Talk:Troy Davis

Use of categories

I do not think that the category "American murderers" should be applied to this article. First, the appeals process is continuing for Davis; as the article states, the Supreme Court of the United States is scheduled to consider whether or not to rehear the case again. While that consideration continues, the case cannot be considered fully closed.

I would add that the category edits made by the anonymous user with IP of 217.136.137.124 (and restored by anonymous user 217.136.111.37), were not made in the spirit of the NPOV policy. An edit summary for the added category "living persons" read, "Lend him this for 10 days." Another category was added with the righteous phrase, "ever thus to copkillers."

Finally, it seems like these edits over-categorize the article. As it stands now, the article includes Davis in the categories:

• American prisoners sentenced to death
• Prisoners sentenced to death by Georgia (U.S. state)
• Americans convicted of murdering police officers

The additional category, "American murderers", does not add substantively to the article. Given the continuing questions about Davis's guilt or innocence, it seems that the use of this category violates WP:NPOV. Thoughts? Sacxpert (talk) 05:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I, for one, agree with Sacxpert Patricia Meadows (talk) 14:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as to how he was CONVICTED, he should be categorized as a murderer. If he is cleared, then it can be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.179.99 (talk) 06:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the comment immediately above. He is a currently-high-profile convicted murderer.

For the sake of comprehensiveness and completeness in the category 'American murderers', it's right to add him into it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

He is a convicted murderer; how can he not belong in that category but be put in categories "Wrongly accused criminals" (he was convicted at trial and that conviction has been upheld many times by various courts) and "Miscarriages of justice"? No authority can be cited to justify either of those categories; every court has upheld this conviction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.132.221.96 (talk) 17:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The syntax in the phrase "convicted murderer" is misleading and does not correspond to the meaning of the phrase. The phrase means "a person convicted of murder" and in no way implies that the person in question is a murderer. The syntax in "convicted murderer" indicates that the person in question is a certain kind of murderer, namely one who has been convicted. The phrase "convicted murderer" should be avoided in factual articles. It is simply inflammatory and demagogic language. Dagme (talk) 16:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Witnesses

If seven of the nine the eyewitnesses recanted their original testimony that Davis had been the one who shot the police officer, who did they later say (after recanting) the shooter had been? Was it Sylvester "Red" Coles? Badagnani (talk) 23:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Coles is the suspect, you can read all about it in the CNN article. However please be aware that this talk page is restricted to talk about changes to the article, not general discussion about the case. Check the talk page guidelines for more info. --Ferengi (talk) 07:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm a long-time editor, and you don't have to read me the rules of Wikipedia. Certainly if I brought up the point about Coles, and Coles is not mentioned at all in this article, it should be clear that requesting information from other editors in order to add to the article is an entirely appropriate use of this page. Now, back to business. Is Coles mentioned in this article yet? Badagnani (talk) 18:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

If Davis was at the scene (as he admitted), who did he see shoot the police officer? Was he involved in the fight that occurred just prior to the shooting? Badagnani (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

No murder weapon was found and there is no DNA or any other physical evidence linking Troy Davis to the murder or to an earlier shoot out that night which injured another young man Michael Cooper. Davis had been around with his friend D.D. Collins, and reportedly saw Coles intimidating Larry Young, and tried to reason with Coles, but left when Cole threatened him and asked him to leave. Davis’s conviction came because of the testimony of nine so called eye witnesses. Leading the eye witness Parade was Sylvester “Redd” Coles. Coles has been described by many who know him as a fearsome neighborhood thug . Other eye witnesses were either those who claimed to be present at the shooting or near the crime scene and those who claimed Troy had confessed to them that he had killed Mark MacPhail. What came to light soon after was the fact that Sylvester Coles supposedly had a similar .38 caliber gun, which had killed the police officer. Affidavits submitted much later from 3 people who did not testify at the Davis trial also claim that Coles, confessed to killing the officer after Davis was convicted.

http://www.kavitachhibber.com/main/main.jsp?id=troy_davis_story — Preceding unsigned comment added by NicholaiMadias (talk • contribs) 06:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Events

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)

Secondary sources

I just want to remind people that wikipedia, as a tertiary source, should generally be relying on secondary sources, per WP:RS, not primary sources, such as trial transcripts, court rulings, etc. for the article, which via cherry-picking leads quickly to something very akin to WP:OR. Some leeway is OK, but resist the urge to go overboard, especially where WP:BLP concerns may come into play. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

When you realize who I am, you will laugh. At yourself. But anyway...here, for the record, is the open-ish (and redundant letter) I frantically began when I got back to Boston from Atlanta and which I sent out as soon as I felt I had said enough:

(Actually, I read that wrong. Removed, as per WP:NOT, wikipedia is not the place for soapboxing your personal views.)

Also for the record, Sarah Totonchi from the SCHR is NOT among those I was addressing obliquely, because her ideas -- especially the call to citizens not to perform their jobs if their jobs facilitate Troy's murder -- are brilliant and important. I just wish she had, you know, spoken up a little more. Instead the meeting was dominated by a well-intentioned male-wannabe from Amnesty. 163.231.6.89 (talk) 09:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Language used in description of the trial implies guilt

What with all the appeals and stays of execution, should it be stated as fact in this section that Davis actually did the shooting? Shouldn't the article read "witnesses say" or something similar, instead? --Fritzophrenic (talk) 14:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Usually, at least in the U.S., before a person is convicted the language used in the press is as you suggest. Once convicted, the language changes to that used in this article. He remains convicted, and until cleared of charges and conviction, the language is proper. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
• Given the serious doubt surrounding the case against Davis and the conviction itself, perhaps it would be fairer to describe Davis' current relationship to the shooting in terms of the conviction? That would acknowledge the conviction that currently stands, and yet leave open by implication the possibility that the conviction is questionable, and that no matter what the the law states, there remains a difference between "shooting a person", and being "convicted of shooting a person". Furthermore, the "language used in the press" (see above) should not be attributed any authority whatsoever in these matters. --Poolbeg (talk) 10:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Attributing Troy Davis as anything other than the convicted killer here is original research, and strictly against Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia's job isn't to determine guilt or not. We report truth. Truth is, he's been undeniably convicted of this crime. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It would certainly be odd to say something like "he was allegedly convicted," but if there remains widespread dispute about the facts of the case, then we should not treat the jury's findings of fact as objectively true. It's easy enough to append something like "the jury found that" before descriptions of the evidence if the jury made such findings. We should avoid words like "allegedly" wherever possible and be specific instead. Croctotheface (talk) 19:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed. However, we're suffering from a few accounts that continue to attempt to insert "allegedly" into the page. I've been reverting a lot of these, but it's in essence a slow edit war. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that Davis didn't stand a chance from the beginning. That's what happens when you live or work in a "bad" neighborhood.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.217.250.227 (talk) 01:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Beware of vandals(this section was created by a now-blocked sockpuppet)

...attempting to suppress out of the article the fact that Cooper directly identified Davis as the man who shot him, denying that the bullets and casings from that gun being tied to the murder of McPhail is physical evidence, removing balancing comment from the State of Georgia and the victim's family representative, and taking out the crim infobox As well as the fact that Davis fled to Atlanta to escape justice while Sylvester Coles did not flee at all, pushing the inclusion of defamatory speculation in the face of WP:BLP that Coles is a perjurer and a murderer, and bloating up the lead with material properly for the article body in defiance of the published guidance informing limit for the essential brevity of the same.—Preceding unsigned comment added by HonourOfficerMcPhaill (talk • contribs)

First, identify yourself properly and don't hide behind sockpuppets you create to vandalize this article

Then you will receive answers to all your questions. And the answers will have references and proper citations. Either you play by the rules, or stay out of this article. Your POV-motivated vandalism and bad-faith reversions and deletions of properly-sourced material, using sockpuppets, is disdainful, disrepsectful, and unethical. User:SelfEvidentTruths ^{(talk - contribs)} 04:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Uninformative, except as further revelation of your displayed tendency of calling the waaaambulance for the article you WP:OWN.—Preceding unsigned comment added by HonourOfficerMcPhaill (talk • contribs)

Boohoo I better stay off of it cause I didn't sign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.130.110.75 (talk) 14:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring needs to stop

You know who you are. Knock it off and start discussing things on this page. Natalie (talk) 02:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Vandalism by HonourOfficerMcPhaill will be reverted

This user is making bad-faith edits, injecting his biased POV into an objective article, promoting his own agenda, and removing substantiated and well-sourced facts that are not to his liking. His repeated attempts to put the POV "crim infobox" and delete the neutral infobox, and his use of biased words which assume guilt like "perpetrator", and his completely false statements (particularly his "physical evidence" claim which has been refuted by every major news organization reporting on this trial) show his utter contempt to civility, neutrality, and fundamental principles of law. It's one thing if he wants to explain a certain position of a certain judge (there werer obviously many opinions so far, and there will be more) but he is on a rampage to delete and erase any statement of fact or opinion which is inconsistent with his agenda. User:SelfEvidentTruths ^{(talk - contribs)} 15:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

User has been blocked, so it's not likely to be an issue for a little bit, at least. I did happen to agree with one of his points, although not the edits s/he made to enforce it - the intro is too long. I count 6 paragraphs at the moment, and at least one of those paragraphs is in a rather breezy up-to-the-minute news style. Can we trim this down to 4-ish paragraphs? Natalie (talk) 16:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Crim infobox is for crims. What's the difficulty in understanding that?Tuzlar (talk) 00:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

This user has been blocked for abusing multiple accounts.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The above account is also confirmed to be a sockpuppet via checkuser.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

And who exactly are you? You made a new account not 2 minutes ago from your post, and your first contribution is to a section about a confirmed sockpuppet, defending his edits?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 02:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The harm is its character as a studied insult to the memory of the deceased, to the bereaved, to the jurors who performed their civic role, and to the professionalism of the investigating and judicial authorities.

I believe the dispute is over whether or not the subject has in fact committed a crime. Considering that we are discussing a living person and a highly contentious case, what's the harm in just using the regular biography infobox? Natalie (talk) 01:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• If I may, I think it should be noted that Davis is, in fact, a convicted felon. Until cleared of the charges and exonerated in a court of law, he remains a convicted felon. There's no denying that. Even if a million people stood outside of his prison declaring his innocence (which is kind of what has been happening on this article), he remains a convicted criminal. Recently, there's been strong attempts on this article to talk about his "alleged" crimes, and that he "allegedly" did xyz. It's not alleged. He's been found guilty. Period. Interjecting anything else into the article is POV pushing. Stick with the facts. Personally, I think the case should be re-opened and he should have an opportunity to clear his name. But my personal beliefs have nothing to do with it. He is a convicted criminal. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It would be false to say that he is a "a convicted criminal. period." He is a convicted criminal arguing from the moment he was investigated, through the trial, throught the appeals, through 18 years of submitting new evidence and new affidavits, that he has been wrongfully convicted. That is the whole and complete picture. We cannot prsent half the story. Since there is no infobox for for "convicted criminal claiming innocence and providing new information supporting his innocence claim," the most logical, fair, neutral depiction is the regular infobox. Notice how the article states right at the outset that he was convicted for murder. The article then goes on to bring his persistent claims of innocence. But the article should not take a side, and decide the fate of this person. Putting a "criminal infobox" would be precisely doint that. We bring the facts, the arguments, the different judges' opinions, the legal experts, and let the reader draw his own conclusion. Inserting a "crim infobox" is taking a clear side, and that's beyond our mandate. User:SelfEvidentTruths ^{(talk - contribs)} 05:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• I am reminded of Shawshank Redemption where Red says "I'm the only guilty man in here". I'm not saying there aren't innocent people in jail. We continually see proof of that, especially in jurisdictions where DNA evidence from a case that began before DNA testing became available has been retained. Nevertheless, that someone professes to be innocent of any wrong doing is hardly unusual among convicts. To characterize this person as something other than a convict is not addressing the facts. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Instead of "alleged", could we say "the court found...", "Davis says..." and so on? Natalie (talk) 16:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Hammersoft, I don't feel like you've really answered by question. What is gained by using the criminal infobox? Natalie (talk) 16:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Consistent with biographies of other crims on wikipedia, and it fulfils the purpose for which the box was designed. Finally other boxes wont show the list of convictions on the persons record, or their convictions or sentences as the crim box specifically makes reference to.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.254.118.48 (talk • contribs)

Funny how you actually change more than just that. Per your edits, it is obvious you are a sockpuppet of DY71.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice avoidance there. If you look at Template:Infobox Criminal you find,

This template is generally reserved for serial killers, gangsters, mass murderers, old west outlaws, convicted murderers, mafia members, fugitives, FBI 10 most wanted, serial rapist, mobsters, and other notorious criminals. Infobox criminal also may be use as a secondary Infobox in the middle of those articles having a section dealing with a crime of an individual whose notability is not due mainly to their being convicted criminals (eg. Winona Ryder)

As Troy Davis is a convicted murderer that would have nil notoriety without his conviction, it should be considered that that box template is well-placed where it is.Falseness (talk) 13:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Removed below comments as blocked users are not allowed to edit while blocked. The removed comments, and the comment above, were made by the banned user DavidYork71, who was banned for extremely abusive behavior. He has been recently active in this article under multiple accounts. The account above, Falseness, has been found via Checkuser to be a sock of DY71, and has been blocked indefninately.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Relevance of dissent

The writeup that user SelfEvidentTruths did of the April 16 court proceeding quotes too much from the dissent. The decision by the judges in the majority is law. Dissenting opinions and concurring opinions are merely dicta. Any encyclopedic treatment of a court decision would have to allocate proportionately more space to the majority opinion than to the dissent. Generally, the ratio of material from the court decision to the dissent ought to be 3:1 or perhaps 2:1 if it is a close decision. Anyhow, there should be more space given to the court decision than to the dissent. The only way to justify quoting as much as the user did from the dissent is if much more were quoted from the majority opinion. By quoting so much from the dissent, the user is revealing her POV to be biased in favor of the dissenting opinion.Bellczar (talk) 09:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at this L.A. Times article to see the appropriate amount of space a dissenting opinion should be given: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-court-expletives29-2009apr29,0,4762417.storyBellczar (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This is true, except that dissents are not even dicta. The article diminishes Wikipedia by going so far out of its way to quote dissents at length while giving so little explanation of the content and reasoning of majority opinions. It makes the article into lopsided, biased propaganda as opposed to being a neutral explanation.

The article as a whole is very slanted:

"conviction was based solely on eyewitness testimonies" (not true as Davis admits being there and that in itself is evidence that is not eyewitness testimony);

all the claims about Coles are asserted as fact while claims about Davis are always "alleged";

"dubious in-court identification of Davis" is biased editorializing and opinion, not fact;

"dissenting judge wrote that Davis' strong actual innocence claim overrides the alleged procedural bars" - "strong" is, again, editorializing and opinion, not fact, and "alleged" should be struck because the procedural bars are not alleged, they are real, according to all courts to review the case. That's a fact.

The section labeled "Lack of resources causes denial of state habeas petitions" is, again, opinion, not fact. Yes, the defense attorneys claim that, as they always do in any such case, but there's another side to that story, blatantly absent in this article.

"strong evidence suggesting Davis was not the gunman" - again, "strong" is opinion, and editorializing to advance a non-neutral viewpoint that pervades the entire article.

"All the witnesses stated in their affidavits that their earlier statements implicating him had been coerced by strongarm police tactics" - how about a cite for such a claim?

"slim 4-3 majority" - again, needless editorializing intended only to advance a viewpoint.

"Sears strongly dissented" - yet more use of descriptive words (an adverb here) solely to advance a viewpoint, and solely out of opinion. Strike that word if the article is to be neutral.

"minority held that the new, exculpatory evidence is sufficient to justify . . . " - strike the word "is" and replace it with "should be" if you want to be accurate.

Section "The Innocence Project's arguments for a new trial": why give so much space to the Innocence Project's arguments, and no space (not even equal space, but no space) to the other side's arguments, which are, after all, the arguments with which the court agreed?

"The majority's blind adherence" - this is intolerable opinion.

Section heading "Supreme Court's unexplained denial of Certiorari petition" - why put "unexplained" in there? That's how they almost always are. And at least give equal space to the prevailing argument instead of just reciting all of the losing arguments once again in this one sided article.

"National Lawyer's Guild" - you should explain that this is a group of criminal defense attorneys. And also explain exactly what *kind* of lawyers they are - a link to their Wiki page would be good

"Davis' second habeas petition" section - instead of just picking and choosing things favorable to Davis, how about giving equal time to the other side? Davis lost the case so the arguments on the other side are at least as important and meaningful. Don't make this a one sided propaganda piece. It is ridiculous that the one lone dissenter (Barkett) gets so much coverage of her dissent compared to nothing being said about the prevailing majority opinion.

"Amnesty International USA (AIUSA) condemned in the strongest terms" - again, opinion, no cite.

Categories "Wrongly accused criminals" and "Miscarriages of justice" should be deleted as this conviction has always been upheld through multiple appeals. I don't think the criteria for these categories is "someone with an agenda on Wikipedia thinks so".

Make this a fair article and not a propaganda piece. Explain both sides instead of only giving glowing reviews to dissents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.132.221.96 (talk) 17:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Very POV

the intro to this article clearly tries to convince readers that Davis is innocent and portrays the judges and justices that have turned his plea down as ignorent. This must be cleaned up in some way.JakeH07 (talk) 17:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Miscarriage of justice hardly gets more obvious than the European Parliament, Amnesty International, Desmond Tutu, the Pope and Jimmy Carter all asking for a retrial or for clemency. These are all high-profile sources who don't act in this way unless careful scrutiny has convinced them that the case positively deserves this. In the face of this high-quality evidence the claim that there was no miscarriage of justice is extremely problematic. It is a principle of Wikipedia that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Where is your extraordinary evidence? --Hans Adler (talk) 17:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Bunch of those folks also cried about Saddam Hussein getting his neck stretched. Guess he was framed for murdering all those Kurds and Shia, starting two wars of aggression and gassing civilians? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.148.29.147 (talk) 20:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The Supreme Court also took a careful look at this case and decided it did not have merit (9-0 descision by the way). I have great respect all the people you mentioned, but I also have a great respect for the Supreme Court, and their word is law. JakeH07 (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The Supreme Court clearly ruled on a technicality that doesn't have much to do with the question of guilt or innocence. [1] From a global point of view this points to severe problems with the way the US handles the death penalty and the political way in which SCOTUS judges are appointed. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The court ruled 9-0. This means both the conservative and liberal sides of the court did not beleive the case had merit. JakeH07 (talk) 21:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This does not mean they believed the case had no merit. It means their interpretation of the law did not ALLOW the case to have merit without regard to whether it did or not. Wayne (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Were the European Parliament, Amnesty International, Desmond Tutu, the Pope and Jimmy Carter there at trial to gauge the strength of the evidence and veracity of the witnesses then vs. now? When were they put on the bench or even admitted to the practice of law? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.132.221.96 (talk) 17:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

My concern is that it is now so completely reversed that the POV problem is now the opposite on when this work started. The solution may be separate sections titled: Arguments for the Prosecution and Arguments for the Defense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.203.109 (talk) 12:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Sources

Why is the Amnesty International website being used for much of the information in this case. Since they are representing Davis, they cannot possibly be unbiased. Secondary sources must be found or I will delete that information. JakeH07 (talk) 20:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

They do not "represent" cases. They are extremely careful with who they do or don't support and what they say about them. They are just about the most reliable secondary source for this type of information that you will ever find. Your argument is not going to fly; if you want to get another opinion on it, try WP:RS/N. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I honestly mispoke when I said they "represent" him. However, they have voiced their support for him. This makes it questionable to use them as a primary source. I've gone to WP:RS/N. JakeH07 (talk) 21:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

To Jakeh07 what a court official makes judgment on is not law. It is a judgment that is upheld by the law. Judgments can be overturned by another judge they have the authority to uphold the law not create law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.114.66.170 (talk) 08:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

For/Against conviction

This article needs to be split between for and against conviction arguments and these section must be equal. Regardless of what any of our opinions are about Mr. Davis' guilt, this article must be NPOV. Right now, it seems pretty slanted towards the against conviction sides. Both the 11th circuit majority descision as well as the Supreme Court descision need to be given more weight. Now, when this case is finally decided, then the article can go more in that direction, but untill that time the article must be unbiased. JakeH07 (talk) 05:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

NPOV in general

I recently read this article, and I'm impressed at how thorough it is and how many sources it has. On the other hand, it has some serious POV issues. I personally believe that Davis is innocent and his case has been a miscarriage of justice; however the Wikipedia article can't say that -- it can't even imply it, beyond stating the facts and letting the facts speak for themselves. We don't need to treat both sides equally, but we do need to treat both sides fairly. That means when a court issues a split decision, we need to quote from the opinion I don't agree with about as much as we quote from the opinion I do agree with. We should also avoid words like "steadfast" to describe one side, while using words like "dubious" and "suspicious" to describe the other side. I'll make some changes in this regard. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 22:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I strongly concur with this about statement on NPOV and about this article. I hope more Wikipedians can be inspired to keep careful watch, thank-you. Nonprof. Frinkus (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Someone recently reverted a great deal of material, saying there was no consensus for the change. Based on this conversation I reverted back, but I welcome further discussion. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The section titled "The shooting of Officer MacPhail" reads too much like a pro-Davis diatribe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.156.106.17 (talk) 20:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Totally Agree, NPOV here. He was convicted. This changes the "alleged" to "convicted". Also physical evidence (Shell casings, etc), not to mention witness testimony(while some have recanted), have been presented to link Davis to both scenes. To make the claim that "no" physical evidence was presented is not only false, but dismisses the 12 jurors who made the decision to convict.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.58.88.130 (talk) 19:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Statements by Troy Davis

Did Troy Davis make a statement to police, and is it transcribed online anyplace? How about his trial testimony, if he testified? Bellczar (talk) 07:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Where is the reference to the purported coaching career of Troy Davis?

The claim that he was a coach should be removed if there is not evidence to it.

```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlee97 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Lowe, Brendan; Associated Press (2007-07-16). "Stay of Execution for Georgia Man". Time Magazine. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1643971,00.html. Retrieved on 2007-07-23. Sperril (talk) 00:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

July 2009 Stay

This page needs to be updated since troy got a stay on july 2,2009 and they have till sept. to get the case reopened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.114.66.170 (talk) 08:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

POV

This article seems to be very biased in favor of Troy Davis. Frankly, I have no idea whether Davis is guilty and only he may know that for certain, but this entire article appears to be a list of arguments on why he should be free, and, while the case is pending, at least somewhat equal weight should be given to both sides. I would like to work with other editors in making this page better. However, I will mark this page with a NPOV tag. JakeH07 (talk) 19:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The article has been changed a lot since the tag was placed, in my view considerably improving the handling of the arguments. I think the tag should now be removed. Since I have made some (relatively slight) edits recently I shall wait a few days before removing it myself to see if there is contrary discussion. Thincat (talk) 18:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Position of Amnesty International

Amnesty International says on its web site that they take no position on whether Davis is guilty or innocent. They want his death sentence commuted either way. This article should mention Amnesty International's neutral stance on Davis's guilt and bring out more of the true story, that Amnesty International and some of its ideological kin were never in the case for that reason. Troy Davis and his legal team and his supporters agitated for 10 years for a hearing they never thought they'd get. When they got it, they knew they didn't want it. That's why they hardly put on any witnesses. For years, they benefited from the absence of a hearing because they could make it look like exculpatory evidence was being ignored. Davis suffers from an actual hearing, because it makes people focus on the evidence, and the evidence says that Troy Davis killed Officer MacPhail. And now Davis will be unable to claim he didn't get a chance to have his so-called exculpatory evidence examined by a court. The reason this case has been worldwide news isn't about justice for Troy Davis; everyone involved knows he's guilty. It's about focusing attention on the death penalty. Davis's supporters overplayed their hand. They were forced to put up or shut up and it looks like they decided to shut up. Bellczar (talk) 19:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

"...and the evidence says that Troy Davis killed Officer MacPhail". Why then did the SCOTUS not say that the evidence is clear and the execution should go ahead as planned? They routinly say that if that's in fact the case, or they will refuse to even hear the case. Count Iblis (talk) 21:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The Supreme Court does not decide the facts of a case. The Supreme Court sent the Davis case back to the district court only because there were the votes to do so. Justice Scalia and at least one other justice agreed that this was a "fool's errand" because the evidence plainly shows that Davis is guilty and the recantations don't substantially change anything. If the Supreme Court ever gets the case again, the argument that no evidentiary hearing was held on the newly-discovered evidence will not be there. The ruling from the judge within a few weeks will illustrate whether this hearing was a fool's errand or not. It seems pretty clear that the Davis side doesn't want people paying attention to the facts of the case.Bellczar (talk) 00:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Table comparing what witnesses said in 1989-91 & 2010

About a month ago, an anon IP added a table of statements comparing what witnesses said in 1989-91 when the investigation and trial were going on compared to what they said in 2010 at the new evidentiary hearing ordered by the Supreme Court. Now two users are trying to delete the table as original research (OR). Since this case started getting national publicity about 2-3 years ago, we have been hearing about these 7 of 9 eyewitnesses who have recanted. It is very useful to know exactly what these witnesses said in the first place and what they say now. Courts have also passed judgments on these recantations. The table brings all of these together in one place. It is not original research. All of the original witness statements were drawn from what was reported in the newspaper as they were given. The witness statements from 2010 were taken from newspaper accounts of what happened at the 2010 hearing. The court proceedings were all issued publicly and published and recounted in the newspapers and commented on by third parties. This is not original research. This is a compilation of information that has been published as long ago as the weekend of the murder. All of these quotes are sourced and referenced. The article is supposed to be full of facts. The witness statements and the degree to which the witnesses have revised them are facts. Instead of merely stating that 7 witnesses have recanted (as the article has for years), this table seeks to show exactly what the differences are between the original witness statements, the revised statements as put forth by Davis, what was brought out at the 2010 evidentiary hearing, and what weight courts have given to all of them. The table makes it easier to comprehend than, for example, bullet points for trial testimony and bullet points in a different section for the 2010 hearing.24.78.6.42 (talk) 03:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

You need to read WP:SYNTH. Unless a reliable source makes the comparison directly, we cannot do so. Just putting the two elements together implies a connection, which implies a conclusion about this case, the witnesses, and the quality of Davis' trial. WP:SYNTH clearly states that the placement of two facts next to one another with the intention of implying a conclusion is a form or original research. Again, if a similar table exists somewhere in an RS, we can keep it here. Until then, it has to stay out. I'm going to revert the addition now. 04:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH does not say there can be no synthesis at all. It says there can be no synthesis that advances a conclusion not indicated by the sources being synthesized. (e.g., Source A says Checkers is Nixon's, Source B says Checkers is a father; therefore Checkers is Nixon's father.) I cite the relevant line of WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research." There is no conclusion being implied. The reader can see what the witness said in 1989-91, what the witness said in 2001-10, what Davis's side had long said the witness would say in 2010, and what courts have said about the new material. The reader can draw his or her own conclusion. No conclusion is being implied that is not mentioned by one of the sources; this cannot happen by the mere existence of the table.24.78.6.42 (talk) 05:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Trust me, I've had this same argument on a number of different pages. First, let me say that you have misrepresented SYNTH. Here's the example they give: "The UN's stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world." The page specifically notes that while no conclusion is explicitly drawn in the article text, because there is an implied conclusion (that there is a link between war continuing to exist and the UN's stated objective, from which a reader might conclude that the UN is not fulfilling it's objective). The exact same situation arises here: the table places 2 statements from each witness side-by-side, the reader sees the differences in statements, and thus draws the likely conclusion that the conviction is at least somewhat unfair.

But let me ask you this--if putting the two sets of information next to one another does not imply a conclusion, why then are you listing them together? Are you sure you're not trying to suggest a conclusion about the large number of changes that happened, and that this might imply something about the overall fairness of the verdict? If, in fact, no conclusion is implied, then what justification do you have for arranging the information the way you did? Wouldn't it make more sense, strictly chronologically speaking, to list the statements at the first trial in that section of the text, and the statements given later as they occurred over time (at other trials, in interviews, etc.)? Unless you actually intend for readers to compare the statements, which implies that the statements need to be compared, and that the difference between the separate statements is relevant to the larger issue of the trial. Don't get me wrong, I'm not denying the changes in testimony aren't relevant--I'm simply denying that you can, per policy, list them in the table format.

If you don't trust my reading of SYNTH, I recommend taking a look at this archived discussion from the WP:OR talk page: [2]. If you like, I'd be happy to ask the people at the WP:OR discussion board take a look at this page for some outside opinions about whether or not this constitutes SYNTH.Qwyrxian (talk) 05:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

If an interpretation of SYNTH is to be at the centre of this, then I'm probably out of ammunition. The purpose of placing the statements side-by-side is so readers who have heard the oft-repeated mantra "7 of 9 eyewitnesses have recanted" can see what the witnesses said to begin with and what they are saying now. Some might take it to mean the verdict was based on unreliable evidence; others might take it to mean that what the witnesses have changed their testimony about (e.g., shirt colour) is minor compared to what they testified to originally (e.g., they saw Davis shoot MacPhail). Some might also like to see how the courts have responded to all of these affidavits. The whole point of the exercise is to provide more information to readers than merely the condensed, slanted version that advocates for Davis have put out. When I first heard of the Davis case, I looked on the Internet, including WP, and hoped to find out what the evidence was, but instead I found that the Internet, including WP, was almost completely dominated by rhetoric put forward by the pro-Davis side and only contained information that was favorable to Davis. If you compare the WP article as it was only a month ago side-by-side with what it was last night, you will find it contained no information about 1) Davis's prior criminal record; 2) his school and work history; 3) his fleeing a police dragnet to hide in the Atlanta area after the murder; 4) the controversy over bloody shorts seized from Davis's home; 5) the testimony of witnesses who have never recanted; 6) details of the harsh critique of the recanting witnesses by appeals courts; 7) the fact that Amnesty International has no position on Davis's guilt and only opposes his death sentence. This says that pro-Davis editors have deceived the WP readership since the article was created by aggressively making the article a one-sided view of the case. A small number of editors have only recently been working to make the article evenhanded. I take from your comments that you are not opposed to the witness statements and their sequelae being included in the article in non-tabular form. If so, I would appreciate your support when the pro-Davis side starts deleting them from the article.24.78.6.42 (talk) 06:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I would appreciate your support when the pro-Davis side starts deleting them from the article. which is an odd statement which suggests you are anti-davis? I would encourage you to therefore to leave the article alone and to editors who don't care either way, we aren't here to advance either the POV of either side. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I somewhat concur with what Cameron Scott says; I have no opinion either way about Davis. I still haven't looked at all of the details, nor done more than scan the whole article. I will, assuming I'm still watching the article actively, try to make sure that neither "side" is able to insert a POV into the article. As for how I feel about the statements, it certainly seems likely that some of them should be there, although not necessarily all. One thing I do know is that this article is exceptionally longer, longer than other articles I've seen on similar topics. The "editor" (I mean that in the common sense of the word, rather than the WP sense) feels like it must be possible to trim a lot of this out, but, again, I haven't looked at the details. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I am in full agreement with Qwyrxian about the SYNT issue, and grateful for the more extensive explanation s/he gave. I do feel sorry about the loss of all the hours of work and research that must have gone into making the table, but hopefully, 24.78., you can find another webhost for it. I have a couple of other comments/suggestions too. I do also agree with Cameron that it may not be the best idea for 24.78 to edit this article if there are strong feelings about Davis' guilt. It can be very hard to edit neutrally (which is required here), if you have a strong opinion that you want to get across. I personally have no opinion about Davis' guilt or innocence, and in fact had hardly heard of the case before yesterday.

I would also like to add a strong note of caution about the prospect of adding back many of the quotes back into the text. On a practical level, I and others have found there are already way too many quotes in the article, many of which add nothing to the story, and strongly affect readability. On a policy level, using cherry-picked quotations (especially those culled from primary sources such as court documents) run just the same risk of original research and point of view pushing. And indeed, WP's biographies of living people policy strongly cautions against the use of primary sources and forbids the use of trial transcripts etc unless the material has been published in a secondary source.--Slp1 (talk) 11:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the first two stages are to

1) examine and consolidate references

2) remove unneeded cherry-picked quotes. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

While largely agreeing, as I note below we also need to make sure the article covers the basics well because at the current time it's so determined to either prove or disprove that Troy Davis was guilty that people unfamiliar with the case are still left scratching their heads on the more basic points of the case. Sadly as I'm guessing many others experienced with these sort of edit wars were we get a lot of edits from both sides trying to prove or disprove something this isn't exactly uncommon but is a sure sign of a bad article. Nil Einne (talk) 14:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't create the comparison table of witness statements, but it contains exactly the information I wanted when I first read the article. It is a very useful table. I have sent a message to the anon IP who created the table letting him/her know of this discussion. I write from a nearly NPOV. I came to this article without a strong sense of whether Davis was guilty or innocent, but after reviewing so much of the evidence, I have to believe that he is guilty. (9 eyewitnesses; fleed police; bloody shorts). Please note that the pro-Davis side filled this article with mostly rhetoric and various statements that can't be verified; whereas those who you characterize as "anti-Davis" have introduced actual evidence from the case into the article.24.78.6.42 (talk) 14:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

24.78.6.42, I've just asked Cameron to slow down a bit on editing. I think the edits he's making are all good, but I want to take a second to try to point out what I think may be wrong here--I think you have a fundamental misconception about what a good WP article should look like. Some of your more recent edit summaries caught my eye--in particular, where you said that something was a "staple of court reporting." Cameron answered correctly that WP is not a court reporter. In fact, a better way to say it, I think, is that Wikipedia is not a newspaper--in fact this is built right into a fundamental Wikipedia policy, at WP:NOTNEWS. Wikipedia is striving to be a dictionary an encyclopedia. That means we do not want a day-by-day list of each of the events that happened. We do not want "reaction shots" or conversations that amount to a "thank you to my supporters." We want a fairly brief (but complete) summary of what actually happened, as reported on by reliable sources. We don't want to copy those reliable sources or replace them (Wikinews is a separate project that does something more like this). So this is why Cameron is going through and ripping out a lot of the quotes--because they simply don't fit with what the WP project is about.

Additionally, I think (although here I'm a little less sure) that you seem to be a bit unclear about NPOV. Whenever possible, the goal is not to fill an article with an equal amount of "pro-position X" and "anti-position X." Whenever possible, we want to document what actually (verifiably) happened. So, in this article, we want to talk about what Troy Davis allegedly did, what issues were raised at trial, what the verdict was, what sorts of points were raised at appeal, what relevant and notable external groups have said about the case, etc. It's not about trying to "balance" out a pro-Davis versus anti-Davis set of viewpoints. It is a fact that Davis was convicted, and, as of now, is considered by the state of Georgia to be guilty of a certain set of crimes; it's also a fact that he and others have contested that conviction in a number of ways. But we certainly don't want to be re-arguing the case here on WP--it's not correct for us to be sure we present all of Davis' arguments for why he shouldn't be considered guilty. We have to cover the overall case, in brief, and giving only the weight that is appropriate to each part/person/idea.

Please provide us with some sort of feedback on what I've said here. Tell me if you think I'm understanding the situation at all, and whether or not you think you can edit with the policies of Wikipedia in mind. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, I make the point that the changes a few other editors made in the past month have brought this article much closer to NPOV than it was. Look at how this article looked on June 1 or July 1. It was a one-sided rant by the pro-Davis side. The way recent editors chose to make the article less POV was to add more evidence from the case and items from the court proceedings. The evidence is the centre of the case. Whatever pruning editors do, I hope they leave the evidence in.24.78.6.42 (talk) 15:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is striving to be a dictionary." I think you meant "Wikipedia is striving to be an encyclopedia". Active Banana (talk) 14:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct...I should have proofread my writing more carefully, thanks.Qwyrxian (talk) 15:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

THE TESTIMONY IN THE BOXES IS NOT ORIGINAL IT IS TESTIMONY IN A MURDER HOW THE FUCK CAN TESTIMONY IN A MURDER CASE BE ORIGINAL RESEARACH!!!! LET THE WITNESSES TALK!!! ALL THE WHITE BOYS ARE TRYIN TO SHUT UP THE MOTHAS AND BROTHAS WHO WERE THE WITNESSES!!!! I WANNA READ WHAT THE WITNESSES SAID!!!! TROY DAVIS IS INNOCENT!! TROY WILL GO FREEE!!! I AM TROY DAVIS -- 204.169.162.3 22:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Larry Young and Valeria Coles

Who the heck are Larry Young and Valerie Coles? Okay I'm not seriously asking the question here but pointing out how shit the article is. It was even worse when the ORry table was in the article. It is apparent Larry Young is someone who was chased and I think struck earlier in the day of the shooting and there appears to be some connection between that chasing and the later shootings and that Larry Young was an eyewitness to the shooting but other then that the reader is still left mystefied who the heck Larry Young is nor what the connection between the chasing/hitting of Larry Young and the shooting is. There's even less info on this mysterious character now the ORry table has been rightfully removed which is both a good and bad thing (good since people aren't left reading fragments about Larry Young with still no clue about his involvement, bad because people have even less clue about the relevance of this mysterious person). Next there's Valerie Coles who's testimony is apparently important. Is she? related to the other Coles accused in this case? Given that she apparently provided testimony important for convicting Davis instead of the other accused, Coles, it should be obvious why this is important. Also what was her testimony? Was she an eyewitness to the shooting, did she provide an alibi to the Coles in the case or what? Nil Einne (talk) 14:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Reading more carefully I'm guessing Larry Young is the person in the parking lot who was attacked and McPhail was assisting but the article doesn't mention this instead suddenly introducing Larry Young later with the reader as I've said no real clue of who he is Nil Einne (talk) 14:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I think he is too. But he is not named in the articles I have read so far (basically to the end of August 1989). My plan has been to slowly work through the sections and fill in the gaps in the story of the killing as I come to them. I am finding it important to check the original newspaper articles, as there has clearly been some very selective (POV) editing going on to date. The whole article needs a massive revamp from multiple perspectives; this is going to take some time. I`ve started the process, but sadly, have to actually do some RL paid work! --Slp1 (talk) 14:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

District Attorney Statement

Anyone want to take a run at this it's competely unacceptable in it's current state, it's just a ramble of quotes. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Clarity

Thank you Slp1 for making effort to make this material clear and comprehensible. Reading this my heart cries... As a former juror, not in such serious case as this one, I wonder if justice and trials are about finding the truth or winning vice loosing. Without presenting all evidence jury cannot make a just verdict. I cannot wait when this page is finished to see if it is possible to have a clear view of the matter. Spt51 (talk) 20:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I find the articles lead section hard to read. There is a lot of legal language that is very difficult to understand for non-law-trained persons. Simply some links might help. I am trying to improve this a bit. Help would be greatly appreciated! Regards, --Kmw2700 (talk) 14:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I've trimmed the lead (it's still too long), but perhaps you could look at it again and point out the language that is difficult for you to understand.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

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 ( <sup>bananaphone</sup> 21:06, 30 August 2010 (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)

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 [3] and [4], 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)

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)

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)

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)

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:

• 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

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

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)

 Not done. 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)

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)

Case?

If this is about the case, we probably can dispense with the stuff about the early life, parentage, etc. except to the extent they were brought up in trial. If it is a bio, more needs to be said about what he personally has been doing in prison, and the article should be named Troy Davis, with an appropriate disambiguation.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I would be wary of making these kinds of changes, given the scheduled execution for today. It doesn't feel like the right thing to do. Also, assuming Davis's background is irrelevant, the background information on McPhail is probably also irrelevant. Many editors a while ago (can't remember when) insisted on inserting all sorts of victim information in an obvious attempt to switch the focus from the defendant to the victim, including putting in a picture of McPhail (since deleted as a copyright vio). There's a lot of controversy surrounding this article and a lot of tension in the article to achieve a reasonable balance. As you can see, even experienced editors like you and Slp1 don't necessarily agree on the correct balance. All that said, I would reiterate that major changes right now are not a great idea.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree, today is not the day. In addition, some thought could be given to separating out the advocacy, so that the reader can read through the legal proceedings without a lot of pro and con commentary. I'm just giving my thoughts.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Like Wehwalt, what brought me to the discussion page was confusion over why the article is titled the Troy Davis case when there is not already a bio article about Troy Davis the person. After reading the comments here I also agree that today is not the day to reorganize or change the emphasis of the article, but for the record, once whatever happens happens and things settle down, I do think the main article should be biographical about Troy Davis the person, and if the volume of material about the case is too large, it could be a secondary article linked to the main. And I agree the pro/con advocacy needs to be very carefully filtered out. My opinion, only, but basically in agreement with Wehwalt. - Elmarco 19:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree. Troy Davis isn't really notable outside this case. We really don't have much information about the man at all.--Slp1 (talk) 19:10, 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)

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". [5]. 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)

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 <sup>talk</sup> 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 <sup>talk</sup> 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)