Talk:Troy Davis

Use of categories

I do not think that the category "American murderers" should be applied to this article. First, the appeals process is continuing for Davis; as the article states, the Supreme Court of the United States is scheduled to consider whether or not to rehear the case again. While that consideration continues, the case cannot be considered fully closed.

I would add that the category edits made by the anonymous user with IP of 217.136.137.124 (and restored by anonymous user 217.136.111.37), were not made in the spirit of the NPOV policy. An edit summary for the added category "living persons" read, "Lend him this for 10 days." Another category was added with the righteous phrase, "ever thus to copkillers."

Finally, it seems like these edits over-categorize the article. As it stands now, the article includes Davis in the categories:

• American prisoners sentenced to death
• Prisoners sentenced to death by Georgia (U.S. state)
• Americans convicted of murdering police officers

The additional category, "American murderers", does not add substantively to the article. Given the continuing questions about Davis's guilt or innocence, it seems that the use of this category violates WP:NPOV. Thoughts? Sacxpert (talk) 05:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I, for one, agree with Sacxpert Patricia Meadows (talk) 14:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as to how he was CONVICTED, he should be categorized as a murderer. If he is cleared, then it can be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.179.99 (talk) 06:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the comment immediately above. He is a currently-high-profile convicted murderer.

For the sake of comprehensiveness and completeness in the category 'American murderers', it's right to add him into it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

He is a convicted murderer; how can he not belong in that category but be put in categories "Wrongly accused criminals" (he was convicted at trial and that conviction has been upheld many times by various courts) and "Miscarriages of justice"? No authority can be cited to justify either of those categories; every court has upheld this conviction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.132.221.96 (talk) 17:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The syntax in the phrase "convicted murderer" is misleading and does not correspond to the meaning of the phrase. The phrase means "a person convicted of murder" and in no way implies that the person in question is a murderer. The syntax in "convicted murderer" indicates that the person in question is a certain kind of murderer, namely one who has been convicted. The phrase "convicted murderer" should be avoided in factual articles. It is simply inflammatory and demagogic language. Dagme (talk) 16:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Why is he not in the category "American murderers"? This is what courts have said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.153.24.48 (talk) 23:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Witnesses

If seven of the nine the eyewitnesses recanted their original testimony that Davis had been the one who shot the police officer, who did they later say (after recanting) the shooter had been? Was it Sylvester "Red" Coles? Badagnani (talk) 23:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Coles is the suspect, you can read all about it in the CNN article. However please be aware that this talk page is restricted to talk about changes to the article, not general discussion about the case. Check the talk page guidelines for more info. --Ferengi (talk) 07:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm a long-time editor, and you don't have to read me the rules of Wikipedia. Certainly if I brought up the point about Coles, and Coles is not mentioned at all in this article, it should be clear that requesting information from other editors in order to add to the article is an entirely appropriate use of this page. Now, back to business. Is Coles mentioned in this article yet? Badagnani (talk) 18:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

If Davis was at the scene (as he admitted), who did he see shoot the police officer? Was he involved in the fight that occurred just prior to the shooting? Badagnani (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

No murder weapon was found and there is no DNA or any other physical evidence linking Troy Davis to the murder or to an earlier shoot out that night which injured another young man Michael Cooper. Davis had been around with his friend D.D. Collins, and reportedly saw Coles intimidating Larry Young, and tried to reason with Coles, but left when Cole threatened him and asked him to leave. Davis’s conviction came because of the testimony of nine so called eye witnesses. Leading the eye witness Parade was Sylvester “Redd” Coles. Coles has been described by many who know him as a fearsome neighborhood thug . Other eye witnesses were either those who claimed to be present at the shooting or near the crime scene and those who claimed Troy had confessed to them that he had killed Mark MacPhail. What came to light soon after was the fact that Sylvester Coles supposedly had a similar .38 caliber gun, which had killed the police officer. Affidavits submitted much later from 3 people who did not testify at the Davis trial also claim that Coles, confessed to killing the officer after Davis was convicted.

http://www.kavitachhibber.com/main/main.jsp?id=troy_davis_story — Preceding unsigned comment added by NicholaiMadias (talk • contribs) 06:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not relevant that there was no DNA evidence in this case. It was a cold blooded shooting from a distance, not a rape. People who make this argument are more interested in misleading ignorant people (oh, really? No DNA! Oh my! Then he couldn't have done it!) Ballistics evidence is much more relevent. What do the ballistics show? Oops.

SeanS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.68.51 (talk) 20:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

What is that of "seven of nine" recanted while in the previous paragraph it mentions there were 34 witnesses? Where does the number nine originate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.28.2.98 (talk) 13:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

We've been discussing that elsewhere on this page. It seems to be a defense sound bite, but that's not certain. The media has reproduced this in various forms (seven out of nine EYEwitnesses, seven out of nine KEY witnesses). It's very dubious.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The media never fails to disappoint but when they're feeling particularly self-righteous, be sure to your keep eyes on the ball. In this case, it seems the mainstream media has accepted verbatim the narrative of Davis's defense team, his family, and the NAACP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.68.51 (talk) 20:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Events

There were 34 witnesses for the state. 3 of whom were Air Force members who were in the drive through lane. The media reporting on this case...including this Wiki article... are not reporting the facts. 34 witnesses! The evidence included shell casings-Davis shot a person earlier in the day and he was convicted in that case. The shell casings matched the ones recovered in the killing at Burger King. Davis was beating a homeless person at the BK. The facts are easy to find. If of course you really want facts.

What occurred following the shooting and prior to Davis's arrest? Did everyone run away from the scene? If so, how and where was Davis located and arrested? Badagnani (talk) 18:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Davis turned himself in four days after the shooting, I'll be adding that to the article. Many of the questions you have asked here can be answered by simply reading the referenced material. I suggest starting at the summary of the trial transcripts, which provide a comprehensive outline of the events, as well as a legal history after Davis' conviction. --Ferengi (talk) 06:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

In the opening it says, "Although the murder weapon was not recovered, ballistic evidence presented at trial linked bullets recovered at or near the scene to those at another shooting in which Davis was also charged." According to AP he was convicted of this other crime. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GEORGIA_EXECUTION?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-09-21-21-36-49 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.46.249.163 (talk) 16:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Last statement=

Pending verification: the media released last words were edited. Troy is reported to have begun with the statement, "The struggle for justice doesn't end with me. This struggle is for all the Troy Davises who came before me and all the ones who will come after me. I'm in good spirits and I'm prayerful and at peace. But I will not stop fighting until I've taken my last breath.", before making his plea to the family of the shooting victim. will update when I get a second source or audio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aminitas (talk • contribs) 05:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Clarity

Thank you Slp1 for making effort to make this material clear and comprehensible. Reading this my heart cries... As a former juror, not in such serious case as this one, I wonder if justice and trials are about finding the truth or winning vice loosing. Without presenting all evidence jury cannot make a just verdict. I cannot wait when this page is finished to see if it is possible to have a clear view of the matter. Spt51 (talk) 20:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I find the articles lead section hard to read. There is a lot of legal language that is very difficult to understand for non-law-trained persons. Simply some links might help. I am trying to improve this a bit. Help would be greatly appreciated! Regards, --Kmw2700 (talk) 14:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I've trimmed the lead (it's still too long), but perhaps you could look at it again and point out the language that is difficult for you to understand.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick action!! I just took a quick look at it and I find it is a lot less difficult to read. If I find something that is still difficult to understand for me, I will point it out. Thanks again! Regards, Kmw2700 (talk) 01:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Davis lawyers did try to subpoena Sylvester Coles

Both Judge Moore and the Wikipedia article claim that Davis did not call the the alternative suspect, Sylvester Red Coles, to testify at the June 23-24 hearing. However, according the Martina Correira's interview with Amy Goodman on "Democracy Now" (August 26 2010 http://www.democracynow.org/2010/8/25/judge_rejects_death_row_prisoner_troy), Troy Davis' lawyers had in fact prepared a subpoena for Coles, but Judge Moore would not assign any police officers to serve the subpoena. Jhood42 (talk) 16:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a non-advocacy cite that will support that claim? WP:RS. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 21:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Why is there an infobox for Troy Davis at the top of this article?

It didn't even occur to me until I was looking at the article again today, but this article should not have an infobox for Troy Davis. Such an infobox would only be acceptable for an article on Troy Davis himself; since this is an article about the case, the infobox should go. I'll give a day or so for people to raise any objections, but then I'll pull it out unless I hear something cogent. Keeping the infobox makes it seem like we're just dodging WP:BLP1E with the word "case" in the title, but the article is really about Davis. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Troy Davis falls under WP:BLP1E. "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." The coverage of Troy Davis is more persistent than that of John Hinckley, Jr., at least internationally. (In fact, I didn't even recognise the latter's name.) A separate article for Troy Davis would be admissible, but does not make much sense given the current size of this article. Renaming this article to Troy Davis would also be OK, except for the clash with the Canadian footballer of the same name.

I see nothing wrong with the infobox. Hans Adler 08:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Certainly a deceased person cannot fall under WP:BLP1E — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.0.80 (talk) 03:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Removal of material

I have just removed a huge, 12 KB section added about one particular judge's ruling, which ended up representing about 1/6 of the article. It appears to fail multiple WP policies including giving undue weight to a particular topic, as well as no original research and WP:NPOV in that a primary source, a court document was used from which to "select" points all pointing in one direction. Given that there are multiple living people involved, there is also a problem with compliance with biographies of living people policy, which forbids the use of court documents in this fashion. Please do not restore this material without getting consensus to do so. --Slp1 (talk) 20:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

This is disingenuous. Most articles about Supreme Court cases quote heavily from the court opinion. See the page on Ricci_v._DeStefano for a guide. The page on Ricci v. DeStefano has exactly the same format as the section in this article detailing the August 2010 judicial ruling by Judge Moore.24.61.213.154 (talk) 21:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Other stuff exists is not an argument on WP. You don't address the issues with WP:BLP,WP:UNDUE, and WP:NPOV which are key here. Note in particular how BLP policy states "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." Adding a primary sourced section, using a court document, that increased the size of the article by a fifth - all pointing in to one point of view (Davis' guilt and the unreliability of the testimony of multiple living, and named people) is not an improvement to the article, and is not permitted here, though I am sure you can find elsewhere on the internet to post it. I am removing the section again per BLP and the other issues. Per WP:BLP you must get consensus from other editors here to readd it. --Slp1 (talk) 21:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with anon 24 that most pages about court rulings quote liberally from the court ruling. I think that's just how it is and it's silly to argue that a page about a court ruling can't do that. There just aren't secondary sources that go into detail about court rulings. Courts issue 100-page decisions all the time and they are summarized in the newspaper the next day in three paragraphs. The only way someone can understand what's in a lengthy court decision besides actually reading it -- is to read a summary that borrows heavily from the court decisions. I don't see how BLP is relevant here since most of the people named in the judge's ruling are already named elsewhere in the article. It would be awkward, but this could be addresses without deleting the entire section simply by removing the names and referring to "another witness". In any event, the judge's ruling has been available as an external link from the article since the day it was issued. NPOV isn't applicable either, because I have read the judge's ruling in its entirety and the summary of it here captures it fairly. I don't think anon 175 can be accused of cherry-picking the ruling. It's also an important ruling as evidenced by the recent Supreme Court decision denying any further appeals. When the Supreme Court sent the case to Judge Moore, there were justices who disagreed. After considering Judge Moore's decision, there was not a peep of dissent when the Supreme Court in March 2011 decided to put an end to Davis' appeals. This indicates tacit agreement of at least six justices with Judge Moore's ruling. Bundlesofsticks (talk) 22:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Bundleofsticks and welcome to WP. Can I ask you how you came to comment here? Do you happen to know anon 24 and anon 75 somehow? It seems a bit curious all the sudden interest in this page today. It isn't necessarily a problem in itself, but it would be useful to know.

• To answer your questions/comments, despite its name, this is not really about a legal case; this is because of the multiple other aspects of the story, including the activism related to it. It much more similar to the article about Mumia Abu-Jamal, which you'll notice is a featured article and does not contain such an extended point by point summary of any ruling, and only the most minimal use of primary sources.
• I don't doubt that the addition fairly summarizes Moore's ruling, but WP:NPOV applies to the article not specific sections; in other words, having a 1/6 of the article devoted to a detailed rebuttal of witness testimony that no secondary source has chosen to highlight or comment on is problematic for reasons of undue weight.
• You are exactly right that newspapers summarize a judge's ruling in a few sentences. What we seek to do as an encyclopedia is to summarize what secondary sources (ie newspapers, books) say. "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." This is because using primary sources, such as court transcripts or documents are problematic because they are easy to misuse in order to do original research or to push a point of view.
• As far as BLP is concerned, I have made a posting on the BLP Noticeboard. Knowledgeable editors will likely comment here or there in the next hours and days. Slp1 (talk) 22:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

This kind of analysis of a court ruling smacks of original research. You could probably get several lawyers in a room who would read the opinion and disagree as to what various parts mean, and yet Wikipedia editors are telling the world what it means. It's also far too much detail for the article. A summary would be more appropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Bbb23, did you read the section? It's not an analysis; it's a summary.24.61.213.154 (talk) 22:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I skimmed parts of the section until I realized I'd rather read the opinion itself. Your "summary" is over 1,900 words. Pasted into Word, it's about 3.5 pages long. A summary of the opinon would be a paragraph, maybe two because of the length of the opinion. Also, I don't see how your analysis is relevant to the article. The kind of legal details you go into are better suited for a law review article. Extensive quotes don't help, either.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

BTW, 24, I didn't see a citation to the opinion itself, just page numbers. Did I miss it somewhere? Found it in external links.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Slp1: According to the edit history, YOU are the one who put the witness statements with their names at the federal court hearing into the article last fall, and now you are claiming that naming the witnesses in the recap of the Judge's ruling from the same hearing violates BLP? That is pure unadulterated gall. If the witness statements are OK for the article, the characterization of them by the judge should be OK for the article too. You are favoring one side over the other by including only what Davis witnesses said and not how the court evaluated their testimony. The court is not even "the other side" in the proceeding; the court is the neutral arbitrator of testimony and evidence.24.61.213.154 (talk) 23:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you miss Slp1's point. The assertions about the witnesses in the Federal court hearing section are backed up by secondary sources. Slp1's quote of policy has to do with primary sources (the trial opinion).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Bbb23: Summary is not mine.24.61.213.154 (talk) 23:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, it's 75. Where's s/he hanging out in this discussion?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm right here. I am uploading a condensed version of my edit. No doubt Slp1 will revert it fairly quickly, because he is a wikiparliamentarian and has total ownership of this article.75.147.60.142 (talk) 16:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I reverted your changes. Putting aside the merits of your condensed version, the following comment was wholly inappropriate:

Numerous Wikipedia policies prevent any more of the judge's ruling from being quoted here, but interested readers can view the judge's opinion in full at [1] and [2], especially pp. 113-169 in part 2.

This kind of behavior and your comment above about "ownership" will lead to a block if you don't stop.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The complete reversion was not justified. Obviously one can delete the silly line about Wikipedia without removing the entire paragraph. I have put the para back without the silly line. I don't think any of the points User SLP1 raised (undue, OR, BLP) pertain to the single-para summary para from the judge's opinion as opposed to the 12KB add that anon put in yesterday.Bundlesofsticks (talk) 04:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Once again Bbb has reverted edit without discussion. I would have preferred a longer entry but am OK with the self-condensation that anon performed on the first edit. Bbb has not stated why the new paragraph in its latest form is not acceptable. Please discuss changes before reverting.Bundlesofsticks (talk) 00:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The latest new material is unnecessary. It replaces good summary information with long, unnecessary quotes. It has all that messily-formatted stuff about the opinion, wholly inappropriate. It's simply a mess. Plus, your latest reversion also reverted other edits I made that were uncontroversial. I've put things back, but we're both reaching edit war status here, and I suggest you leave it alone unless you can gain some consensus as to the validity of this material. Please also see discussion on BLPN here.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Bbb23's reverts and would have done it myself if I hadn't been exceptionally busy with my real life/work. Even the much reduced quote mining of Moore's comments is unnecessary and undesirable per WP:NOR and WP:BLP. The summary version, as reported in secondary sources, is much to be preferred. Bundleofsticks, you do not have consensus for this edit. If you want to include this material, I suggest you begin a request for comment, or participate at the BLPN and get the opinions of other editors. Slp1 (talk) 02:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Section about MacPhail

I have written a few lines about the victim, Mark MacPhail, which is completely appropriate for the article. Please note that the article is titled "Troy Davis case" and not "Troy Davis." Even in an article that was titled "Troy Davis," where the only thing Troy Davis is notable for is murdering Mark MacPhail, it would be appropriate to have a section on MacPhail. (See Mumia al-Jamal for a parallel).Bundlesofsticks (talk) 00:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The article is about the Troy Davis case, but its focus is on Davis and his legal issues. Not only do you want to put in McPhail's biography, but you stick it in in the very beginning of the article with a very large picture of him (that may be a copyright vio because you argue fair use for it). Your source for all of this information is an online archive that you don't even include a link to. It's an inappropriate addition on many levels. I'm going to revert it again, and I strongly suggest you seek consensus before doing anything more with it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The reference is right there. And it is absurd to argue that a case about a murder can include no information about the murder victim. To counter your next argument that such information belongs only in an article about Officer Mark MacPhail, I have started such an article. I look forward to seeing you at the VFD page soon.Bundlesofsticks (talk) 00:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The reference is there, but there's no link even though you say it's "online". But sourcing is a side issue. The article is only nominally about a murder case, as I've already stated. And my next argument wasn't going to be what you thought, but you are correct about the the new article. MacPhail is not notable.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Your argument is extremely weak. I'm reverting. Keep in mind you can only revert one more time but I will still have a revert left.Bundlesofsticks (talk) 00:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

3RR isn't the only policy applicable in this sort of thing. Edit warring is still frowned upon and can be grounds for a block. However, I do not currently plan to revert again.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you please point me to a WP policy that says there can be no mention of the victim in a famous murder case? I've just been doing a little looking around and there are plenty of articles about murders that discuss the victim. The Troy Davis case would have been completely unremarkable except for the fact that the victim was a police officer. If Davis had murdered the male he shot at earlier the same evening, it would have received little or no coverage in Savannah, to say nothing of the rest of the country. The victim is very much at the center of this case.Bundlesofsticks (talk) 00:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually I think you are wrong about that. The reason Davis has got so much attention is because he is subject to the death penalty. Death penalty cases inevitably (and appropriately) get more publicity and interest, whoever the victim is. --Slp1 (talk) 12:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

From the discussion over at the talk page for Mark MacPhail, it looks like consensus is leaning toward keeping the content on WP, so I guess the question is whether it belongs here or in the MacPhail article?24.61.213.154 (talk) 03:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The article, according to the title, is about the case, not just Troy Davis. Therefore, I think an appropriate level of background on both the victim and the alleged offender should be present. As for issues about sourcing or pictures, those can be worked out later, but I think that the victim is very much relevant background info. Also, I would suggest the background on MacPhail and on Davis should be combined into one section about the overall background of the case. JakeH07 (talk) 05:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The crime is not what makes the article notable. However, in revisiting the article, I think the Early life section (about Davis) doesn't belong in the article, either. Except possibly the part about his earlier guitly plea to carrying a concealed weapon, the background information on his life illuminates little.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I think we can agree that either both background sections should either be included or omitted. While this information may not be relevant to someone examining legal issues, it is valuable to someone trying to "get a feel" for the case. Therefore, I think both sections should be included. JakeH07 (talk) 18:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with adding more material about MacPhail, and his picture is great, assuming the licensing is okay. It's a bit big, though, but that can easily be fixed. However, the current paragraph contains too much extraneous and irrelevant detail including private information about living people such as birthdates, marriages etc. It isn't also appropriately placed in the article, as others have noted. I will make an edit or two to address these issues. --Slp1 (talk) 11:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the description of his father as "Vietnam veteran" is acceptable, since the earlier text established that he was a career army officer from USMA. 24.61.213.154 (talk) 15:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I will fix.Bundlesofsticks (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The article looks much better.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed! JakeH07 (talk) 00:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Support in pop culture section?

There have been a few musicians who actively voice their support for Troy. Theres a picture of M1 at a rally and Chad Stokes of Dispatch and State Radio fame has been very active in rallying people to support Troy, he often wears an "I AM TROY DAVIS" shirt and wrote two songs in support of Troy, "State of Georgia" and "All My Possessions" collectively called Odes to Troy. I feel like this is significant enough to mention in the article. Does anyone agree/disagree?--132.198.76.158 (talk) 15:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Whether it's musicians or actors, whose only significance is they might be celebrities, I don't think it belongs in the article. There has to be a better connection between the supporters and the subject of the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Well he did write songs about him. Bob Dylan's Hurricane is mentioned in Rubin Carter's page. How is this different?--132.198.76.149 (talk) 15:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:CLAIM

WP:CLAIM is clear: "To write that someone claimed or asserted something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence." Furthermore, since this is still a WP:BLP, "BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement." Rostz (talk) 14:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

In this instance, I don't much care whether the article says claims or states. I can see some support for both. Rostz is correct about the guideline, but in some instances "claim" is a legal term of art that is appropriate. And it is a guideline, not a policy, so it can be overridden by consensus. I don't think people should battle much over this.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Note that several instances indeed remain (when used as a legal term of art or when part of sourced quotes); I changed the ones that, per the guideline, imply a challenge to statement credibility. Rostz (talk) 15:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I've looked more closely at what you changed and what you did not. I've decided your changes are appropriate. Thanks for the clarification.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Lead of article

Just a heads up that I am going to do a significant rewrite and reorganization of the lead. I did not get to it when I rewrote the article, but it is obvious parts of it are out of date, and do not follow LEAD guidelines, in being a summary of the article. There are parts of the lead that I do not recall from the articles I read at all. --Slp1 (talk) 01:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

When you do, would you please add Mr. Coles first name to his last name when it is first introduced in the second paragraph of this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.114.212 (talk) 14:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Info about student performance

An IP from Bangkok has been edit warring to include a quote about Davis' school performance, calling him a "dumb kid" etc. The IP has been reverted by several editors and is now at 3rr. To be clear, my objections are:

• the entire passage is copied and pasted from the source; a word for word copyright infringement.
• the source refused to be named, and as such is improper for such an inflammatory statement about a living person

--Slp1 (talk) 17:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, and I think the second point is more important than the first because it can't be fixed. Even as the article stands now, I'm concerned that we are citing to an anonymous source to label Davis a "poor student"; to do more than that would be completely unwarranted. It also blows out of proportion a point that is not particularly important to the article as a whole, giving it too much weight.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• Fully agreed. Anonymous sources shouldn't be used with regards to a disparaging quote about any person, living or dead. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Bjmofcolumbus, 21 September 2011

Following the decision of the Georgia Pardons and Parole Board to extend clemency to Troy Davis, a Chatham County, Georgia Superior Court judge signed an execution order for Davis, ordering such execution be carried out by no later than midnight on September 21, 2011. Bjmofcolumbus (talk) 00:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. I'm not sure what source you're looking at, but I've seen at least one source that says the execution is to be carried out at 7:00 p.m. tomorrow. In any event, I don't see the point of adding your sentence to the article, even if you had specified a source (or I could find one).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

It's probably the death warrant. Not notable, except Davis's defenders are asking the county prosecutor to go before the county judge and get it vacated, which is most unlikely.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Cloverdale

"However, he stated he was confident that .38 casings found in Cloverdale..." This needs to be clarified. By Cloverdale does it mean at Troy Davis' house or near the pool party where he shot Michael Cooper? Also, there should be ending punctuation after "For the defense, Davis' mother testified that Davis was at their Cloverdale home on August 19, 1989, until he left for Atlanta with his sister at about 9 pm". 74.231.46.68 (talk) 14:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Latest changes to article

User:Wehwalt has been making many changes quite quickly to the article. Many of them are significant and, in my view, require more consensus to justify them. I've been trying, with some difficulty, to review each change, but it isn't easy to keep up. I and User:Slp1 have reverted a few of the changes, but I'm not sure that we're catching all of the problems. I'd like to see more discussion of these kinds of changes before they are made.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll lay off now. What are the problems? There are certainly POV problems, you can't allow one side extensive quotes and characterize the views of the other side.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, but, at the same time, as you can see, others don't agree with all of your changes, and I'm at least partly complaining about the speed and the number. I appreciate your stopping. I don't even know if I can look at everything you've done now because I've been neglecting other things and spending too much time on Wikipedia. Maybe Slp1 has more energy to devote to it.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

You've got to play it NPOV though, that's the thing. Regarding Slp1's edit here, why does the change amount to one side's witnesses being named, and the other side's not? "A state's attorney" "a lead detective". I note that Slp1 mentions WP:UNDUE in his edit summary, I'd be grateful if he could expand on why that policy is implicated.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I can't really agree either about the problem with quotes. I think if you looked at the whole article you would see that they were actually quite balanced, and I'd say it has become unbalanced now. For example, if you look at the federal appeal section (especially after your additions) it is just one quote after another from the "guilty" perspective. But agreed, thanks for stopping for the moment --Slp1 (talk) 16:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

What does WP:UNDUE have to do with anything?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the question: it has has to do with giving undue weight to one perspective. The article already said that there was testimony that detectives et al said the investigation had been careful, and now you have added a quote about exactly this topic. I worry that it is giving undue weight to the issue. Also I don't think the name of the detective is that important. The witnesses have to be named to prevent confusion, and because their previous testimony has already been referred to. Slp1 (talk) 16:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

In your edit summary, you cited to WP:UNDUE. Is that your understanding of what it says? I would say the lead detective's name and the lead state attorney's name are important. After all, you cite a bewildering array of friendly people who have lent Davis their support but who don't actually have anything to do with the case.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

By all means restore the names of the lead detective etc if you want. It's not a major issue to me, really. However, if by friendly people you mean Jimmy Carter et al, then yes, I think per UNDUE (which means the extent of the coverage in reliable sources) then Carter and Pope Benedict etc have more of a place than the detective's name which has received much less airplay (or indeed name recognition in the readership). I also think, and this partly answers the question below, that this "case" goes beyond the legal case. Already there are reliably sourced commentaries discussing whether this case, including the reported unprecedented reaction to it nationally and internationally, will have a lasting effect on US views of the death penalty. This sort of stuff will need to be included at some point. Slp1 (talk) 16:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

No question. However, the comments in the next few days are likely to be, well, hyperbolic. Care will be needed.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. That's the reason I've added nothing of this sort to date.--Slp1 (talk) 19:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Case?

If this is about the case, we probably can dispense with the stuff about the early life, parentage, etc. except to the extent they were brought up in trial. If it is a bio, more needs to be said about what he personally has been doing in prison, and the article should be named Troy Davis, with an appropriate disambiguation.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I would be wary of making these kinds of changes, given the scheduled execution for today. It doesn't feel like the right thing to do. Also, assuming Davis's background is irrelevant, the background information on McPhail is probably also irrelevant. Many editors a while ago (can't remember when) insisted on inserting all sorts of victim information in an obvious attempt to switch the focus from the defendant to the victim, including putting in a picture of McPhail (since deleted as a copyright vio). There's a lot of controversy surrounding this article and a lot of tension in the article to achieve a reasonable balance. As you can see, even experienced editors like you and Slp1 don't necessarily agree on the correct balance. All that said, I would reiterate that major changes right now are not a great idea.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree, today is not the day. In addition, some thought could be given to separating out the advocacy, so that the reader can read through the legal proceedings without a lot of pro and con commentary. I'm just giving my thoughts.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Like Wehwalt, what brought me to the discussion page was confusion over why the article is titled the Troy Davis case when there is not already a bio article about Troy Davis the person. After reading the comments here I also agree that today is not the day to reorganize or change the emphasis of the article, but for the record, once whatever happens happens and things settle down, I do think the main article should be biographical about Troy Davis the person, and if the volume of material about the case is too large, it could be a secondary article linked to the main. And I agree the pro/con advocacy needs to be very carefully filtered out. My opinion, only, but basically in agreement with Wehwalt. - Elmarco 19:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree. Troy Davis isn't really notable outside this case. We really don't have much information about the man at all.--Slp1 (talk) 19:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Like it or not, most of the article is written as a biography. So we either rename the article, or we rewrite it. Since nothing about this guy is notable other than the case, I suggest leaving the article title as is and rewriting or at least re-organizing the article. For example, the case doesn't have an early life etc. Rklawton (talk) 13:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

It is on my to do list to so some rewriting consistent with consensus, but it's got to wait until things calm down. We still got over 80K hits yesterday. That's down from 1.7 million at its peak, but it still makes it difficult to do any serious writing which will satisfy everyone, including partisans. Give it a couple of weeks.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if this is a bit OT for this section, but shouldn't the article title be "Troy Davis murder case" to be more consistent with pages in one of its categories: Category:Murder trials bllix (talk) 05:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Quote from Amnesty International

Regarding post 451694669 by Wikisamia undone by Wehwalt:

The Amnesty International quote is a review of official testaments made and purely makes the simple statement that they do not say the same thing. This is not an opinion and therefore it doesn't matter what the source is as long as it is reputable. The only reason I didn't cite more primary sources such as the statements themselves is that they are very hard to find. Because of this I am re-inserting the quote. Wikisamia (talk) 16:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

However, it is ill-placed POV as it immediately follows a quote from someone you don't like. Would you like quotes pointing out that Davis and his advocates haven't always said the same thing?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

You are jumping to conclusions about my POV that shouldn't be included in the debate as we are trying to reach objectivity. This section already follows the pattern of giving the testimonies and then, if there are any, stating why those testimonies are in doubt. This is why I added this information here because it seems prudent to follow the quote of Harriet's testimony with the doubts that there are about it. The doubts are not a point of view; the quote quotes the appeal case. Admittedly quoting the appeal case itself would be better, but I can't find it. Wikisamia (talk) 16:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I express no opinion on any editor's POV; I concentrate on edits, not editors. I would rather use the appeal tpo. Have you checked Findlaw? It is almost certainly out there.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wikisamia, I tend to agree that this is not really a helpful addition. We've had people here before trying include he said/she said type analyses of the evidence, and it was removed as original research. This is too much like that. It is always better to use secondary sources about what others find important, because of the risk of cherry picking quotes from primary source documents to suit one point of view or the other. --Slp1 (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Taken on board. I will review whether I think it is important that it is included and whether that this is the best place in the article for it. I will also search for a reference from a more neutral source if I decide that it is important. For now I am happy for it to be removed. Wikisamia (talk) 16:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the article is reasonably OK, though it unquestionably needs work if there are aspirations of promoting the article. To be a reasonably neutral description for those who are undoubtedly consulting it, it's OK. It's not great, but it's OK and I commend those who have worked on it. In other words, other than new developments, I don't plan to make any further changes today except to react to changes. After that, I'll probably keep it on my watchlist for a while, but I have plenty of other work I need to do rather than bother you guys!--Wehwalt (talk) 16:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The bare reference for the pardons board reconsideration should probably be replaced by a full reference for a news article, though that is not urgent.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Petitioning for a SCOTUS writ of certiorari is not an appeal, technically, but that's a common mistake. I would suggest a massage of language though.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Do fix it, if you would; the source given says "appeal" several times and I'm not knowledgeable enough to "massage the language" (as you put it) away from it. Slp1 (talk) 17:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Happy to. However, right now Bbb23 is editing and I already lost work once through edit conflict. The article uses both "U.S." and "US" for an abbreviation, either is acceptable, but not both. Which do you prefer?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I prefer U.S.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll change that as I go through. Also, there were apparently proceedings between 2001 and 2004 which are not covered in the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Whatever happened to your "other work"? If you go do yours, I can go do mine. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 17:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

My mistake, they are. Alright, let me just finish straighten out the legal terminology and I'll be off your back. I'll continue to watchlist though.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Seven of nine witnesses recanted?

This is clearly incorrect at least according to this (Note: I do not say this is a citable RS). Holmes, Murray and Sanders have not recanted (Murray is deceased), so the stat should probably be removed unless it can be further justified. Also Coles.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict but didn't show. weird) The figure is widely, widely cited- and not attributed either. I don't have time to trawl through the detailed (and reliable) sources for this at present, but suffice to say that I think the figure should stay unless there are reliable secondary sources making a different point. --Slp1 (talk) 18:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

According to this (page 41), the prosecution called 35 witnesses.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the differences is between eye-witnesses and witnesses?--Slp1 (talk) 18:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

It's possible. I'm still working through the district court opinion, which is detailed. In the interim, I changed "seven" to "some" and took out the "nine".--Wehwalt (talk) 18:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of what your sources say, the prosecutor says there were five witnesses whose testimony was not challenged. I suggest we find agreeable langauge for stating this is a contention, as it is disputed in RS, it can't be stated as a fact.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

This is the citation: "She then ticked off the names of at least five prosecution witnesses who were not called this week, saying their testimony against Davis remains unchallenged". [3]. It's not clear who those prosecution witnesses are from the article, unfortunately; is it eyewitnesses, ballistic experts, people who heard confessions? We know some eyewitnesses are dead, so couldn't have been called. Comparing the two numbers are like apples and oranges unfortunately. BTW, would you mind avoiding using things like "your sources". They aren't "my sources", they are sources fair and square. --Slp1 (talk) 19:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough request and I'll avoid that in future although I meant nothing negative. I suggest we add "according to the defense" before the word "seven".--Wehwalt (talk) 19:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that "according to the defence" plays down a crucial part of the debate about his innocence, which is the main thing that makes this a notable article. If people really have signed affidavits recanting their testimonies it should be a provable fact that can be stated as such so I think we should strive to improve this. I know we have already discussed the use of Amnesty's report as a reference but I believe, given the comprehensive evidence given in the report and assuming they are not outright liers, in this case it could be referenced. Rather than saying 7 out of the 9 key witnesses, it states that all but 3 of the State's (i.e. the prosecutor's) non-police witnesses have recanted their testimonies. It then goes on to list the names of the witnesses and their signed affidavits. Perhaps then we could change it to "In the years since the trial, the defence has collected signed affidavits from all but three of the state's non-police witnesses, recanting their testimonies" and reference this report Wikisamia (talk) 20:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, regarding Holmes' testimony, he seemingly didn't testify at the trial, only at a pre-trial hearing. On 17th August 2001 he made a statement saying that he didn't go to the trial to testify because he was pressured into his initial testimony, which he claims was false, and didn't want to repeat it in court. (Affidavit again held by Amnesty with extracts published in the report) Wikisamia (talk) 21:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

What do you do about the lady who died and didn't sign a statement, but they're claiming an unsigned statement purportedly hers? I'm not terribly interested in what makes it notable, this article would be speedy keep at AfD, no worries. But the fact is, that repetition doesn't make something more true. We have at hand a listing, in the judge's opinion, of all the witnesses. That should be preferred to a soundbite. And no, I don't think your language is terribly good. There were 35 witnesses for the P. Are you prepared to say that all but three of them were either police or signed affidavits? Are you counting the military men in the van, who have not recanted, as police?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this attribution to defence lawyers is problematic, as is I would add, the inclusion of the racial composition of the jury, which seems placed as if to nullify the claim to racial prejudice in the reader's mind. The fact that 7 key prosecution eyewitnesses to the murder have retracted wholly or partially is not in dispute. Or at least I can't find a reliable source that makes that claim, can you Wehwalt? The court agreed with the prosecution that these recantations were not impressive enough. That's enough. I'm really loath to get into this, because it is not our role to second guess what multiple reliable sources have said, but for the record, the nine non-police eyewitnesses who testified to identifying Davis as the shooter at the trial were: Sylvester Coles, Darrell Collins, Kevin McQueen, Jeffrey Sapp, Larry Young, Harriet Murray, Stephen Sanders, Dorothy Ferrell, and Antoine Williams of which 7 (those in italics) produced affidavits recanting their evidence. This is listed as part of in this court decision- which also indicates that the lady who died (Murray) actually had signed an affidavit. Holmes testified at the pretrial hearing but not at the trial itself, as explained above. Of the military in the back of the car, Daniel Kinsman and Robert Grizzard had both always stated they could not identify the gunman, so there was not much not much to recant, but they reiterated this is subsequent affidavits. Sanders, who was the other one, has not. Other civilian witnesses mentioned as having testified for the prosecution at the trial (Valerie Coles Gordon, Michael Cooper, Benjamin Gordon, Craig Young, Eric Ellison) were all witnesses to other parts of the evening, none a direct eyewitness to either shooting, and could not/did not identify Davis as having part of others.see this other court document

--Slp1 (talk) 00:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Polygraph

Normally the rest of the world laughs when the USA uses polygraph tests in courts to prove a suspect's guilt (most civilized countries know that such a test isn't reliable) yet now when it comes to the Defence wanting to use the test to clear his name it isn't approved. Can someone explain why this is? Can someone always explain why he is expected to "prove his innocence" when surely, at least in Europe, it is the other side who should prove the guilt - not just with a 90% probability but 100%, without any doubt.--Xania ^talk 18:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The United States does not use polygraphs in court for any reason, and polygraph evidence is not admissible. He is expected to show clear and convincing evidence of innocence because the prosecution has already proved him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and that judgment stands. That is the state of the law.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia (I know, a crap source to quote) article on polygraphs begs to differ.--Xania ^talk 18:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, apparently it isn't as hard and fast as it used to be.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

It seemed a little strange to me at first that they would outright deny it. His purpose in requesting it was to get the parole board to reconsider his case. But the danger is in using a source of evidence that a good chunk of the public doesn't know is entirely unreliable. It could sway people's minds (such as in a future retrial) if they believe it, and that's probably why they wouldn't want to risk allowing it or allowing the results released to the public. ~Ttony21^{(talk, contribs)} 22:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from R046722, 21 September 2011

the last sentence of the article should not read that the state of Georgia is going to murder but is going to execute Troy Davis...as that is the appropriate neutral unbiased legal terminology...

R046722 (talk) 22:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

That's been done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Changeover

I suggest we not allow any changes until someone posts here an online mention of the confirmation. And apparently according to CNN, the Supreme Court is considering something. I don't know if that is delaying things or not.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted several additions of his "death date" already. The only way to prevent it would be to lock the article completely as it's not coming from IPs.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I can do it, as it is not for the purpose of giving me editing advantage, as an admin. Let's just wait and see. Apparently it is the Supremes now.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Fine, I'm just doing rollbacks as it's easier. Even if he's executed, the article has to be updated properly with sources.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Confirmation! Execution delayed. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-09-21/troy-davis-georgia-execution/50491648/1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenIn2010 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Eworonzoff, 21 September 2011

Troy Davis is still alive. Please change the tense of this article to reflect that - especially the first line: Troy Davis IS not Troy Davis was

Eworonzoff (talk) 23:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. The article says "is". There is currently an onslaught of editors trying to improperly change the article. Unfortunately.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Bradshawz, 21 September 2011

Troy Davis' execution was delayed. The announcement was made at 7:05 pm, five minutes after his execution was scheduled. The delay was decided by the Supreme Court, which is considering whether or not Troy deserves a stay of executions.

Source: http://abcnews.go.com/US/troy-davis-execution-delayed-supreme-court-decision/story?id=14571862 Bradshawz (talk) 23:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Another editor already took care of that, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Also agree with Bbb23's revert, there's no indication besides the Guardian that the Supremes have actually interceded. Georgia officials are waiting.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't know if this could help... it's being broadcasted at news... http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2011/9/20/democracy_now_special_broadcast_on_wednesday_troy_davis_execution_in_georgia_6_8pm_edt --Ald™ ¬_¬™ 23:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Probably not ... I doubt if they are the best source of breaking news on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

found one that seems reliable... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2040054/Troy-Davis-U-S-Supreme-Court-delays-7pm-Troy-Davis-execution-minute-appeal.html --Ald™ ¬_¬™ 00:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

And more...CNN, NYTimes, as well as The Guardian. C628 (talk) 00:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The fact that Georgia is awaiting a decision from the Court is already in the article, but that's not the same thing as saying the Court has issued anything official. The Guardian is just being imprecise if it says that. CNN, the NYT, and the Washington Post all say the same thing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, Georgia seems to be waiting of its own volition, at least legally speaking.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

As the creator of this article, I won't sit by and let people delete reliable sources from the article. Fair warning. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't just rewrite the lede like that, discuss it here. You are slanting what was a very balanced lede.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

A completely unsourced lede. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is supposed to be, per WP:LEDE. If what is said is supported in the article by sourcing, it does not have to be sourced in the lede. Please take my edits as purely good faith.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Look, he didn't attract support merely for maintaining his innocence. Half the people in prison do that. Build on my edit, don't dismiss it. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the seven of nine witnesses recanting is very questionable as I have stated elsewhere on this page, and we should return to the old language on that.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Kendrick7: see WP: OWN. No one owns any articles. This article should be kept in a neutral point of view, and if you two continue edit warring, you'll both run the risk of being blocked from editing. Dr. Whooves (talk) 02:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. What is your thought on what is a better NPOV?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

A neutral one. In other words, no blathering on about whether Davis is innocent or guilty. Just state the facts. Dr. Whooves (talk) 02:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

he never says he own the article... he simply feeling responsible as creator of this article... and please... everyone need to hold back from editing... the edit getting on my nerves... almost 5 edits in 10 minutes hours ago... --Ald™ ¬_¬™ 02:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

He definitely implies that he owns the article. "As the creator of this article, I won't sit by and let people delete reliable sources from the article. Fair warning." Not much to interpret there, 'this is mine, don't change stuff' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.98.221.223 (talk) 04:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

There's a policy against such charges of "vandalism". -- 98.108.223.149 (talk) 03:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I've hardly been back here in over 4 years, so I'm hardly claiming WP:OWNershop. The project's policy, per WP:PRESERVE is that we should never delete relevant reliable sources from articles. And of course violating WP:PRESERVE is vandalism, last I checked. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

No, that is not and never has been vandalism, which is "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia", and you have provided no evidence of that. As that page says, "Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful" ... so please don't do that, and please don't misrepresent what vandalism is and then claim that you checked that your misrepresentation is accurate when it clearly is not. Also, please do not issue warnings. If someone removes something that you think should not be removed, assume good faith and discuss it like a good WP editor should. -- 98.108.223.149 (talk) 23:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

New section needed in mainspace for supporters' campaign specifically

There is a whole history of the campaign to stop the execution involving notables such as AI and Joan Baez and many Nobel prizewinners. That is entitled to a separate section if not a separate article. Someone please start that section. I don't have the time and am rather burned out on creation of new WP material...or please comment pro and con thanks.GeoBard^Semi-retired 02:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I've felt there should be an advocacy section. It may have to wait a bit, things are a bit crazy here right now.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

We should point out that the list of notable and celebrity supporters aren't unique to this case and have come out against the death penalty in general. As a result, it's important that we do not present their support as somehow unique or special to this case. Rklawton (talk) 02:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason why we should point that out, especially since it isn't accurate. -- 98.108.223.149 (talk) 03:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

We would need sources.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

According to CNN, this is the most notorious execution since the execution of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. Count Iblis (talk) 04:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm amazed they didn't select another execution some 2000 years previously! The hysterical language on this case! All the more reason why we should be deliberate now that there's time to be.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Luzzy Fogic, 22 September 2011

I'd normally just go ahead and make these changes because they're purely for clarity, but seeing as this article is so contentious... I'd propose replacing this section:

"In the early morning of August 20, 1989, the Savannah police, suspecting Davis and seeking a murder weapon, converged on the Davis home. Having sealed off the area, the police searched the house, and a pair of shorts belonging to Davis were found in a dryer and confiscated.[17] Police issued a reward for information leading to davis's arrest.[18] davis's family began negotiating with police...

...with this:

"Savannah Police searched Davis's home on August 20, 1989, and seized a pair of Davis's shorts as evidence.[17] Davis's family began negotiating with police..."

Although the converging/sealing/dryer details are consistent with the original source, they're really extraneous. Sufficient detail on the search is given later in the article around the exclusion of the shorts as evidence. Also, "Davis's" in the next sentence should obviously be capitalized.

Luzzy fogic (talk) 02:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Added: and apologies if I didn't get the "edit request" code right - it's the first time I am trying to use it. Luzzy fogic (talk) 02:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I just read over the article and there are many more incidents of "Davis" that need to be capitalized. Some articles (in the sense of a/an/the) are also missing.69.113.227.58 (talk) 02:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I request a change for his time of death because Troy Davis died at the time of 11:08pm eastern not 11:10 pm. It was on the news--> Live CNN. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.119.232.10 (talk) 03:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Deferral of stay of execution

Since I can't edit the article for one reason or another, the stay of execution was denied by the Supreme Court NYTimes and CNN Rmathus (talk) 02:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we are still catching up with events.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem; I know you're busy editing some of the vandalism earlier and catching up. Rmathus (talk) 03:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)RMathus

Claims of unnamed witnesses

"witnesses testified they had seen Davis shoot MacPhail, and two others^[who?]..." Come on, this is taking the weasel words principle too far, isn't it? The "who" is trial witnesses. Anyone who doubts the existence of the testimony check the case record, without needing a play-by-play account here. 24.22.217.162 (talk) 03:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I am concerned that editor really doesn't understand what a lede is for.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree as well. The weasel tag isn't needed here.--JayJasper (talk) 04:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The weasel tags have been removed from the lead, per this discussion.--JayJasper (talk) 04:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Suffered

There are reports that Davis suffered tremendously during his execution. 108.67.65.222 (talk) 03:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Not according to what the media observers could observe. I watched them talk on TV, and I'm sure there will be coverage of that. They reported a little bit of blinking, one look up at his attorney in the second row, and besides that, just slow breathing that eventually ended.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

If there are such reports from reliable sources, then please provide them, don't just say "there are reports". -- 98.108.223.149 (talk) 23:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Correct. The convicted murderer Davis died peacefully, as all media reported! 91.65.16.55 (talk) 16:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Improper tense

Second paragraph, first sentence reads: "According to the defense, seven of nine eyewitnesses signed affidavits changed or recanted all or part of their testimony"

This should say "According to the defense, seven of nine eyewitnesses signed affidavits changing or recanting all or part of their testimony" 99.98.221.223 (talk) 04:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The sentence has been rephrased for clarity.--JayJasper (talk) 04:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from DocHemi, 22 September 2011

Please change army ranger to Army Ranger as it is a proper noun

DocHemi (talk) 04:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done--JayJasper (talk) 04:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request, 21 September 2011

• Troy Davis collected news and commentary at The Guardian
• Case:Troy Davis at Amnesty International

Please add the above to External links. 99.50.188.136 (talk) 22:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Temporarily deferred, will consider once the heat of the moment is over.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I can keep moving it down every few hours until "the heat of the moment is over" if that's what you'd prefer. This is the third fourth time in six+ hours, and many other edits have been requested and made in that time. 99.50.188.136 (talk) 04:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done--Goldsztajn (talk) 05:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Just as an explanation, as the request involved evaluation against WP:EL, I did not want to spend the time on it with so much happening and so many edits being made.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Seemed WP:UCS to me. Just saying. --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Ann Coulter claims 34 witnesses

Two quotes:

"First of all, the state presented 34 witnesses against Davis -- not nine -- which should give you some idea of how punctilious the media are about their facts in death penalty cases."

"Among the witnesses who did not recant a word of their testimony against Davis were three members of the Air Force, who saw the shooting from their van in the Burger King drive-in lane. The airman who saw events clearly enough to positively identify Davis as the shooter explained on cross-examination, "You don't forget someone that stands over and shoots someone."

Source: http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2011-09-21.html

I take everything I read with a grain of salt, but is there any truth at all to these claims? Someone brought this up at work to defend this specific case. I'm curious. If this is true, why has it not been reported elsewhere? Especially the specific figure of 34 witnesses as opposed to 9. Unless it's completely fabricated somehow. I'll let others comment if they have any knowledge to share.

--An Interested Reader — Preceding unsigned comment added by An interested reader 555 (talk • contribs) 07:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

There's a simple explanation for your confusion: Anne Coulter is a crazy fucking nutjob. That's all. DubiousIrony ^yell 08:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, Coulter is twisting things. The assertion has never been that there were only nine witnesses; the usual language is "eyewitnesses", which is a small subset of all of the witnesses called. And, as has been reported, seven of those recanted (and one of the remaining two is Coles, who some of the eyewitnesses have said is the real killer). -- 98.108.223.149 (talk) 23:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

This is just a suggestion because I don't know the facts but *perhaps* the distinction is between eyewitnesses to the crime and witnesses generally. For example, as I understand it, a forensic technician that testifies on behalf of the prosecution is a witness as far as the legal system is concerned, but in ordinary conversation most people would think of an eyewitness if they heard a reference to a "witness". Again - this is just speculation on my part. Luzzy fogic (talk) 08:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

There were actually 35 according to the district court opinion. The seven out of nine is a defense soundbite, which has been quite successful in the media, apparently. However, they count in that seven unsworn affidavits and one woman who died, and the defense says that an unsigned, unsworn writing is her statement. There were three Air Force men in a van at the drive in window of the Burger King, one was a witness who most definitely did not recant. Two of them at least were called, the third was lying down on the back seat.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

For the record, and to clear up several errors. The 2009 appeal decision says 34 witnesses were called by the prosecution. [4]. It also says that 6 of the seven direct eyewitness recantations were sworn affivadits. Of the three airforce men, two testified from the start that they could not identify the shooter, and thus had nothing to recant. The other (Sanders) initially said that he would not be able to identify the shooter, but later did in court. He did not retract his testimony. The seven of nine may be a defense soundbite, but it has received very wide currency, (including in a judge's opinion "seven of nine key trial witnesses recanted their testimony which pointed to Davis as Officer MacPhail’s murderer"). It is also accurate: 7 of the 9 witnesses who actually identified Davis as the shooter (rather than providing general evidence about the events of the day, ballistics etc) retracted all or part of their evidence. --Slp1 (talk) 13:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Fascinating. I must admit, I'm fascinated how the media works, and regurgitates its own information. We should make reference to the 2009 appeal decision and cite that there were 34 witnesses called by the prosecution total.

--An interested reader

Since Coulter is an opinion piece, we should not cite directly to her. That being said, it is likely some secondary sources will pick up on that in the days to come. If necessary we can cite to both the district and qppeals court decision, but it is best not to cite too much to primary sources. Slp1, we have to be careful not to supply interpretation which is our own original research. Not saying you are inaccurate, I would just like to see a RS explanation.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Any interpretation has been repeatedly cited in reliably secondary sources as you know. As you say, primary sources are to be avoided, but since you have repeatedly questioned the secondary sources and have made certain errors in your posts, I thought I would do you the courtesy of explaining, here on the talkpage, for example, where the numbers come from, that the affivadits were almost all sworn etc, with a citation from a court decision, an eminently reliable source for this purpose.--Slp1 (talk) 15:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I had to revert you. There were 7 key eyewitnesses who later signed affidavits claiming that they lied originally. But if you want to mention the total number of 34 witnesses for the prosecution, you also need to mention that there were 19 10 such affidavits in total (edited: plus 9 more from people who were not witnesses in the original case, pointing to another person as the killer) and that they contained evidence of severe manipulations by the police. The affidavits are collected here. Hans Adler 14:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this revert.--Slp1 (talk) 15:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that Ferrell signed her affidavit?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, she did- it just wasn't sworn, the only one that wasn't. Please check the reference I gave you, or you can look here [5] It's all there.--Slp1 (talk) 16:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake, I meant Murray. From the EL, legalcases:

Harriet Murray (eyewitness)

At trial: Testified both at the preliminary hearing and the trial that Davis had a "little smirky smile" on his face as he killed MacPhail. Testified that when MacPhail showed up, Coles fled and Davis turned on the officer. "The first bullet didn't go off," Murray said. "The officer went for his gun. He never had a chance to get his gun." Murray said Davis then "fired again, then took two steps toward the police officer and then shot him again." Davis "did not say anything, but he had a little smirky smile on his face."(Jan Skutch, "Witness says Davis smiled as he fired," Savannah Morning News, September 9, 1989, p. 1A) Identified Davis in court as the shooter and testified that she had identified Davis to the police as the man who "hit Larry [Young] and shot the police [officer]." (U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, Case 08-16009, decision of April 16, 2009, http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200816009ord.pdf, section II(C) of opinion, page 32 of PDF)

In 2010: Deceased. Gave an unsigned, unsworn draft of an affidavit to Davis claiming that the same man who had chased Larry Young also shot Officer MacPhail.

Other information Within four hours of the murder, before Davis was a suspect, she identified a person matching Davis’s description as the shooter. Commentary on this testimony by the courts: 11th Circuit: “We are loath to consider [Harriet Murray’s unsigned, unsworn statement], and we afford it precious little weight, if any.” (U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit, In re Davis, 565 F.3d 810 at 826, 2009)(http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200816009ord.pdf) U.S. District Court: Judge Moore ruled, “It does not contain any direct recantation, any admission that Ms. Murray lied under oath, or even a statement that Ms. Murray was aware that her affidavit varied from her trial testimony…. This affidavit is not helpful to Mr. Davis's showing because it seems unlikely that it was intended to recant or alter Ms. Murray's testimony regarding who shot Officer MacPhail” (p. 141). Moore declares the affidavit “valueless” (p. 143).

I'm inclined to take the judge's word for it it was not signed.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

As it happens, we are both confused. It was Murray's affidavit, that I was referred to above as ebing unsworn.

The source you cite "unsigned" from is an entirely unreliable source as you have stated yourself.[6] And it has clearly proved its unreliability with the addition of the unsourced, unverifiable "unsigned". Let's stick to the reliable sources, including the court documents. None of the reliable sources you cite above say it was unsigned, merely unsworn. See also [7], where the topic is discussed several times. Nothing about unsigned at all. Slp1 (talk) 16:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I HOPE THIS IS USEFUL TO YOU: I Googled "Harriet Murray" unsigned on Google and the first hit that came up was the state's brief in the federal hearing before Judge Moore. On page 12, it says, "The unsigned affidavit of Harriet Murray should carry no weight..." http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/AG-DavisBrief.PDF Bundlesofsticks (talk) 20:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it isn't really. If we believed everything the prosecution or the defense said in briefs then either everybody or nobody would be convicted. That's the whole point of a judge and jury. In this case Judge Moore talks about affidavit extensively in his opinion and never says it is unsigned, only unnotarized. But at least now we know that that website was uncritically taking the prosecution's word for things, if it wasn't obvious already! --Slp1 (talk) 13:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, it's not an RL. However, it cites to the judge's opinion, which is. So, at the scene and testfiying in 1991:

• Williams: tentatively identified Davis in 1991, testified to uncertainty and police pressure in 2010.
• Collins: identified Davis in 1991, in 2010 said he didn't see and that there was police coercion.
• Holmes: identified Davis as the shooter. Has not recanted.
• Gordon: in 1991 said he didn't see who fired the shots, in 2010 said it was Coles.
• Ferrell: in 1991 identified Davis as the shooter. Submitted affidavit in 2010, not called to testify although waiting outside courtroom.
• Young: in 1991 said Coles was not the shooter, someone else was. In 2010 wrote he couldnt' remember who did what or wore what. Not called to testify.
• Murray: ID'd Davis as shooter in 1991, deceased. Unsigned writing purportedly hers presented to court.
• Sanders: in 1991 identifed Davis as the shooter. Has not recanted.
• Coles:  ?? Has not recanted.

I think those are the nine. However, I see no way in which seven have recanted. It is either five or six.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

From Judge Moore's ruling here: "To hear Mr. Davis tell it, this case involves credible, consistent recantations by seven of nine state witnesses. However, this vastly overstates his evidence. Two of the recanting witnesses [Williams and Murray] neither directly state that they lied at trial nor claim that their previous testimony was coerced. Two other recantations [Sapp and Collins] were impossible to believe, with a host of intrinsic reasons why their author's recantation could not be trusted, and the recantations were contradicted by credible, live testimony. Two more recantations [Ferrell and Young] were intentionally and suspiciously offered in affidavit form rather than as live testimony, blocking any meaningful cross-examination by the state or credibility determination by this Court".--Wehwalt (talk) 16:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict with this second post) But I have checked the judges' opinions, and I repeat once again the judge doesn't say "unsigned". It is an error at the website.

I listed nine non-police eyewitnesses who testified to identifying Davis as the shooter above:[8], but to repeat: they were Sylvester Coles, Darrell Collins, Kevin McQueen, Jeffrey Sapp, Larry Young, Harriet Murray, Stephen Sanders, Dorothy Ferrell, and Antoine Williams: those in italics produced affidavits recanting their evidence. All this comes, once again, from the 2009 appeal decision, not from that unreliable website. You have listed some people who testified in 2010 and not in 1991, and have missed out others.Slp1 (talk) 16:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Sorry about the EC. I just reread the excerpt from the judge's ruling above there and he uses the phrase "seven of nine". So we should be able to clear this up. Hang on.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The judge is referring to a document submitted by the defense. He makes it clear that the seven are: Young, Ferrell, Murray, Collins, Sapp, McQueen and Williams. I will have to dig to try to figure out who the other two are, of the nine.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

They are Coles and Sanders- they are the only other two who actually identified Davis as the shooter. --Slp1 (talk) 16:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll take your word. The judge never actually says, but it is in the petition for habeas corpus which I'm sure is online someplace. But I've had enough legal reading for one day and I'm not getting paid for it! How can we compromise?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the point is to describe what the 7 of 9 refers to: that is the 9 witnesses who actually identified Davis as the shooter - something similar to the judge who wrote "seven of nine key trial witnesses recanted their testimony which pointed to Davis as Officer MacPhail's murderer" (without attribution to the defense) or "seven of the nine witnesses who said they saw Davis shoot MacPhail later changed their stories" [9]; "Witnesses placed Davis at the crime scene and identified him as the shooter, but seven of nine key witnesses have recanted all or parts of their accounts"[10]. --Slp1 (talk) 13:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the above list, Holmes did not testify at the trial, only at the pre-trial hearing, pdf hence why he has not recanted. He has however since stated that the initial statement he made in the pre-trial hearing was false and only made because he felt coerced. pdfWikisamia (talk) 09:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Categories

Can you make the appropriate changes for the categories, please? For example, [[Category:Executed American people]].

The categories are likely to fluctuate for a few days. They are not a major issue compared to other things going on right now and can be settled later.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Time of execution

Davis dies at 11:08PM ET according to a Georgia Department of Corrections official. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trvlguy80 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

Troy Davis case → Troy Davis – Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC) He is now the primary meaning, the Canadian footballer seems rather obscure. People are addinc cats to the Troy Davis redirect page, which is incorrect, but an example of how he is seen. PatGallacher (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support It's written as a bio anyway, certainly the most searched for term.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and as noted above, written like a bio.--JayJasper (talk) 16:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:ONEEVENT The point is to cover the case, not the person involved. We are interested only in his case, not his entire life. 203.81.67.182 (talk) 17:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support per Wehwalt comment. --Ald™ ¬_¬™ 17:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support. The article is structured like a biography, and the person is notable. His case is a different subject, and could have its own article, but this is not it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose I am not sure whether he is notable enough apart from his case. Even in current article, expect "Early life" section, all other sections deal with his case. Similar examples include Death of Caylee Anthony to which Casey Anthony and Caylee Anthony redirect. Also, WP:NOTNEWS suggests Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. News reports are all about death penalty. Sandbox for warnings (talk) 02:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The thing is with "one event" arguments is that very often the coverage of the one event makes the subject indelibly notable. We're not going to call this Murder of Mark MacPhail. We're getting six-figure daily hits on this article. People are overwhelmingly typing "Troy Davis" into their search windows.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Happily, though, the Troy Davis Case comes up first on Google nonetheless. --Slp1 (talk) 13:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support: The introduction to the article focuses on Troy Anthony Davis, not The Troy Davis Case. While the article does talk about the judicial proceedings, it is largely written around Troy Davis as the subject. If there is to be an article solely about the case, I move that it be done in a different article and define The Troy Davis Case in the introduction. -Amanisdude (talk) 05:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support The article mainly focuses on him and he certainly meets the notability requirements.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose for now This is very much in the news at present and may be the primary meaning, but may not be for very long. Better to make this decision in a month or so. In addition, per User:Sandbox for warnings Troy Davis has no notability outside this case; we only know about his background because of the case, and the his life and the judicial proceedings are inextrictably linked, and would be very difficult to meaningfully separate. Slp1 (talk) 12:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Generally speaking, if the sources treat him as a subject and not merely in the context of the one event, it can be moved. A recent example of this would be Bradley Manning, originally at Arrest of Bradley Manning before being moved. See the move page discussion. hbdragon88 (talk) 02:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: Davis is not even a little bit notable other than his connection to this case. The article is about the case and not about Davis himself.Bundlesofsticks (talk) 22:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
• Don't care - but right now we've got an article written as a biography and titled as a "case" - so something's gotta change. Rklawton (talk) 23:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: We could make fairly minor changes to the article to make it conform to a case type, e.g. section about background of perpetrator, background of victim, trial, sentencing, appeals, various court rulings, etc. On the other hand, converting it to a biography type would mean a lot of material wouldn't fit. I urge we go with the change that would allow more material to be kept. Bellczar (talk) 16:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Since the article is titled "TD case," I took the liberty of reorganizing the article to resemble a case more than a biography. I just did a very quick edit and didn't check for antecedent reference, etc. I deleted almost nothing but added a few lines and changed some sub-heads to have things look like the outline of the case. I expect someone to revert this anyway, but here's a look at what the article could look like if it were to live up to its name and take the style of a case instead of a biography.Bellczar (talk) 02:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, there is no consensus for RM. Therefore, the article should be modified to accomodate its current title. I have made such an edit, which as indicated above, retains all of the substance of the article. Please discuss this change before reverting. No one has 100% ownership of the article. Users who constantly revert others' changes only show they don't understand that.Bellczar (talk) 05:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

While I think Bellczar's edit is putting us on the right track, I think the article structure is still very confusing and the text isn't as clear as it could be. The "background and summary of proceedings" section belongs right at the top - if it belongs anywhere!

I'd like to suggest for discussion the following structure:

1 Events of August 1989 (to describe known facts mostly as they are in "crime" now: the shooting of Cooper, the parking lot argument, the killing of MacPhail, Coles's statement to police, the flight from and return to Savannah).

1.1 Background on MacPhail (brief section on MacPhail, pretty much as now appears)

1.2 Background on Davis (brief section on MacPhail, pretty much as now appears)

2 Trial

2.1 Pre-trial proceedings (grand jury, forensic evidence exclusion)

2.2 Prosecution case (prosecution witnesses and their claims etc)

2.3 Defense case (defense witnesses and their claims etc)

2.4 Conviction and sentencing (verdict and sentencing statements)

3 Challenges to conviction and sentence (i.e. all the post-trial litigation, and focusing on the legal/factual issues, not the public reaction)

3.1 First appellate proceedings

3.2 First habeas corpus proceedings

3.3 Federal appeals

3.4 First execution date

3.5 Second execution date

3.6 Third execution date

3.7 Federal hearing

3.8 Renewed U.S. Supreme Court petition

4 Execution (i.e. the material that is in the existing execution section)

5 Controversy over conviction and execution (this should be the section where the public reaction and campaigns etc around the conviction and execution should be carried unless they very specifically relate to the legal step being discussed in 3.1, 3.2 etc).

6 References

7 External links

I'm reluctant to just go ahead and do this without any discussion. I'd emphasise that the restructuring wouldn't necessarily involve changing a lot of text in a way that is contentious. What are people's thoughts? Luzzy fogic (talk) 08:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Support restructure; a more 'judicial' order is in order. Alandeus (talk) 09:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I think we can do with many fewer subsections in Section 3. Judging by the content presently in the article, we could do it in about three, possibly four. As for the controversy section, I would title it "reaction". --Wehwalt (talk) 15:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• Weak support.' It's fine either way. The article is mostly about the case, and there is an infobox about the person. That's OK because you just can't distinguish the two. When Marc MacPhail was killed, Troy Davis was 20. When Troy Davis himself was killed, he was 42. So he was a defendant or convict in this case for more than the second half of his life. I think in such cases there is a slight preference to title an article as a biography, and at least superficially write it that way. I don't think it's necessary, but it will look more natural to most people. Hans Adler 19:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Articles aren't usually titled [person's name] case. If this article is a biography, it should be titled Troy Davis or Troy Davis (murderer). Most articles about murders in which the victim is not notable are titled Murder of [victim's name], so the article should be called Murder of Mark MacPhail. Why is the focus on Davis, who has no notability other that this one event, yet little coverage of MacPhail? One-time murderers who are not known for anything else do not usually receive a huge amount of media coverage; the focus tends to be on the victim. There is an inbalance here. Many millions of people have heard of Davis, yet far fewer know the victim's name. 188.29.120.198 (talk) 16:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Troy Davis.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Troy Davis.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Obama pardon?

Did Amnesty International try for that? Or not taken into consideration if Obama already has a lock on the black vote for 2012. 69.143.110.86 (talk) 16:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The President has no authority to pardon a state prisoner.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Picture

Someone, please, take care of this obvious flickrwashed copyvio. I tried filing it for deletion - probably got rejected because I wasn't signed in. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 17:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back, O my FA mentor. I have nommed it for deletion at commons, tracked it to Getty Images and put a note at their administrator noticeboard. Is there anything else I should do?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Ta. And I'd say you did more for Borat anyway. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 18:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Archive

Is there objection to my archiving all threads on this talk page that haven't had any activity in the last thirty days, and to my using a bot to set up automatic archiving of any thread with thirty days of no activity? This talk page is awfully long and is likely to get longer. Since it gets a lot of hits, it's also a question of conserving server resources.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

No objection... i encourage to do so... --Ald™ ¬_¬™ 17:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

It's customary to allow a little time to ensure there's consensus.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

No objection, it's a sensible move.--JayJasper (talk) 17:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Please do, I was just thinking it myself but didn't know how to Wikisamia (talk) 10:07, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

That's done. I'll set up the bot later, I'm a little thumb fingered at it and want to allow some time. That means this page will get a lot shorter in about thirty days! Meantime, I've started the first archive and there's an automatic link to it as part of using the talkheader template.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Why is the witness's profession mentioned?

"Following the original trial, seven witnesses changed or recanted all or part of their testimony; others, including an Air Force enlisted man who identified Davis as the killer, did not."

I don't think it matters. It seems as though you're trying to make one witness's argument carry more weight because of their job. 95.147.230.131 (talk) 18:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Conversely, it can be used to try to discredit the witness for belonging to an "authoritarian" group. --Popoi (talk) 20:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

That sentence has been rephrased so as not to specify the witness' profession.--JayJasper (talk) 20:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I think a witness' profession is relevant. I'd sooner trust an Airman than I would a drug dealer or a politician, so yeah, I think profession can be relevant. Rklawton (talk) 02:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from but in that case we either have to list all their professions, or none. For example, I don't think it is currently mentioned that Harriet Murray was homeless at the time. Information like this might, as you say, change people's opinions of their testimonies so either all, or none of their professions should be mentioned. Wikisamia (talk) 10:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I see the point too. I would mention them all. The more neutral, uncontroversial information we can give the reader the better.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Per multiple policies, the question is what reliable secondary sources have done with regard to this. Our personal opinions about what is relevant and useful information is beside the point. --Slp1 (talk) 12:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, you have to exercise some editorial discretion or you wind up with an article which is a huge assortment of facts with little organization. There are such articles. That discretion is subject, of course, like everything else here, to consensus and compromise.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, but the starting point needs to be what the reliable secondary sources include; not "I think it is important/interesting so let's add this information" found by consulting primary sources or what have you, ignoring WP:UNDUE. If you don't start from reliable secondary sources, then you really end up with unwieldy articles.--Slp1 (talk) 13:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Media responses to the Davis case

Would it be possible to include this section at the end of the article? For instance some newspapers, including the New York Times, publicly called the execution "a grievous wrong." Charlie Wolf, an American writing for the British-based Daily Mail, wrote today that "Putting down the family dog would have been a lot worse." A number of people here have cited Ann Coulter. I believe that including some of the responses to this event is important to give a representation to the range of public attitudes to the case. This is a phenomenon in itself. If anybody thinks that there are important editorials or statements to be included, would they please list them (concisely) here? I submit the NYTimes and Daily Mail pieces as examples. -Darouet (talk) 17:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

This CNN article merits consideration, IMO.--JayJasper (talk) 18:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that would be an excuse for turning the article into an excuse for reproducing the more extreme views about the case, predominately, I am sure, from one side. WP:COATRACK.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Wehwalt's concern is legitimate. However, as Darouet noted, the media responses have become a "phenomenon in itself", and warrants at least a mention in the article. Of course, in doing so, editors should exercise rigourous caution and discretion in ensuring that NPOV is properly applied.--JayJasper (talk) 18:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Wehwalt. How have the "media responses become a phenomenon in itself" (ignoring the incorrect grammar if you will) other than the media is covering the issue a great deal? Such a claim at this point in time is WP:SYNTH. Surely, media impact is not something where WP:RS can be cited less than 24 hours after the event.--Goldsztajn (talk) 20:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Good point, Goldsztajn. Perhaps it would be best to revisit this discussion after some time has passed.--JayJasper (talk) 20:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that no "Media Responses" section should become an essentially dishonest means of introducing or promoting spurious arguments, outrageous claims, etc., violating WP:OR among other things. Of course this may be said of many "legacy" sections from various articles: it is our responsibility to act as impartial editors. I do maintain however that the attitudes of publications to a well known and publicly followed execution, seen as a test of the legitimacy of the death penalty generally, are truly important, and can probably be described in a concise paragraph. I'll write nothing unless a consensus appears in favor of this. Thanks for advice, all. -Darouet (talk) 20:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I would not think that a legacy section would be justified for some years to come.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Please do not add free images to this article - ?

I don't intend to edit war, but this seems hardly helpful. Editors interested in this article being well illustrated should look at this more closely. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 20:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems obvious that the article would benefit from a picture of the guy. We're supposed to encourage people to contribute to Wikipedia after all.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 20:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Two editors (me and another) have removed the free image placeholder. Another editor (not Piotrus) reverted me inviting me to talk about it here. I was hoping not to have to, frankly. I don't know that there is any "policy" on this issue. I confess to hating these things - if that makes me biased. The only guidance I'm aware of is at the image's page:

From 11 April to 23 April 2008, a centralized discussion considered the appropriateness of using "from-owner" image placeholders on biographies of living persons. A carefully structured discussion clarified the objections to this practice as well as its benefits. There was significant opposition to the use of images such as Replace this image female and this one. 35 editors (66%) agreed with the question, "placeholder images should not be used at all on the main page of articles", however, only 14 editors (45%) agreed with any particular recommendation.

Seems to me that establishes a consensus (66%) not to use these things. The only other option is to establish consensus here on whether to use it for this article. I'll stick with such unpersuasive arguments as "I hate them", "I don't see what use they are", "They're useless" (did I say that already), and "They're ugly". That's about as much attention as I feel this issue deserves. Despite all my sarcasm, I seriously mean no offense to Piotrus and his wish to include the image.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

You quoted something that has nothing to do with this article. How about we attempt to form a consensus here, rather than revert each other without comment?--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 21:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no consensus to use this image project wide by default, but we are certainly allowed to use them on case by case basis. I take the side that those images invite people to contribute to the project, and are no different from copyediting templates or stub templates. If we can have elements asking people to fix things, I don't see why we couldn't have ones inviting them to contribute a free image? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

As Mr. Davis had been incarcerated since the era of digital cameras began, just because it was highly unlikely anyone would have any! With respect to him, he did not get out much. Possibly his defense team could be prevailed on to contribute one.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

All it takes is a reader to upload a picture of theirs that they took. A template of some sort would alert them that they could add their photo.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 21:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps someone could crack together a horizontal template that would live along the top of the article, much like Template:Refimprove or the Template:Recent death that is currently shown. It might be more palatable to certain editors.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

A constructive suggestion, but it wouldn't be more palatable to this editor. Seems to me the biggest problem Wikipedia has with images is people uploading non-free images because they can't find any free ones. I don't see why we have to "solicit" images. We get plenty.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Each non-free image is an opportunity to educate people about the importance of free licenses. And every now and then, such a person is in fact the copyright holder and will release the media under a free license; the big problem is reaching to them in the first place, and informing them that they, too, can help and do something to improve this project. A template, or an image placeholder, is just the tool to do that (and likely improve this and other articles). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Add fair-use photo

Apparently the photo that was here is going to be deleted from Commons because the copyright belonged to the State of Georgia, and Commons doesn't allow fair use. Fine. Upload it to en.wiki under a fair-use claim, and put it back. Should be an easy NFCC case to make. --Trovatore (talk) 23:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

In this digital age, I fail to see how it's fair use to use someone's work without their permission. Sure, an image may be hard to get, but that doesn't justify stealing. Rklawton (talk) 02:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Whether you think it is "fair" or not, fair use is an established part of US copyright law (US law being the relevant sort because of the location of the servers). Moreover the English-language Wikipedia specifically allows us to take advantage of this when certain restrictive criteria are met, ones I think it will not be hard to meet in this case (see WP:NFCC).

Now, I'm going to indulge myself in a digression that strictly speaking is not really on-topic here. Personally, I think we should do more of it. In my view, fair use is an essential counterweight to the excessive claims of copyright holders. Copyright is an artificial property right, not a natural one, and has been expanded beyond all reasonable bounds. We should use the tools we have to resist its further expansion. --Trovatore (talk) 02:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion about copyright law is largely irrelevant to Wikipedia policies. I might also add that Wikipedia does not normally act as an advocate, as you appear to suggest we should.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. We do not need to show the reader what Davis looked like, he can easily ascertain that elsewhere. We are a first resource.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Are we really going to deny the readers an image just because "it can be found elsewhere"? We might as well delete every fair use image out there and just provide links. I don't know why this is such a big deal, we use booking photos all the time to illustrate arrested people. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

International reaction

There appears to be nothing on this article about the international reaction to Davis' execution. Should this not be added? There is a huge amount of reliable sources. CNN Guardian (UK) Translation of Agence Presse etc. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed - it is front page news here in Australia. Manning (talk) 02:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

So do we compile the research ourselves to demonstrate an international reaction, or do we have a reliable source that analyses and specifically comments on the reaction and its international scope? Rklawton (talk) 02:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

That poses a question... Does international reaction to the subject and his execution have any notability to the case? Just because a subject of notability has something to say about a subject of notability, doesn't necessarily mean it's appropriate to include... and if it's not, then perhaps it's appropriate as a matter of topic for a more overarching article concerning death penalty by country? Putting the reactions of Mexico would be completely appropriate in the Humberto Leal Garcia article, seeing that he was a Mexican national and his execution was surrounding a controversy about his inability to contact his country's consulate. Unless I'm unaware that Troy Davis is from another country, how does the media reaction in that country play a part in the article? Trusilver 06:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I think, for all intents and purposes, this is the same as the "Media responses" section above, and that it is thus a discussion for a time in the future when we have more perspective on this event. Perhaps two weeks? That allows time for more considered opinion in the papers and online. Then we can select some opinions selected for prominence rather than hysteria.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there is a danger of original research and POV editing in what we include, and that it is not something to be started straightaway. I think two weeks is about right. Then we can pick a few notable voices and hopefully analyses, and make a summary. Slp1 (talk) 13:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

We should also find sources to help indicate whether the response to this event is any different from responses to other executions. As far as I can tell, the international reaction is no different. The Pope was against it, Amnesty International was against it, Joan Baez was against it, Desmond Tutu was against it, and a bunch of folks pointed out that Europe doesn't execute people anymore. As far as I know, that's pretty much standard in many if not all U.S. death penalty cases. Thus we could have the statement "and the usual people and groups protested" along with a link to the overarching article on the subject of anti U.S. death penalty protests. Rklawton (talk) 14:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd be anxious of engaging in original research in making too much of that kind of comparison. In fact I think it is clear (from reliable sources! e.g. [11] that the response to this has been fairly unprecedented in numbers of numbers of people engaged in the US, internationally, public and press. But I think that this "looking back" is already covered well in the article. Looking forward, at things post execution, I think what will be interesting is to see whether the prognostications of some that the case will be a turning point in US attitudes to the DP will come to pass. For that only time will tell. In the next few weeks we may see some analyses by prominent scholars etc that will provide reflection on the case worth including --Slp1 (talk) 14:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The article you noted above only indicates in passing that the international support has been unprecedented. I don't think that one article which is not specifically about the international reaction is sufficient to make the case. And yes, I too wish to avoid original research, and so I qualified my suggestion with caveat that we use "reliable sources". My comments in this regard are in response to those editors calling for a section on the international response when, at this point, such a section would rely primarily on OR and SYNTH. And I believe that you and I both agree that this must be avoided. Rklawton (talk) 15:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is why I am proposing waiting a couple of weeks, for one thing, things will be calmer.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Manner of execution

The three-drug cocktail is a standard lethal injection procedure. Is there a particular reason why we are giving it its own header and special mention? This sounds a bit morbid, but the only time I think it would bear mention is if there was any particularly strong or notable witness reactions or if the procedure went horrifically wrong (I've read cases where it takes ~40 minutes to find a vein, apparently this was done in less than 20 minutes). hbdragon88 (talk) 07:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The barbiturate drug could have been sodium thiopental instead: I think we need to document the fact that it was sodium pentobarbital, used in veterinary medicine and euthanasia.Toolnut (talk) 00:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

If there is significant media attention to the drugs, we will give them attention. At present, there hasn't been. I know that states were having difficulty obtaining the sedative, since it is no longer made in the US and there has been some coverage of that, from time to time, but I haven't seen anything tying that to the Davis case.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Opener edit

Currently the page for Troy Davis states "Troy Anthony Davis (October 9, 1968 – September 21, 2011)[1][2] was an African American convicted of and executed for the August 19, 1989, murder of police officer Mark MacPhail in Savannah, Georgia." I am suggesting editing this somewhat to keep in line with other pages in a similar vein. (meaning those dealing with executions.) Thus I propose an edit along the lines of "Troy Anthony Davis (October 9, 1968 – September 21, 2011)[1][2] was convicted of and executed for the murder of a police officer in Savannah, Georgia." Then further in the opening paragraph, offering details on the convicted's race as well as the case, and that of the victim.

Below is one possible edit of the first paragraph to demonstrate what I am meaning.

Troy Anthony Davis (October 9, 1968 – September 21, 2011)[1][2] was convicted of and executed for the murder of a police officer in Savannah, Georgia. This case became one of the more controversial ones of the late 1990's, and would bring into question the justice system in Georgia as well as that of the United States. By the time Davis was Executed on Sept, 21, over half a million persons both in the United States and abroad; including many well known public figures such as Pope Benedict XVI, were calling for clemency in the case due to concerns about Davis' conviction.

I also suggest removing all reference to the case from the opener, since this is covered once more further down the page. Finally there should be a notation covering the controversy surrounding the case itself and possibly details on any after effects the case may have. Kabukikitsune (9/23/2011 8:40 AM)

I agree. I've changed that, but other people keep changing it back, and I can only do so much. If there is a consensus version, though, it's easier to defend. I've got no problem with K's suggestion, with a couple of grammar tweaks. I'm not sure what is meant by "removing all reference to the opener" though.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

About the image

File:Troy davis.jpg

Okay. I need a reason why the image is a copyvio, because it perfectly illustrates the man, and the subject has deceassed. Thank You. (The Lovable Wolf (talk) 01:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC))

Because it's not a free image, the only way it can be used is through fair use. In the canned booking photo fair use rationale, it says that one of the criteria is "to illustrate the booking". How does this photo illustrate any booking, given that the article is not about Davis being booked? In addition, you seem to think that because Davis has died, that means we can't find free images of him (it's what you say in your upload), but that's not necessarily true - what is true is that we won't be able to find any photos of him subsequent to his death. Now, it may be that there aren't any free photos of Davis out there, but that's only one of the criteria for using a non-free image.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

For one thing, if we're going to use it, there needs to be a detailed fair use rartionale on the image page addressing all ten points of WP:NFCC.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Urggghhh. I forgot why I stopped doing image work a few years back. I just added a detailed fair use rationale addressing each of these points. Are we okay now? hbdragon88 (talk) 03:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I think there is a good case for a fair use picture here, but I think people need to do some more research on this picture; I have seen this photo many times, and I haven't any evidence that it was taken by government officials, as a booking photo/mug shot or whatever. He's standing in front of a concrete block wall, not the traditional backdrop, and is clearly older that 21 - look at that reciding hairline, and compare it with the hairline in this 1991 photo. [12]. Much more likely that it was a photo taken by family members/friends/visitors, and then released as part of the campaign. I'd like to see some concrete evidence that this is actually a booking photo, or that shouldn't be part of the rationale. --Slp1 (talk) 12:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, as I recall NFCC, you have to state the copyright holder, because that's the only way you can evaluate loss of commercial opportunities from wiki use of the image.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

See also these other shots, including background and collar of the shirt. [13][14]Slp1 (talk) 12:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The obvious answer is to solicit the advocacy groups to contribute an image. If they're letting a death row inmate group up for family shots, as Slp1's images show, they must have some. And they can't be unaware of Wikipedia, and this article's getting hits in the six figures range.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually we got 1.7 million hits on this article on Thursday. Wow.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I am fairly sure that it was taken by the Georgia Department of Corrections, as that was the image credit when the L.A Times ran that photo two days ago. Obviously it's not a traditional booking photo as we know it as he's much older and isn't holding up the numbers. on the commons someone just said that they emailed the Georgia DoC to ask if their works are public domain or not. When I searched for "copyright" on the Georgia DoC website, I couldn't find any page that said "copyright Georgia DoC" on it (compared to their Department of Education site which has such a notice on their front page), but that is no guarantee. hbdragon88 (talk) 06:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• I suggest we call in one of the image experts to evaluate fair use. Perhaps User:Jappalang, though I merely offer him as a suggestion, I'd be happy for any acknowledged image expert to look at it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
• The rationale on this photo [15] taken in a somewhat similar situation and in the featured article Mumia Abu-Jamal might be helpful.--Slp1 (talk) 13:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, though I'm a bit dubious that it would survive a close examination.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Mumia Abu-Jamal with the current rationale almost definitely fails NFCC. There is no way some random blog is the correct source. It even has a 'promotional photo' tag. It looks like a mug shot of some sort which means a properly written rationale may theoretically succeed although the fact he's still alive and was apparently somewhat well known before his arrest makes it somewhat different. On the other hand with Mumia Abu-Jamal it seems clearer it's likely a mug shot since he's in handcuffs (although more evidence would be needed) but I agree in this case the photo itself isn't that clear as a mugshot. Nil Einne (talk) 04:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Slp1, just because an image is in a FA doesn't mean too much unless the FA passed in the last couple of years and the image was in the article then. There's lots of crap in older FA's. Mumia passed in early 2008, I would call that borderline. That is not a mugshot. Mumia is displaying his handcuffs at an angle where the emphasis is on them. Most likely privately taken. Not all mugshots, btw, have the prisoner holding up the thingie with his name and booking number on it in this computer age.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Article title

The title, "Troy Davis case" and the article itself aren't consistent. The article reads like a biography of Troy Davis whereas the title is for the case. For example, a "case" wouldn't logically have an "Early life" section. Either we reorganize the article, or we rename it - takes yer pick. Rklawton (talk) 12:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

If you look uppage, this has been pointed out and a RM started. Can you weigh in there?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Please see discussion of a reorg of the article under the RM above. Bellczar (talk) 05:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be "Troy Davis murder case"? Take a look at the Category:Murder trials... bllix (talk) 05:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Article restructure

I thought about moving all of the article restructuring stuff to a new section as it really doesn't belong in the RM section above, but I'm not supposed to touch other editor's comments, so unless Bellczar moves it, I guess it will remain to confuse everyone (is the bolded support just below it intended to be a "vote" for the restructuring or a !vote for the move?)

Anyway, here are my comments about the restructuring. First, the lead is now tiny and not in keeping with the article's size and coverage. Second, the lead has been moved lower down and is now called a "summary". Why would we want a lead in the body? I do agree that the Early life section from before was misplaced, so I don't have a problem with eliminating it as if the article is a bio of Davis and putting it elsewhere. I have mixed feelings about the bullet format of the trial. Personally, I like bullets, but I'm not sure Wikipedia does, so I'm kind of neutral on that one. I would favor changing the section entitled "First appellate proceedings" to "Direct appeal". After that, the structure follows the old one. There are also some problems with extraneous blank lines, Davis's section being at the wrong level, defendant being misspelled, and many stylistic changes (overuse of topical sentences, improper formatting, calling Davis Troy Davis, etc.), but I was ordered not to touch it, so, ever-obedient (heh), here I am. As for any other substantive changes, I'd have to compare the article word for word, which I won't do - one of the problems with making not only structural changes but also making substantive changes is trying to figure out exactly what changed. Oh, well.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The lede is now poorly written and not in conformance with WP:LEDE.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Recent category changes

I noticed that Bllix has recently added many categories to this article and then removed them. I think some of the ones *she added should be retained. I am in favor of retaining the categories Category:American people convicted of murdering police officers, Category:People executed by lethal injection, and Category:People executed by Georgia (U.S. state). Ryan Vesey Review me! 06:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Heya Ryan, nice to meet you, I'm a "she". ;) Anyway. I saw that the categories were actually already added to the redirect page Troy Davis, so technically, the destination page Troy Davis case is categorized properly. I just got overzealous and didn't realize it was a redirect, d'oh! bllix (talk) 09:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I can't believe I never realized you could categorize a redirect page separately from the destination page. Ryan Vesey Review me! 13:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

News to me too! --Wehwalt (talk) 15:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Improvement

Perhaps next week I'l start work on improving the prose of the article, with an eye towards a GA nomination down the line.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)