Talk:Willie Jerome Manning

"Unique distinction"?

I changed "unique" to "rare," because there's no citation to demonstrate that Manning is the only person ever sentenced to death twice for two double murders. That this is "rare" in some plausible sense of the word, seems hard to dispute, but "unique" seems too strong. --Tbanderson (talk) 20:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Primary sources revision

I agree with EricEnfermero regarding the use of primary sources but don't agree with a bunch of unnecessary changes that were just made. I will work on replacing primary sources with secondary sources where possible. This might take me a few days. Keep in mind, WP policy does not preclude using primary sources when no suitable secondary sources are available. Often the best chronology of a court case can be found in the court records. Also, I left in the reference to MLK Day because it came up later at the trial as to how the witness remembered. Bundlesofsticks (talk) 14:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Cool. No problem. I really don't have a strong opinion on this one. I thought that some of my changes made the language more professional or more clear, like removing the "rare distinction" bit and taking out some redundant language (using "in addition" and "four other" in the same sentence). If MLK Day has significance in the context of the article, I would just clarify that. No worries. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 14:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Your edits to Willie Manning are unhelpful. Please read the WP:NPOV and WP:RS policies to learn how articles are to reflect a neutral point of view and be built from reliable sources. You repeatedly remove the lede statement that Manning is a convicted murderer on death row. That is a fact. It does not reflect any point of view. Your editing implies that he is not a convicted murderer, that he somehow just happened to wind up on death row, the way a person winds up in a wrong parking lot. You are pushing a point of view. Specifically, do not remove verifiable facts from the article and replace links to reliable sources with links to POV sources. Bundlesofsticks (talk) 04:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. I've read the pages. I noticed Wikipedia: Neutral Point of View – Words to Watch: Strive to eliminate expressions that… endorse a particular point of view (unless those expressions are part of a quote from a noteworthy source). Reliable sources don’t use words such as ‘a convicted murderer, or ‘murdered’, instead they say 'so and so was convicted of murder'. For instance, 'Associated Press, January 16 2011: Manning was also convicted and sentenced to death’; Washington Post, May 8, ‘Manning was convicted of Mississippi State University students’. In other words, reliable sources don't eliminate the possibility that there may be a wrongful conviction. Departing from this consensus of usage departs from neutrality, so, in fact, the language that you are using is not neutral. This issue is particularly important because of the position of this sentence at the beginning of the article - the chosen wording may influence the reader’s interpretation of the whole of the rest of the article. A quotation/ quotations from a well-established news source, such as from the two Associated Press articles that I used, would avoid the potential for a biased viewpoint to dominate the article. I also noticed two points in Wikipedia – identifying reliable sources. 1) News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact. 2)Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article will be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

The source that you've used for the Early Life section is from a less-established outlet so has a greater potential to be unreliable than if it were from a well-established outlet, like Associated Press. If it was a reliable news story it would demonstrate balance, but it doesn’t - it doesn’t include an alternative or mitigating view of Manning's early life. The article is therefore unreliable as a news story. I suggest you use a reliable source instead, or omit the text altogether. Smallnslow (talk) 00:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I will greatly scale back the "early life" section that you have identified as troublesome. As of now, I am unaware of any other reliable sources for Manning's early life. I reject the notion that the local newspapers in Starkville and Columbus are not reliable sources. The Washington Post doesn't cover murders in Mississippi. Furthermore, the phrase "is/was a convicted murderer" is a common one in the lede of articles about murderers on Wikipedia. See Ira Einhorn, Wayne Williams, Christopher Porco, Erwin James, Eric Naposki, Stacey Castor, Daniel Petric, Maurice Boucher, Duane Earl Pope, William Kemmler, Clarence Hill (murderer), Billy Bailey, Brian Steckel, and many others.Bundlesofsticks (talk) 02:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, which I'm responding to: < I reject the notion that the local newspapers in Starkville and Columbus are not reliable sources.> Wikipedia does not state that such outlets are not reliable, only that they’re generally considered less reliable: Wikipedia states “News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact.” The implication is that such sources should be treated with caution and scrutinized carefully, rather than necessarily not be used. Wikipedia states “Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article will be assessed on a case-by-case basis”. In this case the article in question is unreliable as a news story because it makes no attempt at balance. Without appropriate balance it is, effectively, an opinion piece disguised as a news piece. Moreover, in depicting Manning negatively this story seems to support the view that he’s a murderer, which in Wikipedia’s terms is an ‘extraordinary claim’. Wikipedia states “Reliable sources must be strong enough to support the claim. A lightweight source may sometimes be acceptable for a lightweight claim, but never for an extraordinary claim.” < I will greatly scale back the "early life" section that you have identified as troublesome. As of now, I am unaware of any other reliable sources for Manning's early life.> It’s not enough to scale back your reference to this article. As an unreliable source used to support an extraordinary claim, all references to this article should be removed. <Furthermore, the phrase "is/was a convicted murderer" is a common one in the lede of articles about murderers on Wikipedia.> Wikipedia states ‘Wikipedia articles (or Wikipedia mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose.’ So your point here is invalid. It’s the language in reliable sources that’s relevant. Reliable sources use language that doesn’t exclude the possibility that Manning was wrongfully convicted. In order to be neutral, your language should conform with the language in reliable sources. Your language by these standards isn’t neutral – it’s biased. The wording needs to be changed.Smallnslow (talk) 12:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC) Wikipedia Biography of Living Persons policy states: Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources. I’ve removed everything related to a news outlet that appears to lack editorial control and judgment. This outlet published an extremely one-sided article that presented the subject negatively, at a time when well-established news outlets were focusing on a wider controversy about the subject. This constitutes tabloid journalism and should be removed. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. I’ve removed everything that’s based on court records. BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone. I’ve altered the wording in the lead to make it neutral. Smallnslow (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

You aren't following the policies I referred you to. There are now several editors keeping an eye on your edits to this article. Why don't you learn how to edit by working on something less controversial, like daisy? Bundlesofsticks (talk) 01:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smallnslow (talk • contribs)

Your last edit to this article removed pertinent information, but you said all you did was change a reference. Do not remove sourced information. Bundlesofsticks (talk) 09:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC) (Above comment copied from User Talk page)

My change was in response to the BLP Policy that states unequivocably: Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. (BLP Policy: Avoid misuse of primary sources) I could quote court records containing the sheriff’s testimony that there’s no evidence to link the victims with the car burglary. I could also quote court records stating that the token found at the scene of the murder may not have come from Jon Wise’s car. This is certainly pertinent information. But I’m prevented by BLP policy from using court records, so I cannot use it. You also need to abide by BLP policy. Please revert my amendment, or find an alternative substitute for court records as a source for this section, or delete the section completely. Smallnslow (talk) 11:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons noticeboard

FYI, there's a discussion about this article at BLPN, here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion copied from BLP noticeboard

I've removed contentious material about a living person several times, with detailed explanations in Talk as to why this was necessary. The material has been replaced each time. The last time this was done, it was accompanied by threatening and disparaging comments. Smallnslow (talk) 02:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

This matter involves a person on death row for murder. For reasons that I'm unsure of, the discussion has been at user talk, instead of at article talk. See User talk:Smallnslow. The other editor involved in this controversy is User:Bundleofsticks. I will place a link to this discussion at article talk.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads-up, Anythingyouwant. I gave user Smallnslow constructive advice about WP policies (NPOV and RS) and offered to help him/her edit the article and s/he ignored that advice and blasted on. All Smallnslow has done is remove sourced RS material from the article, in order to push a POV. Smallnslow's edits were so severe that they triggered two separate bots to undo the changes. The subject of the article has been convicted of two double murders. That is simply a fact. It is a fact that has been stated in most of the leading newspapers of the United States. I do not see that I have violated WP:BLP. Bundlesofsticks (talk) 05:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Is the basic disagreement here about whether we should call a convicted murderer a "murderer" before he has exhausted all appeals?Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I haven't looked at what is going on at the article but I have had a look at that talk page, User talk:Smallnslow. The statement "the phrase "is/was a convicted murderer" is a common one in the lede of articles about murderers on Wikipedia" is not what I would necessarily call constructive advice given that other Wikipedia leads aren't relevant. Smallnslow's suggestion to change 'convicted murderer' to 'convicted of murder' seems to be a simple and effective solution that is consistent with policy. It's an indisputable fact that Manning was 'convicted of murder'. If that statement doesn't contain the information editors wish to convey using the encyclopedia's voice, what is it exactly that is not being conveyed by that statement ? Sean.hoyland - talk 06:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

If that were all there were to it, I would not have reverted. But Smallnslow cut 4735 bytes, almost half the article, including basically all of the evidence from two murder trials that was rehashed on numerous appeals. User Smallnslow is apparently trying to push the POV that Manning is innocent and trying to delete anything from the article that interferes with that POV, like eyewitnesses, ballistics tests, having the victims' property. I mentioned those other articles because Smallnslow argued that saying someone is a convicted murderer is POV; I pointed out that is not POV but is rather a common practice on WP. Anyway, it's just a fact. He was convicted of four murders. Bundlesofsticks (talk) 07:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Understood. Baby steps. They seem to be a new single-purpose-so-far account and the learning curve is steep. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm a newbie - that accounts for my technical problems, including triggering automatic reversion of text. That does not make my comments about this article less valid. Manning briefly attracted national attention in 2013, when the Mississippi Supreme Court ruled not to allow him DNA testing http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/04/us/dna-tests-rejected-for-inmate-facing-tuesday-execution.html?_r=0 The Wikipedia article places undue weight on tabloid journalism, especially in using an article http://www.cdispatch.com/news/article.asp?aid=24056&TRID=1&TID= that, astonishingly, chose to ignore the national controversy in favour of publishing a one-sided article whose purpose appears to have been to persuade its readers of Manning's guilt. I also deleted court records, as Wikipedia suggests these are unreliable texts. I agree with what Bundlesofsticks says above <He was convicted of four murders>. I find this wording more neutral than "He murdered four people". Smallnslow (talk) 08:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The Commercial Dispatch is not a tabloid. It has its own article on Wikipedia and from that article we learn that the newspaper has been existence since before 1910. Manning's guilt had been long established when that article was published. Court records are not unreliable, but they are primary sources. Primary sources are not forbidden in WP articles, but they are discouraged in favor of secondary and tertiary sources. I again suggest you learn these policies of WP before slashing articles wholesale. Pay especial interest to the WP:NPOV policy. Everyone is eager to learn the results of the DNA testing. I have no doubt that it will lead to more national headlines. Bundlesofsticks (talk) 09:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Responding to the comments from Bundlesofsticks <Manning's guilt had been long established when that article was published.> "New York Times, 3 May, 2013 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/04/us/dna-tests-rejected-for-inmate-facing-tuesday-execution.html?_r=0 “Lawyers for Mr. Manning have argued that the case has serious holes. Some of the trial witnesses gave accounts inconsistent with known facts, they said, and one key witness, the former girlfriend, was given a favorable plea deal on fraud charges as well as nearly $18,000 in reward money after testifying for the prosecution, details not fully disclosed to the trial jury. Mr. Manning’s lawyers also pointed to fingerprints found in Ms. Miller’s car, which had been driven elsewhere and abandoned after the killings. None of the prints matched Mr. Manning’s, and multiple prints were found that did not match those of the victims.” <The Commercial Dispatch is not a tabloid. It has its own article on Wikipedia and from that article we learn that the newspaper has been existence since before 1910.> WP:SPS and WP:SOURCES "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight." There appears to be no editorial oversight involved in the Dispatch article that I removed. http://www.cdispatch.com/news/article.asp?aid=24056&TRID=1&TID= To publish a ‘news story’ that presents Manning in so bad a light, without reference to the wider context and without presenting an alternative or mitigating viewpoint (at a time when well-established news outlets were reporting indications of a possible wrongful conviction), is at the very least sensationalist, in keeping with the tabloid press. The wider context at that time was: New York Times, 3 May, 2013 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/04/us/dna-tests-rejected-for-inmate-facing-tuesday-execution.html?_r=0 The State of Mississippi has denied requests for DNA testing of evidence made by a prisoner set to be executed on Tuesday, potentially setting up what experts said would be a rare case in recent years in which a person is put to death with such requests unmet. <Court records are not unreliable, but they are primary sources. Primary sources are not forbidden in WP articles, but they are discouraged in favor of secondary and tertiary sources.> WP:BLP Avoid misuse of primary sources . Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. <Pay especial interest to the WP:NPOV policy.> It's an indisputable fact that Manning was 'convicted of murder'. If that statement doesn't contain the information editors wish to convey using the encyclopedia's voice, what is it exactly that is not being conveyed by that statement ? Sean.hoyland - talk • WP:GRAPEVINE "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced." WP:BLPREMOVE Smallnslow (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an appeals court. Arguments that lawyers are making to have a conviction overturned do not factor into editing decisions. Unless you want to start a paragraph "alleged problems with the cases," which would necessarily have to cite the kind of court documents you claim are barred from the article.

Wikipedia is also not a journalism review board. The Commercial Dispatch of Columbus is a reputable newspaper written and run by professional journalists. It is an RS. Compare that to a blog. A blog is not an RS. Newspapers and other RS refer to a person as an "alleged murderer" before he is convicted and a "convicted murderer" after. Manning was convicted not once, but twice, in two separate trials, nearly 20 years ago, of double murder. He is a double double murderer. No newspaper will refer to a killer as an "alleged murderer" after conviction. Your beef with the Commercial Dispatch is without merit.

Court records are fair sources in an article about a court case that has been written about in secondary sources.Bundlesofsticks (talk) 22:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:Perp, a Wikipedia article about a criminal is okay for us to have as long as it meets certain requirements. I assume that, here in this case, "the motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime was unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role." You should be able to summarize Manning's historic significance in a sentence or two, and put that into the lead. Just saying that he committed two double-murders does not seem to be enough, because (unfortunately) people are murdered all the time. Was it the FBI's rescinding of a report that makes this historic? Such rescinding doesn't sound to me like something that was obviously historic, unless someone at the FBI committed a crime, or unless Manning's conviction is overturned due to the rescinding.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The reason this case has garnered the attention it has in the national media is because of the FBI rescinding an evidence report it issued, an extremely unusual situation, although I don't know about "historic." The FBI action is being discussed in terms of whether it is a new policy that will affect other cases. The second reason this is notable is because Manning was convicted of two separate double murders. I cannot think of anyone else who committed two double murders. In the original version of the page, it stated Manning had "the unique distinction" of that; another editor quickly changed it to "rare," and since I wasn't able to document that Manning's status is completely unique, I didn't object or revert. Now you have removed even "rare." What makes this a truly unique set of circumstances is that a court could decide to completely throw out Manning's conviction on the first double murder (Steckler-Miller) on the basis of the FBI report but Manning could still be executed for the second double murder (Jimmerson-Jordan). Or Manning could be executed for Jimmerson-Jordan while the latest Steckler-Miller appeal is still ongoing. Either way, this case has already been considered noteworthy.Bundlesofsticks (talk) 10:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Bundlesofsticks, I think people are convicted all the time of multiple murder. Even if the conviction of killing one of them is overturned on appeal, the person often still serves the original sentence (e.g. life in prison). IMHO, the only potentially historic thing here is the FBI rescission, but it needs to be explained better in the lead.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The Manning case is significant as the first of 27 cases the FBI is reviewing, which might indicate a significant policy change. I will work on the lede. You are correct that there are multiple murders all the time. The unique thing about this is TWO SEPARATE double murders. Bundlesofsticks (talk) 22:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

So if someone does three separate double murders, or two separate triple murders, then they get a Wikipedia article? In any multiple murder, the prosecutor can decide to charge separately for each one, so I still don't see the significance of that. But the FBI policy change might be enough significance for an article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I personally think Manning does not merit a Wikipedia article at all. The FBI’s rescinding of its hair report in this case, insofar as it was notable at all, was significant only in its timing (there have been many other cases since). It heightened the focus on the main topic in news outlets at the time, which was that the Mississippi Supreme Court was prepared to execute Manning without allowing him testing of DNA and fingerprint evidence. However, the Court did eventually reverse its judgment and allow this testing. I think with this reversal, Manning’s historic significance disappears. Smallnslow (talk) 12:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC) P.S. First link I added doesn't appear to work, so here it is in full: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/american-justice-scandal-fbi-could-be-at-fault-in-27-death-row-cases-8718135.html Smallnslow (talk) 12:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

So if you can't have your way with the article, you don't want it to exist at all. That is censorship. Bundlesofsticks (talk) 22:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

My opinion relates to the question put by Anythingyouwant, ‘Was it the FBI’s rescinding of a report that makes this historic?’ The FBI’s decision to correct errors in hair testimony cases was made the previous year. It was not made in response to Manning’s case. “Federal officials found Manning’s case as part of a broad review of the FBI’s handling of scientific evidence in thousands of violent crimes in the 1980s and 1990s. The Justice Department announced last summer an effort to correct past errors in forensic hair examinations before 2000 — at least 21,000 cases — to determine whether agents exaggerated the significance of purported hair “matches” in lab reports or trial testimony.” Washington Post, May 4 2013 http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/justice-dept-admits-flaws-in-forensic-testimony-in-mississippi-death-row-case/2013/05/03/aca18176-b41c-11e2-baf7-5bc2a9dc6f44_story.html So the evaluation of Manning's historic significance hinges not on an FBI change of policy, but on his case being the first to be announced, in dramatic circumstances, very close to the time of his scheduled execution. Smallnslow (talk) 13:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Use of Court Records as source material in this article

Court records have been used many times in this article, including for citation 5, comments about which are currently at the end of the Primary Sources Revision section. They are also copied here: My change was in response to the BLP Policy that states unequivocably: Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. (BLP Policy: Avoid misuse of primary sources) I could quote court records containing the sheriff’s testimony that there’s no evidence to link the victims with the car burglary. I could also quote court records stating that the token found at the scene of the murder may not have come from Jon Wise’s car. This is certainly pertinent information. But I’m prevented by BLP policy from using court records, so I cannot use it. You also need to abide by BLP policy. Please revert my amendment, or find an alternative substitute for court records as a source for this section, or delete the section completely. Smallnslow (talk) 11:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

See BLP Policy 2:4 (Avoid misuse of primary sources): Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. I’d like confirmation that court records should not be used as source material in this article.Smallnslow (talk) 09:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• They should not be used without corroboration from a reliable source. To whit:[1] corroborates the court document.Two kinds of pork (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Two kinds of pork. This confirms that the court records in this article should be removed, as none of them is corroborated by reliable sources. Smallnslow (talk) 23:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The NYT link above seems to corroborate the text which used the court doc as a cite. Why not switch the cite to this one?Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're mistaken. The information in the text cited as 5 is not in the NYT article, so must be removed. Smallnslow (talk) 13:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Your approach to editing is wrong. Instead of removing things that you claim to be improperly sourced, why don't you add RS material to the article. I have sent for the newspapers on microfilm and soon will be able to add additional facts from the trials to the article. Bundlesofsticks (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

You reverted the reliable source that I previously substituted. Smallnslow (talk) 00:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The main wikipedia issue with primary sources isn't that they are unreliable, it is that are raw material that (if allowed for general use) whatever comes form them would be a creation of the Wikipedia editor, as they are the ones selecting which material goes in etc.. And so anything in question except the the uses which policy says that primary sources are OK for should be sourced to secondary sources or else not in there. North8000 (talk) 00:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Remove, but make sure you understand the difference between a court transcript and an appellate opinion Agree that information that does not come from a reliable secondary source should be deleted. Information that can only be corroborated from a primary source is almost always original research that does not belong in an encyclopedia and violates WP:OR. However, using information from a judicial opinion, particularly one from a court of appeal, isn't necessarily OR. If the supreme court or an intermediate appellate court summarizes the record in a certain way, that can be a reliable source. (Though it's important to understand that their summary is limited to the record before them.) Federalist51 (talk) 01:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Smallnslow (talk) 06:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of this page

I've proposed that the article Willie Jerome Manning should be deleted, for the following reasons: Per WP:Perp: An article about Manning would be appropriate only if a well-documented historical event has emerged from the crimes of which he’s convicted. And, to quote WP:Perp, ‘Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role.’ Manning’s cases don’t fit this profile.

There’s nothing in reliable secondary news sources to suggest that the crimes of which Manning was convicted were in themselves of historic significance.

Reliable secondary sources covered issues arising from one of his cases at a national and international level for a short period around the date of his scheduled execution in May 2013. These sources reported first the state supreme court’s denial of DNA and fingerprint testing to Manning, and then the subsequent revelation by the FBI/DOJ that Manning’s trial hair and ballistics testimony had been flawed. However, the ‘significant attention’ of reliable sources was only indirectly related to Manning – the focus was instead on the court’s unusual decision and the FBI’s review of hair testimony. Reliable secondary sources have never suggested that Manning had any role, let alone a significant one, in either the court’s decision or the FBI review.

Manning’s case was mentioned again briefly in reliable sources in July 2013, when the FBI admitted that his case was one of 27 death penalty cases to have suffered flawed hair testimony; again, there was no suggestion that Manning had played a role in this – he was mentioned only as an example. Apart from this passing allusion, Manning’s case hasn’t persisted in reliable sources beyond the news coverage at the time of his scheduled execution. Smallnslow (talk) 14:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support deletion for reasons given, but if any of the information would fit well into other relevant Wikipedia articles then it ought to be put there instead of being completely removed from Wikipedia. Maybe there isn't any such information, but it would be good to check.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
• Rename - Manning committed two double homicides, which may pass the WP:CRIME threshold that "the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual". But Smallnslow made a good point, and I'm not 100 percent convinced it does pass this threshold. If the article stays, however, it should not be about Manning, any more than the 2012 Bain murder-kidnappings was about Adam Christopher Mayes. The article should summarize these terrible murders, and only notable court proceedings regarding Manning--using sources other than court records--should remain. Maybe call the article "1992-1993 Manning double homicides". I too feel this crime should not be lost from Wikipedia. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
• Contested I have contested this proposed deletion. The proper thing to do now is to take any further discussion to articles for deletion. Anyone desiring deletion should follow the procedure listed there. Xoloz (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Replacement of court documents as sources

Although I don't agree that it is impermissible to cite court documents as sources within WP policy, I have replaced the evidentiary part (pertaining to trial testimony) with RS newspaper accounts from the time of the trial. Remaining in the article is the summary of steps that happened in the appeals process. This ought to be able to remain, as it does not contain any evidence but is merely a recitation of the dates that various appeals were processed.Bundlesofsticks (talk) 00:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I would recommend moving any no-longer-used-as-references official documents to an "External Links" (if they are online) or "For further reading" (if they are not online) section, as newspaper links can go offline or change URLs. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Use of an unreliable news article/ news source on this page

A news article used three times on this page is negative, sensationalist, unbalanced and unfair, giving interviews with prosecution witnesses and showing none of the defense arguments: The Dispatch (a Mississippi news outlet serving Columbus, Starkville and the Golden Triangle) May 7 2013 http://www.cdispatch.com/news/article.asp?aid=24056&TRID=1&TID=

This news source shows no editorial control and judgment. Its approach contrasts with news articles about Manning in reliable secondary sources, which publish both prosecution and defense arguments eg

New York Times, May 3 2013 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/04/us/dna-tests-rejected-for-inmate-facing-tuesday-execution.html?_r=0

The Atlantic, May 2 2013 http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/05/a-ghost-of-mississippi-the-willie-manning-capital-case/275442/

Washington Post May 4 2013 http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/justice-dept-admits-flaws-in-forensic-testimony-in-mississippi-death-row-case/2013/05/03/aca18176-b41c-11e2-baf7-5bc2a9dc6f44_story.html

Manning is seeking retrial in both his cases – if Wikipedia isn’t neutral it could cause him harm by misleading potential jurors. As this news article demonstrates extreme bias against Manning I’d like to remove all text related to it. Do other editors agree that this is consistent with Wikipedia’s WP:BLP policy? Smallnslow (talk) 05:23, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is. The Columbus Dispatch is a reliable source. It is a newspaper that is widely circulated in the Columbus-Starkville area. The sections on the two trials fairly reflect the evidence that was presented in them. It was at YOUR insistence that I tracked down and cited RSs on the trials and deleted the court documents that were previously quoted in those sections. The information pertaining to Manning's appeals has its own section. If it will help, I will review the RSs you suggest and see if anything pertinent can be cited from them. Is there a reason you have not done this at your own initiative and instead have chosen to remove reliably sourced information already in the article? Bundlesofsticks (talk) 06:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)