Talk:People v. Turner/Archive 2

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)
 * 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. — 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[] 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.[] 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."[] 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)

"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)

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)


 * and, 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)


 * 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, 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:
 * 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?
 * What information that currently exists in the infobox should be removed?
 * 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.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:52, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Infobox "Opinion" is for appeals cases only
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)
 * 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)

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)

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

✅ 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)

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)

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)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  02:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, 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)
 * 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)
 * , 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)
 * , 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 . 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 and, 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.  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
 * 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.
 * 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.

[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)]
 * 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
 * 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.
 * 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.

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,, ? --211.30.17.74 (talk) 01:26, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This works for me. Thanks for your efforts. Activist (talk) 07:27, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Works for me! Thanks for your help, . I'l make the edit with your version. Fnordware (talk) 18:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Lol,, 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)

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)

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. 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)

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)

Conviction reliability
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)
 * 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)

GLH am with you on covering as much as we can about statements from various points in time. Particularly since some criticism exists with some accusing him of adding detail in later accounts. We must be very careful if we are to paraphrase them though. Where possible direct quotes should be referenced accompanying any summary of them to allow readers to judge the fairness of the abbreviation.

Sources we use are only reliable so far as to report court results though, not to uphold the veraciity of the court result. Neutrally we can report that many sources agree with the verdict if not the sentence. Verdicts are not scientific truth though. When there is no consensus among witnesses about aspects of the case it would be wrong to speak of it as known. Ranze (talk) 05:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope, this topic is not just the court result -- that could be told in a sentence. This topic is the case.  He said, she said, the cop said, the jury decided, the court ruled, the nation howled.  The whole thing from secondary sources.  This case is likely to rattle the nation's dreams and fraternity nightmares for a few years, so we want to get it right.  People Magazine will keep it alive if one of the principals gives an interview, MSNBC will do an In-Depth, and then the public will turn to us for a summary of salient facts told in a neutral dispassionate tone.  Keep in mind that stuff is in the police report that the secondaries did not cover -- and neither will we because of WP:UNDUE.  Maybe nobody else says it, but I say it:  We are the journalists.  We record what the world believes as it rolls through the years.  Some try to change those beliefs with counter-wiki editing, but that is not our purpose here.  We do not dictate, we merely record. Grammar's Li'l Helper  Talk 06:11, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Introduction
I changed the intro text to "decrying Judge Persky's sentence for leniency and alleged judicial bias favoring social privilege.[18]" This is due to the passage in the main body of the article Khan further stated that "Persky's reputation among public defenders (a group closely attuned to racial inequities in the courtroom) is that of a fair-minded jurist", saying "No one has been able to cite an example so far of him where a similarly situated minority client has been treated harshly by him. We appreciated...the judge's understanding of Brock Turner's humanity...and we would want any judge to do the same for our clients."[51][19] Both sides of the story have to be respected in the case of the judge, considering that legal experts have supported his decision. JoshDonaldson20 (talk) 17:46, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Alcohol brand names
I added some new information backed by sources on the claim of 5 entire Rolling Rock beers and 2 (sips/swigs) of Fireball Whiskey from Brock. A total of 9 beers is also given by sources but I was not able to find mention in sources of what the other 4 beers were.

Has anyone been able to find a source which mentions this?

I seem to recall some source mentioning specific types and numbers for Doe but I can't recall where. If anyone recalls which source could you highlight it here? I couldn't find it in the impact statement so I think it must have been an article reporting on the preceding in-court testimony. It would balance out the incident details if we had reporting on the consumed drinks from both parties and not just Brock, if both are available somewhere.

Brand names are useful details to include since they include things like alcohol by volume. In the case of Rolling Rock the article says 4.4%. One missing detail is the size of the beers, they appear to come in 7oz small and 12oz regular. Does anyone recall mention in one of the existing sources as to whether these were small or regular beers?

The whisky's article says 33% alcohol by volume but given the vagueness (sip/swig depending on source ) it isn't as informative, wouldn't be a point looking into the size of bottles since he doesn't describe drinking a whole or measurable fraction of the bottle. Ranze (talk) 04:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not the place for this kind of original research and synthesis of sources. Jonathunder (talk) 13:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

please stop levying a straw man like that. Witnesses (primary source) mentioned the brands to police, who paraphrased their statements in the initial complaint (secondary source) and news sites then reported on this (tertiary source) so this isn't in any way WP:ORIGINAL as you accuse. WP:SYNTHESIS refers to combining sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by the sources. What conclusion are you saying is reached this way?

My asking if anyone knows of any sources specifying can size as small/regular or 7/12 is not synthesis, it is a request for input by people who might have read articles I haven't, or recall details of existing sources that I haven't, in case it is possible to list these details. Ranze (talk) 18:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Raul Ramirez case
The last thing I want to see is this cluttered further with things not directly part of the trial, but given that there is presently a People_v._Turner with a "Revisit of previous rape case" section, should we also include the case covered by this?

It also seems to fall under the 'repercussions' idea. Although I am going to nominate that we export these things to a new page so this article can focus on the case. Please add input re my addition of template:split section there. Ranze (talk) 01:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)