "sexually penetrated with the fingers" when "digital penetration" is more concise.

We should take care to discern between the known facts of the case vs sensationalist claims. A court decision of what a jury finds probable isn't the same as known facts and media which cannot discern between the two isn't 100% reliable in such a given instance. Ranze (talk) 08:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

On 3 you omitted to mention that you also removed the last phrase "an intoxicated and unconscious" possibly because you wanted to link to an article on digital penetration which is solely about the consensual act and that plays down that this particular digital penetration was not consensual. On point 2, medical experts can extrapolate from later evidence much as they do when estimating time of death even though they weren't present when the person died. Given the court conviction, you'll need a reliable source to argue that she was conscious or likely conscious at the time of the incident. On 1 because the court case involves her being inebriated not him (being drunk is not a defense for sexual assault in California). His being drunk is described later in the article. --Erp (talk) 16:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I find your use of 'remove' misleading. I added "while both were intoxicated" at the same time.

The term 'digital penetration' or 'fingering' doesn't solely refer to consensual acts any more than 'sex' only refers to consensual sex. In hopes of balancing things, I added a disclaimer with a source source about instances of assault to the fingering (sexual act) article, so people don't get that impression. I believe now it would be okay to link the phrase digital penetration now that this is present.

I do not need a source saying she was conscious because I'm not saying we declare she was conscious. If medical experts made an extrapolated estimate, we should say that. Kind of like how we say that witnesses stated she was unconscious. We should report the facts directly.

I didn't argue that being drunk is a defense, just that if we can easily state they were both drunk, intentionally leaving that out is obfuscation. Turner being a student athlete isn't relevant to whether or not sexual assault occurred either but it is still mentioned in the opening, so clearly we are not forced in limiting the opening statement to such a narrow purvue. Ranze (talk) 01:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

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)

Lenient?

Please use the talk page to clarify why stating that Couch's sentence was lenient is POV or opinion when the sources - which you deem acceptable so have left in the article - make this very specific claim? Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

My explanation is in the section above, please actually respond to it. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Add Also, neither of your sources actually call the sentencing lenient. Their is expressed disappointment, and that they have railed against it. The only reference to lenient is that the defense sought leniency in sentencing. However that doesn't actually say the sentence was lenient. If there was direct content in those sources of people believing the sentence to be lenient we could attribute it accordingly. But the way the sources are written do not describe things as such. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:45, 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)