Talk:Aaron Persky

Undue

I am not arguing that this section should be removed, or even upmerged, but we do have a lot of space devoted to one case. I feel this falls into WP:undue territory and also violates WP:recentism some. I will have a go at trimming it down some myself. AIRcorn (talk) 03:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Trimmed to keep it more due.[1] AIRcorn (talk) 04:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Misspelling

Sociology "Professor" Dauber's first name is misspelled. It should have one "l" "Michele Dauber"

 Done - Fixed by some other user. SethT (talk) 07:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Persky Speech in May

Please add the following to the article in the recall section (as it leads up to the election):

In a press conference in May 2018, Persky compared the unpopularity of his sentence handed down in the Turner case to that of Brown vs Board of Education.

Thank you. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 05:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

References

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

This is simply repeating his own statement - I'm not sure that this is the kind of controversial information that needs a prior consensus. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 05:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: @122.108.141.214: I'm 99% certain it does need consensus. ToThAc (talk) 00:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@ToThAc: - why? It's useful to know how Persky sees himself in this situation - apparently as someone who made an unpopular decision which he anticipates will be vindicated by history. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 04:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. And I concur. Sam Sailor 06:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

So I get robot responses and no explanation. I guess consensus has been achieved here! --122.108.141.214 (talk) 07:08, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

The explanation is: No experienced editors agree with your proposed edit for the roboticly-stated reasons. Consensus is not: "I get to state my position over and over until everyone agrees with me." If there's no support for inclusion after over a week, there probably won't be. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

The robot responses are no explanation. I have explained why I think it's important to know how Persky sees himself, and it's disheartening to only get robotic nonanswers, like I'm not worthy of a human response. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 22:38, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

You are getting answers but they require you to invest some effort in following the links to policies which provide the comprehensive reasoning. If you aren't willing to invest that much effort, I don't know why you would think strangers are required to invest more effort in salving your feelings. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

The link to consensus doesn't provide any guidance on this matter. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 00:52, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Consensus#Through_discussion: When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the associated talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion. Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense...emphasis added See also WP:DUE: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. You might start there. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:55, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for anyone to give me a reason based in policy, sources, and common sense - so far no reasons have been offered beyond robotic answers and a gut feeling. If neutrality "requires that all significant viewpoints are taken into account", then it's important to get it right, particularly as Persky's recall motion will be up for voting soon. I still think that Persky's own perception is an important one to give, particularly in the lead up to his election, and there'll probably be more news sources coming out in the next couple of weeks with a variety of significant viewpoints. Is there any chance of getting the article on Michele Dauber wikilinked within this article, to provide context? --122.108.141.214 (talk) 09:31, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:OBLIGATION: Because Wikipedia is completely voluntary, under no circumstances are editors obligated or expected to make any edits, respond to any messages, or to otherwise have any involvement. If direct quotes from policy don't satisfy you, I see no reason to continue to attempt to explain my reasons. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:51, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Pointing out that you haven't actually followed the policy you've been quoting to me on "giving reasons based in policy, sources and common sense"? --122.108.141.214 (talk) 20:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Michele Dauber

Please add a wikilink to the article on Michele Dauber where she's mentioned in the recall campaign section - people who are interested in reading about Persky may also be interested in reading about Dauber. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 21:01, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done - linked in both places, and spelling fixed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, @Power~enwiki:! The link to Dauber in the 'repercussions' section seems to be broken, though? --122.108.141.214 (talk) 23:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Yup, fixed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:28, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Replacement date

Persky will not step down from the bench until ten days after the election results are certified, at which time Hendrickson will be sworn in. Activist (talk) 08:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

On or before that date, can the first sentence be updated to say he is a former judge? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:147:C002:D83A:8400:B024:95AE:6EAD (talk) 09:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

He won't be a "former" judge until he steps down and his replacement is sworn in. The title, "Judge" before his name, will remain his. Activist (talk) 10:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2018

Mr. Persky has been recalled and is no longer a sitting judge. I request that the fact that he "is" a judge be changed to the past tense and "was" a judge be reflected on the page in each instance applicable. It is a matter of fact that he is no longer a judge. Thank you for your consideration. JamesDoburn (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

 Partly done: It shouldn't be "was" since he's still living (see MOS:TENSE), but I did tweak it to indicate that he's a former judge. I took a quick look through the rest of the article and don't see anything else that needs changed. Please reopen this with a specific request if I've missed something. Thanks, ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 23:17, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

 Undone: This request has been undone. Upon further review (and simply looking further up the talk page) I've reverted my own edit. Once the election is certified and his replacement is sworn in, then he's a former judge. Not until. Apologies for the hasty response on this one. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 23:27, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

typo correction

in the "2018 recall" section, the last paragraph has:

"his removal by a margin of 61.51% 38.49%"

the word "to" is missing between the two percentages.

 Done - added missing "to" SethT (talk) 07:35, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Update?

The article ends with the future-tense sense that the end of his term will be in the future: Persky will leave the bench and Hendrickson will be sworn in ten days after the election results are certified. The county clerk must certify the election results within twenty eight days of the election.

It is now past that point in time. Can someone who knows the latest info please update the article? Moncrief (talk) 01:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what he's doing now, but I removed that part entirely as it is now well past the date that the results would have been certified. Ryanisbetter (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:56, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

is/was

The article currently states that "Aaron Persky is an American judge," however, since his recall June 5, 2018, he is no longer employed as a judge. The article should more correctly state that "Aaron Persky is a former American judge." Zabr0616 (talk) 15:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

needs correction to be a non-biased characterization of factual history

“Despite allegations that race, gender, and class bias influenced his lenient sentencing of Turner (prosecutors had asked for six years), the California Commission on Judicial Performance found no wrongdoing.[8][9] Nonetheless, Persky was recalled by voters on June 5, 2018 during the 2018 California primary elections.[10][11]” should read instead: “Allegations were made that race, gender, and class bias influenced his lenient sentencing of Turner (prosecutors had asked for six years). The California Commission on Judicial Performance found no wrongdoing.[8][9] Persky was recalled by voters on June 5, 2018 during the 2018 California primary elections.[10][11]” ThulsaDoom5 (talk) 04:13, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I put it elsewhere, but to say again, this part really, really needs to note that the sentence given Turner was recommended by the Probation officer who wrote a report on it. A women PO.

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2021

He gained attention after his ruling in the case People v. Turner, in which he sentenced Stanford University student Brock Turner to 6 months in prison (change PRISON to JAIL) for the sexual assault and attempted rape of an unconscious 22-year-old woman, Chanel Miller. 2600:1011:B10E:80E3:74AD:B2:74D7:DA28 (talk) 18:46, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:48, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I think she wants the word PRISON changed to the word "Jail". I did not see any mention of the fact the Probation Officer handling Turner's case recommended the sentence Persky gave Turner. I think that is an important point - this was widely reported in the media at the time.

Controversies over tactics of Recall Persky campaign.

I think there is a great deal missing from this article. Since Judge Persky was primarily famous for being recalled, more information on the recall is of some importance I think.

The recall campaign was accused of dishonesty, particularly misrepresenting Persky's record in the sentencing of a Latino man who plead guilty to an allegedly similar crime - Raul Ramirez I think his name was - and in some other cases. I can find links - Ramirez was sentenced by Persky pursuant to a plea bargain negotiated by, IIRC, the Alternate PD's office - so, Persky did not have a free hand to give him a more lenient sentence. Also, the fact the Probation Officer pretty much recommended the sentence Persky gave is important. And I think the fact Kamilah Willingham was the main speaker at the main Recall Persky rally is important, as Willingham had given the police false evidence in a sexual assault case.

False claims in Chanel Miller Victim Impact Statement

Since Judge Persky is best known for sentencing Turner, then being recalled for it, and the outrage directed at Persky was mostly based on the Victim Impact Statement by Chanel Miller, I think certain verifiably false very inflammatory claims made in the statement should be highlighted.

I. There were no pine needles jammed into Miller's vagina as she claimed in the statement. Completely untrue. The examination for rape confirmed this.

2. There was no evidence Miller had any injuries at all.

I think these are important facts to bring forward.

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2023

Reference #26 URL is no longer working and should be updated to the new URL:

https://www.mercurynews.com/2016/06/02/stanford-sex-assault-brock-turner-gets-6-months-in-jail/ BulldogPunch (talk) 21:02, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done I added the archived url instead (it's easier, especially when not sure what other information it's meant to support). M.Bitton (talk) 22:21, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Typo Edit Request

In the first few sentences it says Brock Turner was sentenced to 6 months in prison. He was sentenced to county jail. 2604:2D80:DD87:5B00:58D8:D504:A7E0:23CA (talk) 13:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)