Talk:Troy Davis/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

International reaction

There appears to be nothing on this article about the international reaction to Davis' execution. Should this not be added? There is a huge amount of reliable sources. CNN Guardian (UK) Translation of Agence Presse etc. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed - it is front page news here in Australia. Manning (talk) 02:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

So do we compile the research ourselves to demonstrate an international reaction, or do we have a reliable source that analyses and specifically comments on the reaction and its international scope? Rklawton (talk) 02:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

That poses a question... Does international reaction to the subject and his execution have any notability to the case? Just because a subject of notability has something to say about a subject of notability, doesn't necessarily mean it's appropriate to include... and if it's not, then perhaps it's appropriate as a matter of topic for a more overarching article concerning death penalty by country? Putting the reactions of Mexico would be completely appropriate in the Humberto Leal Garcia article, seeing that he was a Mexican national and his execution was surrounding a controversy about his inability to contact his country's consulate. Unless I'm unaware that Troy Davis is from another country, how does the media reaction in that country play a part in the article? Trusilver 06:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I think, for all intents and purposes, this is the same as the "Media responses" section above, and that it is thus a discussion for a time in the future when we have more perspective on this event. Perhaps two weeks? That allows time for more considered opinion in the papers and online. Then we can select some opinions selected for prominence rather than hysteria.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there is a danger of original research and POV editing in what we include, and that it is not something to be started straightaway. I think two weeks is about right. Then we can pick a few notable voices and hopefully analyses, and make a summary. Slp1 (talk) 13:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

We should also find sources to help indicate whether the response to this event is any different from responses to other executions. As far as I can tell, the international reaction is no different. The Pope was against it, Amnesty International was against it, Joan Baez was against it, Desmond Tutu was against it, and a bunch of folks pointed out that Europe doesn't execute people anymore. As far as I know, that's pretty much standard in many if not all U.S. death penalty cases. Thus we could have the statement "and the usual people and groups protested" along with a link to the overarching article on the subject of anti U.S. death penalty protests. Rklawton (talk) 14:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd be anxious of engaging in original research in making too much of that kind of comparison. In fact I think it is clear (from reliable sources! e.g. [1] that the response to this has been fairly unprecedented in numbers of numbers of people engaged in the US, internationally, public and press. But I think that this "looking back" is already covered well in the article. Looking forward, at things post execution, I think what will be interesting is to see whether the prognostications of some that the case will be a turning point in US attitudes to the DP will come to pass. For that only time will tell. In the next few weeks we may see some analyses by prominent scholars etc that will provide reflection on the case worth including --Slp1 (talk) 14:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The article you noted above only indicates in passing that the international support has been unprecedented. I don't think that one article which is not specifically about the international reaction is sufficient to make the case. And yes, I too wish to avoid original research, and so I qualified my suggestion with caveat that we use "reliable sources". My comments in this regard are in response to those editors calling for a section on the international response when, at this point, such a section would rely primarily on OR and SYNTH. And I believe that you and I both agree that this must be avoided. Rklawton (talk) 15:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is why I am proposing waiting a couple of weeks, for one thing, things will be calmer.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Suffered

There are reports that Davis suffered tremendously during his execution. 108.67.65.222 (talk) 03:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Not according to what the media observers could observe. I watched them talk on TV, and I'm sure there will be coverage of that. They reported a little bit of blinking, one look up at his attorney in the second row, and besides that, just slow breathing that eventually ended.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

If there are such reports from reliable sources, then please provide them, don't just say "there are reports". -- 98.108.223.149 (talk) 23:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Correct. The convicted murderer Davis died peacefully, as all media reported! 91.65.16.55 (talk) 16:21, 23 September 2011 (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)

It's not relevant that there was no DNA evidence in this case. It was a cold blooded shooting from a distance, not a rape. People who make this argument are more interested in misleading ignorant people (oh, really? No DNA! Oh my! Then he couldn't have done it!) Ballistics evidence is much more relevent. What do the ballistics show? Oops.

SeanS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.68.51 (talk) 20:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

What is that of "seven of nine" recanted while in the previous paragraph it mentions there were 34 witnesses? Where does the number nine originate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.28.2.98 (talk) 13:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

We've been discussing that elsewhere on this page. It seems to be a defense sound bite, but that's not certain. The media has reproduced this in various forms (seven out of nine EYEwitnesses, seven out of nine KEY witnesses). It's very dubious.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The media never fails to disappoint but when they're feeling particularly self-righteous, be sure to your keep eyes on the ball. In this case, it seems the mainstream media has accepted verbatim the narrative of Davis's defense team, his family, and the NAACP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.68.51 (talk) 20:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Add fair-use photo

Apparently the photo that was here is going to be deleted from Commons because the copyright belonged to the State of Georgia, and Commons doesn't allow fair use. Fine. Upload it to en.wiki under a fair-use claim, and put it back. Should be an easy NFCC case to make. --Trovatore (talk) 23:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

In this digital age, I fail to see how it's fair use to use someone's work without their permission. Sure, an image may be hard to get, but that doesn't justify stealing. Rklawton (talk) 02:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Whether you think it is "fair" or not, fair use is an established part of US copyright law (US law being the relevant sort because of the location of the servers). Moreover the English-language Wikipedia specifically allows us to take advantage of this when certain restrictive criteria are met, ones I think it will not be hard to meet in this case (see WP:NFCC).

Now, I'm going to indulge myself in a digression that strictly speaking is not really on-topic here. Personally, I think we should do more of it. In my view, fair use is an essential counterweight to the excessive claims of copyright holders. Copyright is an artificial property right, not a natural one, and has been expanded beyond all reasonable bounds. We should use the tools we have to resist its further expansion. --Trovatore (talk) 02:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion about copyright law is largely irrelevant to Wikipedia policies. I might also add that Wikipedia does not normally act as an advocate, as you appear to suggest we should.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. We do not need to show the reader what Davis looked like, he can easily ascertain that elsewhere. We are a first resource.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Are we really going to deny the readers an image just because "it can be found elsewhere"? We might as well delete every fair use image out there and just provide links. I don't know why this is such a big deal, we use booking photos all the time to illustrate arrested people. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:56, 24 September 2011 (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)

Thanks for the quick action!! I just took a quick look at it and I find it is a lot less difficult to read. If I find something that is still difficult to understand for me, I will point it out. Thanks again! Regards, Kmw2700 (talk) 01:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

About the image

File:Troy davis.jpg

Okay. I need a reason why the image is a copyvio, because it perfectly illustrates the man, and the subject has deceassed. Thank You. (The Lovable Wolf (talk) 01:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC))

Because it's not a free image, the only way it can be used is through fair use. In the canned booking photo fair use rationale, it says that one of the criteria is "to illustrate the booking". How does this photo illustrate any booking, given that the article is not about Davis being booked? In addition, you seem to think that because Davis has died, that means we can't find free images of him (it's what you say in your upload), but that's not necessarily true - what is true is that we won't be able to find any photos of him subsequent to his death. Now, it may be that there aren't any free photos of Davis out there, but that's only one of the criteria for using a non-free image.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

For one thing, if we're going to use it, there needs to be a detailed fair use rartionale on the image page addressing all ten points of WP:NFCC.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Urggghhh. I forgot why I stopped doing image work a few years back. I just added a detailed fair use rationale addressing each of these points. Are we okay now? hbdragon88 (talk) 03:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I think there is a good case for a fair use picture here, but I think people need to do some more research on this picture; I have seen this photo many times, and I haven't any evidence that it was taken by government officials, as a booking photo/mug shot or whatever. He's standing in front of a concrete block wall, not the traditional backdrop, and is clearly older that 21 - look at that reciding hairline, and compare it with the hairline in this 1991 photo. [2]. Much more likely that it was a photo taken by family members/friends/visitors, and then released as part of the campaign. I'd like to see some concrete evidence that this is actually a booking photo, or that shouldn't be part of the rationale. --Slp1 (talk) 12:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, as I recall NFCC, you have to state the copyright holder, because that's the only way you can evaluate loss of commercial opportunities from wiki use of the image.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

See also these other shots, including background and collar of the shirt. [3][4]Slp1 (talk) 12:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The obvious answer is to solicit the advocacy groups to contribute an image. If they're letting a death row inmate group up for family shots, as Slp1's images show, they must have some. And they can't be unaware of Wikipedia, and this article's getting hits in the six figures range.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually we got 1.7 million hits on this article on Thursday. Wow.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I am fairly sure that it was taken by the Georgia Department of Corrections, as that was the image credit when the L.A Times ran that photo two days ago. Obviously it's not a traditional booking photo as we know it as he's much older and isn't holding up the numbers. on the commons someone just said that they emailed the Georgia DoC to ask if their works are public domain or not. When I searched for "copyright" on the Georgia DoC website, I couldn't find any page that said "copyright Georgia DoC" on it (compared to their Department of Education site which has such a notice on their front page), but that is no guarantee. hbdragon88 (talk) 06:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• I suggest we call in one of the image experts to evaluate fair use. Perhaps User:Jappalang, though I merely offer him as a suggestion, I'd be happy for any acknowledged image expert to look at it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
• The rationale on this photo [5] taken in a somewhat similar situation and in the featured article Mumia Abu-Jamal might be helpful.--Slp1 (talk) 13:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, though I'm a bit dubious that it would survive a close examination.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Mumia Abu-Jamal with the current rationale almost definitely fails NFCC. There is no way some random blog is the correct source. It even has a 'promotional photo' tag. It looks like a mug shot of some sort which means a properly written rationale may theoretically succeed although the fact he's still alive and was apparently somewhat well known before his arrest makes it somewhat different. On the other hand with Mumia Abu-Jamal it seems clearer it's likely a mug shot since he's in handcuffs (although more evidence would be needed) but I agree in this case the photo itself isn't that clear as a mugshot. Nil Einne (talk) 04:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Slp1, just because an image is in a FA doesn't mean too much unless the FA passed in the last couple of years and the image was in the article then. There's lots of crap in older FA's. Mumia passed in early 2008, I would call that borderline. That is not a mugshot. Mumia is displaying his handcuffs at an angle where the emphasis is on them. Most likely privately taken. Not all mugshots, btw, have the prisoner holding up the thingie with his name and booking number on it in this computer age.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

New section needed in mainspace for supporters' campaign specifically

There is a whole history of the campaign to stop the execution involving notables such as AI and Joan Baez and many Nobel prizewinners. That is entitled to a separate section if not a separate article. Someone please start that section. I don't have the time and am rather burned out on creation of new WP material...or please comment pro and con thanks.GeoBard^Semi-retired 02:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I've felt there should be an advocacy section. It may have to wait a bit, things are a bit crazy here right now.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

We should point out that the list of notable and celebrity supporters aren't unique to this case and have come out against the death penalty in general. As a result, it's important that we do not present their support as somehow unique or special to this case. Rklawton (talk) 02:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason why we should point that out, especially since it isn't accurate. -- 98.108.223.149 (talk) 03:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

We would need sources.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

According to CNN, this is the most notorious execution since the execution of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. Count Iblis (talk) 04:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm amazed they didn't select another execution some 2000 years previously! The hysterical language on this case! All the more reason why we should be deliberate now that there's time to be.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Manner of execution

The three-drug cocktail is a standard lethal injection procedure. Is there a particular reason why we are giving it its own header and special mention? This sounds a bit morbid, but the only time I think it would bear mention is if there was any particularly strong or notable witness reactions or if the procedure went horrifically wrong (I've read cases where it takes ~40 minutes to find a vein, apparently this was done in less than 20 minutes). hbdragon88 (talk) 07:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The barbiturate drug could have been sodium thiopental instead: I think we need to document the fact that it was sodium pentobarbital, used in veterinary medicine and euthanasia.Toolnut (talk) 00:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

If there is significant media attention to the drugs, we will give them attention. At present, there hasn't been. I know that states were having difficulty obtaining the sedative, since it is no longer made in the US and there has been some coverage of that, from time to time, but I haven't seen anything tying that to the Davis case.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Opener edit

Currently the page for Troy Davis states "Troy Anthony Davis (October 9, 1968 – September 21, 2011)[1][2] was an African American convicted of and executed for the August 19, 1989, murder of police officer Mark MacPhail in Savannah, Georgia." I am suggesting editing this somewhat to keep in line with other pages in a similar vein. (meaning those dealing with executions.) Thus I propose an edit along the lines of "Troy Anthony Davis (October 9, 1968 – September 21, 2011)[1][2] was convicted of and executed for the murder of a police officer in Savannah, Georgia." Then further in the opening paragraph, offering details on the convicted's race as well as the case, and that of the victim.

Below is one possible edit of the first paragraph to demonstrate what I am meaning.

Troy Anthony Davis (October 9, 1968 – September 21, 2011)[1][2] was convicted of and executed for the murder of a police officer in Savannah, Georgia. This case became one of the more controversial ones of the late 1990's, and would bring into question the justice system in Georgia as well as that of the United States. By the time Davis was Executed on Sept, 21, over half a million persons both in the United States and abroad; including many well known public figures such as Pope Benedict XVI, were calling for clemency in the case due to concerns about Davis' conviction.

I also suggest removing all reference to the case from the opener, since this is covered once more further down the page. Finally there should be a notation covering the controversy surrounding the case itself and possibly details on any after effects the case may have. Kabukikitsune (9/23/2011 8:40 AM)

I agree. I've changed that, but other people keep changing it back, and I can only do so much. If there is a consensus version, though, it's easier to defend. I've got no problem with K's suggestion, with a couple of grammar tweaks. I'm not sure what is meant by "removing all reference to the opener" though.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

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)

Why is he not in the category "American murderers"? This is what courts have said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.153.24.48 (talk) 23:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Article restructure

I thought about moving all of the article restructuring stuff to a new section as it really doesn't belong in the RM section above, but I'm not supposed to touch other editor's comments, so unless Bellczar moves it, I guess it will remain to confuse everyone (is the bolded support just below it intended to be a "vote" for the restructuring or a !vote for the move?)

Anyway, here are my comments about the restructuring. First, the lead is now tiny and not in keeping with the article's size and coverage. Second, the lead has been moved lower down and is now called a "summary". Why would we want a lead in the body? I do agree that the Early life section from before was misplaced, so I don't have a problem with eliminating it as if the article is a bio of Davis and putting it elsewhere. I have mixed feelings about the bullet format of the trial. Personally, I like bullets, but I'm not sure Wikipedia does, so I'm kind of neutral on that one. I would favor changing the section entitled "First appellate proceedings" to "Direct appeal". After that, the structure follows the old one. There are also some problems with extraneous blank lines, Davis's section being at the wrong level, defendant being misspelled, and many stylistic changes (overuse of topical sentences, improper formatting, calling Davis Troy Davis, etc.), but I was ordered not to touch it, so, ever-obedient (heh), here I am. As for any other substantive changes, I'd have to compare the article word for word, which I won't do - one of the problems with making not only structural changes but also making substantive changes is trying to figure out exactly what changed. Oh, well.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The lede is now poorly written and not in conformance with WP:LEDE.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Recent category changes

I noticed that Bllix has recently added many categories to this article and then removed them. I think some of the ones *she added should be retained. I am in favor of retaining the categories Category:American people convicted of murdering police officers, Category:People executed by lethal injection, and Category:People executed by Georgia (U.S. state). Ryan Vesey Review me! 06:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Heya Ryan, nice to meet you, I'm a "she". ;) Anyway. I saw that the categories were actually already added to the redirect page Troy Davis, so technically, the destination page Troy Davis case is categorized properly. I just got overzealous and didn't realize it was a redirect, d'oh! bllix (talk) 09:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I can't believe I never realized you could categorize a redirect page separately from the destination page. Ryan Vesey Review me! 13:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

News to me too! --Wehwalt (talk) 15:17, 30 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)

Like it or not, most of the article is written as a biography. So we either rename the article, or we rewrite it. Since nothing about this guy is notable other than the case, I suggest leaving the article title as is and rewriting or at least re-organizing the article. For example, the case doesn't have an early life etc. Rklawton (talk) 13:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

It is on my to do list to so some rewriting consistent with consensus, but it's got to wait until things calm down. We still got over 80K hits yesterday. That's down from 1.7 million at its peak, but it still makes it difficult to do any serious writing which will satisfy everyone, including partisans. Give it a couple of weeks.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if this is a bit OT for this section, but shouldn't the article title be "Troy Davis murder case" to be more consistent with pages in one of its categories: Category:Murder trials bllix (talk) 05:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand your point, Bllix, and don't really have a view one way or the other, except to point out that Davis was also convicted of other, not insignificant, crimes i.e. the shooting of Cooper and the beating of Young. I'm not sure if that makes a difference to your point one way or the other - possibly not. What do the other articles in that category do? Luzzy fogic (talk) 05:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Article title

The title, "Troy Davis case" and the article itself aren't consistent. The article reads like a biography of Troy Davis whereas the title is for the case. For example, a "case" wouldn't logically have an "Early life" section. Either we reorganize the article, or we rename it - takes yer pick. Rklawton (talk) 12:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

If you look uppage, this has been pointed out and a RM started. Can you weigh in there?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Please see discussion of a reorg of the article under the RM above. Bellczar (talk) 05:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be "Troy Davis murder case"? Take a look at the Category:Murder trials... bllix (talk) 05:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The article isn't just about the murder. The main focus is on the appellate history prior to the execution. --Fayerman (talk) 02:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Improvement

Perhaps next week I'l start work on improving the prose of the article, with an eye towards a GA nomination down the line.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I suppose that this headline comes to mind: Mourners Call for Abolishing Death Penalty at Funeral for Troy Davis in Georgia. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 18:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move article to Troy Davis. There is a slight majority in favour of moving the article to Troy Davis (9-6 by my count); although this is not a vote, as the article is written as a biography then it makes sense to title it as such. No prejudice towards a spin-off article specifically about the case down the line, should the article grow big enough to require it. There have been no additional comments on this discussion for 13 days, so it's safe to say it's not going to become any clearer then this. fish&karate 14:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC) fish&karate 14:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

---

Troy Davis case → Troy Davis – Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC) He is now the primary meaning, the Canadian footballer seems rather obscure. People are addinc cats to the Troy Davis redirect page, which is incorrect, but an example of how he is seen. PatGallacher (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support It's written as a bio anyway, certainly the most searched for term.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and as noted above, written like a bio.--JayJasper (talk) 16:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:ONEEVENT The point is to cover the case, not the person involved. We are interested only in his case, not his entire life. 203.81.67.182 (talk) 17:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support per Wehwalt comment. --Ald™ ¬_¬™ 17:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support. The article is structured like a biography, and the person is notable. His case is a different subject, and could have its own article, but this is not it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose I am not sure whether he is notable enough apart from his case. Even in current article, expect "Early life" section, all other sections deal with his case. Similar examples include Death of Caylee Anthony to which Casey Anthony and Caylee Anthony redirect. Also, WP:NOTNEWS suggests Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. News reports are all about death penalty. Sandbox for warnings (talk) 02:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The thing is with "one event" arguments is that very often the coverage of the one event makes the subject indelibly notable. We're not going to call this Murder of Mark MacPhail. We're getting six-figure daily hits on this article. People are overwhelmingly typing "Troy Davis" into their search windows.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Happily, though, the Troy Davis Case comes up first on Google nonetheless. --Slp1 (talk) 13:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support: The introduction to the article focuses on Troy Anthony Davis, not The Troy Davis Case. While the article does talk about the judicial proceedings, it is largely written around Troy Davis as the subject. If there is to be an article solely about the case, I move that it be done in a different article and define The Troy Davis Case in the introduction. -Amanisdude (talk) 05:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support The article mainly focuses on him and he certainly meets the notability requirements.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose for now This is very much in the news at present and may be the primary meaning, but may not be for very long. Better to make this decision in a month or so. In addition, per User:Sandbox for warnings Troy Davis has no notability outside this case; we only know about his background because of the case, and the his life and the judicial proceedings are inextrictably linked, and would be very difficult to meaningfully separate. Slp1 (talk) 12:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Generally speaking, if the sources treat him as a subject and not merely in the context of the one event, it can be moved. A recent example of this would be Bradley Manning, originally at Arrest of Bradley Manning before being moved. See the move page discussion. hbdragon88 (talk) 02:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: Davis is not even a little bit notable other than his connection to this case. The article is about the case and not about Davis himself.Bundlesofsticks (talk) 22:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
• Don't care - but right now we've got an article written as a biography and titled as a "case" - so something's gotta change. Rklawton (talk) 23:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: We could make fairly minor changes to the article to make it conform to a case type, e.g. section about background of perpetrator, background of victim, trial, sentencing, appeals, various court rulings, etc. On the other hand, converting it to a biography type would mean a lot of material wouldn't fit. I urge we go with the change that would allow more material to be kept. Bellczar (talk) 16:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Since the article is titled "TD case," I took the liberty of reorganizing the article to resemble a case more than a biography. I just did a very quick edit and didn't check for antecedent reference, etc. I deleted almost nothing but added a few lines and changed some sub-heads to have things look like the outline of the case. I expect someone to revert this anyway, but here's a look at what the article could look like if it were to live up to its name and take the style of a case instead of a biography.Bellczar (talk) 02:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, there is no consensus for RM. Therefore, the article should be modified to accomodate its current title. I have made such an edit, which as indicated above, retains all of the substance of the article. Please discuss this change before reverting. No one has 100% ownership of the article. Users who constantly revert others' changes only show they don't understand that.Bellczar (talk) 05:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

While I think Bellczar's edit is putting us on the right track, I think the article structure is still very confusing and the text isn't as clear as it could be. The "background and summary of proceedings" section belongs right at the top - if it belongs anywhere!

I'd like to suggest for discussion the following structure:

1 Events of August 1989 (to describe known facts mostly as they are in "crime" now: the shooting of Cooper, the parking lot argument, the killing of MacPhail, Coles's statement to police, the flight from and return to Savannah).

1.1 Background on MacPhail (brief section on MacPhail, pretty much as now appears)

1.2 Background on Davis (brief section on MacPhail, pretty much as now appears)

2 Trial

2.1 Pre-trial proceedings (grand jury, forensic evidence exclusion)

2.2 Prosecution case (prosecution witnesses and their claims etc)

2.3 Defense case (defense witnesses and their claims etc)

2.4 Conviction and sentencing (verdict and sentencing statements)

3 Challenges to conviction and sentence (i.e. all the post-trial litigation, and focusing on the legal/factual issues, not the public reaction)

3.1 First appellate proceedings

3.2 First habeas corpus proceedings

3.3 Federal appeals

3.4 First execution date

3.5 Second execution date

3.6 Third execution date

3.7 Federal hearing

3.8 Renewed U.S. Supreme Court petition

4 Execution (i.e. the material that is in the existing execution section)

5 Controversy over conviction and execution (this should be the section where the public reaction and campaigns etc around the conviction and execution should be carried unless they very specifically relate to the legal step being discussed in 3.1, 3.2 etc).

6 References

7 External links

I'm reluctant to just go ahead and do this without any discussion. I'd emphasise that the restructuring wouldn't necessarily involve changing a lot of text in a way that is contentious. What are people's thoughts? Luzzy fogic (talk) 08:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Support restructure; a more 'judicial' order is in order. Alandeus (talk) 09:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I think we can do with many fewer subsections in Section 3. Judging by the content presently in the article, we could do it in about three, possibly four. As for the controversy section, I would title it "reaction". --Wehwalt (talk) 15:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you're probably right. I'd be surprised if it weren't possible to cut down a lot of the appeals stuff if we focus more on the substance of the issues and less on the formal procedure. Unfortunately, I have to admit I haven't really got my head around that section to understand it properly. Luzzy fogic (talk) 05:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

• Weak support. It's fine either way. The article is mostly about the case, and there is an infobox about the person. That's OK because you just can't distinguish the two. When Marc MacPhail was killed, Troy Davis was 20. When Troy Davis himself was killed, he was 42. So he was a defendant or convict in this case for more than the second half of his life. I think in such cases there is a slight preference to title an article as a biography, and at least superficially write it that way. I don't think it's necessary, but it will look more natural to most people. Hans Adler 19:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Articles aren't usually titled [person's name] case. If this article is a biography, it should be titled Troy Davis or Troy Davis (murderer). Most articles about murders in which the victim is not notable are titled Murder of [victim's name], so the article should be called Murder of Mark MacPhail. Why is the focus on Davis, who has no notability other that this one event, yet little coverage of MacPhail? One-time murderers who are not known for anything else do not usually receive a huge amount of media coverage; the focus tends to be on the victim. There is an inbalance here. Many millions of people have heard of Davis, yet far fewer know the victim's name. 188.29.120.198 (talk) 16:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose: The center of gravity of this article is the events surrounding the murder case and the history subsequent to the murder. Davis' bio is of minor importance. --Fayerman (talk) 02:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support; rightly or wrongly, the man himself became the focus of attention (campaigns to have him reprieved etc.) - this is more than about the details of a court case.--Kotniski (talk) 09:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Troy Allan Davis?!

Lately some websites including this one keep calling Troy Anthony Davis "Troy Allan Davis"! Why? Did somebody switch middle names with Troy? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 18:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Citations Needed

The first few paragraphs are completely uncited and thus unreliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.11.33.121 (talk) 04:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Advice is given at Wikipedia:LEDE#Citations. Thincat (talk) 18:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Jury make up

Does anybody know the racial and gender composition of the jury? If so (and, of course, if you have cites) can it be added to the article? I can't find it. --Bertrc (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)