Talk:Pamela Joan Rogers

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New Picture of Pam Rogers[edit]

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)[reply]

SEXY!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.223.234.227 (talk) 03:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence[edit]

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

She's a criminal. A HOT criminal, but still, a criminal. Criminals have practically no rights. Donmega60645 16:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Criticism[edit]

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)[reply]
Actually I envy the boy :)) --Brand спойт 17:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No image[edit]

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

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)[reply]
If ever an article was SCREAMING for a picture... :P - AbstractClass 07:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship???[edit]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

"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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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.[reply]

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)[reply]

Noteworthiness[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

I'm her age, but I wouldn't mind being raped by her at any age... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.185.120.60 (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery + Age Jurisdictions[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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


Tabloid news and not Wikipedia worthy[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Name[edit]

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)[reply]

Currently fails Notability guidelines for stand-alone article[edit]

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) Student7 (talk) 21:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Pamela Rogers Turner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update about Pamela Joan Rogers incarceration after 2015[edit]

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.[2]

 Not done There is nothing about any of this in the source cited. Sundayclose (talk) 00:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- If anyone has a new source showing Pamela Rogers is not incarcerated; please present it here so we can discuss it and change the details of the article; if not please stop putting statements without references. There is sources in the article showing she returned to prison in 2015 but we don’t have a source saying she got out of prison. Also I admit the sources on her in the last few years are not abundant. SeriousHist (talk)

I have put a source here showing Pamela Rogers being returned to Prison in 2015 on cell phone case [3]— Preceding unsigned comment added by SeriousHist (talk • contribs)

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

I was able to find 3 important sources about Pamela Rogers after 2015 ; she is mentioned as being behind bars in July 2017 when her Brother Alvin was arrested. I added them to the article; the only challenge remaining is to know what happened after 2017 and to search for sources on other matters concerning her if they are available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeriousHist (talk • contribs) 07:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela Rogers Turner or Pamela Joan Rogers[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pamela_Joan_Rogers&oldid=1209722427"