Talk:Troy Davis/Archive 2

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)

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 and, 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)

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)

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


 * ❌. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [[Image:Flag_of_Italy.svg|15px]]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)


 * ❌. 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)

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". . 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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

✅--JayJasper (talk) 04:38, 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)

Categories
Can you make the appropriate changes for the categories, please? For example,.


 * 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)

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)

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)

Edit request, 21 September 2011
Please add the above to External links. 99.50.188.136 (talk) 22:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Case:Troy Davis at Amnesty International
 * Case:Troy Davis at Amnesty International


 * 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)

✅--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)

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&#124; 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)


 * 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&#124; 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&#124; talk to me 22:19, 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. -- Kendrick7talk 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. -- Kendrick7talk 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. -- Kendrick7talk 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. -- Kendrick7talk 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)

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)

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.  Dubious Irony  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. .  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  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. 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, 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:, 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" ; "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". --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)

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)