Talk:Pamela Joan Rogers

message: 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)
thread_title: New Picture of Pam Rogers

message: Can they really restrict her right to give interviews? Seems something along those lines would be illegal. Hempeater 09:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: She's a criminal. A HOT criminal, but still, a criminal. Criminals have practically no rights. Donmega60645 16:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Sentence 

message: 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)
replies: text: Actually I envy the boy :)) --Brand спойт 17:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

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

text: If ever an article was SCREAMING for a picture... :P - AbstractClass 07:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No image 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Noteworthiness

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Tabloid news and not Wikipedia worthy 

message: The name in the title and in the lead differ.  Someone care to check which one is right? -- 82.113.106.204 (talk) 20:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: This is one of a series of four women-teachers-molesting-male-students that first came to the media's attention some years back during a slow news period. Stories provided hours of titillating material to a gullible public who was led to believe that these four were the only women teachers in the world who had ever done this. When it became apparent to the media (if not the public) that this was fairly common, the media moved on to other material and neglected the category entirely except for local reporting.
It currently fails as a standalone article. Because of the huge volume of media attention at the time, it must be retained as a "noteworthy" something or other. These four articles should be merged together under some non-WP:OR title. Something shorter than "Four American women teachers convicted of sex crimes against male students from nnnn-nnnn."
See criteria at WP:PERP. Turner fails these since the crime is far from exceptional, but rather common. See also discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Could_I_get_help_with_the_wording....Student7 (talk) 21:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Currently fails Notability guidelines for stand-alone article

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Pamela Rogers Turner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070114001833/http://www.theglobeandmail.com:80/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070110.wteachr0110/BNStory/International/home to http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070110.wteachr0110/BNStory/International/home
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070317113244/http://www.foxnews.com:80/wires/2007Jan10/0,4670,TeacherSexCharge,00.html to http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Jan10/0,4670,TeacherSexCharge,00.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: According to the Tennessee department of corrections website Pamela was either never convicted of or was Convicted of but had her record expunged for the cell phone smuggling incident and is not in prison right now because the site says she has no active sentences. So somebody please change that.
: There is nothing about any of this in the source cited. Sundayclose (talk) 00:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmmm, that source does not state that Rogers was being returned to Prison in 2015.  It says she was indicted by a May 28, 2015 grand jury for introduction of contraband into a state penal facility, and that she was taken into custody on a $50,000 bond.  Without further reliable secondary sources to ascertain what happened next, we can not substantiate anything other than the basic facts of the 2015 arrest and charges.  There is nothing to indicate whether she was convicted and sentenced to a new prison term, or if there was some other outcome (got the charges dropped before trial, or went to trial and was found not guilty, etc.)  As a result, the article here needs to be written to reflect only what is known, as opposed to speculating that Rogers is still incarcerated.  WP:BLPCRIME also needs to be taken into account, given that there is no evidence that a conviction was secured.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the unsourced content stating that she is still imprisoned from the article's body as well as from the lead.  If new reliably secondary sources turn up indicating otherwise, it can be added back.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update about Pamela Joan Rogers incarceration after 2015 

message: The title of this article is "Pamela Rogers Turner", while the content consistently refers to her as "Pamela Joan Rogers".  Which one is correct?  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved the article to "Pamela Joan Rogers", as that it appears to be the correct name since her divorce in 2005.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pamela Rogers Turner or Pamela Joan Rogers