Talk:Daniel Holtzclaw

Grammar

Why does this article feel like it has been translated by a machine from another language? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Racist vandalism

Could somebody please block 2607:fb90:96c:7ad1:dd88:ee81:474a:6a95 from editing this page? This user keeps vandalizing this article, including the introduction of vile racist slurs (i.e. calling victims n*****s). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.60.84.2 (talk) 21:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

He's been reported and will be blocked momentarily.LM2000 (talk) 21:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Criminal Law Major

Doesn't look like Eastern Michigan offers a "Criminal Law" major as the article states he received http://catalog.emich.edu/content.php?catoid=11&navoid=1549 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.38.147.4 (talk) 21:49, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I believe that I read "Criminology and Criminal Justice Major" somewhere else. 2602:252:D13:6D70:F1F0:636:A8FA:F68A (talk) 09:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

This article ([1]) states: "[he] obtain[ed] his criminal justice degree from Eastern Michigan". 2602:252:D13:6D70:CD48:DA6A:4989:2B3D (talk) 02:49, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Reply: This is a minor issue, as all policemen in training receive the minimum number of college credits needed for graduation by the state. (To be resolved separately). Lord Milner (talk) 05:54, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Change title of article?

I've worked on many of the recent articles regarding police violence as related to black men, and all of those articles use titles other than the name of the perpetrator. I'd like to change the title of this article as well. Any thoughts on this?

RE the edit I just did, I plan to do a fair amount of further work in this new section. Thanks to the people that have started this important article. Gandydancer (talk) 15:35, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Depends. Change the title to what? 2602:252:D13:6D70:CD48:DA6A:4989:2B3D (talk) 02:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:BIO1E, it seems appropriate. Most of the stuff I've worked on are the victim-side articles (e.g. Disappearance of Natalee Holloway), but maybe link some examples? Montanabw^(talk) 02:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. 2602, the problem is, I don't know and I can't think of something that would work. I hope when time permits to expand this article's coverage of the rapes and why they went unreported because we don't seem to have an article on police rapes (which are, BTW, very common but go unreported). Perhaps since Montana thinks that it is OK per WP guidelines to include this info even though we are using the officer's name for the article I have nothing to be concerned about, and I won't get flak for adding more info about the victims. Gandydancer (talk) 15:59, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2015

While I can appreciate this article, I've noticed that the very first line of the information under the standard intro into who Holtzclaw is, starts with this sentence : "The majority of Holtzclaw's victims had criminal histories such as drug arrests; all of the women were black."

What difference do the victim's backgrounds make? and why is it of such importance to state their "CRIMINAL BACKGROUNDS" in the very first sentence of this entire article, as if to paint these victims before anyone reads what has happened to them at the hands of Holtzclaw?? I'm sorry to say this, but I feel very strongly that this is victim shaming. The very first sentence is about what THEY'VE done wrong in THEIR pasts. Why not state simply that they were all black, or that their age ranges? Why is their criminal past the first sentence?? These women are still rape victims, regardless of anything else and I think that should be the focal point, NOT their criminal pasts. If their pasts were THAT relevant, Holtzclaw would NOT have been convicted. I don't think there's anything wrong with mentioning their criminal pasts, but it shouldn't be the first sentence, especially when this article is about Holtzclaw and HIS CRIMES. Do you see what I mean? It reads like victim shaming. Thank you for reading my request. ALSO: I don't have an edit replacement for this. 24.99.17.108 (talk) 14:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Not done: The next two sentences make it very clear why this background information on his victims is contextually significant - it was found that he was deliberately targeting these people because of their background, as he thought they would be less likely to be interested in speaking to police. Cannolis (talk) 15:03, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2015

NOTE: This is an edit request. I noticed the first sentence of the first paragraph under the short intro paragraph started with "All of his victims had criminal records", which struck me as victim shaming. Why begin the article stating the criminal backgrounds of the victims when the article is about the criminality of Daneil Holtzclaw? Forgive me for saying, but it was victim shaming, in my opinion. Below is a revised paragraph. It's just a suggestion. Thank you.

ORIGINAL PARAGRAPH, BELOW: The majority of Holtzclaw's victims had criminal histories such as drug arrests; all of the women were black.[4] During the trial, the defense questioned the victims' credibility during cross-examination, bringing up their criminal records.[5] However, the prosecution argued that the victims were deliberately chosen for this very reason, as they were unlikely to report him to the police.[6] According to the police investigators, Holtzclaw used his position as an officer to run background checks to find information that could be used to coerce sex.[1] Holtzclaw pleaded not guilty to all charges. On December 10, 2015, an all-white jury convicted him on 18 of 36 charges, with the recommendation that he serve 263 years in prison.[7][8]

EDITED (NON-VICTIM-SHAMING) PARAGRAPH, BELOW: The majority of Holtzclaw's crimes took place on the East side of Oklahoma City, and all of his victims were black women between the ages of thirty-four and fifty-seven. One victim was seventeen.[4] During the trial, the defense questioned the victims' credibility during cross-examination, bringing up their criminal records.[5] However, the prosecution argued that the victims were deliberately chosen for this very reason, as they were unlikely to report him to the police.[6] According to the police investigators, Holtzclaw used his position as an officer to run background checks to find information that could be used to coerce sex.[1] Holtzclaw pleaded not guilty to all charges. On December 10, 2015, an all-white jury convicted him on 18 of 36 charges, with the recommendation that he serve 263 years in prison.[7][8] 24.99.17.108 (talk) 18:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm a little confused by this - am I correct in saying that you don't want to mention their criminal backgrounds in the first sentence of a paragraph because that is victim shaming, but saying it 2 sentences down somehow isn't? That doesn't make sense to me. Surely, if any statement is made to blame the victims, it doesn't matter what order it goes in a paragraph. Imagine using "The majority of his victims were wearing provocative clothing" somewhere in a paragraph - I don't think the victim-shaming nature of that information changes from being the first sentence to being elsewhere. Will leave this template activated so other users who might be checking edit requests can give their input Cannolis (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The sentence "However, the prosecution argued that the victims were deliberately chosen for this very reason, as they were unlikely to report him to the police." should be changed to However, the prosecution argued that victims were deliberately chosen by Holtzclaw for this very reason, as they were aware of the police code of silence regarding misdeeds by fellow officers. Also, the claim of victim shaming is a stretch. The criminal backgrounds were proof that the victims had personally experienced the code/wall and would be skeptical of any possibility of fair treatment or justice. Buster Seven Talk 20:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:15, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done... Buster Seven Talk 18:09, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello Canolis

Canolis, you said "Surely, if anything statement is made to blame the victims, it doesn't matter what order it goes in a paragraph."

I was under the impression the info on the women having criminal backgrounds HAD to be in the article because allegedly it explained why they were targeted by Holtzclaw. But yes, otherwise I'd request to delete that sentence altogether. But if Wikipedia simply MUST leave this up here, then by all means, do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.17.108 (talk) 20:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The fact that they all had criminal backgrounds has to stay - the investigation showed that he was abusing his position and running background checks and then targeting these women. He was not targeting women that did not have criminal backgrounds. It's pretty much as contextually important to the case as is the fact that they were women. Just to be clear though, why do you think putting this information a couple sentences down in the same paragraph null or in any way lessen your perception that it is victim shaming? Cannolis (talk) 23:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Recent changes (1)

These contributions by an IP are worth consideration as WP:COI in my opinion. Buster Seven Talk 13:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I removed the cheerleader section which is hardly appropriate here. I left the false accusation - it could be removed as well depending on what others think. It is food for thought for me...imagine always being just one step away from being fined or jailed when you are working for minimum wage. Small wonder so many have criminal records and remain stuck in their environment. Gandydancer (talk) 17:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Recent changes (2)

Grayfell, please explain exactly how This Change is "undue", "phrased to make a point, and overly detailed." Those are all ambiguous qualifiers that can be applied to almost any of the content in this article and many others concerning recent events. I am assuming it was you that tagged my edit "vandalism" or "BLP" - I am wondering on what basis that assertion is made considering the edit does not include spam or inappropriate language, and is a neutral rendition of verifiable content. Nowhere in the edit do I state my personal opinion. I am simply repeating verifiable facts made in the article on ABC News. Please, suggest better copy that does not silence or censor verifiable facts, Grayfell. Oiudfgogsdf (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Jess, how in the world does This Edit not "appear to be significant?" The title of this article is "Daniel Holtzclaw". If the aforementioned edit does not concern itself strictly with the subject of the article, than I don't know what does. It is verifiable, neutral content concerning the events surrounding Daniel Holtzclaw's trial. One of his former teammates goes to the expense and trouble of flying from his home in Michigan to OKC, just to speak to the local news about who he knew Officer Holtzclaw to be and his opinion on the trial. What's more it is not him making the edit, it is a neutral 3rd party referencing the news article. Again, Jess, how in the world does that not "appear to be significant?" And if so, what does "appear to be significant" to you? How do we not censor this important reference from the article? How would you phrase the content? Thanks. Oiudfgogsdf (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should be written from a WP:NPOV. The article already explains that Holtzclaw targeted women with criminal records, so specifically mentioning the nature of these records is a transparent attempt to imply that their claims were less valid. The comments about the rape-kit are likewise disproportionate to the source's coverage of one detail of a large and complicated case. The fact that she had sex later that night has nothing to do with anything, and its inclusion only makes sense as an attempted character smear. The word WP:ALLEGED is not needed and is again a transparent attempt to undermine the credibility of the victims. Since he has been convicted by a court of law this is no longer an "allegation" as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Grayfell (talk) 23:09, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Grayfell, your contention that my inclusion of information concerning the specific nature of the criminal records of Holtzclaw's accusers is a "transparent attempt to imply that their claims were less valid," is your personal interpretation of a passage taken from a credible reference. As warned against in the WP:NPOV , I do not state any opinions as fact except the fact that the accuser made certain statements during their pre-trial testimony. That is not my opinion or that of anyone else, they are statements made by the accuser during a pre-trial hearing for the subject of this article, therefore they are relevant to a wikipedia article concerning itself with "Daniel Holtzclaw." Nowhere do I color the passage with my personal tone by using judgemental language.

In regards to balance, that is **exactly** what I am trying to work towards with my edit. For an article named "Daniel Holtzclaw," it sure appears to have a lot more to do with the criminal trial of the aforementioned individual, with the media, with "Lack of media attention" to particular subjects, with OKC Artists For Justice, and with the opinions of "Blogger(s) and cultural critic(s)" than strictly with the subject of the article. If anything, inclusion of information that does not fit neatly into the little box this article is trying to keep the subject in, works to balance it in an effort to achieve neutrality as recommended by the WP:NPOV . Furthermore, the WP:NPOV FAQ clearly states that "we should report what people have said about it (the subject) rather than what is so." By purposely censoring-out the reputable, verifiable sources that I referenced, we are failing to report what people have said about "Daniel Holtzclaw," instead deciding for ourselves that it should not be included because we do not agree with it, or find it does not work with our aims in painting the subject in a particular light. WP:NPOV further warns that "Especially contentious text can be removed to the talk page if necessary, but only as a last resort, and never just deleted." Quick, transparent deletion is exactly what Grayfell and Jess have done with the properly-referenced content I added to this article, free of my personal opinions.

Regarding your concerns about the use of WP:ALLEGED, I find it interesting that you fail to raise objections about the 13 other times that word is used throughout the article. No one else seems to be concerned with them either. Nevertheless I will take your suggestion to heart as I understand how that journalistic policy works, and have rephrased my contribution to avoid the use of WP:ALLEGED.

As you say, the trial of Officer Holtzclaw is a large and complicated matter concerning very serious allegations and incidents. **Of course** it matters whether rape-kits were collected, and individual accuser's reasons for not obtaining them. That is **exactly** what a rape trial is all about. If we wish to represent the complexity of this subject we must include such inconvenient testimony and facts even (especially) if it does not fit with our goals for writing the article.

Jess, as you have not further explained why you consider my contribution to "not appear to be significant" and have not suggested ways to make it so, I have restored it. As far as I can tell, it does give due weight to a reputable, verifiable source as a counterbalance to other sources presenting additional information concerning the subject. It concerns statements of facts, not viewpoints of adherents, so the "due and undue weight" policy does not apply.

I would ask that if Grayfell and Jess continue to consider that my contributions to this article are undue, that they please suggest ways in which they could be improved, and give them time as WP Policy recommends, rather than just immediately yanking them with questionable justifications.

Concerning edits this and this Oiudfgogsdf (talk) 02:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

We cannot disparage living people in wikipedia's voice, or selectively use facts the way you have to present a narrative which is not supported by the majority of reliable sources. Regarding the second paragraph, I don't see the significance of "the claw". The story boils down to "Holtzclaw's former teammate was surprised by the allegations," and that's not particularly encyclopedic. If you can find significant reliable sources covering that story, maybe we can find some salvageable content, but I don't see it at the moment. Please, if you can, keep your replies concise. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Jess, "We cannot disparage living people in wikipedia's voice" ?? **ROFL** Oh this article does not do that at all! Or perhaps you were under the impression that DH is not a living person? Oiudfgogsdf (talk) 02:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Jess, I have asked you and other contributors to this article to please suggest ways in which the content I have added can be modified to address your concerns, rather than quickly deleting it. I have made a best faith effort to understand the nature of your concerns and to comply with WP policy regarding WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. The reason my replies have been less than concise is because I am trying my best to wrap my head around your justifications for yanking my edits within minutes without offering alternatives, only vague criticisms. The only explanation I can find is that the motivation behind most of this article is to paint the subject in a certain light and advance a political agenda. I too have a motive for my contributions and that is to strike some sort of balance and give due weight to admitted facts and testimony that does not fit neatly into the mold of painting the subject in a flat contrast with no significance outside of lack of media coverage for his trial or its relation to the blogosphere and OKC Artists For Justice. As other contributors here have pointed-out, the trial of Daniel Holtzclaw is a complex topic with many facets and angles. Deleting someone's edit because it "does not seem significant" or because it seems disparaging (although it is based on matters of fact with reputable citations, and no judgemental language or personal opinions), over-simplifies the topic and deprives readers of the true complexity of all the issues surrounding a very serious matter. You have defeated your own suggestions - "The story boils down to ... and that's not particularly encyclopedic" and "maybe we can find some salvageable content, but I don't see it at the moment". With this last revert you have also stepped over Grayfell, doing what he had not yet chosen to do, within minutes. A quick review of your contributions to this article reveals they have mostly been quick reverts of other contributors for vague reasons. I am hoping you and/or others can offer ways in which this article can benefit from my contributions without resorting to transparent censorship. Thanks. Oiudfgogsdf (talk) 10:14, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Jess' reversion. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia built by community consensus. Multiple people are contributing to this article, and your edits are not just you speaking out as an individual, they are your contributions to Wikipedia as a group effort. Censorship does happen on Wikipedia, but it's rare, and this isn't an example, this is just editing. Not all content belongs, and how that content is portrayed must be carefully considered. The comments from the former teammate are given far too much space for the level of significance they have to the case, and for the briefness of the source. As Jess says, there's not much there, and it doesn't look like it belongs. The comments about S.H. are also undue weight and yes, clearly cherry-picked to undermine the victim's credibility. Since the source covers much more in far greater detail, an overview should be included in the following section where it makes sense. Highlighting a couple of sentences that seems especially salacious and then repeating them in supposedly non-judgmental language isn't neutral. Balance is demonstrated by the weight of coverage and lasting significance and should not to be confused with false balance. This isn't to say the article is perfect, but your edits were not an improvement. Grayfell (talk) 11:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Oiudf, you need to understand that the words "neutral" and "balance" have a certain meaning on wikipedia. They do not mean telling "both sides" in equal detail, and if you're trying to do that, you're fundamentally misunderstanding our policies. Our job is to represent the majority of reliable sources accurately. We also need to understand a core part of this story; according to the sources, Holtzclaw targeted these women specifically because their credibility would be undermined. Using wikipedia as a vehicle for that goal, despite the clear conviction, is not appropriate. You have selectively chosen parts of a single source to quote in such a way as to suggest he was wrongfully convicted; to tell such a narrative would require lots of really quality sources backing up that exact story.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Jess , I apologize for not understanding the special meanings WP has assigned to the terms "neutral" and "balanced". I am a bit more aware of their meanings now after attempting to contribute to this article. You say that "..according to the sources, Holtzclaw targeted these women specifically because their credibility would be undermined." According to which sources, all of them? Some of them? Most of them? Where do we draw the line? Leave out the sources we don't like? Please clarify your following statement about WP being a "vehicle for that goal," that one is confusing. Again, what do you consider "a lot" of "quality sources"? The sources I referenced are not on the WP blacklist, is that not good enough? Again, you and the other users who continue to spontaneously and unilaterally censor this page, do so with ambiguous justifications and transparently loaded qualifiers. Oiudfgogsdf (talk) 02:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Many sources identify Holtzclaw's motivation for targetting these women in particular, which should elicit additional caution when we are writing about their credibility. That a source is not "blacklisted" does not make it reliable, or its contents appropriate. The blacklist is mainly for spam and porn. We have criteria for selecting quality sources, which you can read about in WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE, WP:PRIMARY, WP:BLPSPS and so on. Yes, it's a lot of reading. I know. The jist is that we place additional emphasis on sources which are well respected, known for fact checking and accuracy, secondary to the topic and independent from the subject. Since this is a BLP, we need to take extreme caution when printing negative information; BLPs are taken very seriously on wikipedia. If you have a few high quality sources to consider which express views we aren't including, feel free to list them and we can see how they could be incorporated.   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2016

This can probably be attributed to ignorance, but it is extremely offensive and hurtful to victims the way the crimes in this article are phrased. To say that the officer first "forced the victim to perform oral sex" and then "raped her" reinforces the false belief that only penetration is rape which is based of an heteronormative socially-constructed belief that only penetrative sex is "Real sex". All of this officer's disgusting offenses either fall under sexual assault where genitals were not involved or "rape" when they were.

72.90.157.168 (talk) 04:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Can you propose a specific change which preserves the legal distinction? In Oklahoma (if I understand the sources correctly) rape is legally distinct from "forcible oral sodomy", both of which Holtzclaw was charged with. The legal distinction should not be removed from the article, as different charges are prosecuted differently, and have different sentencing guidelines. The sources used in the article clearly make this distinction. While forcible oral sex is obviously rape in a very real sense, as a legal matter, he was charged with sexual battery, forcible oral sodomy, rape, and other charges which are distinct from each other. Conflating those terms and concepts would make the article less informative. Grayfell (talk) 06:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 17:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Just so you know, IP editor, wikipedia is not censored. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 17:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Introductory Paragraph

"Unlike the wide attention that has been given to the recent violence directed at black men, the Holtzclaw case has drawn little attention from either the media or activists. On the day that the Holtzclaw trial opened, the courtroom was almost empty. OKC Artists for Justice, an Oklahoma City-based advocacy group founded by two Oklahoma City residents, Candace Liger and Grace Franklin, was formed to organize support for the women."

This paragraph is bothersome on several levels.

The statement "the Holtzclaw case has drawn little attention from either the media or activists" is simply untrue. The case received major attention from the media.

The statement "Unlike the wide attention that has been given to the recent violence directed at black men" is asserting the there was a deliberate attempt to hide this case from the public because the victims were black women. Would the empty courtroom have been full if the victims were black men? If they were white women? How could this be known? Also, it needs to be pointed out that the "recent violence directed at black men" the author is referring to is death by multiple gunshots. The statement is conspiratorial and does not belong.

When we read the next two sentences we find that the author is trying to credit two individuals with forming an advocacy group to support the victims and bring attention to the case. Is this an explanation for why there was media attention after all?. Was this advocacy group solely responsible for this?

The paragraph should be rewritten something like the following:

"Initially the case received little attention, as evidenced by an almost empty courtroom on the opening day of the trial. An Oklahoma City-based advocacy group, OKC Artists for Justice, founded by Candace Liger and Grace Franklin, was formed to organize support for the victims."

Finally:

My feeling as a reader is that sole reason for this paragraph is to mention an advocacy group. If it needs to be included at all, does it belong in the introduction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.134.229.30 (talk) 15:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree, 75.134.229.30 . The same is true with the entire concluding section of the DH article, "Controversy regarding media attention." Is the article about DH, or about bloggers and activists? Oiudfgogsdf (talk) 02:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Anyone care to touch on this?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/business/media/sb-nation-daniel-holtzclaw.html?_r=0

http://fansided.com/2016/02/18/sb-nation-daniel-holtzclaw/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2016/02/18/sb-nation-publishes-takes-down-failure-story-holtzclaw/80553936/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2016/02/18/sb-nation-is-right-its-story-about-a-convicted-rapist-was-a-complete-failure/

2602:30A:C7D4:9380:129A:DDFF:FE4A:7BE (talk) 00:12, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. This seems like it mostly belongs at SB Nation where it's already mentioned, or maybe Vox Media. My assessment is that this would warrant at most a sentence or two here, since the story is about coverage of Holtzclaw rather than Holtzclaw himself, but I'm curious to hear other opinions. Grayfell (talk) 00:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Grayfell, to say that this coverage of DH, who is supposedly the subject of the entire article we are talking over here, better belongs on the article for SB Nation is like saying that any reference we don't particularly like or agree with, belongs only on the article for that media outlet. Indeed, let's just move all articles with references (all of WP?) -- to the articles whose subject is the media outlets for the references instead of their subjects. Obviously the recent retracted content from SB Nation is significant, otherwise the NY Times, USA Today, and the Washington Post wouldn't waste their time on it. Come to the think of it Grayfell, doesn't most of this article seem to concern itself more with "coverage of the subject rather than the subject itself"? Perhaps we need to start cleaning it up a bit. Oiudfgogsdf (talk) 02:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are saying. Who said anything about not like or agreeing with it? I expanded coverage of the issue at SB Nation because I thought it was relevant. These are interesting and useful sources, but the context matters here. Context always matters with sources. This story, according to every source I have looked at, is about one journalist's article about Holtzclaw. Coverage related to this is about two things: criticism of the SB Nation article on social media, and SB Nation's subsequent retraction, apology, and editorial policy changes. Any coverage of Holtzclaw in these sources is provided as background for the journalistic controversy. Does this story tell us anything about Holtzclaw that hasn't been better covered elsewhere? I haven't seen any new information here, which is why I think it's more relevant and useful elsewhere. I did specifically ask for additional opinions on this, so if you disagree, perhaps you can explain what specifically should be included, hopefully without the incivility and sarcasm. Grayfell (talk) 03:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Couple of incorrect pieces of information corrected

Fixed a few things about the article. First is a statement that says Holtzclaw pulled Ligons over during his shift. In the interrogation video I referenced, it is stated by Holtzclaw and the investigators that he pulled her over AFTER his shift had ended when he was off-duty and on his way home. Second is the statement that says he was arrested the same day as the Ligons accusation. That is incorrect. He was questioned that same day and placed on administrative leave without pay. He was not arrested until almost 2 months later. The police have to have substantial evidence to have sufficient cause to make an arrest. It's impractical to assume the police arrested him the same day based on nothing more than an accusation and an interrogation that did not contain a confession.--Jmurdock21 (talk) 14:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Both issues now corrected. Centpacrr (talk) 02:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

evidence of innocence

Unproductive sock puppetry

First off, the edit summary of the recent revert is factually incorrect. Witness testimony, for example, is textbook evidence. Secondly, in a BLP, particularly one of someone sitting in prison, it is mandatory to present both sides. Lastly, Malkin says she has immersed herself in the case for eight months. That makes her an expert. For all these reasons, the evidence of innocence should be restored.NPOV riiiiight (talk) 21:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC) I would particularly call other editors' attention to the following excerpt from WP:BLP -- biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times. Obviously, if someone is sitting in a jail cell, it is grossly unfair to fail to mention reasons for doubting the verdict.NPOV riiiiight (talk) 21:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC) Wikipedia considered a conviction by a court of law sufficient to plainly state that someone did the crime. It is absolutely NOT mandatory to present both sides, that's a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's policies. Per WP:GEVAL reliable sources are 100% clear that he was convicted of the crime, while only a minority of reliable sources say he may be innocent. The absence of evidence of guilt is not evidence of innocence, at least not after a conviction has been secured. Malkin may describe herself as an expert, but that's not the standard Wikipedia uses, and since her opinion is contradicted by the court and by other sources, it must be presented as an opinion, not as a fact. Wikipedia relies on reliable, secondary sources. Those being used to argue that he is innocent do not appear to meet those guidelines. Grayfell (talk) 22:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC) No. Per WP:BLP, biographies must be fair. This shows so many signs of a wrongful conviction, it's absurd. Police choose not to do highly relevant tests, such as for vaginal fluid? Sexual assault examination came up negative? Prosecutor mis-stated the evidence? It is grossly unfair, and frankly disgusting, to not even mention the case being made for innocence. Of all the people in the world who need fairness, the wrongly convicted need it most. That consideration obviously outweighs everything else. And I didn't even mention others, such as -- "victims" couldn't identify the defendant in the courtroom? Multiple "victims" initially stated no assault occurred, and changed their stories only when pressed by investigators? How much does one need?NPOV riiiiight (talk) 22:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC) Here is how Malkin describes her research: "For the past several months, I’ve reviewed extensive court records, accuser testimony, and discovery documents, video and audio. I visited the alleged crime scenes. I interviewed the two lead detectives who constructed the case against him, along with local community activists, a top DNA expert, Holtzclaw’s family and friends, and Holtzclaw himself." This makes her more authoritative than journalists who write about the case without doing that kind of research. Lastly, please remember that biographices must be fair to their subjects at all times.NPOV riiiiight (talk) 22:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC) Wikipedia isn't the place to right great wrongs, it's a place to reflect the documented sources about a topic in proportion to due weight. Malkin's expertise would need to be supported by reliable, independent sources. Putting the word victims in scare quotes is not neutral. Like it or not, those victims also fall under BLP guidelines. Listing specific points to support a claim is original research. There are some legitimate sources discussing this, but the current section is undue and advocates a specific position. Wikipedia doesn't take sides like this. The article should only say he is innocent when one or both of two things happens: He is exonerated in a court of law, or the consensus of reliable sources is that he is innocent. Otherwise this isn't the place to fight this battle. Grayfell (talk) 00:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC) The version by NPOV riiiiight is obviously not policy compliant for all of the reasons Grayfell listed above. I wouldn't consider Malkin as an expert in this area either, her background is in political commentary, not criminal justice. The only way such edits would be acceptable is if the convictions are quashed or if there's significant momentum among reliable sources which advocate his innocence. As of today the convictions still stand and theories advocating his innocence are WP:FRINGE.LM2000 (talk) 00:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC) Is it your position that an article in (say) Cosmo that fails to mention the detail that police didn't test for vaginal fluid is more "reliable" than an article in (say) National Review that does mention that detail?NPOV riiiiight (talk) 10:48, 18 December 2016 (UTC) That kind of hypothetical gotcha-game totally misses the point. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Reliability is judged on a case-by-case bases, and the significance of a detail is determined by its inclusion in reliable sources, not the other-way around. Grayfell (talk) 00:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Not convicted for 13 women

I was surprised by this revert.[2] Per the source, the change was correct, and the revert is not. Thanks. Adoring nanny (talk) 11:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I have rephrased the paragraph to explain this more clearly, and to remove editorializing. Grayfell (talk) 19:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Is it significant to the case

The significance here is that this was an extremely high-profile case, and the police failed to take basic investigative steps such as collecting the defendant's underwear or the cell phone of the accused, or determining what part of the accuser's body the DNA they found came from. I'm more than happy to discuss this. For any one else who wants to participate, would you do me the favor of going through some of the relevant sourcing? The source in the reverted material is an excellent start. Part of the problem here is that a lot of it is in video format, and going through that takes time, especially since the presentations tend to mix highly relevant factual material with utterly irrelevant background about football and Malkin's ideological bent; for example one can safely skip the first 15 minutes of that particular video.Adoring nanny (talk) 11:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

After writing that, I found a much better source discussing some of the same issues. It's a letter from various forensic scientists available at various places online. [3][4]Adoring nanny (talk) 14:54, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

As you say, "this was an extremely high-profile case" and as such there should be plenty of RS to write an accurate article. We should not have to watch YouTube videos to find article information. Videos are occasionally acceptable but this is not one of those cases. I assume that the jury heard the information you offer and were not swayed by it. You also offer a couple of primary sources, also not usable. As Wikipedia editors, not lawyers, we do not argue the case, we only report what RS says. Gandydancer (talk) 18:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

As is typical with wrongful conviction cases, this kind of work happens after the conviction. That said, there are a lot of discussions of dna issues in secondary sources, some of which are referring to the specific report in question: [5][6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. Adoring nanny (talk) 20:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

High-profile convicted criminals often file appeal (what else are they going to do?) This would need to be contextualized as part of the Holtzclaw's individual history, not as an update to the conviction, because it isn't that. As the Fox-25 source says, without the DNA evidence, ...Holtzclaw would still have to serve more than 200 years in prison for sexual assault and rape. Well, okay. So is this about his innocence? No. Sources don't seem strong enough to say anything about that beyond what the law has already decided, so we need to be very cautious not to inject editorializing. The six forensics experts are not saying he is innocent. They don't know that, and that's not even their point. We should not attempt to imply something not directly stated by sources. Listing-off defense talking points as though they proved something is a form of editorializing.

So is this about expert testimony, instead? Okay, if that's the case, the six signatories are recognized as experts, but are not characterized by sources as being representative of their entire field. With this in mind, we need to evaluate due weight in relation to the topic of the article. So what do the opinions of these six people say about Daniel Holtzclaw? Grayfell (talk) 21:02, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

If we are going to throw stones, wouldn't it be appropriate to check if someone who says the article mischaracterizes the source is correct before reverting them? And what about mischaracterizing original research as vandalism? Look, I would greatly prefer to discuss improving the article, but we can throw stones instead if you like. Which will it be?Adoring nanny (talk) 22:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I specifically raised issues I felt were relevant to improving the article. That vandalism revert restored the correct names of references and removed flagrant editorializing which was unsupported by sources, as well as a WP:BLP violation of including the name of a non-notable minor crime victim. If you have a response to what I'm saying here and now for the article, let's see it. Grayfell (talk) 08:18, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I took a break to cool off. The editor who wrote that appeared to understand the case quite well, but Wikipedia's rules, not so much. That's not a vandal; it's a person with a different point of view who was, in their own mind, trying to improve the article. The thing to do with such an editor is not to overstate where they were wrong; it's to help them understand the mistake they actually made (WP:OR), rather than accusing them of something they genuinely weren't doing, which only serves to piss them off.

Now, about the article. The problem we have here is that the primary sourcing and unusable secondary sourcing are so heavily at odds with much of the usable secondary sourcing. There are a lot of editorials by Malkin (can't use), documentaries by her (ditto), NewsBusters (again, can't use), Breitbart (can't use), the absurdities documented on HoltzclawTrial.com (can't use), and the repeated choices by investigators to not collect evidence that might prove Holtzclaw innocent (can't use), and, of the evidence they did collect, not to perform tests that would be relevant to his guilt or innocence (also can't use). Furthermore, this unusable material frequently focusses on the actual evidence, or lack thereof, while the usable material is largely social commentary. That's why we keep seeing editors like the one you reverted. The first thing, more important than any particular change, is to understand and accept the reality of it.

As far as the article is concerned, what we need to do is show this side of the story, whenever it shows up in the usable sourcing, which lately has been happening more and more. And also be aware that Wikipedia rules are painting us into a corner where we are getting the story wrong.Adoring nanny (talk) 03:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

The "Vandalism" edit introduced factual errors in service of a specific point of view. It did this by changing the names of sources, undermining WP:V. The New York Daily headline was "Oklahoma City cop charged with sexually assaulting eight women is released on bond". It was not "Oklahoma City cop falsely charged with sexually assaulting eight women is released on bond". This indicates that the editor was scanning through the article to find places to insert a specific point of view without regard to why the article was the way it was. This is not editing in good faith, and is either ignoring or intentionally misrepresenting sources. Whether a competence issue, or an integrity one, this is absolutely unacceptable, and quibbling over whether or not this is technically vandalism or not is a waste of time.

As for the article, I understand why some people are editing the article to imply Holtzclaw's innocence. We are not here to right great wrongs. We are here to reflect reliable sources. It's always easier to find unreliable sources than reliable ones, and that's exactly the problem. If reliable sources are starting to shift in how this is covered, so be it, but we cannot predict the future. We will just have to wait until that happens. Your judgement that Wikipedia is getting the story wrong is ultimately based on your opinion. It is not my opinion, and far, far more importantly, neither of our opinions matter if they are not supported by reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 03:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the Manhattan Film Festival, this edit prompted me to look into that festival. As this source explains, this is one of thousands of North American film festivals (hundred of which have Wikipedia articles, and this isn't a particularly prestigious one. Additionally, it has a history of accepting WP:FRINGE documentaries (such as Vaxxed) rejected by other, more prestigious festivals. Why would this obscure award for a non-notable documentary belong in the lede of the article? If the doc had substantial coverage, it might justify a single link to the article for the documentary, but even that would likely be better handled in the body, first.

Likewise, lengthy quotes from a phone interview about the film need some sort of third-party indication of substance. The article in the Enid News & Eagle is disproportionate to the entire topic, and Malikin's views are already well-explained. Is this mentioned at Michelle Malkin ? Do sources justify that? If sources don't justify it there, why would this one local source justify it here? Grayfell (talk) 04:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Third-party indication of substance. I am a bit confused about these things; here we have National Review [11] which its own article describes as a "leading voice on the American right." NR does not have a history of going to bat for convicted rapists, but this time, they have done so. In particular, Holtzclaw offering to take a polygraph test and saying "I want it all done", i.e., all the testing they can do, seems pretty clear as to whether or not he wants to get to the truth of the matter. I haven't edited Malkin's article, but IMO the sources would certainly justify adding the case there. Yes, that's not about the documentary, please, my over-arching concern is that the article is grossly unfair, and I'm looking for ways to remedy that. For the documentary part, if not the lead, how about the body?Adoring nanny (talk) 04:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

As you say, nowhere does the National Review article from Dec. 2016, which was written by Malkin, mention her 2017 documentary, much less that it won a minor award at a minor film festival. I think you get that part already, and I hope you can agree that mentioning this award in a place of prime importance is trivial and even sensationalizing. This is not about Malkin's career, this is about Holtzclaw.

Start from what the sources are saying, in proportion to WP:DUE, and go from there. Sources should determine the edits. Don't go looking for sources that support the edits you want to make because they support your point of view. If most reliable sources you can find tie back to Malkin, that is very likely context which should be included in the article. So far, that seems to be the case. Malkin's opinions should be attributed to her, and anything she says as a journalistic statement of fact should still not be used for editorializing. Using her columns to imply a specific general conclusion is dicey, at best. The point of an encyclopedia article is to summarize the big picture. The NR article could be used to expand this section, but only a bit. I would think a sentence or two. Remember that this case generated a huge amount of op-ed coverage and similar from a broad variety of perspectives. Malkin's position is not automatically more significant than the dozens and dozens of others. Most reliable sources which accepted the guilty verdict stopped covering the story, for obvious reasons, so Malkin's willingness to continue covering this should not be overstated. Grayfell (talk) 21:09, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@Adoring nanny: William F. Buckley, Jr. used Esquire and his bully pulpit (was that term ever more appropriate?) as a public individual to argue for the innocence of Edgar Smith who WAS very guilty of murder. So it's very possible that he used his creation, National Review, in the same way, going to bat for a convicted murderer. Thank you for the pleasure I took from writing this. Tapered (talk) 15:20, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Appeals Process

I removed information regarding briefs that were rejected by the appeals court. I don't see how these are notable considering that they won't even play a part in the appeal (unless the court reconsiders).FatGandhi (talk) 11:19, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

They are notable because reliable sources discuss them. Three sentences hardly seems like a big deal. Grayfell (talk) 20:11, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

If mainstream media picked up on this it might be worth mention. So far that has not happened, thus we do not mention it in this article. Gandydancer (talk) 20:17, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

The information regarding briefs that were submitted to and rejected by the appeals court should be removed. The idea that "It's only three sentences" is not a good argument for inclusion. FatGandhi (talk) 17:22, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps I acted in haste? I will revert myself and see what happens. Gandydancer (talk) 18:57, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we should include the part about the rejected motion. But the fact that multiple independent scientists say that the DNA evidence was mischaracterized at trial is surely relevant to Daniel Holtzclaw, the person, and should be included.Adoring nanny (talk) 03:49, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Please don't derail this discussion. There are other places to discuss that on this page, as you already know full well. Grayfell (talk) 04:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread the diff.Adoring nanny (talk) 05:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Expert conclusions

I am curious which portion of this is even remotely debatable factually:

The experts then made their conclusions public, writing that the accuser's DNA found on Holtzclaw's pants was not vaginal fluid, as had been implied at trial. They further wrote that investigators did not test for vaginal fluid, and that "a basic tenet of science is that one cannot claim the presence of a substance for which one has not tested.”

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Adoring nanny (talk • contribs) 23:55, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Please remember to sign your posts.

As I said in the edit summary, we cannot say they "alleged" this, because that is loaded. Replacing this with "wrote" is worse, not better, and misses the point. Picking two separate sentences out of this longer document and linking them with a "further" is cherry picking. It is taking comments out of context to imply something that not even the source actually says. Even if you personally think the source implies this, that is not enough. Implications need to be spelled-out by sources, otherwise it's WP:SYNTH. Saying they "made their conclusions public" is loaded language which implies that their "conclusions" are factual. This is not Wikipedia's place to say, and they do not describe their contentions as conclusions. "Contention" and "conclusion" are very different things in this context. Additionally, the extremely flimsy, obscure source quotes the letter as acknowledging the court's decision. If you're going to use this brief source in an obscure specialist outlet, you cannot pick-and-choose which parts you think should be included based on your preference. The summary of the source must be be proportionate to the topic, and without more substantial, mainstream coverage, this already seems excessive. Grayfell (talk) 04:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

But there is mainstream coverage of this. All of these sources are reporting in one way or another on allegations that the DNA was mischaracterized at trial, which was also what I was getting at. And all of them mention the six scientists. [12] [13] [14] [15]. That's even before we get to Malkin, who has been hammering away at the same point. That said, I was attempting to summarize salient points. If the issue really is "cherry picking", then we could use different portions; which do you think are better?Adoring nanny (talk) 05:24, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

In situations like this we probably should not pick any quotes. Quotes should only be used if there is some specific context which is already provided by reliable sources. Perhaps it would be different for non-controversial info, but this is, obviously, controversial. The goal is to summarize sources succinctly and neutrally.

This is a difficult and subtle problem. This is a biography article of a living person, but I think we can agree that the only reason this article exists is because of the criminal trial. Perhaps he could've (or will) go on to do something else significant, but that's not our place to say. This article exists because of the event, not because of the person (see Wikipedia:Notability (events) and WP:BLP1E).

Since Wikipedia is a tertiary source which attempts to cover things in proportion to WP:DUE weight, Reliable, independent sources need to do our work for us. Of those you've suggested, the Chicago Tribune source appears to be the strongest by far, since it's the only non-local one. (It was also republished through AP, which makes one of your links a duplicate). I'm not saying the others are not reliable or usable, but Wikipedia isn't a news outlet, and we're not trying to create a comprehensive catalog of every detail. A source with a national focus is more likely to summarize the aspects of a story of interest to a general readership, rather than local (Oklahoma) or niche (forensics) outlets that have different constraints and expectations.

So, the Chicago Tribune spends only one paragraph on the six forensics experts: Their arguments were backed by a report written by six forensic scientists convened by a Holtzclaw supporter — one of two filings the court has refused to admit to the record. I may have missed something, but that's the only reference here I see. Notice that it mentions that they were convened by a Holtzclaw supporter. If there's only one paragraph, but they chose to include that detail, this is a suggestion that this is relevant. Nothing else about this report was, apparently, significant at the time it was written.

The Chicago Tribune does not mention any of the six names. One of the regional sources doesn't mention the report from the six, but it does mention Erica Fuchs. Looking into it, she is a lab researcher and field technician with the Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition at Iowa State. This sounds like it might be grad student position. Her expertise appears to be directed evolution, specifically regarding corn. I honestly do not know if she is qualified to evaluate criminal forensics tests. This is why we need to evaluate sources carefully and with restraint. Again (and again and again and again) we are not here to right great wrongs. We are here to document the record. Grayfell (talk) 23:22, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

A big concern of yours appears to be that my edits are taking the article out of balance. I therefore went opened a browser I don't typically use (to avoid Google's personalization) and opened a private window to make extra sure. I typed "Daniel Holtzclaw" into the search box. On the first page, I saw the following 12 hits, in order:

1. This article
2. "Secret hearings held in [this case]" -- AP news
3. "DNA issues raised amid secret hearings in ex-cop rape case ..." -- the Tribune article mentioned here
4. HoltzclawTrial.com
5. A Malkin video
6. Holtzclaw crying video
7. "Convicted rapist Holtzclaw speaks -- and we wish he hadn't" -- TheRoot.com
8. Malkin again, about interest from the wrongful convictions community
9. How SB Nation published their Holtzclaw story, from Deadspin.com
10. The 13 women who accused [Holtzclaw], in their own words
11. How the police caught [Holtzclaw]
12. Secret hearing in Holtzclaw case related to personnel matter

We obviously have to throw out the first one for circularity reasons. Number 6 and 9 don't pertain to factual issues one way or the other. Numbers 4, 5, and 8 obviously suggest that Holtzclaw's team is making headway, but if one wants to throw them out due to RS/bias concerns, it seems like one ought to throw out 7 for the same reason. That leaves us with five hits, three of them about secret hearings, one about the accusers, and one about how the police, in the article's view, caught Holtzclaw. Even allowing for the fact that Google web searches tend to have some bias towards recent hits, that shows a strong interest in the secret hearings, and some in DNA. A news search produces roughly similar results; I'll spare you the blow-by-blow. A news archives search looks very different -- about the conviction and so forth. Obviously this should be, and is, included. But just as we can't bias towards only recent events, we can't bias towards the past, either.

I'm having trouble squaring this picture with the largely guilt-presuming article, with, for example, the lengthy guilt-presuming material from Grace Franklin, Candace Liger, and Mikki Kendall. Compared with the actual sourcing, that's an awful lot of guilt-presuming material to include without even mentioning the reasoning of the people who are arguing innocence, even allowing for the fact that my searches were likely biased towards the present.Adoring nanny (talk) 00:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate this approach, but it raises very serious WP:RECENTISM issues. I am not saying the article is fine the way it is, so perhaps it might help to think of my concerns being about trading one problem for another. The general pattern with both reliable sources, and with Wikipedia, is to shift from assuming innocence to assuming guilt when someone is found guilty in a court of law. I am not saying that this is correct, but a good article will reflect sources as a whole, which means they will probably accept that he is guilty. There is a hypothetical tipping point where this might no longer be clear-cut. From the sources I have seen, we are very, very far from that tipping point.

I think we agree that an encyclopedia article should take a long view. The news archive search is, naturally, going to include a longer view than a regular news search. What would be better still is a discussion in academic works. It looks like this exists, but not yet in any quantity from what I could find. A Google Books search suggest that there is some coverage in reliable sources for this case, but not a lot. (As a caution, Google Books results often include a lot of completely unusable content such as self-published works, or WP:CIRC republications of Wikipedia. It also seems even more eager to give completely unrelated results than other Google search sites)

This book published by Springer for example, discusses coverage of the trail while tacitly accepting the guilty verdicts validity. This one from Cambridge University Press takes a similar stance, and discusses the prosecutions (successful) argument that Holtzclaw targeted these women specifically because of their lower social status. Here's a textbook from 2016 which discusses the case, again under the assumption that the court did its job.

So where does that leave us? My impression is that briefly discussing this one specific DNA test result issue is appropriate... But sources absolutely do not support making this centrally important. Maybe that will change. Going into one test for one victim is missing the much larger picture. If we cannot figure out how to explain this proportionate to sources, we have to at least consider that this might be WP:GOSSIP. I don't think it is, but that's the risk. Grayfell (talk) 02:28, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate that response. For what it's worth, I think the two biggest arguments on the innocence side are the allegation that Holtzclaw was railroaded by investigators more interested in appeasing the BLM/Social justice crowd than in learning the truth, and the contention that all of the physical evidence is consistent with innocence, while physical evidence that would have been likely to appear in the event of guilt was not found. Both of these assertions figure strongly in Malkin's NR piece, for example.Adoring nanny (talk) 03:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I see that the info re the DNA evidence has been returned to the article saying it had been settled on the talk page. That has not been my impression of the discussion at all. The sourcing would need to be stronger - the primary source is of no value for meeting our standards and only one media source, Forensic Science is not strong enough to show that the information should be included. Gandydancer (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Correct, sure, but is it relevant to Holtzclaw?

I surprised by this revert on grounds that the information is "correct" according to a WP:RS. [16] The problem here is that what this or that group of activists was accused of has no bearing on Holtzclaw.Adoring nanny (talk) 16:14, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

This aspect of the case is included in the article since it was discussed at some length in the media. Gandydancer (talk) 16:04, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

"Allegedly"

@Melcous: I mostly agree with your recent revert. However, I don't agree with the parts about what Holtzclaw did or allegedly did. The problem here is that he was not convicted on all counts. Some of the "Holtclaw did X" portions apply to conduct on which he was acquitted. Yet the entire section is written without "allegedly." I put some of this in the article at some point, and was reverted as "unsourced". But I don't like the fact that the whole thing is written without "allegedly" even though some of it relates to counts on which he was found not guilty.Adoring nanny (talk) 13:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

German Father

Daniel Holtzclaw's father is German American ("Holtzclaw is German": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlrwAPWEUlg), but the article only covers the Japanese of the mother. 2003:DC:8BF7:8946:795C:5DD5:FDB1:BF4 (talk) 00:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

infobox

MOS:INFOBOX seems pretty clear to me:

An infobox is a panel, usually in the top right of an article, next to the lead section (in the desktop version of Wikipedia), or at the end of the lead section of an article (in the mobile version), that summarizes key features of the page's subject.

The fact that Holtzclaw insists he is innocent is obviously a key feature and is in fact the reason this case has stayed in the news.Adoring nanny (talk) 01:42, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

This is a non sequitur. For one thing, the story hasn't really stayed in the news to any substantial degree. This is the most recent non-local story I see, and it has nothing to do with his self-proclaimed innocence. For another, many, many convicted criminals insist they are innocent, and some are probably telling the truth, but this isn't about their claims, this is about their "conviction(s)". The field for his conviction should explain his conviction, and introducing other details where they don't belong is a form of editorializing. Your opinion that this is a key feature, which is not well-supported by reliable, independent sources, certainly doesn't mean that it now belongs twice in a relatively short infobox. Grayfell (talk) 21:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree that it doesn't belong twice. I currently see it zero times. My first attempt was reverted on the grounds that the user felt it was in the wrong field. If you are saying that it belongs once, we are in agreement.Adoring nanny (talk) 00:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

That's not what I'm saying. This edit restored the info it to its previous position and also added it redundantly as a comment. This is what I meant by twice, and this obviously would not work.

As I said, many convicted criminals claim their innocence, but this isn't a defining trait without substantial, independent sources explaining it. I do not see this here. Strictly for comparison, and keeping WP:OTHERSTUFF in mind, Leonard Peltier's trial has been criticized by Amnesty International and has had decades of well-organized grass-roots protests surrounding it... but his infobox simply explains why he was convicted. This is appropriate, because this is what readers expect from an infobox. There are dozens, or perhaps hundreds, of other convicted criminals with Wikipedia articles who maintain their innocence, often with some coverage explaining their positions, but that's not enough to mention this detail here. In other words, not all facts are key facts. Adding editorializing content based on the work of a couple of columnists is far, far outside to conventional scope of these infoboxes. This isn't just about the MOS, this is about consensus, and right now there is no consensus to include these details. Grayfell (talk) 02:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

My apologies for the double insertion. That was a mistake on my part. The issue, therefore, has been narrowed down to whether or not it should be included as a comment. The actual statement "insists he is innocent" is not editorializing; it is factual. Has there been a discussion somewhere of whether or not such factual statements should be included? You keep repeating that many convicts say they are innocent. That is in fact the case, and the number of times they are telling the truth is large.[17][18][19] (So is the number of times they are lying.) Here are some statistics if you prefer to look at things that way.[20] And that doesn't even count the cases where the innocent person takes an Alford plea for time served, thereby allowing the State to save face, or is unable to prove their innocence and remains in prison. I guess my feeling is that a person whose assertion of innocence gets substantial outside support deserves to have that information in their infobox, particularly when that outside support focuses on physical evidence, as it does here.Adoring nanny (talk) 04:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Relatively speaking, this does not have substantial support from what I have seen. Perhaps if the Innocence Project or a similar group took up the case, reliable outlets would take notice, but they haven't yet. Malkin's columns, and the mentions by other sources, are not very substantial. They are fairly routine for high profile cases like this one. If many or most high profile convicts claim innocence, most of them are going to have some supporters, and sometimes this will maintain some inertia. The significance of this should be demonstrated by reliable, independent sources. A websites which is specifically set up to advocate for a named individual isn't likely to demonstrate due weight at all, but especially not for an infobox. Opinion columns, such as Malkin, are borderline, and things like Townhall and similar are only usable for opinions with attribution. None of this fits in the infobox, and this is an undue level of detail which implies something without providing proper context. This is a subtle form of editorializing, since, even though this is true, it's being emphasized beyond its natural significance to suggest a conclusion. Grayfell (talk) 21:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

The innocence project doesn't take up cases that are still on direct appeal, which this one is, and will likely remain so for years. It's still at the lowest appellate level. But it is remarkable that Kathleen Zellner, who can fairly be described as the most-successful innocence attorney in the US, has taken an interest in Holtzclaw's case.[21][22] Additionally, the support from people who have been wrongfully convicted is remarkable, as they tend to be pretty good at separating the real cases from the fake ones. So you may not be looking in the right places.Adoring nanny (talk) 22:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

This approach is flawed. The burden is not on me to look in the right places, and it's not on you to find tweets and local news blurbs. If reliable sources exists, let's see them. Grayfell (talk) 01:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:MANDY is an interesting essay that applies to this question. Kire1975 (talk) 21:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Undue weight and fringe viewpoints

I have removed the following sentence from lead section that was added back by Adoring nanny (talk · contribs):

He has found support from conservative columnist Michelle Malkin and from people who have been wrongfully convicted.

Following the guidance at MOS:LEAD, WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT, this sentence gives undue weight to fringe theories that are discussed in the Media coverage section of the page. Tkbrett (✉) 16:50, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

References

I have restored the material per WP:BLPBalance, which is explicit about this:

The idea expressed in meta:Eventualism—that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape—does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times.

Note in particular the last three words. Alternatively, feel free to argue here that it is fair to a person convicted of a crime, who has consistently insisted that the conviction is wrongful, and who has received substantial outside support on that insistence, to not even mention that in their biography.Adoring nanny (talk) 20:58, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

This is verging on grandstanding. He was convicted of multiple counts of rape, sexual battery, forcible oral sodomy, and other charges. That's why this article exists. His insistence that he is innocent is not automatically relevant, and this has already been explained in tedious detail. The degree to which outside support for his insistence is "substantial" hasn't been demonstrated by reliable, independent sources. The article mentions Malkin's support, as well as the Townhall blogger, but a local news blurbs are poor for demonstrating due weight for a detail of a conviction which received international coverage. Grayfell (talk) 21:07, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Grandstanding my ass. Let me ask you this. Suppose you were sitting in prison, convicted of crimes you didn't commit, and had regularly insisted as much. Would you agree that it would be fair to you for Wikipedia to fail to mention your insistence, right up there with your conviction?Adoring nanny (talk) 21:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Since it's apparently necessary: [23].Adoring nanny (talk) 21:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

As has already been explain to you multiple times, Wikipedia isn't the place to right great wrongs. Holtzclaw's behavior in prison could, reasonably, be assumed to be exactly the same whether he was innocent, or whether he was guilty. It doesn't change anything. Asking a manipulative hypothetical question is still has nothing to do with reliable sources. It's not up to the compassion or empathy of individual editors to decide if this is due weight or not, it's up to reliable, independent sources. So far, they do not seem compelling. Grayfell (talk) 21:56, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

You keep citing that essay as if it were Gospel. It's wrong on so many levels -- first of all, it has received coverage in reliable sources, namely Malkin. Secondly, it's not even policy, unlike WP:BLPBALANCE, which is. Thirdly, the question is directly relevant to WP:BLPBALANCE, it's right there in the policy -- "Biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times?" Thirdly, the only hypothetical in my question is "you" versus "Holtzclaw". The wrongful part is not hypo, as I imagine you've figured out by now, or could easily do so by simply following what's been explained to you. So you, apparently with the support of the community, are expressly violating a policy (unless you want to argue that this is fair?), based on an essay which doesn't even apply to our situation, since I didn't make the connections, as the essay said, Malkin did.Adoring nanny (talk) 23:00, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Malkin is not a reliable source, and Malkin is not an independent source for Malkin's opinions. My opinion on this case doesn't matter, and neither does yours. Asking an emotionally loaded, hypothetical question about me and what I would do if I were wrongfully convicted is so far removed from improving this article that it's a waste of time at best. Wikipedia is based on consensus, and your selective interpretation of WP:BLPBALANCE is not supported by consensus. Grayfell (talk) 23:27, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Is it your position that whether or not the conviction is wrongful is not relevant to whether or not the article is fair to Holtzclaw?Adoring nanny (talk) 01:34, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Huh? Can you rephrase that question, please?

Is the current article fair? As far as I can see, yes. He was convicted, and he still maintains his innocence. This is a fair summary of the the important details of "Daniel Holtzclaw" as the subject of a biography, right? Instead of playing rhetorical games about what my "position" is, the article must reflect what reliable sources say. I sincerely do not know if his conviction was wrongful or not. I am not qualified to say this conviction was wrongful, and as far as Wikipedia is concerned, neither is Malkin, and neither are you. The most we can say is that Malkin, a syndicated opinion columnist, has compiled information she believes is evidence that implies he's innocent. Malkin's perspective is mentioned in the article based on primary and routine local sources. Not every perspective belongs at all, and especially not in the lede, so why should this be expanded? Grayfell (talk) 02:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I think truth or wrongfulness is relevant on multiple levels. For example, the article contains numerous declarative statements, in Wikipedia's voice, that Holtzclaw committed this sex crime or that. Among them are declarative statements that he committed crimes of which he was acquitted. I'm not a tort law expert, but at first sight, such statements would appear to be actionable, if left in place with a reasonable belief that they are false, or with willful disregard to whether or not they are false. It is arguable whether or not Holtzclaw is a public figure. He certainly didn't ask to have any of this thrown on him. In the case of a private figure, the burden of proof is lower. My attempts to revert such statements have been reverted (possibly not by you). Furthermore, although Verifiability is a thing, numerous Wikipedia policies also refer to truth. For example, see the phrase "factually inaccurate" in point 2 under WP:ELNO, which, if one accepts that the conviction was wrongful, would appear to rule out a large proportion of the sources in the article as it stands. Similarly, while WP:RS leads with verifiability, a search on the word "false" on that page brings up two hits, both of which strongly imply that spreading such information is undesirable. A search on "inaccurate" brings up a further hit. Again, if one goes to WP:V, a search on the word "false" brings up two hits, both of which strongly suggest that spreading such information is undesirable.Adoring nanny (talk) 17:01, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

If you want to discuss many other problems with the article, you should start a new section, as you have already been reminded of. As for "wrongful", I am responding to your comments which introduced that term as part of your hypothetical question. That said, you're going to need to do a hell of a lot more work on these sources if you want the Wikipedia article to dispute the large number of reliable outlets, and a court of law, based on one columnist.

Again, that's a separate, and much, much more complicated problem than the precise phrase in the lede. Instead of ctrl+f policies and essays, please read them fully if you intend to quote from them to make this case. This problem you are describing is very, very common, and I do not think your interpretation of how truth is determined by sources is going to work here. One problem is that when many reliable sources say something, and a few unreliable ones say something else, we don't split the difference. That's false balance. The arguments made by Malkin are persuasive to you as an editor, but that's not enough. Instead of butting-heads and and conceding the article to whoever is most dedicated (or whoever argues the loudest) we instead need to use reliable sources to summarize this for us. So for these sources I have seen appear very weak. Grayfell (talk) 21:04, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

But reality is not a voting game. If Malkin is using accurate evidence to arrive at a logical conclusion, that's reliable. And yes, I am saying that the other sources that choose not to examine the evidence and arrive at a the only logical conclusion are not reliable, yes absolutely including the court. I refuse to live in some sort of upside-down world where a source is "not reliable" because a lot of people don't like her politics, or because they consider her an "opinion columnist", or for whatever other reason, and another source is "reliable" because of official status or whatever other reason, when it is determinable with near-certainty that the first one is pushing a true thing and the second is not. The soundness of one's conclusions -- the question of whether or not they follow logically from the evidence one is examining -- trump everything. You could, if you chose to, take a look at the evidence, and I believe that, if you simply followed evidence and logic wherever they lead you, you would become just as convinced as I am, there would be no air between us, and no head-butting would be necessary. By continuing to patrol the article while choosing not to do that, you are the one who has lost contact with truth, fidelity to what is real, fairness, and justice. Quite frankly, the reason I appear to you to be loud is that you persist in your choice. And lastly, Wikipedia policy clearly does back me up in my insistence on looking at things this way. That is the heart of WP:CONTEXTMATTERS.Adoring nanny (talk) 22:57, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I keep pointing to RGW for a reason. If Malkin is using accurate evidence to arrive at logical conclusions... Maybe it's reliable. I don't accept either of those things, so where does that leave us? Your individual trust in her conclusions, as she herself has presented them, is not enough for the article to change. Further, it wouldn't be enough even if I also agreed with you. Maybe she's 100% correct, or maybe she's ignoring contradictory evidence, or she may be arriving at illogical conclusions... Or something else altogether. Since she doesn't have a track-record for accuracy etc. we need reliable sources to evaluate her conclusions. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an investigative journalism outlet. So yet again, if you have reliable sources for this perspective, let's see them.

It is not just me who considers her an opinion columnist, it's what she does for a living. I cannot pretend to like her politics, but that is very far from the main problem here. I cannot stress that enough. There are many people I disagree with deeply who I'm willing to cite in a Wikipedia article, when I think it's appropriate. This isn't about my personal understanding of these sources, or my opinion on Malkin's conclusions, it's about Wikipedia. If you understand RS, you understand why these things matter, and if you don't, you're going to have a hard time convincing others that this Wikipedia article needs to be rewritten to imply Holtzclaw is innocent.

My point was not to accuse you of being loud, it was to say that being 'loud' isn't relevant to being correct, which I assume we both understand. Grayfell (talk) 23:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and my point above was not to accuse you of intellectual cowardice. Despite our considerable differences, we do appear to have a certain shared understanding of what this is all about. You don't have to base your choice of whom to believe on your opinion of Malkin, mine, or anyone else's. It all has to do with the considerable verifiable (in the usual sense of the word, not the Wikipedia sense) detail in her articles, starting here, for example. [24] The article is full of direct quotes. Does it make logical sense that Malkin could have invented them? Many are checkable against the trial transcript and hearing testimony; others are checkable against Holtzclaw's interrogation video, which is easy to find via Google, and was linked from this article, though the link has gone dead. In light of all the hate Malkin gets, if she were inventing the quotes, someone would point this out. They haven't, at least not that I've seen. And National Review, whatever one thinks of their politics, would not want to work with someone who fabricates direct quotes. The logical conclusion is that she has made a genuine attempt to get her quotes correct, and likely they all are, though one can't rule out the possibility of an unintentional error somewhere. Now, if one accepts that much, there are further inferences one can draw, but I won't go there for now, because I have a feeling even that amount may already have made you uncomfortable.Adoring nanny (talk) 01:11, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Editorials/opinion columns generally aren't subject to the same degree of fact-checking that regular news articles receive. More importantly: Malkin's views haven't received significant coverage in other mainstream reliable sources, so it's undue to cite her specifically in the lead paragraph. Just about every notorious figure has some defenders. Nblund ^talk 18:58, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

But as I point out above, Malkin's NR columns are not opinion pieces. The fact that other outlets have reprinted some of them as "opinion" doesn't change that. So one should actually examine her sources to see if it demonstrates the point it is making, which it does, and go from there.Adoring nanny (talk) 23:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

National Review is an "editorial magazine". Her syndicate, where most outlets get her columns, lists her as an opinion columnist. Nowhere have I seen a compelling argument that her columns are not opinion. Any exceptions would need to be judged on a case-by-case basis, and that would require independent sources. Grayfell (talk) 00:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Seconded. Not all opinion columns are labeled "opinion column" by all outlets, and none of this would change the WP:DUE weight problem. Malkin herself acknowledges that she represents a tiny minority viewpoint and virtually no one believes her. We don't need to create a false balance by giving more prominence to the one person who is contrarian enough to disagree with other assessments. Nblund ^talk 19:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Jason Flom is an authority on wrongful convictions, neither is the biologist who spoke on his podcast in support of Holtzclaw's innocence. If it were just Malkin, I wouldn't give claims of fringe a second thought, but Flom et al. are no amateurs. Kire1975 (talk) 18:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

"All-white jury"

@Carlgood1: multiple sources comment on the fact that Holtzclaw was convicted by an all-white jury, and context is also provided in the body of the article for why this is significant. Per sources:

• Every eligible African-American juror was removed from consideration and the final jury selection was composed of eight white men and four white women. Not one black woman even made it into the final larger pool of jurors. Three black men made it into that pool, but were each removed. Not even the alternate jurors were black.[25]
• Following four days of deliberations, the all-white jury convicted Holtzclaw of charges related to eight of his 13 accusers, the Associated Press reported, with a total recommended sentence of more than 260 years.[26]
• All-white juries in Oklahoma are “relatively uncommon but certainly not unheard of”, especially outside large urban areas, said Brady Henderson, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Oklahoma.[27]

There are plenty of other sources already cited in the article which specifically highlight this fact as significant to understanding the trial. Further, all-white jury is a significant term in its own right. If you know of sources which discuss that the jury included both men and women in the same way, or explain why this is significant, present them for discussion. Please do not make this change again until you have consensus. Grayfell (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Only one of those sources comments on him having been convicted by an all-white jury. The others are about him having been tried by an all-white jury. This was a concern when he was being tried because it was thought that an all-white jury might not be sympathetic to black victims. Since he was convicted, it is largely irrelevant now. It's important enough to mention in the article, but not in the lede. Bueller 007 (talk) 01:13, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

As I said, there are plenty of other sources which discuss this, and these sources are from multiple times. Since many sources discuss this as a defining trait, and the lead is intended to be a summary of the body, this should be included. Do you know of a source which discusses these concerns being made irrelevant? If not, this is WP:OR. Grayfell (talk) 02:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Including "all-white jury" in the lede without context is completely misleading. It implies that he did not get a fair trial because the jurors were all white. That is why an "all-white jury" is problematic in the first place, and it's overwhelmingly as a term of criticism that implies there was some problem with the judicial process. In actual fact, the reason that the "all-white jury" was thought to be problematic was that it was believed that the all-white jury wouldn't believe the black victims. But that doesn't appear to have happened here.

If Holtzclaw had gotten off, putting "all-white jury" in the lede would make sense because it would match the connotation of the term: the all-white jury did not believe his black victims, which could imply that justice wasn't served. From the all-white jury article:

...the phrases "all-white jury" and "all-black jury"' may raise the expectation that deliberations may be less than fair.

If you put "all-white jury" in the lede of his article here, it implies he didn't get a fair trial. But that's not what's meant: that's not why the reliable sources are talking about an all-white jury. Unless you're willing to explain all this crap, leave it out of the lede. It belongs in the article where it can be properly explained, not in the lede.

Just because something is in reliable sources doesn't mean it has to go in the lede. I hope you realize how asinine that argument is. If that argument were true, then the entire article would have to be placed in the lede. Bueller 007 (talk) 02:28, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

AMEN Carlgood1 (talk) 15:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

possibly inapplicable category: American police officers

Considering this article is about a former police officer, wouldn't this category no longer apply? I'm unsure if these types of categories normally account for people who held former positions. Maybe a more experienced editor could clarify on policy. 104.15.63.185 (talk) 15:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

They do, yes. For example, the categories for this article also include Category:Eastern Michigan Eagles football players, although obviously he's no longer a college football player. As far as I know, we have no specific category for former police officers. Robofish (talk) 00:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Prominence of Holtzclaw's continuing insistence he didn't do it

This deserves equal billing with his conviction. First of all, when I checked on Bing just now (I normally use Google and need to avoid their personalization), the number one hit about him was this article, the number three hit was about him filing an appeal with an extended quote from Jenny Holtzclaw saying he didn't do it [28], and numbers two, four and five were all sites insisting he didn't do it. And of course there is WP:BLP. The local coverage that he insists he is innocent goes on and on [29] [30] [31] [32] Lastly, I would point to the weakness of the NYT and related sources used in this article. From the Times' own Daniel Okrent:[33][34]

[The Duke lacrosse story] was too delicious…. It conformed too well to too many preconceived notions of too many in the press: white over black, rich over poor, athletes over non-athletes, men over women, educated over non-educated. Wow. That’s a package of sins that really fit the preconceptions of a lot of us.

This was about the Duke hoax, but it fits the Holtzclaw rather precisely and, on its own terms, points to a weakness of national press coverage in general about this type of case. Therefore, sources that don't have that particular bias deserve equal billing. Adoring nanny (talk) 11:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Trying to make this about the Duke thing is wildly inappropriate to the point of being disruptive. That incident was not about Holtzclaw, and this isn't a WP:COATRACK for some tangentially related political bugbear. Your opinion that it fits "precisely" is not even research, so it cannot even be WP:OR, it's just irrelevant.

The local coverage doesn't "insist" he is innocent, it merely reports that he maintains his innocence. Articles summarize based on all sources, with more weight to based on scale and scope. Local sources are mentioning this because it's barely relevant to local audiences, that is not the same as being encyclopedic.

Since you are presenting sources which support an ideological perspective, including some which do not even mention Holzclaw or this case at all, you are not summarizing reliable, independent sources according to due weight. Therefore this remains inappropriate. Grayfell (talk) 20:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Let's see if I follow this correctly. 1) Sources that change facts to fit their ideological preconceptions are not WP:RS, even for other topics, but 2) that argument doesn't apply to this article. Is that correct? Adoring nanny (talk) 22:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

No, you don't follow this correctly. Was that supposed to be clever? The New York Times is cited twice in this article, for fairly routine points, one of which has attribution. Trying to make this an extension of some unrelated argument is disruptive, and dragging some unrelated argument from some other page to this one is disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. If you want to discuss due weight in the lead of this article, introducing some 13-year-old scandal that has nothing to do with this one damages your case far, far more than it helps it. Grayfell (talk) 22:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

"Holtzclaw has maintained his innocence" appears in the end of the opening section of the article, that is sufficient. Jails are full of innocent people, according to the accused. Zaathras (talk) 01:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:MANDY: "If a reliable source has checked the denial and confirmed its basis in fact or discussed its credibility, we can certainly say so, but if the only statement is that "X denies the accusations" then we don't need to include it because, well, he would, wouldn't he?" Kire1975 (talk) 21:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Daniel Holtzclaw is a serial rapist.

Proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This is his most notable characteristic. He should be described as such in the lead.

User:Kire1975 is reverting based on WP:SOAP, but none of the categories listed in that topic apply. In fact, they would apply to a greater extent to the additions proclaiming his innocence that this user has previously added to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadybabs (talk • contribs) 19:34, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Let's attain some perspective here. Even the lead sentence of Adolph Hitler is simply "...was an Austrian-born German politician who was the dictator of Germany from 1933 to 1945" and not "...was the murderer of 6,000,000 Jews." The opening sentence is hoe things are written in an encyclopedia....we don't make judgements, we aren't sensationalists. Editors describe the subject matter neutrally, and note what the subject is known for. Zaathras (talk) 23:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Look at the lead sentence for Ted Bundy, or Ted Kaczynski, or Timothy McVeigh. All start with their criminal status because that's what they're most notable for. Hitler was known as a politician and dictator before he was a mass murderer. Holtzclaw wasn't known for being an officer before this (he was probably more known as a college linebacker than an officer), he's known for being a serial rapist. His lead should match other high profile criminals. Shadybabs (talk) 01:08, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

No. Daniel Holtzclaw is a person who has been wrongfully convicted of a series of rapes he did not commit. But under Wikipedia rules, we are apparently supposed to follow the mainstream press, not reality. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Lol, now that is definitely an opinion from the fringes, which will certainly not be represented here.

Shadybabs, Holtzclaw was a cop convicted of acts of serial rape. People aren't known as a rapist in the same fashion as a serial murderer is primarily known for their murders. You're a bit into apples & oranges territory here. Zaathras (talk) 22:23, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I am well aware that truth is WP:Fringe in this case, regardless of the actual evidence. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Found guilty of a trial of peers, appeal denied by Okla courts, appeal denied by the Supreme Court. The man's guilt is pretty iron-clad, despite a tiny fan club's insistence otherwise. Zaathras (talk) 03:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, the courts are never wrong. Adoring nanny (talk) 06:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Cool. Let us know what % that is of overall convictions since 1900. Zaathras (talk) 20:48, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

When the former director of an innocence project says a conviction is wrongful, it's time to put on one's thinking cap, examine the actual evidence, and cease taking the courts at their word. I can't force anyone to do that obviously. But if one doesn't, one should at least realize that there is another side to the story, and that blind reliance on the courts may cause one to miss the truth. Adoring nanny (talk) 21:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

As I stated in this edit, "a person who is "who was convicted in December 2015 of multiple counts of rape, sexual battery, forcible oral sodomy, and other sexual charges" is (by definition) a serial rapist. To say it twice (in the same sentence) is redundant." Furthermore, the top of the talk page says "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject."

Also, please read WP:SUMMARYNO on avoiding inappropriate edit summaries, especially "Explain what you changed, citing the relevant policies, guidelines or principles of good writing, but do not target others in a way that may come across as a personal attack." Thanks. Kire1975 (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

What the hell does "nominally totaling 18 years mean?"

Spec, the article says "records show that by mid-May 2022 Holtzclaw had served out the first 3 of his 18 sentences, nominally totaling 18 years." He's only going on year 6.

Wasn't he convicted for 263 consecutive years, not concurrent? 2601:C2:1:284F:816F:A269:7B79:9C64 (talk) 01:58, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, from what I can find, this appears to be true. Holtzclaw appealed to get it reduced to concurrent, but as recently as 2019 this appear was denied. Ex-EMU football star loses appeal to reduce 263-year sentence for rapes. Unless someone can find some more recent info, it seems like this section of the article is in error. Zaathras (talk) 02:08, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

If you click on the article's reference number 45[35], it will take you to an inmate search page. If you complete the captcha and search on "Holtzclaw", it will indeed tell you that he has completed three of his sentences, of 5, 5, and 8 years, respectively. But I have no idea if we can use that search or not. It's also not clear to me that "concurrent" was involved. Some US prison systems still have "good time" or similar systems. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:30, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Here is the law: http://www.oklegislature.gov/osstatuestitle.html

Lookup Title 21-13.1(15) Sodomy and Title 21-61.1 Concurrent Sentences

To find Consecutive Sentences, you must search the nearby pages close to the crime.

I've gone ahead and removed the portions that were sourced to an inmate database search. This feels WP:UNDUE. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:31, 15 April 2023 (UTC)