Talk:List of people executed in the United States in 2013

Necessary article?
We already list every execution in the executions by state articles. We do not seem to have any other list of executions by year other tha this one. It seems like a very large job of work for data we already include elsewhere. Rmhermen (talk) 22:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't know that it is "necessary" per se. But, I certainly have no objection to keeping this article and/or similar ones – either those for the future (executions for 2104, 2015, etc.) or for the past (executions for 2012, 2011, etc.).     Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Appropriate title
Given the large number of false convictions, the term "offender" seems to be out of place. I would suggest "convicted people" instead.


 * Agreed on a necessary name change. I'd go even farther and propose plain "people" -- as some may not even have been lawfully convicted at the time of execution -- and also extend it to the other List of offenders executed in the United States in 2014 and possible future lists. 2001:A60:10E2:EB01:224:1DFF:FE77:8DF5 (talk) 15:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything wrong with the word "offender". Clearly, the word "offender" implies a "convicted offender" and, clearly, all of these individuals have been convicted.  Most, in fact, have probably had said convictions affirmed many times over through the appellate process.  I take exception to the above post indicating a "large number of false convictions".  Quite frankly, that sounds like rhetoric.  Does someone have a source indicating a "large number of false convictions"?  And, specifically, a "large number of false convictions" of people who have been executed?  And, even more specifically, a "large number of false convictions" of people from this particular list?  I suspect not.  All that being said, I would indeed propose and/or support a name change.  I think that all of these type of articles should use the same phrasing.  So, we should select one word and stick with it for this and all similar articles (e.g., people executed in Florida, individuals executed in Oklahoma, murderers executed in Ohio, etc.).  At present, different articles employ different wording.  Let's use the same word (noun) in all such articles, for uniformity and consistency.  In fact, quite some time ago, I had made exactly this suggestion on some relevant talk page.  However, I just looked for that in some old archives, and I cannot seem to find it.  It is out there, somewhere, though.  Thanks.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * If a more neutral title is still desired, I suggest List of executions in the United States in 2013. - Boneyard90 (talk) 06:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's much better. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * These should at least mention somewhere that these people were convicted of murder. Just saying they committed offences is very strangely vague. For people moderately familiar with US law, it could go without saying, since only convicted murderers are killed. But not everyone reading Wikipedia knows that. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Three suggestions for this table
I have three suggestions for the table in this article. (1) The execution dates should be listed in USA format (e.g., use February 1, 2014, instead of 1 February 2014). (2) There should be blue wiki links to those names that have separate Wikipedia articles. (3) In the column entitled "State", the blue wiki link should include (for example) the link to Capital punishment in Florida, and not a link to simply the state of Florida itself. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Formatting
& after watching this play out from afar I would like to offer my assistance in moderating the discussion as a neutral third party. The following will need to be agreed upon in advance: For the talking points I have identified the following issues: Please let me know if you agree to the above and we may begin. If you decline then my offer will be withdrawn and you will need to work it out yourselves. All the best, Mkdw talk 17:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * All involved agree to moderation and a third opinion before proceeding.
 * All discussion will be conducted in a mature, polite, and civilized manner.
 * Content (not the editors) will be the focus of the discussion.
 * All involved will mutually agree on how to move forward before any further changes are made.
 * The discussion will take place in a reasonable time frame -- if several days go by without a response it will be assumed the individual has removed themselves from the discussion and left the subsequent decisions in the care of the remaining parties involved.
 * 1) Consistency across all related articles
 * 2) Whether the 'name' column width displays the full name in one or two rows based upon a standard set range of resolution.


 * Hi. Thanks.  I will describe the "issue" that I have with the recent edits and reverts to this article.  There are several of these articles, and they are all formatted exactly the same (i.e., for consistency, etc.).  This format has remained in place for quite some time; I would venture, for several years.  I am opposed to an individual editor (whoever that might be) coming in and unilaterally changing either (a) one article only, thereby eliminating consistency across articles; or (b) all articles in this "family" of articles.  As this format has remained in place for several years, without issue, I am opposed to a unilateral change, without discussion and/or consensus.  As a side note: it seems to me that when readers are reading a Wikipedia article, different readers will see different things.  (Apparently, that seems to be at issue here.)  I have no idea how that works, or what that is all about.  I don't know and/or understand the technical basis behind this.  I assume it has to do with different browsers, different devices, etc.  But, I have no idea.  So, perhaps, if possible, I would like someone to explain how and why it is that two people looking at the same exact article will see two completely different things.  Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You again? Oh my. You know what? You win. Do what you want. I'm sick of your whining. It's not worth it. I'll go elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TobiisNOTmadara1291 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Unless you have anything else to add Joseph A. Spadaro I think we can close this discussion. Mkdw talk 02:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree. The comments in the above discussion speak for themselves.  Thanks for your help.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)