Talk:Joshua Marquis

Suggestion
There may be trains of thought in the Opposing Discussion link which might be worthy of integrating into this unbalanced article. For example, his views on innocence conflict with the book Actual Innocence, the many law school innocence projects it spawned, and generic decision error. His salary was cut (for what reason?) but he campaigned for it to be restored, lost, but eventually it was restored anyway. His website claims a DA's worst nightmare is to convict an innocent yet he didn't lift a finger to reverse the conviction of innocent Thomas Michael Kelly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.213.230 (talk) 18:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I would be happy to work with anyone to bring a broader perspective to this article. Unfortunately the link you added is not something Wikipedia regards as a reliable source, so we'll need to do a little more research. I know that Marquis has argued strongly for increased DA salaries in Oregon in general, but I don't think there's anything specific to his own salary as distinct from all Oregon DAs. I could be wrong, though. -Pete (talk) 19:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The above remark is not accurate. If it were, the editor would only have deleted the offending sentence(s) and not the entire last post, which corrects further error in his above thought.  In today's atmosphere of polticial correctness what else can be expected?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.213.230 (talk) 19:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it more or less goes without saying that my desire to collaborate is strongly impacted by any given editor's willingness to abide by Wikipedia policies on subjects like personal attacks and civility. I have especially little patience for people who choose to launch attacks from behind the veil of anonymity. I invite you to re-introduce the substantive parts of your commentary in a more collegial and respectful fashion. -Pete (talk) 23:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You Pete so far have shown you are no editor, just a deleter. Restore my Opposing Discussion link on the article page and I may regain lost confidence in you.  It is a reliable link to OPPOSING DISCUSSION -- if you require everything to be published elsewhere it can be done and hidden behind the veil of the Astorian's fee structure as Marquis' link is below.  I consider you as holding my link and other points hostage, so release one to show good faith.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.213.230 (talk) 03:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: The above discussion was blanked by user:75.139.213.230 with the edit summary "Suggestion withdrawn". The content of the discussion was restored as it contained comments by an editor other than the anon. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion
Mr. Kelly is a convicted rapist (http://www.dailyastorian.com/Main.asp?SectionID=2&ArticleID=51711) whose supporters are angry he was prosecuted and sent to prison.


 * The above statement is a lie stating a false charge, unsupported by the article cited, which is proof that CoastDA (Josh Marquis) is an unreliable reference on things that occurred under his own authority. Any editor who wants to delete this should have the integrity to check the reference cited.


 * Susan Reeves, trial lawyer for Thomas Kelly wrote a letter to the Daily Astorian asking that many untrue statements in the article be retracted. The Daily Astorian refused to retract them.  Mr. Richard Kelly the defendant's father, personally talked to one of the editors of the Daily Astorian about a prior article written on the case against Thomas Kelly pointing out many untrue biased statements that could be proved in a civil lawsuit against Clatsop County and the Daily Astorian.  The editor he spoke with said, this information came from the DA's office.75.139.213.230 (talk) 02:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Kelly was tried, convicted, and found guilty by a jury and then sentenced by a judge who said she agreed with the jury's verdict. Although an appeal is possible, until then Mr. Kelly is a convicted child rapist in the eyes of the law. Coastda (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * In adding or allowing the external link to the DA's own blog, the editor has used an unreliable reference as his information as proven above is undeniably unreliable. 75.139.213.230 (talk) 22:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The discussion about DA pay was mainly state-wide (http://www.blueoregon.com/2006/11/are_salaries_fo.html and http://joshmarquis.blogspot.com/2006/11/pornography-of-pay.html) This is distinct from a controversy in which the DA's pay was cut after his wife ran against the County Commission Chair, Richard Lee. The DA's county pay was abruptly ended and a controversy ensued in which Lee was recalled. Within a month the remaining Commissioners restored the DA's pay a month after Lee was recalled (http://www.dailyastorian.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=50097&SectionID=23&SubSectionID=392&S=1)Coastda (talk) 04:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding Thomas Kelly: Unless someone is sincerely proposing that we add specifics about this case to this biography, let's not use Wikipedia to discuss it. (I do not have subscriber access to the Astorian, so unfortunately I'm not able to read about the case. Unless this is one of the more notable events in Mr. Marquis' career, generating multiple news articles in multiple publications, my sense would be that this is not something this article needs to cover.) Wikipedia discussion pages are reserved for talk about the content of the article; so if it doesn't directly relate, let's let it rest, or find other web sites on which to discuss.


 * Coastda, thank you for the background on DA pay, that is very helpful background. Not sure whether this belongs in the biography either, but it seems potentially worthy of inclusion.


 * Finally Coastda, would you mind revealing who you are, or what your relationship to Josh Marquis is? You are of course under no obligation to do so, but Wikipedia has fairly exacting standards on how people closely associated with an article's subject should approach editing, and it would make things smoother if we knew. Your user name and your focus on this article will likely raise some eyebrows. However, I appreciate your approach to editing, and your engaging in the discussion here on the talk page; I do not personally feel there is cause for concern. So, it would be helpful and would go a long way toward allaying any future concerns if you care to disclose this information. But this is merely a request, not a requirement. -Pete (talk) 06:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Coastda IS Josh Marquis. Its the screen name I use everywhere....e-mail, webpage. I thought it was evident, but if not I am happy to confirm it. I am vigilant about edits to a page that concerns me because a quick google search will show that that there is a small but very vitriolic group of people who intensely dislike me. Coastda (talk) 16:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for clarifying, and sorry if I was overlooking the obvious. I have run into trouble making assumptions on this in the past, and prefer to err on the side of caution. -Pete (talk) 03:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Sources for expansion
Mr. Marquis pointed me to the following articles, on my talk page, as examples of writings critical of his views on the death penalty. Would be good to incorporate this into the article for some balance.


 * …this piece by David Feige from the Boston GLOBE: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/07/16/innocence_by_the_numbers/ This was in turn in response to a series of pieces by the New York Times' Adam Liptak: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/us/25bar.html

-Pete (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The above critical remarks may go under the external links sub-title "critics". To leave critics out would be unfair treatment compared to the entry for David Barton.75.139.214.136 (talk) 09:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Another source: This 1996 journal article written by Marquis on the Kittles case in Animal Law. First page viewable without subscription. -Pete (talk) 18:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Needed ref
I noticed a line that mentions "...and numerous other articles that were cited by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia" with the source of http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/26/opinion/26marquis.html?_r=1

The only problem is that the source supports that the article was written by Mr. Marquis, but does not support the statement that it was cited by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Does anyone know where that citation can be documented so that the ref can be improved? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Read the decision in Kansas vs. Marsh, the concurring opinion of Justice Scalia, Section III, - there are numerous references in pages 38 on - http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-1170.pdf. An earlier version had a direct link to the opinion. Also note this artcile in the NY TIMES referncing the same: : http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/us/25bar.htm Coastda (talk) 16:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I see it now already in the article, I just didn't continue reading far enough. Thanks for pointing it out. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Joshua Marquis. 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/20081122035226/http://www.ndaa.org/ndaa/profile/joshua_marquis_may_june_2002.html to http://www.ndaa.org/ndaa/profile/joshua_marquis_may_june_2002.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 11:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joshua Marquis. 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/20080124040746/http://wweek.com/editorial/3411/10288/ to http://wweek.com/editorial/3411/10288/

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) 00:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)