Talk:Troy Davis: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:05, 18 December 2008

This page was created through the Articles for Creation process, and thus is within the scope of Wikiproject Articles for Creation. The project works to allow unregistered or anonymous users to contribute quality articles to the encyclopedia and track the progress of those articles as they are developed. To participate, please visit Articles for Creation or the project page for more information.

Start

This article has been rated Start-Class on the assessment scale.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

For some information on the decision to accept this article, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 21:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Record

Did Davis have a prior police record? Badagnani (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

He immediately abandoned his home in Savannah, fled 230 miles away to Atlanta, and evaded all efforts of law enforcement for the next four days to seek his assistance in investigating the murder he had witnessed .. just like any innocent man with a clear conscience, some honour and a sense of civic duty, naturally, would do.HonourOfficerMcPhaill (talk) 13:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Article

This article shows what a primitive and hypocritic country the USA is. Apart from Saudi Arabia, China and the USA almost no other countries execute citizens anymore. The USA also has double punishment since most death row prisoners spend 20 years or more waiting to die so are effectively also serving a life sentence. And of course this comes from the same country dominated by religious people who speak out at protecting the rights of the unborn child yet turn the other cheek when criminals are put to death by their own government and they're usually black prisoners of course because white people tend to get prison sentences or have the money to pay for a better lawyer. What a shameful country. Americans use your vote in November and use it to better your country rather than isolate it further. --217.201.207.212 (talk) 19:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

Are these aspects covered enough?(this section was created by a now-blocked sock)

If Davis is claiming that Sylvester “Redd” Coles is the actual killer, then why would he want to put on Coles yellow shirt after the murder?
If Davis was not guilty, then why did he run to Atlanta GA from Savannah and expend 9 days before coming forth whereas Coles came back to the scene of the shooting with a female after police arrived?
Davis was identified as the shooter of Cooper at a party earlier that evening on Cloverdale Drive. If Coles was not even at the party how is it that Cooper and MacPhail wound up with the same ammo removed from their bodies as determined by ballistic forensics?
Officer MacPhail was shot from in front. Since Officer MacPhail ran past Coles upon approaching the pistol whipped Young, for Coles to have been the shooter wouldn’t he have shot MacPhail in the back?
If Coles is the one threatening all of the witnesses now (per the Davis camp) how realistic could the threats actually be, since he is sitting in jail? Where are the report to the police from the witnesses of such threats?
None of the recantations listed by Davis supporters state that Davis did not murder Officer MacPhail.

Just asking.— 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)[reply]

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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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?— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 02:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@@ Line 131: / Line 131: @@
 :::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? [[User:Natalie Erin|Natalie]] ([[User talk:Natalie Erin|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. --[[User:Hammersoft|Hammersoft]] ([[User talk: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]] <sup>([[User talk:SelfEvidentTruths|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/SelfEvidentTruths|contribs]])</sup> 05:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)