Talk:Hank Skinner

_

Untitled
smb2aSmb2a (talk) 21:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This whole article is so biased and unsourced that it should be deleted if it can't be rewritten.


 * Vanzetti, executed in 1927, is finally considered innocent.

By the way the article can be rewritten but most of its sources are the legal documents written by the judges and published by the defense site. Adumoul (talk) 06:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Balance and sourcing were added in October, and continue to be added as information is found. Because much of the information supporting guilt sources back to the Hank Skinner advocacy website, and other sources when possible there should be no conflict of interest.  Some sources also contain a link to the same document housed at FindLaw.  Several "citation needed" tags have been added to the claims that read verbatim from the advocacy site.  The key is to update, add to and correct information without replacing the original core of the article.  That process is now in motion.  Other material will also be added when sourcing information is available.  --grifterlake (talk) 16:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * On August 11, 2009 I restored the page to its pre-August 4 condition. The only edits I undid were those done by the vandalism of Hullabaloo Wolfowitz and IP 98.248.32.178 on August 3rd and 4th.  No other parts of the article were restored.  Hey, I don't like everything about the article either.  A year ago it was a cesspool that functioned only as another advocacy site for Hank Skinner.  I researched the case, found sourcing material and referenced it, and added several citation needed tags.  I don't agree with all the changes that others have made since then, but those changes don't destroy the entire article, which by any standard has come a long way.  My position is that if you are going to do mass deletes on material you should at least make an attempt to discuss it here, and justify your reasons why.  grifterlake (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Hank Skinner
User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz recites WP:PRIMARY's warning that "[a]ll interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material" to justify his removal of the following: "Under Rule 13 of the Supreme Court, Skinner has ninety days from that decision to file a petition for a writ of certiorari." In doing so, he fails to heed my admonition to "[r]ead WP:PRIMARY more carefully; it allows descriptive claims resting on primary materials." While Wolfowitz is correct that PRIMARY requires a secondary source for interpretive, analytic, or synthetic claims about primary material, the argument is inapposite because PRIMARY both implicitly and explicitly authorizes the use of primary sources for descriptive claims about that material ("Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge"). Stating that Rule 13 gives Skinner ninety days to appeal, is not interpretive, analytic, or synthetic; it is plainly descriptive. It is also verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge: Rule 13's exact words are, "a petition for a writ of certiorari to review a judgment in any case, civil or criminal, entered by a state court of last resort or a United States court of appeals (including the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces) is timely when it is filed with the Clerk of this Court within 90 days after entry of the judgment." Given the knowledge that Skinner had received an adverse judgment in a US Court of Appeals, it is hard to imagine that any reasonable, educated person could not verify that rule 13 gives him ninety days to appeal. Accordingly, the material is appropriate and Wolfowitz's deletion will be reverted. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It would be different, I should add, if we calculated the date on which ninety days expires. That would be an analytic claim required a secondary source. But merely reciting that rule 13 gives a 90 day window is a descriptive claim, and it does not plausibly become an interpretative, analytic, or synthetic claim simply because we say that rule 13 gives this person a 90 day window. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You're analyzing the text of the rule and applying it to an individual case. Wikipedia doesn't publish individual editors' legal analyses, whether the issue is easy or hard. Saying analysis of a supposedly easy case is "descriptive" just doesn't hold water. Besides, determining the date of "entry of a judgment" isn't clearly a matter that can be determined easily by a nonlawyer. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You can certainly advert to the purpose of the rule over the text. We have already seen that the text allows inclusion. Please explain, then, why the purpose of the rule requires exclusion, and how precisely it improves Wikipedia to exclude it . Correction I see what you mean - you're saying that I'm "analyzing" rule 13 (my previous reply took you to mean that I was analyzing the text of WP:PRIMARY). In that case, see my reply immediately below. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * We see that the text doesn't allow inclusion. Besides, two editors, including myself, have objected to it under WP:PRIMARY and generally, so there's no consensus to include it, and a numerical consensus to exclude it. Unless you can explain why your interpretation of WP:PRIMARY privileges you to include material over the objections of other editors, when you are the sole proponent of its inclusion, you should not keep reinserting your analysis tendentiously. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You say that two editors have objected to it, but that's erroneous - only you have done so. I suggest that we raise the issue at an appropriate noticeboard to solicit further input. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * User:Morbidthoughts deleted the same material yesterday, citing WP:PRIMARY in his edit summary. I'm not interesting in parsing his edit summary; he objected to the material, I object to the material, and that's enough to demonstrate that two editors objected to the material. So if anyone needs to "rescind" anything, it's you. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Based on his edit summary, I had understood Morbidthoughts' objection to be the citaion of Skinner v. Quarterman not Rule 13. If he could clarify the scope of his objection, that would be helpful. It is, however, somewhat ironic that you cite his position in support of yours when you have engaged in a protracted edit war with him and questioned his grasp of policy on your talk page. Lastly, the suggestion that I "need[] to 'rescind'" something is empty rhetoric: You have already reverted my change, so there is nothing for me to "rescind." - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 18:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no irony. Wolfowitz and I do not agree on everything but we have never edit warred with each other, protracted or not. If you are talking about the Meggan Mallone article, another editor had questioned an edit. I had reverted that edit without seeing that another person had already raised the same issue for discussion. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Apologies are in order: I confused you with user:Grifterlake, with whom HW has been editwarring over this article. Sorry, my bad. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 19:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Your implicit claim that it is "legal analys[i]s" to recite and/or describe rule 13, by the way, is utterly mystifying. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Applying it to Skinner seems like original research prohibited by WP:SYN though. Then again, I don't really object if Rule 13 was recited in general to give context. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Just to make clear, my original issue was that I felt Skinner fell under WP:NPF, not WP:WELLKNOWN, which required court documents to be published by a reliable secondary source to use them on wikipedia. WP:WELLKNOWN just requires the documents to cited which the Dallas Morning News had reported on. Rather than edit warring over it, I was willing to assume that he is "well known" enough. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Assuming that NPF applies, it seems clear that a court of appeals opinion in which the subject of the article was a plaintiff or petitioner is a good candidate for ignoring NPF (cf. WP:EXCEPTIONS). - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 18:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Revmoving Section Texas Attorney General's Execution Notice
Hi, I just removed the section "Texas Attorney General's Execution Notice" according to the policy on biographies of living persons: Biographies_of_living_persons

If a secondary source as mentioned in the policy is found the verified parts can be readded. Regards, --Kmw2700 (talk) 13:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of useful sources
Should www.hankskinner.com and www.hankskinner.org be cited in this article? Should one of them, but not the other? In what ways do these web sites meet, or not meet, Wikipedia's reliable sources guidelines? Rather than edit-warring, it would help to establish a consensus. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe if one is added, the other should be there. They are each biased in their own separate ways. Given the biases, however, both have valuable content. For instance, Hankskinner.COM has a rebuttal from Skinner and a reply to the rebuttal. There is controversy over the guy's guilt but one side should not be suppressed in favor of another viewpoint. Also, there are discussion groups devoted to the topic. Should these be cited, perhaps in a section, as well? JoeGuru (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

=
========================================== If you see the 4 external links, we have 1 link to www.hankskinner.org and 3 links to official Texas justice sites, and there is no attempt at hiding information against skinner. The skinner.org site has been there for years, it gives all the sources and authors of the documents that it publishes and makes no mystery that it is funded by the Defense Fund of Hank Skinner.

Now, www.hankskinner.com is a new site trying to counter the growing popularity of the Skinner case. I have no problem with that. What make it not acceptable in my Wikipedia opinion is that 1. skinner.com is entirely anonymous, and 2.is imitating the templates of the skinner.org site

If there are groups who wants to support the Death penalty of Hank Skinner, they can do it but Wikipedia can requires them of signing their views, and choosing their own design, like every serious publication in the world. --Adumoul (talk) 02:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Hank Skinner
Cyberbot II has detected links on Hank Skinner which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://news.change.org/stories/supreme-court-to-review-hank-skinner-s-case
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:55, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Hank Skinner
Cyberbot II has detected links on Hank Skinner which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://news.change.org/stories/supreme-court-to-review-hank-skinner-s-case
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Hank Skinner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070614033627/https://records.txdps.state.tx.us/DPS_WEB/Cch/index.aspx to https://records.txdps.state.tx.us/DPS_WEB/Cch/index.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110820004130/http://www.ellis.senate.state.tx.us/pr11/p052011a.htm to http://www.ellis.senate.state.tx.us/pr11/p052011a.htm/

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Hank Skinner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091215103235/http://cbs11tv.com:80/local/Texas.Prison.Shakedown.2.846437.html to http://cbs11tv.com/local/Texas.Prison.Shakedown.2.846437.html

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hank Skinner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://kfda.images.worldnow.com/images/incoming/10listens%40newschannel10.com_20100503_152122.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071120020842/http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/offendersondrow.htm to http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/offendersondrow.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Hank Skinner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100531051733/http://www.correctionsone.com/capital-punishment/articles/2026971-Texas-halts-execution-1-hour-before-death to http://www.correctionsone.com/capital-punishment/articles/2026971-Texas-halts-execution-1-hour-before-death/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110827135019/http://www.medillinnocenceproject.org/skinner to http://www.medillinnocenceproject.org/skinner
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100612151155/http://www.connectamarillo.com/news/story.aspx?list=195067&id=461288 to http://www.connectamarillo.com/news/story.aspx?list=195067&id=461288
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121106190559/http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/owenrc/ to http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/owenrc/
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120630105811/prisonmovement.wordpress.com/2009/08/13/hell-hole-news-from-texas-death-row-by-hank-skinner/ to http://prisonmovement.wordpress.com/2009/08/13/hell-hole-news-from-texas-death-row-by-hank-skinner/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605113926/http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/general/2007/11/2008525173620892283.html to http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/general/2007/11/2008525173620892283.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:18, 29 October 2017 (UTC)