Talk:Caren Turner

Aftermath. Did she learn?

Reference 25, quoting her released statement. States "I encourage the Tenafly Police Department to review best practices with respect to tone and de-escalation, so that incidents like this do not recur". I think this is the most telling part of what her state of mind about the incident is. She insists her actions were the result of deficiencies in how the police officers handled the situation. I believe that directly follows from the stating that incidents like this does not recur with proper tone and de-escalation.

WP:UNDUE

I think there's a very strong claim that this is a textbook instance of WP:UNDUE weight being attached to her tertiary involvement in a traffic stop wherein her daughter had an out-of-state registration and it takes up more than half the article. If there's no opposition from established editors within five days, I'll move to shorten the section to some variation of "In 2018 New Jersey police released the footage of an incident wherein Turner confronted police who had impounded a relative's vehicle for lack of insurance and current registration tags. Turner had told the officers she was "a friend of the mayor" and insisted on being referenced as "Commissioner" by the officers, while asking the officers to explain their decision. Turner later apologised for her behavior and resigned from the Port Authority board, after facing fierce criticism for her intervention.". If there is opposition from established editors, I'll suggest we take it to WP:BLP for some arbitration on the issue.

I have zero connection to Turner, or New York/Jersey, I am not even from the United States - this is just a case of Wikipedia unfortunately contributing to the pillorying of a BLP over a minor incident that, had it not been for Youtube, would not have registered even a sentence in a newspaper. Mostcommonphraseongoogle (talk) 01:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. UNDUE generally describes giving more weight than warranted to fringe viewpoints or minor incidences. This is not a fringe viewpoint. And, while it might be a minor incident in the grand panoply of news, it was not a minor incident in the life of Caren Turner, as it led to her receiving more media coverage than the rest of her career did combined, it led to her resignation from the highest appointed office she held, and it resulted in the enactment of new legislation in New Jersey. An RS also named the incident one of the "twelve biggest news moments of 2018" in the state of New Jersey. While this does take up a large portion of the article, DUE/UNDUE is not measured by word count. The word count present is that which is necessary to fairly and accurately communicate the complexity and nuance of the situation. Chetsford (talk) 02:01, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Terms like "with the New Jersey Star Ledger writing that she was "unencumbered by clue" while a commentator for the Today Show described her as having "all the tact and manners of a zoo animal at feeding time.", have no place in the article and certainly do not help "communicate the complexity and nuance of the situation"...not that there is any complexity or nuance to the situation, which is exactly my point. The news rated the VIRAL VIDEO one of the biggest moments in NJ, not the fact somebody had license plate tags out of date or that their mother tried to intervene. This is a BLP, not an article about a vial video - and it doesn't matter how viral the video went...it doesn't deserve to be more than 50% of a BLP if it's not jumping over the Grand Canyon on a minibike. Mostcommonphraseongoogle (talk) 06:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree. Welcome to WP, in any case. Chetsford (talk) 01:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is documentation of a viral incident that led to legislation. It has implications for the use of body cameras and about abuse of authority. The subject's apology appears appropriately. I also cannot stomach calling these events a "tertiary involvement in a traffic stop". What does "tertiary" help here, except someone's spin. The word confuses. I also have doubts noticing you'd feature more savory (at least least derisive) quotes by the subject (you pick "a friend of the mayor" and "commissioner" when in fact she also said "shut the fuck up" and said they had "ruined PHD student days" because they "couldn't put a sentence together"). We are not here to misrepresent the nature of the viral video, which appears to be more abusive than you let on. You'd pick choice quotes, but somehow miss the most disturbing ones. Odd. Finally, your own editing history does not suggest a deeply committed Wikipedian. Shows up with a sparkly spin. No, I cannot accept your good faith credentials. This is reasonable coverage of a viral event that had both political and legal implications. This woman may have done exceptional things in her life, to the benefit of many. She also did this, which evoked outrage on a wide scale. We do explain such events on Wikipedia, in language that isn't tepid or misleading. Mcfnord (talk) 22:12, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I think that might come down to a difference of how we weigh things; I would consider myself to have chosen the MOST DAMNING quotes she made, not the least. Why does it matter that she said the f-word or boasted that her daughter is getting a PhD? Is that really encyclopedic? You call "Shut the fuck up" to be "the most disturbing" part of the affair? Instead what matters is her attempt to leverage her political position in exchange for a favour - which I support including. Also, how about not newbie-baiting as a general guideline, hm? That said, I agree with most of your recent edits to improve the article; more is still needed of course, but a good start. Mostcommonphraseongoogle (talk) 23:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

She may be a friend of the mayor, she may have said so, and she may have insisted she be addressed using her title. She might also merit the honorary title of Commissioner when addressed by police. It's using her position to claim authority to abuse these people that is more contemptable. If the video only showed her insisting she should be called commissioner, I don't think it would have gone viral. If instead a commissioner abuses people for impounding a vehicle operating with expired tabs, perhaps because she feels entitled to due to her position, that's another level. What matters is why the video went viral, why it led to her removal from authority, and what about it led to legislative changes. Was it that she claimed authority, or that she abused authority? Mcfnord (talk) 00:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm not explaining myself well - personally I agree with you, it was (attempting to) abuse her authority. That's why I'd rather focus on that, instead of on things like "stfu"; the abuse of authority is the only thing notable about the video, being rude is not notable. Mostcommonphraseongoogle (talk) 13:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I understand your position, but can't agree. Abuse of authority isn't claiming that you have authority. It's using your authority for devious purposes. Mcfnord (talk) 16:25, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

A few suggestions

After carefully reviewing this article, I have a few suggestions.

• Education should be reordered chronologically so that lowest degrees are presented in the narrative first and higher degrees last.
• Our generally accepted WP:NOCRIT suggests avoiding standalone controversy sections and incorporating controversial. The traffic stop section is essentially a controversy section under a different name, I suggest incorporating it into the her broader port service and trimming it slightly to avoid WP:UNDUE.
• I suggest removing the traffic stop from the lead as per MOS:BLPLEAD.

I've posted a possible rewrite here and would be keen to hear any feedback, objections, or endorsements. Chetsford (talk) 02:47, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

The traffic stop is her key claim to notability. Otherwise she's just a mid-level state commissioner. Thus, I think it should be both in the lede and in its own section. I know we don't want to focus on people at their worst moments, but IMHO her career isn't why people are going to visit the article and the information is there even if it's de-emphasized.

Otherwise I support your efforts to rewrite and clean up the article. Oblivy (talk) 03:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Oblivy - I added a sentence to the draft at the lead, what do you think? "The traffic stop is her key claim to notability. Otherwise she's just a mid-level state commissioner." That's a good point and this has been eating at me. Previously, someone suggested this is a case of WP:BLP1E and, at the time (above), I rejected that suggestion. However, on further consideration, maybe it is? Chetsford (talk) 04:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I think the article is suitable to keep. Her notability has some duration, even if it does come from multiple streams of coverage (of which one event coverage might be one stream). I don't think WP:BLP or WP:NOT says we can't keep an article like this, unless you want to argue she's keeping a low profile.

The rewrite is good. Personally I think NOCRIT isn't a bar to including a "Traffic Stop Incident" section but it's fine the way it is. Oblivy (talk) 01:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks! I'll sit on this a few days in case anyone comes along with objections. Chetsford (talk) 03:09, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Seeing as there are no objections, I have replaced the text in the live article with the previously proposed version (with the modifications suggested by Oblivy). If anyone still disagrees, please feel free to revert me. Chetsford (talk) 05:08, 28 June 2024 (UTC)