Talk:People v. Turner

Victim Impact Statement inaccuracies inflamed public anger

There were a lot of incorrect claims made in the famous Victim Impact Statement which did a great deal to inflame public anger at Turner and Persky.

1. Miller said Turner "jabbed" "pine needles" into her vagina, but she also claims to remember nothing and no pine needles were found inside her. So, this claim was baseless Turner admitted masturbating Miller, but there was no evidence he stuck things into her. This seems to me a very serious misconception.

2. It should be pointed out Miller's claim she had blood on her hands was very misleading. The EMTs said she had no injuries. Any blood was almost certainly due to medical treatment, but the public came to believe Turner and injured Miller.

Nothing on the page suggests #1. And to call it "masturbating" is wrong. It's sexual assault. Also, read WP:NOR. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:57, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Maybe this page does not go into the specific false claims made in the Victim Impact Statement, but when the statement is referenced, the fact it contained such big falsehoods is worth pointing out, in my view. Also, your "It's sexual assault" comment is not the point - I am not saying what it was, but Turner himself said it was consensual masturbation, I was quoting Turner. I bring up the "pine needles" and the "blood on my hands" because these were very highly inflammatory false statements which large numbers of people who followed the story believe - since the record is clear, and there is a popular misconception, I think we should add it in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1CD0:1710:BD7F:DF3C:9FD9:F957 (talk) 17:34, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I should respond to your "No Original Research" link. I want to be absolutely clear, I am basing the statements there were no wounds to Miller on the police and EMT reports from the night of the incident. There were no pine needles, or anything else, in Miller's vagina, bawsed on the forensic exam, the "rape kit" and the responding EMTs reported no injuries. The blood on her hands is never explained by Miller as far as I know. So, we can attribute it to Miller, but the article should not imply, as Miller unfortunately already has done, that it was due to injuries caused by Turner.

Turner was convicted of felony sexual assault. This is not up for debate. These are "the facts" as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Also, it's somewhat hard to follow what exactly you want changed with all these talk page posts here and at Talk:Chanel Miller. Please frame as "Change X to Y" with the exact wording you think should be used and link to the exact sources you think support your changes. Enwebb (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

"Turner was convicted of felony sexual assault. This is not up for debate." Nice strawman. The OP never suggested that Turner wasn't convicted of felony sexual assault. Their question was entirely valid: is it WP's place to repeat claims that are not based in demonstrable fact? And the obvious answer is "no". A victim's statement could very well include the claim that they were abducted by aliens and medically probed aboard their spaceship. Victims' statements should not be confused with statements of fact. Bricology (talk) 00:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

"Is it WP's place to repeat claims that are no based on demonstrable fact?" It's Wikipedia's place to include facts, not editorialize. Including what someone's said, or what their perception was, isn't editorializing. To put it another way, the fact *that they said something* is the fact, not the content of what was said. If a head of state says aliens are real, it could be included among things they said that drew media criticism. It doesn't magically make aliens real, and it wouldn't be Wikipedia believing or pushing aliens being real. It would be Wikipedia observing and recording that the head of state spoke as if he believed that.71.47.252.144 (talk) 20:49, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I suggest something like this: "Chanel Miller's Victim Impact Statement was widely disseminated but contained many false statements. In one passage, Miller states "fingers had been jabbed inside me along with pine needles and debris", but forensic examination provided no evidence of that (Citation would be "rape Kit" report from trial evidence). Additionally,she claimed to have blood on her hands and elbow, but the police and EMT reports indicated she had no injuries. (Citation to EMT and police reports from trial evidence) Stanford Professor Michele Dauber added to the claim MIller had been injured by claiming she was "gravely injured"in an interview with Democracy Now - (Citation to Video of Dauber interview). This was false. "Gravely injured" is a term of art meaning a person's survival is in doubt.(Every source will confirm that, I can cite dozens) Miller not only had no significant injuries, when she retrieved her phone the next day, she said she had no injuries at all. (Citation to police interview with Miller when she picked up the phone, the following day, from trial evidence)

"Additionally, Miller claimed she thought, when she woke up, she had "fallen and was in an administrative office of the school" but when speaking to police when she picked up her phone, she said she thought she was in a medical facility for people who had drunk too much."

(Citation again, to Miller's talk with police when she picked up the phone)    (I want to point out here -the drunk tank is NOT an "administrative office of the school" - that is just silly. I am QUOTING MILLER'S OWN WORDS.  I can not see how the court records or her own words are "original research" any more than quoting any "reliable source" is.

Finally, I expect to find a reliable source for the following sentence "Victim Impact Statements are not made under oath or penalty of perjury and not subject to cross examination by defendants" - in other words, the factual claims made in the Victim Impact Statement can not be assumed to have any basis in reality- they are whatever the victim wants to say.

Quick Update - The Trinity County (California) DA has a page about victim impact statements confirming there is no cross examination of the victim regarding them, so I would use that as a citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1cd0:1710:7492:efa4:e2e6:f1ca (talk • contribs) 16:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Some of this seems more applicable to the Victim impact statement entry. The rest seems to be a synthesis of original research (e.g., pointing out the 'errors' in the Victim impact statement). Find a reliable source which does the synthesis then that can be used. Also don't forget to sign. --Erp (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Incident Details section is misleading

There are several problems with the Incident Details section. For one thing, it lacks a lot of details for example, that Turner did not rape Miller and only rubbed against her with all this clothes on - this was proven by the forensics but many people have the mistaken belief he actually had intercourse with her

Also, the part about Miller experiencing "Trauma" - this is completely wrong - the EMTs saw no trauma on her - she said she had no pain the next day - the article quotes a newspaper report of testimony at the trial. I am not sure if the reporter got it wrong, or there was inaccurate testimony at trial, but the EMT reports, AND the actual forensic report, AND Miller's own statement do not indicate any injuries.

The blood on her hands, IF there was any, was due to EMTs taking blood tests and putting in an IV. 2600:1702:1cd0:1710:81e3:575d:4347:6780 (talk) 09:28, September 23, 2021 (UTC)

You need to cite all this information from a reliable, respected source. Otherwise, it would almost seem as if had some kind of agenda. Brock Turner wasn't convicted of 'rubbing against a woman with his clothes on.' Bkatcher (talk) 13:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

2600:1702: "Turner did not rape Miller and only rubbed against her with all this clothes on - this was proven by the forensics"

That is not what sources cited in the article say. They make it clear that Peter Lars Jonsson and Carl-Fredrik Arndt, the two Swedish grad students out cycling when they caught Turner in the act, saw the victim's dress had been pulled up to expose her genitals, her underwear having been strewn beside her. So her clothes were not still on, and her injuries (see below) make it clear that he was doing more than just "rubbing" her. The article does not say that he raped her, but that he sexaully assaulted her. It explicitly states that the two initial charges of rape were dropped after his indictment, and that his convictions were for sexual assault and attempted rape. If members of the public understand something less precisely accurate than this, that is not Wikipedia's fault.

2600:1702: "Also, the part about Miller experiencing "Trauma" - this is completely wrong - the EMTs saw no trauma on her."

That is not what the source cited in the article says. According to that source, the EMTs did not perform a Sexual Assault Response Team (SART) exam on the victim. SART nurse Kristine Setterland did. Setterland, who had conducted over 700 SART examines since becoming a SART nurse in 1987, testified in court that in examining Turner's victim, she saw that "injuries showed there was 'significant trauma,' including 'penetrating trauma'".

2600:1702: "The blood on her hands, IF there was any, was due to EMTs taking blood tests and putting in an IV.

That is not what the sources cited in the article say. The victim testified at Turner's trial that at the time she regained consciousness, she had pine needles in her hair and on her body, dried blood on her hands and elbows, and no memory of meeting Turner. Why would putting in an IV cause pine needles to show up in her hair? Or blood to show up on her elbows? But if you have reliable sources that support what you're saying, then add them to the article, or present them here. Nightscream (talk) 04:55, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I should be clear - the forensic exam proved there was no intercourse. Brock Turner's penis was not in Chanel Miller's vagina - they swabbed it and found none of her DNA on it. The reason this is important is the constant use of the term "rape" which is commonly understood as forced sexual intercourse, I believe. When I say Turner only rubbed against her with all her clothes on, I meant when the Swedish students saw him - Turner admitted to masturbating Miller, presumably right before that, I am not trying to minimize that, but there was no "rape" in the normal sense, and in fact, Turner was originally charged with "attempted rape" - then the "rape" charge was added about two weeks later, though there was no clear evidentiary basis for it, and the prosecutor had to drop it before trial - so, all that makes me want it to be clear. I am trying to maintain "neutral point of view" and only use well sourced information -but there is a big problem with this - Chanel Miller's Victim Impact Statement - which was not made under penalty of perjury and is misleading on these points - SHE uses the term "rape" when of course, she knew Turner was not convicted of rape- is misleading, yet cited as authority. And the claim is made that citing the police and EMT reports is "original research". So, the person with very strong motives to be untruthful, who was not a witness to anything, is the authority, rather than the cops and EMTs who had no reason for bias? Another way of putting this is - the Victim Impact Statement has been given "undue weight" by a huge number of people who heard it, knew it was read in court, and therefore, believed it to be true without any fact checking - as for the one nurse saying Miller had "significant trauma" - I believe Miller's own statement to the cops, when she picked up her phone, that she felt no pain, should be included to maintain NOV about that issue - there is really pretty good reason to believe Setterlund herself did not have "neutral point of view"

Maybe you can answer a question for me - what if some of the public perceptions of this case are largely incorrect, based on misinformation, which has been very widely promulgated? What if some of the misinformation can be disproven, or at least called into question, by reference to original sources? (the EMT and Police reports- by the way, you never addressed Miller's claim Turner "jabbed" "pine needles" into her- the forensic exam shows no pine needles were found, she claims to remember nothing - so ???) - is Wikipedia required to ONLY present what people already believe? Even when original sources absolutely disprove it? My proposed edits are only to include contradictory information from court documents. Since this is an article about a criminal prosecution, seems like the court documents should not be off limits, but, essentially, that is what I am told, because I can quote the court documents, but not quote some "authority" quoting the court documents. It is frustrating . I do admit to knowing a great deal about the case, but I do not put all that in the proposed edits, I put in what is in the court documents Perhaps I should direct you to the LA Times Brock Turner court documents with specific citations? Would that help? 2600:1702:1cd0:1710:81e3:575d:4347:6780 (talk) 09:25, September 24, 2021 (UTC)

I will try to cite that - documents.latimes.com/stanford-brock-turner - if you go to the first document bundle (numbered 1/9) and then scroll to Page 48 you will see part of what I am talking about. 2600:1702:1cd0:1710:81e3:575d:4347:6780 (talk) 09:42, September 24, 2021 (UTC)

Court documents are primary sources. We can't rely on them for an article like this. You need to find secondary sources that address what you're looking for. Guettarda (talk) 13:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry, can you please cite the Wikipedia rule for this? I can't make sense of it. Chanel Miller's Victim Impact statement was quoted in this and other articles - but, it appears to be a primary source, so can I remove quotes from it? I never heard of not using primary sources- I mean, the other editor I was discussing this with quoted the SART nurse - she seems to be a primary source as well - do we remove her statements? I really need some reference to the rule, it is just hard to imagine court documents can't be used and I mean no offense but I feel you must be misinterpreting the rule.

I think it's really important to ensure we all know what we are talking about, so quoting the police report in part 1 of 9 of the LA Times Brock Turner documents, Page 48 "Since the incident, she (Miller)feels really out of it. She does not have any noticeable injuries. She also did not feel any pain from the incident. She had only a small bruise from the intravenous needle which was used on her while she was at the hospital"

Again, this is only to contrast the quote, ALSO FROM COURT DOCUMENTS, IF IT IS ACCURATE, from the SART nurse, which the other editor noted above, of "significant trauma, including penetrating trauma". The expert implies some violent assault leading to injures -but Miller says she feels nothing,

As to the "dried blood on her hands" quote from the San Jose Mercury News- I have not seen that part of the trial transcript- but as quoted by the police officer who spoke to her when she went to get her phone, Miller said "She does not have any noticeable injuries". I believe, IF indeed the San Jose Mercury got the trial testimony right- if she DID say she blood on her hands - but had previously said she had 'no noticeable injuries" there is a conflict between these two claims which should be resolved by reporting her previous statement. As you can see, she says she got a bruise from the IV - I started this discussion by pointing out, if she had blood on her hands, it was due to medical treatment which had nothing to do with Turner. I think that is pretty well proven now. 76.253.6.229 (talk) 11:27, September 24, 2021 (UTC)

Would you agree to sign in for a username account and sign your posts? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 17:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I never heard of not using primary sources: You should start with Wikipedia:Verifiability, which is one of the core policies. WP:NOR, in particular WP:PSTS. Go on to WP:IRS and WP:BLP. If you have questions, bring them up at WP:RSN. Guettarda (talk) 18:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Guettarda - I am reading the links you provided - it is quite a bit to read. It is not absolutely clear to me court documents are "primary sources" in the sense you feel they are - they are not specifically mentioned as primary sources in the rules I have been reading - and many of the concerns with "primary sources" - which the rules clearly state are NOT forbidden,to be clear, but can not "form the basis of an article" by themselves,- do not seem to apply to court documents in any case. The examples given - one scientist comes to a conclusion in a paper and reports that conclusion in Wikipedia without secondary sources or neutral point of view- or a blogger expresses an opinion in her blog which is subject to no fact checking - and other things in that vein - do not apply to court documents at all. Furthermore, unless the LA Times is not regarded as a reliable secondary source- which would mean no citations to any of their articles I guess- the court documents which MIGHT have been primary sources became secondary when LA Times published them on their page, didn't they?

I can not see any issues with verifiability at all. It should also be pointed out, I guess, that the police are, generally, presumed to be reliable sources - unless come conflict of interest is raised, for example- none appears to apply to the cop who spoke to Chanel Miller when she came to get her phone- if the police make a sworn statement to a judge, the judge will issue a warrant and arrest you. I am not trying to claim cops are always truthful, but a police report at the inception of a serious felony should be given a lot of credence. As far as I know, the part of this police report where Miller says she had no injuries and felt no pain was never subsequently disputed by her.

Reading up on the links you gave, I would say to NOT include Miller's own statements, when there is no suggestion she did not make them, is not "Neutral Point of View". Inclusion of conflicting information seems to be encouraged when such a conflict arises. 2600:1702:1cd0:1710:81e3:575d:4347:6780 (talk) 15:27, September 24, 2021 (UTC)

The problem with sourcing policy is that it's deep, it's nuanced, and it's spread over multiple pages. It's not about using primary sources so much as it is about interpreting primary sources. You're arguing that based on the primary sources, the account could be different. You may be correct in your interpretation, but it seems to be at odds with secondary sources. The whole idea of "no original research" is that we can't draw our own conclusions based on primary sources, and its especially important that we don't use our own interpretations of primary sources to counter secondary sources. If a secondary source misinterprets my own publication, I can't say "no, they're wrong, and as I author of the paper, here's why". It seems absurd, but it's the only way that Wikipedia's model of "an encyclopedia that everyone can edit" is going to work.

You aren't going to win this argument because you're arguing for a change in the way things are done. That change can't be made here, by a handful of Wikipedians having a discussion on the talk page of one article. Guettarda (talk) 19:41, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I understand you claim, from your understanding of the rules, that it would be wrong to include her statement - my arguments in favor seem to keep on disappearing after you edit this Talk page - we obviously disagree- not about changing policy, but the application of policy- but i really hope you will stop removing my edits because it is not possible to make my case if you do that. And you avoid the need to respond to good faith arguments.

I now need to write this once again I guess, PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE IT. Please actually respond to the issues raised. Or, if you personally do not want to, please let other editors read it and weigh in.

1. Verifiability - court documents are highly verifiable.

2. Reliable sourcing - police reports are generally used in court, in theory police can get in trouble if they are false - and generally, we do not assume someone making a voluntary police report - NOT subject to investigation, regarded as a victim of a crime, lies to the cops. This is completely unlike most of the problems with primary sources, where the concern is they do not express a neutral point of view.

3. I maintain neutral point of view calls for reporting information which tends to contradict the SART nurse - she said Miller had trauma- Miller said she felt nothing. As I said, this can be done with a bare quote of what Miller said to the officer on the following evening, without interpretation of any type - just a quote.

4. I am not at all sure court documents are primary sources in the sense you claim they are.

Please do not remove my edits - if you do not want to respond, leave them alone, they are put out in good faith for comment and input by otehr editors. 2600:1702:1cd0:1710:81e3:575d:4347:6780 (talk) 15:56, September 24, 2021 (UTC)

In all the paragraphs you've dedicated to this, you've never once linked to a source. You claim the sources exist, but you never cite them. That would add a lot of credence to your argument. And please start signing your posts. Bkatcher (talk) 19:59, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

That is one of the reasons I got so upset by the other editor and asked him or her not to remove my posts, because they included detailed instructions for accessing the court documents put online by the LA Times- NOT a complete set of court documents, but a lot of stuff - and that kept getting removed.

So, documents.latimes.com/people-v-brock-allen-turner-19/ is the address I see when I look at the page - you want to scroll to page 48.

I am sorry if I am not adept at the web and links and such - if you search on Google using the terms "LA Times Brock Turner Court Documents" this will result in top result being the documents, and then when you click on that top result, you get 9 document bundles -open the first one, 1/9, and scroll to Page 48 -this is from when Miller went to pick up her phone - and to me, contradicts the SART report. IIRC, it was about 8pm - so about 19 hours after the party. There is a great deal more in that document pile too. 2600:1702:1cd0:1710:81e3:575d:4347:6780 (talk) 17:23, September 24, 2021 (UTC)

PLEASE sign your posts with four tilde characters like this: ~~~~ That will get translated into your IP address (or account if you are logged in) and time stamp.

Page 48 of that document doesn't support the original assertions made in this discussion, such as "the EMTs saw no trauma on her". That testimony is not from an EMT. And that statement was made just hours after the incident, likely too early for pain to manifest itself. The point is, your interpretation or my interpretation constitutes original reasearch, which isn't permitted in articles. Secondary sources are required. Court documents are primary sources, not much different than interviews. The words in that document originate from people (witnesses, police) who are not independent of the incident. We need independent coverage. Journalists don't write court documents. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I disagree a little bit - while Page 48 does not report what the EMTs saw - that is in one of the other documents in that bunch and I will go find it - it DOES have Miller's own statement "She does not have any noticeable injuries". Without doing any interpretation, reporting that statement, alongside the statement about blood on her hands if you like - is Neutral Point of View in my view. But again, there are reports from people on the scene,cops and EMTs, and I will find them.

Also, you have said about 19 hours was "likely too early for pain to manifest itself". That is an interpretation - my experience of pain is, it does not take that long to feel pain - but, again, NO interpretation need be given, I would avoid them. Just report the SART statement, and then Miller's own statement, more or less side by side and NPOV says to do. As to my main point - the "pine needles" in her vagina - from her Victim Impact Statement - the SART nurse did not find any, I will go and find and cite the document bundle and page # for that. I honestly see the primary source rules - to keep people from just making stuff up, essentially as not applicable to court documents - whether perfectly true or not, they ARE the court documents- and I would like to point out the extreme irony of this claim in this article in particular -it is titled "People v Turner" but you are attempting to forbid references to the court documents - though it might be hard reading, I would submit a verbatim copy of everything in the court file and all transcripts would be the only complete and unassailable entry on the case.

Does anyone else want to weigh in, in favor of keeping the court documents, verbatim copies from the "People v. Turner" case file archived in court records, out of the Wikipedia article titled "People v. Turner"? Does anyone disagree with my question, not rhetorical any longer, that the best way to present the case accurately is with exact copies of the court documents? 2600:1702:1cd0:1710:81e3:575d:4347:6780 (talk) 18:26, September 24, 2021 (UTC)

The basic point is that we don't cite court documents, especially not in ways to synthesize some sort of conclusion that hasn't been published in secondary sources. Sometimes testimony is false, and in this case there is no medical expertise evident. This is not a reliable source. It is only reliable for what the author says. And the author isn't even Miller, it's someone with no established reliability writing about what Miller allegedly said.

What exactly is the point of this discussion? Are you trying to establish that the article doesn't neutrally reflect reliable source reporting on the subject? ~Anachronist (talk) 23:42, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Those things which call into question the narrative Miller presented- even when they are her own statements - are not in the article. 2600:1702:1cd0:1710:81e3:575d:4347:6780 (talk) 20:20, September 24, 2021 (UTC)

Four tildes. It's not hard. 'Giving detailed instructions' on how to find something you claim you saw is not citing your sources. If you say this information exists it should not be difficult to find it reported in a reliable source. Bkatcher (talk) 01:05, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry for not being clear- the source is Chanel Miller herself - as quoted in a police report, which was than put in the court files, and then put on the LA Times document stash for the trial. I regard the LA Times as a reliable source, is this objectionable? 2600:1702:1cd0:1710:81e3:575d:4347:6780 (talk) 00:07, September 25, 2021 (UTC)

That source is not the LA Times, it is a court document being stored by the LA Times. The LA Times did not produce that document, did not write a single word in it. Can you honestly not see the difference? ~Anachronist (talk) 07:24, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I do not want to be redundant, so I will try to give some different points. Reminding everyone primary sources are not forbidden, only to be used with caution: This document, one of the very early police reports, also indicated Chanel Miller had previously had blackouts, where she kept functioning, but later did not remember what happened. And, of some importance I think, she said she usually made it home. Please read the rest of this same report, and you will see it. Turner's defense during the trial called an expert witness to testify that people have blackouts like this, where they keep on functioning - and appear able to give consent - and do not remember what happened - and they act in ways which are out of character. The prosecutor tried to squelch that testimony on the claim that this was unproven science. (read all 9 document bundles, it is one of her pretrial motions) . This was the height of hypocrisy, since the prosecutor knew, from Miller's own statement, (IIRC it was Page 49) that Miller had had blackouts in the past. This issue arose in the trial already, and was reported on - so yet again, for Neutral Point of View - including Miller's own statement on that topic is also necessary, to cover the "blackouts caused by drinking" topic, which, again, was central to the defense- in other words, it's unavoidable for a proper article. Also, it is reasonable to infer this report by Miller was part of the reason Judge Persky denied the prosecution motion to prevent the expert on blackouts from testifying. So,to get a more complete picture of what happened, one can not avoid referring to it.

I will try to answer the question about LA Times uploading documents - obviously, the LA Times did not vet all the trial documents- but if they thought a police report was misleading, they could have put some kind of disclaimer around it- but they did not - nor can I find any indication anything in this particular report was ever called into question. As a secondary source, the LA Times did not explicitly vet the trial documents for accuracy - but THEY uploaded them for public reference- please think about that a bit- a reliable secondary source endorsed the value of having the court documents as a reference. So, professional journalists who some editors believe we must follow the lead of, have already gone down that path - they've already endorsed the value of the court documents as a source. Are there really any Wikipedia readers who do not understand the limitations of a police report, that it might be inaccurate, but at the same time, regard it, as most people do, as the most reliable information which exists? Again, I have my interpretations, but do not request ANY interpretations be in the article, only the quotes, best information we have.

To be clear - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1cd0:1710:81e3:575d:4347:6780 (talk) 04:27, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

In your first paragraph above, you are engaging in original research and editorializing. In your second paragraph, you are claiming to know the motivations of the LA Times. You don't seem to understand that the fact that they chose to archive some documents is hardly an endorsement, more likely it was just a convenient place to put material that they may need to access later. They could just as easily have archived it to report contradictions and untruths. There is no indication whatsoever of whether the LA Times considers any external document it archives as a reliable source. There isn't really much else to say about it. Instead of going round and round over something that is pretty clear in Wikipedia's guidelines, why don't you propose a specific edit? ~Anachronist (talk) 18:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

The job of Wikipedians is not to review primary documents to assess and argue the weighed conclusions experts and formal judicial processes. In this instance, the IP editor is seeking to do so to rethink our use of "rape" and "trauma," both of which are assessed by reliable and verifiable sources far better than amateur sleuthing using court documents. Re the former, legal definitions of "rape" vary as to whether they include nonconsensual digital penetration, and this is discussed at length in this very article. Regarding trauma, there are multiple reliable sources discussing the victim's trauma. If a countervening RS expect dissents, we can quote them (giving due weight), but we can't manufacture our own arguments.--Carwil (talk) 16:49, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

"are assessed by reliable and verifiable sources far better than amateur sleuthing using court documents"

If it was a professional sleuthing of court documents then, would this be satisfactory? 137.43.106.63 (talk) 17:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Other Recalls

The part about the recall says "Persky was the first judge to be recalled by voters in California in 86 years, and the first in the United States since 1977." I can't speak to the question of lower-court judges (likely to be quite rare since there's less going on with precedents and the like at that level), but in California three state Supreme Court justices were recalled in 1986. Should they be counted as judges, or as justices (and therefore not counting for this purpose)? 98.166.133.174 (talk) 13:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

?

Why is it that Michele Dauber and her cronies (yes, I know it's you) seem to believe that they "own" this article, Dauber's article, Chanel Miller's article and Aaron Persky's article, actively moniter those articles and revert any edits they don't like within an hour without any explanation at all? 2600:1012:B119:AFAE:7C35:1684:BDDC:73F6 (talk) 03:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Your edit was reverted probably because it looked like vandalism. I reinstated your edit because it adhered to WP:BLP1E EvergreenFir (talk) 03:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

It was I who reverted your edit, which I believed to be vandalism. I apologize for that. HOWEVER, should you continue to make accusations in the future that any editor here is acting in bad faith or WP:OUTING, rest assured your tenure here will be very brief indeed. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  13:27, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Victim revealed with topic page but Brock Turner nothing?

Why is Emily Doe not only revealed in this article but linked to more personal information creeps can use against her, but the Brock Alken Turner, the convicted rapist in this article, is not linked to a topic article? This page seems to happily dox the victim but protect the convicted criminal. SoopahMan (talk) 03:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Because Turner has done nothing notable since, whereas Miller - who relinquished her anonymity herself, by her own choice - has since been recognised for her actions post-event, including (as the her article states) that [s]he was listed as an influential person in Time's 2019 100 Next list for example. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

• SoopahMan - additionally, I think this link may help your understanding: WP:BLP1E. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)