Talk:Willie Jerome Manning

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

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


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

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

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

The source that you've used for the Early Life section is from a less-established outlet so has a greater potential to be unreliable than if it were from a well-established outlet, like Associated Press. If it was a reliable news story it would demonstrate balance, but it doesn’t - it doesn’t include an alternative or mitigating view of Manning's early life. The article is therefore unreliable as a news story. I suggest you use a reliable source instead, or omit the text altogether. Smallnslow (talk) 00:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC) — Smallnslow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

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

You aren't following the policies I referred you to. There are now several editors keeping an eye on your edits to this article. Why don't you learn how to edit by working on something less controversial, like daisy? Bundlesofsticks (talk) 01:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smallnslow (talk • contribs)  — Smallnslow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

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

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

Discussion copied from BLP noticeboard
I've removed contentious material about a living person several times, with detailed explanations in Talk as to why this was necessary. The material has been replaced each time. The last time this was done, it was accompanied by threatening and disparaging comments. Smallnslow (talk) 02:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC) — Smallnslow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * This matter involves a person on death row for murder. For reasons that I'm unsure of, the discussion has been at user talk, instead of at article talk.  See User talk:Smallnslow.  The other editor involved in this controversy is User:Bundleofsticks.  I will place a link to this discussion at article talk.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the heads-up, Anythingyouwant. I gave user Smallnslow constructive advice about WP policies (NPOV and RS) and offered to help him/her edit the article and s/he ignored that advice and blasted on.  All Smallnslow has done is remove sourced RS material from the article, in order to push a POV.  Smallnslow's edits were so severe that they triggered two separate bots to undo the changes.  The subject of the article has been convicted of two double murders.  That is simply a fact.  It is a fact that has been stated in most of the leading newspapers of the United States.  I do not see that I have violated WP:BLP. Bundlesofsticks (talk) 05:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Is the basic disagreement here about whether we should call a convicted murderer a "murderer" before he has exhausted all appeals?Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked at what is going on at the article but I have had a look at that talk page, User talk:Smallnslow. The statement "the phrase "is/was a convicted murderer" is a common one in the lede of articles about murderers on Wikipedia" is not what I would necessarily call constructive advice given that other Wikipedia leads aren't relevant. Smallnslow's suggestion to change 'convicted murderer' to 'convicted of murder' seems to be a simple and effective solution that is consistent with policy. It's an indisputable fact that Manning was 'convicted of murder'. If that statement doesn't contain the information editors wish to convey using the encyclopedia's voice, what is it exactly that is not being conveyed by that statement ?  Sean.hoyland  - talk 06:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If that were all there were to it, I would not have reverted. But Smallnslow cut 4735 bytes, almost half the article, including basically all of the evidence from two murder trials that was rehashed on numerous appeals.  User Smallnslow is apparently trying to push the POV that Manning is innocent and trying to delete anything from the article that interferes with that POV, like eyewitnesses, ballistics tests, having the victims' property. I mentioned those other articles because Smallnslow argued that saying someone is a convicted murderer is POV; I pointed out that is not POV but is rather a common practice on WP. Anyway, it's just a fact. He was convicted of four murders. Bundlesofsticks (talk) 07:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Understood. Baby steps. They seem to be a new single-purpose-so-far account and the learning curve is steep.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 08:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm a newbie - that accounts for my technical problems, including triggering automatic reversion of text. That does not make my comments about this article less valid. Manning briefly attracted national attention in 2013, when the Mississippi Supreme Court ruled not to allow him DNA testing http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/04/us/dna-tests-rejected-for-inmate-facing-tuesday-execution.html?_r=0 The Wikipedia article places undue weight on tabloid journalism, especially in using an article http://www.cdispatch.com/news/article.asp?aid=24056&TRID=1&TID= that, astonishingly, chose to ignore the national controversy in favour of publishing a one-sided article whose purpose appears to have been to persuade its readers of Manning's guilt. I also deleted court records, as Wikipedia suggests these are unreliable texts. I agree with what Bundlesofsticks says above . I find this wording more neutral than "He murdered four people". Smallnslow (talk) 08:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC) — Smallnslow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The Commercial Dispatch is not a tabloid. It has its own article on Wikipedia and from that article we learn that the newspaper has been existence since before 1910.  Manning's guilt had been long established when that article was published.  Court records are not unreliable, but they are primary sources.  Primary sources are not forbidden in WP articles, but they are discouraged in favor of secondary and tertiary sources.  I again suggest you learn these policies of WP before slashing articles wholesale.  Pay especial interest to the WP:NPOV policy.  Everyone is eager to learn the results of the DNA testing.  I have no doubt that it will lead to more national headlines. Bundlesofsticks (talk) 09:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

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


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


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

Per WP:Perp, a Wikipedia article about a criminal is okay for us to have as long as it meets certain requirements. I assume that, here in this case, "the motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime was unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role." You should be able to summarize Manning's historic significance in a sentence or two, and put that into the lead. Just saying that he committed two double-murders does not seem to be enough, because (unfortunately) people are murdered all the time. Was it the FBI's rescinding of a report that makes this historic? Such rescinding doesn't sound to me like something that was obviously historic, unless someone at the FBI committed a crime, or unless Manning's conviction is overturned due to the rescinding.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The reason this case has garnered the attention it has in the national media is because of the FBI rescinding an evidence report it issued, an extremely unusual situation, although I don't know about "historic." The FBI action is being discussed in terms of whether it is a new policy that will affect other cases.  The second reason this is notable is because Manning was convicted of two separate double murders.  I cannot think of anyone else who committed two double murders.  In the original version of the page, it stated Manning had "the unique distinction" of that; another editor quickly changed it to "rare," and since I wasn't able to document that Manning's status is completely unique, I didn't object or revert.  Now you have removed even "rare."  What makes this a truly unique set of circumstances is that a court could decide to completely throw out Manning's conviction on the first double murder (Steckler-Miller) on the basis of the FBI report but Manning could still be executed for the second double murder (Jimmerson-Jordan).  Or Manning could be executed for Jimmerson-Jordan while the latest Steckler-Miller appeal is still ongoing.  Either way, this case has already been considered noteworthy.Bundlesofsticks (talk) 10:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Bundlesofsticks, I think people are convicted all the time of multiple murder. Even if the conviction of killing one of them is overturned on appeal, the person often still serves the original sentence (e.g. life in prison).  IMHO, the only potentially historic thing here is the FBI rescission, but it needs to be explained better in the lead.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The Manning case is significant as the first of 27 cases the FBI is reviewing, which might indicate a significant policy change. I will work on the lede.  You are correct that there are multiple murders all the time.  The unique thing about this is TWO SEPARATE double murders. Bundlesofsticks (talk) 22:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * So if someone does three separate double murders, or two separate triple murders, then they get a Wikipedia article? In any multiple murder, the prosecutor can decide to charge separately for each one, so I still don't see the significance of that.  But the FBI policy change might be enough significance for an article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I personally think Manning does not merit a Wikipedia article at all. The FBI’s rescinding of its hair report in this case, insofar as it was notable at all, was significant only in its timing (there have been many other cases since). It heightened the focus on the main topic in news outlets at the time, which was that the Mississippi Supreme Court was prepared to execute Manning [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/04/us/dna-tests-rejected-for-inmate-facing-tuesday-execution.html?_r=0%20 without allowing him testing of DNA and fingerprint evidence. ] However, the Court did eventually reverse its judgment and allow this testing. I think with this reversal, Manning’s historic significance disappears. Smallnslow (talk) 12:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC) — Smallnslow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. P.S. First link I added doesn't appear to work, so here it is in full: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/american-justice-scandal-fbi-could-be-at-fault-in-27-death-row-cases-8718135.html Smallnslow (talk) 12:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC) — Smallnslow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * So if you can't have your way with the article, you don't want it to exist at all. That is censorship. Bundlesofsticks (talk) 22:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

My opinion relates to the question put by Anythingyouwant, ‘Was it the FBI’s rescinding of a report that makes this historic?’ The FBI’s decision to correct errors in hair testimony cases was made the previous year. It was not made in response to Manning’s case. “Federal officials found Manning’s case as part of a broad review of the FBI’s handling of scientific evidence in thousands of violent crimes in the 1980s and 1990s. The Justice Department announced last summer an effort to correct past errors in forensic hair examinations before 2000 — at least 21,000 cases — to determine whether agents exaggerated the significance of purported hair “matches” in lab reports or trial testimony.” Washington Post, May 4 2013 http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/justice-dept-admits-flaws-in-forensic-testimony-in-mississippi-death-row-case/2013/05/03/aca18176-b41c-11e2-baf7-5bc2a9dc6f44_story.html So the evaluation of Manning's historic significance hinges not on an FBI change of policy, but on his case being the first to be announced, in dramatic circumstances, very close to the time of his scheduled execution. Smallnslow (talk) 13:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC) — Smallnslow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

See BLP Policy 2:4 (Avoid misuse of primary sources): Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. I’d like confirmation that court records should not be used as source material in this article.Smallnslow (talk) 09:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC) — Smallnslow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Thanks for the clarification, Two kinds of pork. This confirms that the court records in this article should be removed, as none of them is corroborated by reliable sources. Smallnslow (talk) 23:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC) — Smallnslow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * They should not be used without corroboration from a reliable source. To whit: corroborates the court document.Two kinds of pork (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The NYT link above seems to corroborate the text which used the court doc as a cite. Why not switch the cite to this one?Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're mistaken. The information in the text cited as 5 is not in the NYT article, so must be removed. Smallnslow (talk) 13:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC) — Smallnslow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Your approach to editing is wrong. Instead of removing things that you claim to be improperly sourced, why don't you add RS material to the article.  I have sent for the newspapers on microfilm and soon will be able to add additional facts from the trials to the article. Bundlesofsticks (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

You reverted the reliable source that I previously substituted. Smallnslow (talk) 00:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC) — Smallnslow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


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

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

Thanks for the clarification. Smallnslow (talk) 06:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC) — Smallnslow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

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

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

Manning’s case was mentioned again briefly in reliable sources in July 2013, when the FBI admitted that his case was one of 27 death penalty cases to have suffered flawed hair testimony; again, there was no suggestion that Manning had played a role in this – he was mentioned only as an example. Apart from this passing allusion, Manning’s case hasn’t persisted in reliable sources beyond the news coverage at the time of his scheduled execution. Smallnslow (talk) 14:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC) — Smallnslow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Support deletion for reasons given, but if any of the information would fit well into other relevant Wikipedia articles then it ought to be put there instead of being completely removed from Wikipedia. Maybe there isn't any such information, but it would be good to check.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Rename - Manning committed two double homicides, which may pass the WP:CRIME threshold that "the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual". But Smallnslow made a good point, and I'm not 100 percent convinced it does pass this threshold.  If the article stays, however, it should not be about Manning, any more than the 2012 Bain murder-kidnappings was about Adam Christopher Mayes.  The article should summarize these terrible murders, and only notable court proceedings regarding Manning--using sources other than court records--should remain.  Maybe call the article "1992-1993 Manning double homicides".  I too feel this crime should not be lost from Wikipedia. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Contested I have contested this proposed deletion. The proper thing to do now is to take any further discussion to articles for deletion.  Anyone desiring deletion should follow the procedure listed there. Xoloz (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Replacement of court documents as sources
Although I don't agree that it is impermissible to cite court documents as sources within WP policy, I have replaced the evidentiary part (pertaining to trial testimony) with RS newspaper accounts from the time of the trial. Remaining in the article is the summary of steps that happened in the appeals process. This ought to be able to remain, as it does not contain any evidence but is merely a recitation of the dates that various appeals were processed.Bundlesofsticks (talk) 00:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I would recommend moving any no-longer-used-as-references official documents to an "External Links" (if they are online) or "For further reading" (if they are not online) section, as newspaper links can go offline or change URLs. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  15:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Done! Bundlesofsticks (talk) 01:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Manning is seeking retrial in both his cases – if Wikipedia isn’t neutral it could cause him harm by misleading potential jurors. As this news article demonstrates extreme bias against Manning I’d like to remove all text related to it. Do other editors agree that this is consistent with Wikipedia’s WP:BLP policy? Smallnslow (talk) 05:23, 24 May 2014 (UTC) — Smallnslow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


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

cIt’s very hard to attempt editing when another editor constantly reverts the text. My priority’s been to delete/alter features that are counter to WP:BLP. I said that court records shouldn't be used, but I didn’t ask for old newspaper articles, which introduce similar bias.


 * The Columbus Dispatch article needs to be read, and compared with contemporaneous reliable news sources, to determine whether or not it’s a balanced news report that demonstrates editorial oversight. Smallnslow (talk) 13:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC) — Smallnslow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * The relevant guidelines are WP:Biographies of living persons, WP:Neutral point of view, and WP:Reliable sources, not WP:Not tainting the jury pool. With respect to using biases sources, as long as the source is reliable and the content of the article remains in compliance with Wikipedia policies, they can be used.  If you believe that anything in the current article which is backed by a reference in the Dispatch is factually false, please revert it and provide either a link to another reliable source that shows that it is false or a link to a retraction in the Dispatch (or provide some other indication that the Dispatch has issued a correction).  It's outside the scope of your role of a Wikipedia editor, I also recommend that you consider writing the Dispatch asking them to issue corrections for any factually incorrect statements.  Oh, as for the jury pool, judges routinely ask potential jurors about any biases and how much or how little they followed the case in the media.  If the judge is not competent to exclude jurors with a significant bias, well, most states with non-elected judges have procedures for removing incompetent judges, and those with elections have elections to give the voters an opportunity to accomplish the same task. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  21:26, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the helpful input. Re juries: My note was in relation to WP:Biographies of living persons The possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.
 * Re Dispatch article: I judged this article according to WP:NEWSORG (assess news stories on a case by case basis), and WP:QUESTIONABLE (A lightweight source may sometimes be acceptable for a lightweight claim, but never for an extraordinary claim).

On Manning’s Wikipedia page both news and opinions from this article have been included in sections that report events. The page would be more neutral if the opinions were in a separate ‘Opinions and Analysis’ section. This would also allow the inclusion of both the news and opinion elements of other articles e.g. New Statesman as again, news and opinion could be separated into the appropriate sections. Articles from a wide variety of sources would help to improve the neutrality of the page. Smallnslow (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose use of article from The Dispatch as a reliable source. We have under g nsideration here a BLP of a man whose life is on the line, and there is doubt about his guilt, as shown by the stay of execution. We should not use a source which aggressively restates the prosecution case, while utterly failing to analyze the concerns raised by the defense. This is especially so when much higher quality and actually reliable sources have been identified here.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  05:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The newspaper is a reliable source. After conviction, there is a presumption of his guilt.  Two juries independently convicted him and sentenced him to death.  Numerous appeals courts have let those convictions stand.  The issues raised by the defense are noted within the article. May I ask why the police would frame someone who was already under a death sentence in another case? 204.167.92.26 (talk) 00:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Speculation about innocence/ guilt or police motives is irrelevant and misplaced – the Wikipedia article needs only to report the reporting in reliable sources. Recent reliable sources report huge doubts about the safety of both convictions, for instance, from Associated Press in Daily Journal April 3 2013:
 * (Re 1992 case) “Manning contends three prosecution witnesses lied in their testimony because “they were given reward money and-or because their own criminal charges were dismissed or drastically reduced.”
 * Re a witness in 1993 case testifying that his trial testimony was false: “Manning… said Lucious’ testimony was corroborated by police department records not given to Manning’s trial attorney. He said prosecutors also did not disclose the police records.”
 * The questions about the convictions are not reflected in the Wikipedia article. Defense issues for the 1993 case are omitted, and those for the 1992 case are hidden away at the end of the article instead of being incorporated into the main body of the text, thus creating bias as per WP:STRUCTURE. The net result is a negative misrepresentation of the overall situation of Manning’s life. Smallnslow (talk) 22:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Use of old newspaper articles introduces bias
Old newspaper reports in this article report past decisions of courts e.g. at trial. In both of Manning’s cases, subsequent appeals have overturned original trial evidence. It’s therefore more neutral to use only recent reliable secondary sources, which report a balance of prosecution and defense arguments. Smallnslow (talk) 13:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC) — Smallnslow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Newspaper articles are RSS (reliable secondary sources). Appeals do not "overturn" trial evidence.  Contemporaneous RSS are in fact PREFERRED to rehashes.  This argument by the SPA editor lacks knowledge of both Wikipedia policy and the appellate process. Bundlesofsticks (talk) 01:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * You might prefer ‘undermined’ to ‘overturned’, as when Justice Kitchens (and three other of the MS Supreme Court judges) said in April 2013 ‘Manning presented evidence at court that undermined the court’s case against him’.
 * Old newspaper reports weigh the article down in trial evidence that’s since been brought into question. This is especially the case because of the depth of detail, quantity of text and prominence of placement of the text that relates to these reports. WP:BALASPS Smallnslow (talk) 21:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC) — smallnslow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Replying to Smallnslow and Bundlesofsticks: Yes, sources from the time of the event are generally going to have more details than later sources so they are generally preferred.  However, an article about a person, particularly a living person, must be neutral.  This means, among other things, that it must not misrepresent the overall situation of a person's life, especially in a way that gives it a slant that is more negative than the person's life actually is.  In short:  It's usually best to use an at-the-time-of-the-event older source when discussing the original events and original trial, but be crystal clear that the conviction was overturned on appeal and use an appropriate reliable source to back up that point.  Note:  If the newer sources include all of the relevant details that the older source(s) included, it may be sufficient to use only the newer sources.  This typically won't be the case if the newer source is a news article but it might be if the newer source is a reliable-source biography of the person.  For example, a recent reliable-source biography of Oliver North that went into extreme detail about all of his legal troubles and the subsequent vacating of his criminal convictions may eliminate the need to use late-1980s and 1990-era newspaper sources to back up the discussion of his legal troubles.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  21:35, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Just to make clear, there has been no conviction overturned here. Willie Jerome Manning remains under two separate death sentences.Bundlesofsticks (talk) 12:20, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The appeals process has uncovered information that casts huge doubt on the safety of both convictions, and includes claims of State misconduct. On the Wikipedia page this is obscured by the domination of old news sources. The doubt about the convictions, reflected in recent news sources, is significant and needs to be made clear, otherwise the overall situation of Manning’s life is misrepresented and a negative slant is imposed. Old news articles should not dominate. WP:BALASPS Smallnslow (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Separation of Trial/ Appeals sections introduces bias
The structure of this article gives prominence to original trial evidence in each case, with the appeals section limited to an incomplete list of court decisions from both cases. In both of Manning’s cases appeals are significant because they’ve overturned original trial evidence. The structure of the article should reflect this and avoid bias by reporting trial and appeals evidence alongside each other, as reliable secondary sources do; separate sections should not be used. Smallnslow (talk) 13:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC) — Smallnslow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The trials and appeals are in separate sections for the convenience of the reader. Bundlesofsticks (talk) 01:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Because the trial court’s case is being questioned in both of Manning’s cases, there’s a tension between evidence that was accepted by the trial court, and evidence that’s since been presented in appeal courts. Prominence of placement gives undue weight to the former. WP:BALASPS
 * The text would be more neutral if the counter arguments of trial/ appeals evidence were ‘fold(ed) into the narrative’, rather than isolated into sections that ignore or fight against each other’. WP:STRUCTURE
 * If the structure misleads the reader, it’s not convenient for him. Smallnslow (talk) 21:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The whole article is currently unencyclopdic and reads more like a tabloid newspaper than an encyclopia article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It reads like a tabloid because of:
 * heavy use of a local news source
 * opinions expressed in sections that outline events, rather than in a separate Opinions section
 * tabloid-like sections that give prominence to their subject matter that’s out of proportion to their significance (Victims, Attack at courthouse), or are unclear about which conviction they describe (Appeals, Stay of execution and subsequent developments)
 * lack of focus on the serious doubts surrounding Manning’s convictions (these are raised only at the end of the article, instead of being incorporated into the text throughout).
 * The last point also contributes to bias in the article, and to negative misrepresentation of the overall situation of Manning’s life. Per cWP:STRUCTURE]] - Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may … create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false. Smallnslow (talk) 06:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Points made after Manning's 1993 conviction was overturned

 * The Early life section should be removed, as, apart from the last sentence, it’s based entirely on one person’s opinion. What’s more, that person (Police Chief David Lindley) could fairly be said to have an interest in denigrating Mr Manning. Since Lindley made this statement to the Columbus Dispatch, he’s been exposed as having suppressed evidence that was potentially exculpatory for Mr Manning.
 * Using Lindley’s opinion as fact therefore constitutes an attack on Mr Manning.
 * The last sentence is out of place in a section about Early Life, because it applies to a time when Mr Manning was in his early twenties.
 * As an interim measure I’ve altered the title to clarify that this section is based on opinion. I will delete the section. I will do this gradually to avoid automatic reversion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smallnslow (talk • contribs) 14:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The paragraph about Tiffany Miller’s mother should be removed.
 * Mr. Manning’s possible claims to notability are: 1) controversy about Court’s refusal to grant DNA testing and 2) dramatic intervention of FBI as part of its flawed forensics review.
 * A disinterested article about Mr. Manning should therefore focus on those aspects, with information about the cases as background.
 * The comments of Tiffany Miller’s mother don’t fit this criterion – they’re out on a limb. They also carry emotional weight that could override the reader’s rational response to the description of the cases. They therefore conflict with BLP: they are not relevant to a disinterested article about the subject:
 * See WP:BLPGOSSIP Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject.
 * I shall therefore delete these three sentences gradually, to avoid automatic reversion. Smallnslow (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Much of the information about the Jimmerson-Jordan case should be removed.
 * Mr. Manning’s possible notability derives from two aspects of the Steckler-Miller case (the DNA testing controversy, and association with the FBI’s review of flawed forensics). The Jimmerson-Jordan case is thus relevant only as regards its possible bearing on the Steckler-Miller case, especially on the two aspects that are possibly notable.
 * In the Jimmerson-Jordan case, the recent court decision (that the state suppressed evidence about a witness) is relevant to the Steckler-Miller case, in which Mr. Manning claims that the state obtained witness testimony unfairly. This aspect of the Steckler-Miller case has a bearing on one of Mr. Manning's areas of possible notability, the DNA testing controversy. Therefore information about the recent Jimmerson-Jordan court decision, and associated background about Lucious’s testimony, are relevant to Mr. Manning’s possible notability and should be kept.
 * The rest of the information about this case is not relevant to Mr. Manning’s possible notability, and so is not relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. See WP:BLPGOSSIP Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject.)
 * Moreover, Mr. Manning has been the victim of the state’s suppression of evidence, and Wikipedia must not participate in or prolong this victimization. See WP:AVOIDVICTIM When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.
 * I will therefore gradually delete the part of this section that is not relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Smallnslow (talk) 14:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Only a brief, dispassionate description of the Jimmerson-Jordan crime is needed to give context. Similarly, only a brief, dispassionate summary of Lucious’s (now recanted) testimony is needed to give context. Descriptions carrying emotional weight, which could override the reader’s rational response to the relevant paragraphs, should be removed, or summarized to avoid sensationalism. (See WP:BLP It is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist... the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.)
 * Therefore I have deleted the 2 sentences beginning ‘the victims were beaten’. I have summarized the two sentences beginning ‘Lucious also testified’.Smallnslow (talk) 18:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Appeals section: information about the Jimmerson-Jordan case does not relate to the February 2015 court decision (that the state suppressed evidence about a witness - see earlier in this section), so should be removed (see WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:AVOIDVICTIM as above) I will delete this gradually, to avoid automatic reversion.Smallnslow (talk) 18:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The Victims section should be removed.
 * Mr. Manning’s possible claims to notability are: 1) controversy about Court’s refusal to grant DNA testing and 2) dramatic intervention of FBI as part of its flawed forensics review.
 * A disinterested article about Mr. Manning should therefore focus on those aspects, with information about the cases as background.
 * The Victims section doesn't fit this criterion – it's out on a limb. It also carries emotional weight that could override the reader’s rational response to the description of the cases. It therefore conflicts with BLP: it is not relevant to a disinterested article about the subject:
 * See WP:BLPGOSSIP Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject.
 * I shall therefore delete this section gradually, to avoid automatic reversion. Smallnslow (talk) 14:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The Attack at courthouse section should be removed.
 * Mr. Manning’s possible claims to notability are: 1) controversy about Court’s refusal to grant DNA testing and 2) dramatic intervention of FBI as part of its flawed forensics review.
 * A disinterested article about Mr. Manning should therefore focus on those aspects, with information about the cases as background.
 * The Attack at courthouse section doesn't fit this criterion – it's out on a limb. It also carries emotional weight that could override the reader’s rational response to the description of the cases. It therefore conflicts with BLP: it is not relevant to a disinterested article about the subject:
 * See WP:BLPGOSSIP Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject.
 * I shall therefore delete this section gradually, to avoid automatic reversion. Smallnslow (talk) 14:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Description of hair found in car.
 * Although the Chicago Tribune refers to 'a hair', other news outlets refer to 'hair' e.g. http://blog.gulflive.com/mississippi-pressnews/2013/05/ag_jim_hood_says_dna_test_woul.html or 'hair fragments' e.g. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/08/us/willie-j-manning-granted-stay-of-execution.html?_r=0.
 * I've therefore deleted 'a single strand of'.Smallnslow (talk) 14:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The sentence 'This was less than three months after Manning's October 1992 release from prison.' is non-neutral and should be deleted.
 * The emotional impact of this sentence is that because Manning was recently released from prison it is likely that he committed the murders. However, there must have been many other people who were recently released from prison. In order to be neutral, this article should either provide a list of all of them, or omit this altogether.
 * This sentence should be deleted.Smallnslow (talk) 14:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Stay of execution and subsequent developments section: material from here should be incorporated into other sections.
 * This section is made up of two distinct parts: text relating to the Steckler-Miller case, and text relating to the Jimmerson-Jordan case. It’s unclear which is which. For the sake of clarity, I propose incorporating this material into the first two sections of the article i.e. First case (Steckler-Miller murders) and Second case (Jimmerson-Jordan murders).Smallnslow (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The clause about the jury’s findings is non-neutral.
 * This clause could be interpreted as confirmation that Manning committed the crime. It also has an emotional impact. It is sufficient to say that Manning was sentenced to death.
 * The clause should be deleted from the sentence.Smallnslow (talk) 15:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The sentence about the gun in the river bed is non-neutral.
 * The statement by Brett Watson implies guilt by association. Two things happened: 1)in the Steckler-Miller case testimony was given that Manning used a gun at his mother’s house, and 2)a gun was found in a riverbed behind Manning’s mother’s house. By stating the second point while being interviewed about the Steckler-Miller case, the policeman leads the reader to associate the two things.
 * The statement doesn’t say whether any connection was proved between the gun and the Steckler-Miller murders.
 * Law enforcement in the Oktibbeha area has since been implicated in suppressing potentially exculpatory evidence in the Jimmerson-Jordan case. If Manning had been executed at the time when this interview was conducted, the irregularity in that other case wouldn’t have come to light. This raises the possibility that the statement was made in order to mislead readers; in which case Manning is victimized by it.
 * With no statement available to connect the gun in the river bed with the murders, this sentence should be treated as a non- neutral one, and not relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. (See WP:BLPGOSSIP.) This is particularly important as it’s possible that the sentence victimizes Manning (see WP:AVOIDVICTIM ).
 * I have therefore deleted the sentence.Smallnslow (talk) 15:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Appeals section: material from here should be incorporated into the First case (Steckler-Miller) section.
 * Having a separate section for appeals from the Steckler-Miller case confuses the reader - it's unclear as to which case the appeals belong to, and it may make the appeals seem of greater significance than they are. The aspects of Manning's cases that have had the widest coverage are related to controversy about DNA testing and the FBI's late intervention, not appeals from previous years, which don't warrant a separate section.Smallnslow (talk) 15:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The information in this section should, in fact, be omitted.
 * The Appeals section is all referenced to court documents which are not supported by secondary sources, and so does not comply with WP:BLPPRIMARY: Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person.
 * See also the discussion in the Use of Courts Records section above.
 * The list of appeals also digresses from the areas of Manning's notability viz. DNA testing controversy and FBI letters about flawed forensics; this is a second reason for omitting them. See WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources.
 * I will delete this section gradually, to avoid automatic reversion.Smallnslow (talk) 23:52, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * External Links section: Link to article should be removed.
 * This link is to an article comprised almost entirely of views and accounts given by members of law enforcement. A court ruling has implicated police in this area as having suppressed significant, potentially exculpatory evidence in Manning’s Jimmerson-Jordan case. The article thus contributes to Manning’s victimization and should not have a link here.
 * See WP:AVOIDVICTIM Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.
 * The link should be removed.Smallnslow (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * External Links section: Links to court documents should be removed.
 * The External Links section contains only links to court documents which are not supported by secondary sources, and so does not comply with WP:BLPPRIMARY: Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person.
 * See also the discussion in the Use of Courts Records section above.
 * I will delete this section gradually, to avoid automatic reversion.Smallnslow (talk) 10:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Subsequent events section: information about the dissenting judge’s opinion should be removed.
 * It is the Steckler-Miller case, and not the Jimmerson-Jordan case, that is the source of Manning’s notability (it was the DNA testing controversy and FBI flawed testimony that were much discussed at the time and, to a lesser extent, more recently). The relevance of the Jimmerson-Jordan case to Manning’s notability is limited to the pattern that it may demonstrate of testimony procured unfairly in both cases c.f (from First case section):
 * Mr Manning’s lawyers stated "A finding by the circuit court that Manning's conviction in the Brooksville Gardens case was procured on the basis of false testimony would also be relevant to the claims in this case (the college students), because it would show a pattern of reliance on testimony procured unfairly.
 * Stating the dissenting judge’s reasoning in the subsidiary Jimmerson-Jordan case goes beyond this relevance, and so in BLP terms is not on-topic. See:
 * When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. WP:AVOIDVICTIM
 * This section of BLP policy further states that paring back is most important when the subject is the victim of another’s actions:
 * This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. WP:AVOIDVICTIM
 * Manning has been shown to have been the victim of the State’s actions in the Jimmerson-Jordan case; the same State is involved in Manning's Steckler-Miller case, where Manning has acquired notability. Manning is also a victim of the FBI agents' flawed testimony in the Steckler-Miller case.
 * Details about the dissenting judge’s reasoning in the Jimmerson-Jordan case could prolong Manning's victimization. See:
 * Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization. WP:AVOIDVICTIMSmallnslow (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Quoting the Department of Justice letter re ballistics
 * The Department of Justice letter regarding ballistics is quoted differently in different sources. The NYT quotes ‘specific’ where the IBT uses ‘certain’, and the NYT quotes ‘degree of scientific certainty’ where the IBT uses just ‘degree of certainty’. I’ve found two websites that host the original letter: and . These suggest that the NYT’s version is the correct one. I’ve therefore used the NYT for most of this paragraph, restricting the IBT to the sentence that the NYT doesn’t include.Smallnslow (talk) 13:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Discrepancy in reporting of information about hair tested by FBI
 * There’s a discrepancy in the reporting of the description of the hair analysed by the FBI. The Reuters/ Chicago Post report mentions ‘a hair’, and then ‘the hair sample’. GulfLife’s description is of ‘hair’. The Huffington Post describes ‘hairs’.  The Atlantic refers to ‘hair fibers’.   WaPo says “Blythe said he could not “match” Manning to the crime-scene hairs because only fragments were recovered”.
 * To help clarify this I’ve looked at the motion to stay execution, filed by Manning’s defense on May 6 2013 This refers to ‘hair fibers’, suggesting that The Atlantic and WaPo are probably most accurate in this respect. So I’ve switched to The Atlantic for introductory information about the hair, and kept the Reuters/ Chicago Tribune version for the rest.Smallnslow (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Removal of sentence about Jesses James
 * According to WP:AVOIDVICTIM “When in doubt biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely … on-topic.” It is the controversy about Manning’s cases, especially the Steckler-Miller case, that has been discussed widely in the media, so that should be the topic of this page. The sentence about James is an aspect of Manning’s trial that has no relevance to this topic. It may also convey guilt by association: it could well lead the reader to associate the murders with either James or Manning. Following this logic, the reader would conclude that if James could not have committed the crime, then Manning must have done so. See WP:BLPSTYLE This would create bias. I have therefore removed the sentence. Smallnslow (talk) 18:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Second section (Jimmerson-Jordan murders): changes to first paragraph
 * Stating that the murders took place 5 weeks after the Steckler-Miller murders could be interpreted as implying guilt by association i.e. readers might be led to conclude that as Manning was convicted of one double murder that occurred shortly before, he must have committed this second double murder. This would introduce bias against Manning, so should be removed (see WP:BLPSTYLE).
 * Also this source has the mother-daughter relationship the other way round from other sources. This source also spells the name of ‘Albertha’ differently from other news sources, where her name is given as ‘Alberta’. I have therefore substituted a different source for information about the murders. Smallnslow (talk) 13:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * First section (Steckler-Miller murders): D.A. Allgood's response to first "hair letter"
 * This paragraph describes only one of several motions and responses made by the State and defense shortly before Manning’s scheduled execution. Following this sequence of motions/ responses the Court’s rulings appeared to support Manning’s motions (stay of execution, and permission to request DNA testing and fingerprint comparison). Furthermore, the point described in this paragraph became irrelevant when a second letter from the DOJ addressed a different point about the FBI expert testimony (“an examiner cannot testify with a statement of probability the questioned hairs were from an individual of a particular racial group, but can testify that a hair exhibits traits associated with a particular group.”) The paragraph therefore creates bias against Manning and so should be omitted (see WP:BLPSTYLE) - gradually, to avoid automatic reversion. Smallnslow (talk) 22:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * First section (Steckler-Miller murders): A.G Hood's opinion re evidence"
 * In allowing Manning to pursue DNA testing, the MS Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Manning rather than the A.G. To avoid possible victimization of Manning, the A.G’s opinion from before the Court ruling must be deleted. See WP:AVOIDVICTIM Smallnslow (talk) 17:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * '''Recent edits
 * The last editor has reintroduced points from a version that existed early last year; s/he has ignored the points made on the Talk page about issues with these points.
 * Willie Jerome Manning is notable for:
 * controversy about Mississippi’s refusal to allow him DNA testing (especially relating to an FBI announcement that hair testimony at one of his trials was flawed),
 * exoneration in one of his two death penalty cases
 * The current version of the page is unacceptably sensationalist and biased. It consigns the points that make Manning notable to the end of the page, a position where they are swamped by insignificant points and opinions that tend to prejudice the reader against him (including negative descriptions of him by a police captain and sheriff who are now implicated in corruption). Other changes (e.g. removing the neutral word ‘cases’ from headings) reflect the same aim.
 * If the editor was genuine in wanting to improve this article, s/he would have responded to the issues raised on the Talk page. Instead, the intention is clearly to present Manning as evil. Smallnslow (talk) 11:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * '''Early Life section
 * Almost all this section consists of the opinions of two members of law enforcement, who were later implicated in corruptly framing Manning for the Jimmerson-Jordan murders:
 * “Oktibbeha Circuit Court Judge Lee Howard … outlined a number of problems with the prosecution's case… Howard's order also notes that Luscious claims he never gave the statement that became the basis for the indictment against Manning, but that Oktibbeha County Sheriff Dolph Bryan and Starkville Police Captain David Lindley already had a statement prepared for him when they arrived to conduct an interview”
 * The only facts – in the last sentence - apply to a time when Manning was in his mid-twenties, which is hardly ‘Early Life’. I believe this section should be deleted. Smallnslow (talk) 22:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * '''Ages/relationships of Jimmerson and Jordan
 * The original source used states that Jordan was 90, and that Jimmerson was 60 and Jordan's daughter. Most articles have this the other way round – Jimmerson as the 90 year old mother and Jordan as the 60 year old daughter e.g., Court documents confirm Jimmerson as 90 and Jordan as 60. I've therefore changed the source for the ages and relationships.
 * I've left in the original source for the specific date (though it's not ideal - the link no longer works). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smallnslow (talk • contribs) 17:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * '''Appeals section
 * I think it’s difficult for the reader to see which case is which in this section. I suggest the sections ‘First Case of Double Murder’ and ‘Second Case of Double Murder’ should both have two subsections i.e.
 * First Case of Double Murder
 * Trial
 * Appeals
 * Second Case of Double Murder
 * Trial
 * Appeals
 * Then the material currently in the Appeals section could be split according to which case it relates to – and there would be no need for a separate Appeals section. I think this would improve clarity. Smallnslow (talk) 12:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * '''Second case of double murder: background and trial, prosecutor's comments
 * This source implicates the prosecutor in corruption designed to improperly secure Manning’s conviction for murder:
 * “Luscious said District Attorney Forrest Allgood… told Luscious that he would not charge him with capital murder if he cooperated.”
 * Allgood’s negative comments about Manning should not be repeated. The comments could also present bias against Allgood himself by showing him improperly inflaming the jury with speculative commentary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smallnslow (talk • contribs) 15:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * '''Second case of double murder: background and trial, defense attorney's comments
 * These comments could be prejudicial towards the defense attorney himself, showing his failure to represent Manning. They are also prejudicial towards Manning (charges against Manning have now been dropped in the Jimmerson-Jordan case). The negative comments about Manning should not be repeated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smallnslow (talk • contribs) 15:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * '''Amalgamating two sections
 * The two sections, ‘Stay of execution and subsequent developments’ and ‘2013 argument for new DNA testing' cover the same period and issues, and should be amalgamated. For clarity, the amalgamated section should be moved under the Jimmerson-Jordan section, where it is relevant. Smallnslow (talk) 13:34, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * '''Attack at Court House section
 * The first paragraph is told from the POV of an official who has since been implicated in corruption designed to improperly secure a conviction of murder for Manning (see Talk: Early life section {above}). Manning hasn’t been charged with anything related to this incident so should be presumed innocent. The paragraph must be deleted. Smallnslow (talk) 13:55, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * '''Paragraph about gun found in riverbed (see also Talk, "The sentence about the gun in the river bed is non-neutral".)
 * Since the statement about the guns matching was made, ballistics evidence has been discredited, as Manning's case shows. The statement about parts of the guns matching is falsely suggestive of inculpatory evidence. It must be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smallnslow (talk • contribs) 17:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * '''External link section - biased article
 * The article remaining in this section contains almost exclusively the negative views of local law enforcement officers about Manning. Law enforcement in that area has now been ruled to have withheld evidence favorable to Manning (and two of the officers have been named as implicated in corruption designed to improperly secure a conviction of murder for Manning) in the Jimmerson-Jordan case (see Talk - Early life). The reference to this article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smallnslow (talk • contribs) 13:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * '''Section titles
 * These are unnecessarily long and cumbersome. In the interest of simplicity I propose changing "First case of double murder (Steckler-Miller)" to "Steckler-Miller murders", and "Second case of double murder (Jimmerson-Jordan)" to Jimmerson-Jordan murders. The lead paragraph states that both convictions were for double murders, so nothing is lost by this simplification. Smallnslow (talk) 23:16, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


 * '''Information about stolen property
 * The sentence about stolen property doesn't accurately reflect what the source says about this, so I've deleted it. The point is, in any case, covered in the previous section, using the same source. The first section is a more appropriate place for Manning’s statement about stolen property, as it was made originally at the trial. Smallnslow (talk) 20:47, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


 * '''Still on death row
 * Only one of Manning’s two unrelated death penalty cases has been resolved. He remains on death row pending a resolution for the Steckler-Miller double murder case. https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/node/6129''' Smallnslow (talk) 14:13, 28 July 2018 (UTC)


 * '''Miller's mother's comment
 * The State of Mississippi has been ruled to have withheld evidence favorable to Manning in the Jimmerson-Jordan case. (Manning has also presented new evidence showing possible state misconduct in the Steckler-Miller case.) Thus his notability may well stem from being a victim of others’ actions. “Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.” BLP
 * Miller’s mother’s words are from 2013, before information about state misconduct was known; she might have changed her view of Manning had she been aware of more recent developments. So retaining the paragraph tends towards bias. Certainly including the date is crucial, so I’ve added it.
 * The section about a joker playing God is particularly emotive, sensationalist and a direct attack on Manning. See WP:BLPGOSSIP “Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject.” And “the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.” BLP So I’ve deleted this part of the quotation and paraphrased the rest to reduce the possibility of harm to Manning.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smallnslow (talk • contribs) 14:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)


 * '''Information about sentencing
 * In 2023 Manning appealed this conviction with new evidence, including affidavits that could inculpate state officials. In order to avoid victimization of Manning, I have substituted the neutral word ‘the’ for the word ‘Manning’s’ in the phrase ‘Manning’s crime’. Smallnslow (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

BLP Concerns
I realize this has been discussed before, but I wonder if we could revisit who/what this article is actually about? The whole thing makes me uneasy from a BLP perspective. I'm sorry, I can't figure out why the markup is creating my post in italics Thanks! Ditch &#8733; 06:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked at the BLP issue yet, but I found some odd markup in a post from 2014 that was causing the second half of this page to appear in italics. Larry Hockett (Talk) 07:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)