Talk:Pamela Rogers Turner

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pamela Rogers Turner article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Criminal justice Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Crime, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide on true crime and criminology-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of low-importance for crime-related articles.
WikiProject Crime To-do:
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on October 8, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] New Picture of Pam Rogers

I inserted a new picture of Pam. The old one was poorly cropped - somebody's nose was sticking out on the right side of the picture. David Cruise 04:21, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sentence

Can they really restrict her right to give interviews? Seems something along those lines would be illegal. Hempeater 09:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

She's a criminal. A HOT criminal, but still, a criminal. Criminals have practically no rights. Donmega60645 16:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Heh, she's only a criminal because the law, written to protect girls in the first place, gets tangled up with the progressive views on sexual equality. The result is clearly ridiculous. Time to re-evaluate the initial assumptions?69.107.89.219 05:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.107.89.219 (talk) 05:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

If it was a part of her plea agreement (that is, her HOT plea agreement), then it would be a restriction she agreed to willingly. Pleas in such HOT cases frequently prohibit defendants from profiting from their notoriety (cf, the Carolina Pathers lesbian cheerleader bar fight). 75.22.194.152 19:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

Is the criticism section really relevant? It does not seem that a local DJ in another city and state pointing out that the rape would not be forcible constitutes real criticism. Also, based on the info. it appears this is a comedy oriented show so the "criticism" is probably not meant to be serious.66.72.215.225

I've removed it. The argument itself is more suited to the article on statutory rape.--Nonpareility 03:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually I envy the boy :)) --Brand спойт 17:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

maru (talk) contribs 05:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine as of this moment 75.22.231.145 20:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No image

Article needs an image. --Margrave1206 23:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It appears there was one, and it was deleted because of uncertain copyright status. Perhaps find a fair use image and upload it.--Crossmr 17:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
If ever an article was SCREAMING for a picture... :P - AbstractClass 07:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Relationship???

I feel it is irresponsible journalism and grossly incorrect to say that this woman had a "3-month relationship with a teenage boy."

This is sexual battery, statutory rape, and sick!

If I as a 30 year-old man had manipulated a teenage student of mine into sexual immorality and sent her dirty text messages, graphic videos of myself dancing in a thong, ect. Would you call that a "relationship" or would I be a sexual predator?

THAT IS NOT A RELATIONSHIP!

Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.111.61.230 (talk) 06:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

When two people interact with each other in any way, that is a "relationship". Personal distaste for the basis of it does not change that fact. Though if you have a wording suggestion that is both accurate and non-judgemental, please feel welcome to change it. Danthemankhan 18:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


Yes, UNSIGNED user, I do also find your opinion to be too biased and unfair. A good and fair relationship is arbitrarily deemed by each and every individuals points of view. Age and gender of the persons involved in "relationships" seemed to be shaped by certain societies' stereotypical and/or ideal image of what the "relationships" should be deemed to be as "OK". I mean a man in his 20s has LEGALLY married to a woman advanced in her 60s in the UK. (And I can assure you the man has NOT been threatened or coerced by the elderly lady to enter a legal marriage). Whatever circumstances has caused these two to form a union is no-one elses' business or decisions for them to do so. (Maybe the man favours elderly women?) Now would you deem that granny as a "sexual predator" as well? Or would the relatively young husband be deemed as "the predator" instead?

Their marriage was once broadcasted either in the New Richard & Judy Show -Channel 4 or This Morning -ITV1

Shin-Chan 15:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

"If I as a 30 year-old man had manipulated a teenage student of mine into sexual immorality and sent her dirty text messages, graphic videos of myself dancing in a thong, ect. Would you call that a "relationship" or would I be a sexual predator?"
"This is sexual battery"
Well, No. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.0.66.253 (talk) 20:04, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
That didn't happen and is irrelevant. You're a teacher? WOW. I hope you're a preschool or kindergarten teacher. Have you as a teacher for anything above preschool could have a SERIOUS NEGATIVE IMPACT on a child's education.75.0.66.253 20:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. Please keep comments on this page to how to improve the article. Thanks. Danthemankhan 23:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It is irrelevant whether you and I or anyone in the world disapproves of this "relationship." It was a relationship, by the very definition of the word, which I will now list:

re·la·tion·ship [ri-ley-shuhn-ship] –noun 1. a connection, association, or involvement. 2. connection between persons by blood or marriage. 3. an emotional or other connection between people: the relationship between teachers and students. 4. a sexual involvement; affair.

Further, I find it absurd to bring affect into the application of definitions. I don't approve of what she did, but I have no right to say it wasn't a "relationship", as the usages of that word have already been decided by grammarians far more erudite and versed in the use of English language than any of us involved in this debate.

Further, while this article is a bit lean, I've checked out its facts and and they appear to be accurate. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO REASON IT SHOULD BE DELETED OTHER THAN A MORAL ONE, AND IT IS NO INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHT TO SERVE AS THE ARBITER OF MORALITY HERE OTHER THAN THOSE WHO MODERATE WIKIPEDIA, AND THEY HAVE ALREADY BEEN PERFECTLY CLEAR THAT THEY DO NOT REMOVE CONTENT THAT IS FACTUALLY ACCURATE BUT MAY BE FOUND OFFENSIVE BY USERS.

Are you familiar with "freedom of speech." While Wiki has no responsibility to uphold it, you'll find that it respects the essence of that right. Not everything pleases me. Some things I find repugnant. I'm sure that there are those of you who find this article and the whole Pam Rogers story repugnant.

Get over it.

65.195.119.149 15:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Steve C.

Legally, by definition, a minor cannot consent to sex with someone who has reached their majority. "Had sex with" may make sense. "Relationship" doesn't quite fit a continual rape situtation somehow IMO. Student7 15:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Noteworthiness

While the subject got a lot of publicity at the time because no one apparently realized how widespread the problem was of women teachers having sex (legal rape) with minor boys. Now nearly everyone who reads the papers (not the tv) knows that it is not unique. There are hundreds of cases annually. Mercifully, the incidents are no longer screamed nationwide. Why this poor woman should be the subject of a permanent article on her crime is beyond me and just too bad. Keeping it here is tabloid journalism. She is (unfortunately) not noteworthy at all. Student7 03:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, consensus appears clear that tabloid fame is notability as far as Wikipedia is concerned. I think that's a very unwise course for an encyclopedia to take, but I'm not going to spit into the wind any further. Dybryd 03:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's general notability guideline is intended to establish a relatively objective criterion for notability that directly relates to whether sufficient coverage in third-party reliable sources exists to write an acceptable article on a subject. Based on the press coverage referenced in this article, the general notability guideline is clearly satisfied. Naturally, the Wikipedia community is often reluctant to declare subjects which are presumed to be notable per the general notability guideline to be non-notable anyway on the basis of a purely subjective assessment of their perceived importance. "this poor woman", as Student7 describes her, is in fact a convicted felon [1] who arouses little sympathy with regard to claims of unwarranted publicity. John254 03:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree she is a convicted felon and had caused serious damage to her student{s). As have the hundreds of other women (and men) teachers (and from other professions) that don't have articles on them. Turner was pretty, and her issue arose on a "slow news day" along with about 5 others and became infamous, which they don't deserve individually or as a group. They not only are not noteworthy, but child abuse is, alas, very common, not only in schools, but elsewhere as well. Articles on each perpetrator might even fill Wikipedia's unlimited white space. Wikipedia should not be a police blotter, nor reflect the apparently limitless tabloid hunger of the public for scandal. Student7 11:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Notability for Wikipedia is not based on whether someone "deserves" to be famous, it is based on how their fame has been covered by reliable sources. —MJBurrage(T•C) 08:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discovery + Age Jurisdictions

How did the "inappropriate" relationship came into light of other peoples' awareness? How did they actually get caught?

Could she have escaped prison terms where she would had sex with the young man in a place where there is no jurisdiction (like on international waters) or in a country where the age limit's lowered as age 14? (like some countries in Europe) If that were the case, then none of the news coverage would have happened nor would wikipedia created this article in the first instance.

Will the US laws likely to lower the age limits on consensual sex and consuming alcohol?

88.105.23.242 (talk) 19:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

More germane: why is there an article on her in the first place? The reason is that relationships such as hers were unknown or unpublished up until a slow news day when her case along with several others came to the attention of the newshawks. So now she is enshrined forever in an encyclopedia for no particular reason. There are dozens of cases like hers in the US each year which go uncovered by Wikipedia, which is fine with me. This is not supposed to be a police blotter.
If she had taken the boy into international waters, she would have had the feds after her for kidnapping after she got back! Much, much worse than rape. And it is rape, of course, since there cannot be consensual sex between a minor and someone who has reached their majority. In the US, we don't like teachers of either sex raping students. Apparently that surprises you? In what country (besides Saudi Arabia of course) is rape legal?
Oh, by the way, it is still illegal, if not rape, after a student attains their majority in many states, since there is the implication of a tradeoff of marks/recommendation for sex. Student7 (talk) 21:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

dam she has a hot ass. if I were 16 again, I would so hit that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.134.164.46 (talk) 22:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Editors take note. Still proud of your "encyclopedic" article? Student7 (talk) 01:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Tabloid news and not Wikipedia worthy

Similar items have been removed that had more merit than this. Wikipedia is supposed to be about world facts. I would like to cite the entry for Brian Peppers ( http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Brian_Peppers ) regarding someone on a sex offender registry for a technicality and became an Internet meme because of his physical deformities/handicap. Either this entry should be removed like the Brian Peppers entry, or the Brian Peppers entry and other items from Wikitruth.info should be re-added to Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.58.45 (talk) 04:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Gracious! Don't give the tabloid folks a choice! They'll jump at it. Proposed Wikipedia motto: "We report more trash than the National Enquirer." Student7 (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)