Talk:George Stinney/Archive 1

Archive 1

Media section should be labeled as such

This isn't a upcoming fantastic movie we are talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.11.167.2 (talk) 05:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Dates

Anyone else notice the dates on the page don't work out? how could he have been killed before he was born? and how could the crime have taken place before he was born but after he was killed? I don't know the the correct dates, but I wanted to point this out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.46.194 (talk) 19:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Conviction status

Conviction status Deceased

How is that a conviction status? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.230.6.176 (talk) 18:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia's standards specifies Conviction status as "e.g. at-large, in prison, on parole, released, dead (specify if executed), etc." Removing POV template. - Pingveno 22:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Removing POV

I am removing the POV tag. The original reasoning for adding a POV tag was resolved back in 2010. The only person since then wanted an article that agreed with the jury's (clearly wrong/racist) opinion. It's been a year, so away goes the POV tag. Pingveno 05:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

"American murderer"?

Given the doubt about his actual guilt, is it appropriate to caption the top photo this way? Maybe "convicted of murder" would be better. ADREY talk 08:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Reduce cites from same article

Four or five articles were cited that were basically copies of two wire service reports, one by INS and one by AP. Both reported the sheriff as saying that "George Junius" (incorrect name) had been arrested. The articles had only slight differences otherwise (one reported that he was held in jail in Columbia), both reported the incorrect name, and there is no reason to cite more than one version of the each article. I deleted copies, leaving only one version by each of the wire services.Parkwells (talk) 18:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Sources

Mark Jones' book gives no sources for his account of Stinney's case. Delete quoted report of the execution, which was not accurate from the book anyway. Too unbalanced to provide this much detail.Parkwells (talk) 18:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

conviction or confession?

The text currently reads, "There was no written record of his conviction, ..."

I'm fairly sure this should be "There was no written record of his confession." That is mentioned in the cite for that sentence, but I see no evidence for the improbable claim that his conviction was not recorded, and the absence of a transcript of the trial is mentioned separately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.78.86.255 (talk) 00:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

JJDoolan edits

JJDoolan (talk · contribs) is a WP:SPA editor who has edited no articles other than this one. He seems to repeatedly revert to his own preferred text of the article. Most recently, his edits here, here and here have reverted two months worth of edits, consisting of 57 intermediate revisions by 19 users (although some of them, admittedly, are spurious ones), to go back to his preferred version of the article from October 18.

He's reverted three times today, contrary to WP:3RR; I won't revert his most recent reversion, because I'm loathe to violate that rule myself.

I'm assuming, weighing this single insistent editor against 19 others, that his version does not reflect the consensus. Is there any disagreement on that point? This looks like plain old WP:Edit warring to me.

I'm bringing it up here prior to escalating to WP:AN/EW. TJRC (talk) 01:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The edits I reverted added no substance to the article and systematically purged it of the fact that Stinney knew the location of the murder weapon. His knowledge of the murder weapon is extremely important information. Without that information none of the article makes sense. I went ahead and added the information back in without reverting so that the article is at least somewhat coherent. JJDoolan (talk) 01:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I've restored the removed material, which is mostly recent coverage that appears to have been selectively removed to eliminate assertions of controversy. While it can undoubtedly be cleaned up and improved, reliance on newspaper articles of the time in preference to later research obscures the current controversy over the subject's arrest, conviction and death, and doubts about coverage of events at the time. Current sources are to be preferred, especially as they are an integral part of the subject's notability. Acroterion (talk) 02:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I encourage you to read the "recent coverage" which was being falsely represented in the article. Nothing I removed was supported by any source. JJDoolan (talk) 07:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I did, you were systematically removing recent coverage that covers criticism of the trial and investigation and emphasizing statements of the time that accepted the investigation uncritically. The notable issue about the subject is that their conviction was criticized and overturned, you're attempting to argue in favor of the original trial and investigation by relying on coverage of the time. He may well have been guilty, but he didn't receive a fair investigation and trial. I have adjusted a few things that you pointed out that were lost in the mass of removals, such as the statement that Stinney made threats and liked to pick fights, and the correction concerning records of confession rather than conviction. You are trying to re-argue the case using sources of the time that accepted the judicial lynching of a minor, and eliminating current sources that call the process, at least, into question. Acroterion (talk) 12:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

There are a couple things I removed from the article. Some of them are 100% purely false and not in the source that follows, for example "At trial, Stinney denied confessing to the crime." This is not in the source linked after it. It is actually completely contradicted by the source, which says the confession was not challenged at the trial. So by reverting my edits you have placed in the article a complete lie bordering on vandalism. Other things are extremly misleading and misrepresent the source. For example: "There was no written record of his confession". The source actually says "The confession, if it was ever written down or signed, has not survived, along with the transcript of the trial". The source makes it very clear there was possibly a written record of his confession which got lost by the time people tried to reopen the case over half a century later. I am willing to work within consensus to improve this horrifically bad article, but I am sure we can agree false and misleading information doesn't belong in the article. JJDoolan (talk) 16:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Stop edit-warring and we can discuss this: claiming reversion of your edits, which have caused several editors concern, is vandalism is extremely inappropriate. We can adjust wording, we can't deal with wholesale reversions to your preferred version. Acroterion (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

You are the only one who seems concerned by my recent edits. You are the one who reverted them, and you are the one complaining about them. If you look at each edit individually they are all very good and properly explained in the edit comment. Let's be specific, which edits do you object to? Instead of reverting all my changes we can adjust the ones you find objectionable. JJDoolan (talk) 16:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Contemporary sources may have their biases. Current sources may also have their biases. We can present them both, but they should be tempered with academic sources. Rklawton (talk) 13:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

What, if anything, do people actually object to about my edits? People keep blanket reverting 15 edits I made which are all supported by sources. Yet nobody has addressed why they are reverting the edits I worked hard on and ensured properly reflect the sources. All the edits are explained in the individual edit comments. So why are they being blanket reverted with no discussion? JJDoolan (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Have you read father up the page? The net effect of your edits was to emphasize possibly biased sources in Jim Crow-era South Carolina and to minimize current sources critical of the investigation and trial. You appear to be attempting to try the case over again to find Stinney guilty, which is not the purpose of this page. Stinney is notable as a victim of judicial lynching in a time of extreme prejudice. He may also have been guilty of murder, but the investigation was so poorly handled that it's impossible to determine that now. You have reverted extensive edits by several other editors because it appears that you reject current coverage of the subject. The right way to discuss these issues in an encyclopedia article is to contrast the points of view at different times. In no case can you revert multiple times to your preferred version, right or wrong. You will note that other editors have refrained from multiple reverts and have explained why. Acroterion (talk) 18:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I did not minimize any current sources. I did edit out completely false statements from wikipedia which were not supported by the source given. Instead of vaguely referring to the "net effect" of my edits lets discuss them specifically and individually. Which edits do you object to and why?

I also have not reverted any edits to the page since I was asked not to months ago. People have been reverting my 15 small, well sourced, and explained edits and I undid the unjustified reverts done to my well sourced edits.

I am happy to discuss my changes with you and we can put more work into improving the article together, but I don't see any justification for trashing 15 edits over a vague feeling. I worked hard on them to ensure they are accurate and reflected by sources. If any individual edits were bad or controversial we can fix them with additional editing. There is no need to throw out all my work with a blanket revert.JJDoolan (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Overhaul

I'm going to make an attempt at reviewing JJDoolan's edits one-by-one now that it's possible to do so, and to address the article based on then-and-now sourcing. This will probably take longer than 48 hours. JJDoolan, you are welcome to participate here once your block for edit-warring has expired. Please remember to assume good faith and to respect the views of other editors. Your editing experience is extremely limited on Wikipedia, and you appear to have missed out on some vital experience in editing in a collaborative environment. I have adjusted some portions in response to your comments and am happy to do more, but I do expect you to refrain from claims of vandalism and personal attacks against other editors whose views on interpretation of sourcing and article emphasis may vary from yours. Acroterion (talk) 20:10, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

A few notes relative to JJDoolan's edits and concerns:

• While there is a statement made by a deputy that Stinney had confessed, there is no actual confession, signed or otherwise witnessed or acknowledged by Stinney. I have included the deputy's statement, while noting the absence of an actual, legally admissible confession. JJDooley's contention [1] that the deputy's statement that states Stinney confessed is the same as a confession is incorrect. A confession, to be admissible as such, is a specific document. Since there is no transcript of the trial, it's not possible to do anything but to acknowledge the deputy's statement while noting the absence of a true, binding confession in the record.
• Similarly, there is only the deputy's assertion that Stinney led them to the crime scene and described the location of the murder weapon. In the circumstances of the investigation and trial, we can only note the deputy's statement and cannot state in Wikipedia's voice that Stinney actually did any of the things alleged by the deputy. We cannot flatly state that Stinney did these things when they are disputed, contrary to JJDoolan's edits which draw conclusions [2], [3].
• JJDoolan removed a statement that there was no written record of the conviction, which is reasonable, but also removed the sourced, verifiable statement that no transcript has survived [4]. I have restored that part.
• I have included material relating to Stinney's reputation as a troublemaker.
• The whole issue surrounding current reporting and the overturn of the conviction is the assertion that Stinney may have been coerced into making statements, either directly or through deprivation of contact with family and counsel. Removing a statement concerning the controversy over this case [5] and claiming it is just a statement of opinion obscures the notable issues surrounding the case.
• JJDoolan's insertion that "the ruling stated that the case was not overturned on its merits" [6] omits the rest of the judge's rationale. The controversy and ruling were about Sixth Amendment rights, not the specific facts of the case, which the judge stated were likely the result of coercion.
• I have corrected the "two hour trial" to "one-day trial", which I can find in sources. It may be that the trial itself was that short, since jury selection took place on the same day, but I haven't seen a direct statement to that effect. The Washington Post describes a "two-hour trial" and a ten-minute deliberation.
• JJDoolan's removal [7] of the material concerning the lack of physical evidence is not justified in sources, but I haven't yet found a statement that Stinney denied the confession statements noted in the deputy's report.
• This [8] may be unsourced, but that's easily fixed, and it is crucial to understanding the issues surrounding the case.
• In general, I've tried to rewrite to avoid stating conclusions in Wikipedia's voice. Stinney's guilt or innocence are ambiguous, and that's how we must treat it.

As I've stated previously, while some of JJDoolan's edits are appropriate, the sum of the edits moves the opening of the article into an uncritical statement of Stinney's guilt, while minimizing or eliminating the concerns of railroading and inadequate representation that are the foundation of the ruling that vacated Stinney's conviction, and which are extensively documented in the latter portion of the article. That's a big problem. The essence of the subject is not Stinney's guilt or innocence, it's about the unfair prosecution, trial and execution of a 14-year-old, as specifically stated in Judge Mullen's ruling. Acroterion (talk) 02:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I've added some discussion from the judge's opinion that vacated the conviction, which contrasts the ambiguity of evidence and the unusual and unfair legal process, and summarized it in the lede, noting that Stinney may have been guilty. Acroterion (talk) 03:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Acroterion, thanks for taking on this thankless task. Pardon the paradox. TJRC (talk) 06:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Happy to do it, it's an interesting case. I can see two possibilities here, neither of which can be presented in this manner in the article since there's no concise summary in sources:

• Stinney was a troublemaker who killed the girls
• Stinney was a troublemaker who did not kill the girls, and was used as a credible patsy

It's impossible to say which is correct, so I've expanded the troublemaker section, which is sourced from more than one direction and which serves either thesis equally, despite the family's (natural) opposition to that portrayal. In any case, Stinney's guilt or innocence is by the way, as Judge Mullen notes. The failure of the legal process to even pretend to safeguard Stinney's rights as the accused is what makes Stinney and this crime notable, and the article must remain agnostic on guilt and innocence.

Mr. Plowden was certainly no Atticus Finch. It would be interesting to know if Harper Lee knew of this case. I don't see any indication in sources that she directly used any of the circumstances, she seems to have kept closer to home for her characters. Acroterion (talk) 18:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Wrongful Convictions Link

I realize this will be controversial to suggest or say, so I do apologize for this in advance. However I feel it might need to be said. At the bottom of the page, there's a link to "wrongful convictions of the United States." The problem I have with this link rests entirely on the later determination by the South Carolina courts that the trial violated Stinney's sixth amendment rights, and thus the judgement was vacated. Having a judgement vacated isn't the same as proclaiming a person as being innocent or acquitting them of charges. Even here on wikipedia it notes quote "Relief from judgment" of a United States District Court is governed by Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.[1] The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit noted that a vacated judgment "place[s] the parties in the position of no trial having taken place at all; thus a vacated judgment is of no further force or effect." Since the judgement was vacated, it means that Stinney, for better or worse, remains a key suspect in the case, and were the state able or willing to do so, they could retry the case and in doing so present the chance that he would once again be found guilty. However, given the fact that the young man is no longer alive, as well as numerous court documents being missing due to records being lost, it's unlikely that such a case will ever be tried. Basing on this fact and the definition of a vacated judgement, it seems improper to list this among cases of wrongful conviction. Wrongful conviction only stands when a person is found by a preponderance of the evidence to be found guilty, only to later discover that the evidence was falsified, or a purely innocent person was found guilty. Since, as I noted, for reasons above it's impossible to really determine whether or not Stinney was actually innocent of the murders he was convicted for, this is less a case of wrongful conviction, and more a case of a mistrial. Kitsunedawn (talk) 19:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Robert Ridgeway, "George led them to the bodies."

Robert Ridgeway raises some issues of interest, I don't know how to include them in the article. As a non-American with no 'dog in this race' I want to help clean up a potential POV nightmare, but I truly don't know how to include this stuff. It provides information on what the murder weapon was, what happened during the time, and how the bodies were found, etc. Including details of the confession, knowledge of the weapon, and the location of the bodies. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PM5pZby6QA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.211.3.110 (talk) 08:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I saw this YouTube post and Rob Ridgeway was thirteen years old at the time of the murders and simply tells the interviewer what his dad told him about what happened. It's complete hearsay, and cannot be counted as "further evidence" against Stinney. Ridgeway has NOTHING interesting to say or new to add to what's already known about this case. It's really laughable that you would give this man's interview any weight at all, whether you have a "dog in this race" or not. Perhaps it is because you are not American, that you do not understand nor have you ever been confronted with the peculiar psychology of Southerners, esp. when it comes to race. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.138.92.237 (talk) 10:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

POV

Do we really need to mention race at every chance we get? "George Stinney, who was black.... murdering two white girls". "...was interrogated by many white officers". What's the point? This could be implying that he was wrongfully charged on the basis of race. Really, there is no need to mention everyone's race. 98.226.26.89 (talk) 19:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't take this the wrong way, but it was South Carolina, in the 1940s, and race did matter there at that time. In fact, it mattered more than anything else about a person, including what they did. Suggesting otherwise is, well, kind of like suggesting that the Earth is flat, that gravity is just a theory that can be disregarded at whim, or that the victims of the Salem Witch Trials really were engaged in witchery and unnatural pacts with devils or whatnot. It is patently ludicrous and would be vaguely entertaining for its pure unadulterated ignorance if it was not about the subject that it is about. Katana0182 04:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

While I think it is fine to expand the article, I had a few issues with how some of it was presented. I'd actually tend to think there was more POV displayed in the way some things were presented than there ever was in referring to race. I made a few changes to try and eliminate that appearance. Two points that used the qualifier of "apparently" were removed or changed: "Swift action to solve the crime was apparently taken by the sherrif's deputies" was not cited and appeared to be an unsupported conclusion, and the use of the word in the sentence "both girls apparently "fought back"". The article states clearly Stinney's age at the beginning, so one would have to question why his description of "(90 lbs, 5'1", 14 years old)" would warrant inclusion twice in the same paragraph. Another issue I had was the repeated use of quote marks around certain words in the description of the crime, mostly around the word "kill" (3 times) and the words "confessed" and "confession". Whether these indicated actual quotations from the book was completely unclear, but it did tend to make it appear as editorial in context and gave the appearance of emphasis on the part of whoever was writing it. Finally, we don't italicize quotes from a source, it is only quoted. Finally, if you are quoting a source and the use of what is generally considered an epithet for emphasis, it really is unnecessary to apologize for its use. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The reason why I repeated Stinney's measurements is because it appears relevant to the question of whether the accused, a 14 year old prepubescent male, weighing 90 lbs, and 5'1" tall, would really be able to simultaneously murder 2 females (ages 8 and 11), and not only murder them, but shatter each's skull in 4-5 pieces. The point that I was trying to make in my edit is that perhaps the reader should look critically at the physical evidence in the case, as the supposed perpetraror was short, small, and prepubescent.

Further, it appears the only circumstantial evidence that linked Stinney to the killings, however tenuously, was that he was the last individual who spoke with the victims prior to their deaths. Looking at this in the racial context of the times inevitably implies that this circumstance - the African American accused speaking to the Caucasian female victims - was given a tremendous amount of weight - in determining guilt or innocence. I didn't feel that all the the physical evidence that Jones illustrated were fully illuminated in the prior version of the article which appeared to implicitly take Stinney's "confession" at face value. Perhaps this is original research, but I didn't state my suspicion, merely juxtaposed Stinney's height, weight, and age with descriptions of what Stinney supposedly "confessed" to, so as to encourage critical examination by readers.

I apologize for any formatting errors.

Do you concur that the removal of the POV tag is now warranted? Katana0182 15:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't doubt that your conclusions are valid, the only problem is that we have to be careful not to slant the way it is written to convey that thought in the absence of reliable sourcing, thus removing the quotes and repetition of the description. Writing things in a non-POV manner is not so easy sometimes, especially when it seems that the majority seems to doubt the guilt of this boy. The only reason why this is considered notable is because of his age, the social climate of the time, and doubt concerning it. We can't synthesize a point of view by how things are presented, but we can find adequate reliable sources that would support a discussion of that neutrally. I think that perhaps an attempt to present the information without bias may have made it appear that the story was accepted although the sources at hand didn't give that much assistance in writing it in any other manner. I greatly expanded the article a few months ago, based on the sourcing I could find. You can see how it looked prior to that here. I don't think the article overstates the mention of race or that the prejudice of the times can't be overstated, I do agree with the removal of the POV tag. Perhaps if enough solid sourcing could be found, a section on the bias exhibited in the arrest, confession and conviction could be supported, and I certainly do not object to that being formulated. I'm only concerned that it be presented neutrally and without conveying, even unintentionally, a writer's opinion of it. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

This is typical wikipedia: racism toward white people i.e. always favoring those who want to excuse black male crimes against white people. The wiki version here is about 90% FALSE. This version is Obviously written by people with an agenda. George committed the crime. There was no doubt about it back then! This is yet ANOTHER attempt by agenda seekers to use wikipeia to rewrite American history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.102.175 (talk) 16:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually this is typical application of core Wikipedia policy, which is that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is "verifiability, not truth." "Verifiability" in this context means that material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source. In other words we editors may not add our own views to articles simply because we believe them to be correct, and may not remove sources' views from articles simply because we personally disagree with them.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 05:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

"Actually this is typical application of core Wikipedia policy" EXACTLY. White Christian people are to be presented as low-down pack of demons. American history is being rewritten with that in mind...and wiki is playing a BIG part. To imply that Goerge Stinney is innocent, that white southern 'racists' railroaded him into a confession, is despicable. A 14-year-old boy?! C'mon! Where is the proof?! There not one shred of evidence. I included the exact copy of the "published & verifiable" notes from the deputy who interrogated George Stinney. In it, he stated George told him where the murder weapon was. Only the true perp would know that! And what did wiki do (was it you?)? They pulled that from the discussion. Why? Because it didn't fit with the overall premise of the wiki plot line: white Christians MUST be presented as wicked evil-doers. And their completely innocent victims - blacks- are always the ones who suffered. BULL.

Over and over again I have seen incidences regarding American history on wkipedia being rewritten to make white people out to be a pack of demons (e.g. Rosewood, Tulsa riot, etc.). And yes, it is "typical application of core Wikipedia policy." I wrote a complete non-agenda version which was consistent with George being guilty. I included a verifiable published source (Deputy Newman's statement). And you changed it back to the original "George was railroaded by wicked southern racists' version. Don't insult my intelligence by stating you were simply following wiki policy. If there is in fact new and legitimate evidence that a reasonable person might say could point to George's innocence, then include that ONLY as a separate category at the end of the page. If Wikipedia wants to present a fair-minded description of the George Stinney crime, then George must be depicted as guilty, until ironclad evidence is introduced showing otherwise. Yet, George is being depicted as innocent on Wikipedia, and the white southern people are being depicted as a pack of evil-doers. Again, it's an agenda...and it's despicable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.102.175 (talk) 00:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The page should not be about deciding whether George was innocent or guilty, and you are correct should neither be about demonising any particular group of people. You appear to believe George was guilty as charged and want the article to reflect that. That is understandadable. Wikipedia articles should present what verifiable secondary sources report and should do so objectively and impartially, (not decide for the reader one way or the other). If you think this article shows a bias you can attempt to rectify that by providing material supported by reliable secondary sources. I reverted your edits because they provided no cited source and therefore were what is called original research, i.e you edited and re-worded the article to reflect YOUR OWN personal viewpoint. Also as this article is primarily about George himself, I therefore felt the inclusion of the actual words from the Deputies notes (of what are allegedly the coerced statement of a minor) are of secondary importance and need not be given such prominence. We already have a summary of their contents. The links provided can lead the interested parties to such details of the case and readers can then decide for themselves. But if you insist we can perhaps include that.

Finally you need to sign your replies on the talk page.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 06:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

“You appear to believe George was guilty as charged and want the article to reflect that.” I want the article to reflect what the jury concluded in 1944 based on the evidence, which was George’s own confession. In that confession, which you have decided - using your own bias - is nothing more than “secondary importance”, George tells the deputy what he used as the weapon to kill the two girls, where to find said weapon, as well as why he killed the girls. In the confession is ironclad proof of George's guilt - for only the true murderer would know what weapon was used and where to find it. And you conclude that that material evidence is nothing more than “secondary importance?” My opinion is that you are so biased that you should not be allowed to moderate this article. Want more evidence of your clear and unmistakable biasness? Example: “alleged confession and the judicial process leading to his execution has been criticized as "suspicious at best and a miscarriage of justice at worst"“ That is an OPINION and based on nothing but personal prejudice. It is inserted to taint the article toward the ‘George was railroaded by southern white racists’ version. Then , “and an example of the many injustices African-Americans suffered in courtrooms in the Southern United States in the first half of the 20th Century” SICK! Again, a blatant attempt to steer the reader’s opinion toward George being railroaded by racist southern white people. And who do you allow as sources for those two quotes? A black female “reporter" (Zerlina Maxwell ) with a clear bias, and a group of people who are advocates for George’s alleged innocence. Yet, they offer NO exculpatory evidence. NOTHING. And what version to you (and wiki) run with? The “new” version. No evidence, no nothing, just biased opinions. But opinions that obviously reflect your own personal bias. Another gem from biased Zerlina Maxwell, that you have no problem with, “This was South Carolina in 1944, with a black male defendant, two young white female victims, and an all white, male jury. Stinney never stood a chance.’ That is opinion based on NO supporting fact(s) what-so-ever! And yet you inserted it back into the discussion when I deleted it. Based on the examples I cited, you should not be allowed to moderate this article. Your agenda is crystal clear… Again, the George Stinney article should be consistent with George being guilty ... until legitimate exculpatory evidence is shown to indicate otherwise. (steven) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.102.175 (talk) 18:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

You appear to not understand how wikipedia works. I can only repeat to you what has already been explained, that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is "verifiability, not truth." "Verifiability" in this context means that material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source. In other words we editors may not add our own views to articles simply because we believe them to be correct, and may not remove sources' views from articles simply because we personally disagree with them. See also original research. (Please follow the links provided by clicking on the wording in blue).--Mystichumwipe (talk) 07:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

HOLY COW! There is no doubt in my mind that George was guilty.

And why isn't Deputy Newman's written confession included in the wiki article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.102.175 (talk) 03:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

There is a huge market for these type of black grievance stories. Basically, we are expected to believe George was innocent because of racism (no other evidence apparently needed), so the cops decided to frame and kill a 14 year old because they are a bunch of psychopaths. Fortunately, the real murderer decided to stop after killing a 7 and 11 year old. This Wiki article does not have a neutral POV by a longshot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C:5800:28E:F443:3605:571B:1399 (talk) 22:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, son, if the shoe fits, wear it. Yes, Southern police were greatly feared by blacks b/c many of them were/are "psychopaths" as you correctly point out. They were there to uphold segregation at WHATEVER THE COST, AND YOU DAMN WELL KNOW IT. Actually, whether George was innocent or not is NOT the issue at all. The issue is HE DIDN'T GET A FAIR TRIAL. It's really sad that the South is still so screwed up in its collective head that people like you, 70 years later, can't acknowledge what is just so obviously fact for everyone else. LOL. There's no agenda here, buddy. THAT is all in your head. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.138.92.237 (talk) 06:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, take a look at how parts of the article is phrased.

"Stinney, an African-American youth from South Carolina, was convicted of the first-degree murder of two pre-teen white girls:"

'pre-teen'? Seems like the author is trying to make us sympathise with the girls. This isn't a necessary adjective considering that the ages are stated after the sentence.

"who testified at a trial which lasted barely two hours,"

'barely'? Again, trying to position us to sympathise with Stinney, to hint that his execution was murder and not a justified execution.

I haven't read the entire article, but there's likely more phrasing like that. Ich bin Sal (talk) 13:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Re: the current effort to clear his name: I was thinking at least the racists haven't hopped on this to try to smear the kid generations later the way the Phagan family is still clinging to the delusion that Leo Frank actually killed little Mary...and then I saw the rantings above. Very sad. Hopefully SC can provide some long overdue justice for this boy. 63.116.103.10 (talk) 21:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand

Sorry, I am not english and I am not able to undertand this sentence

"I don't think that they had too much of a trial"

Can anyone explain it to me?

Obrigado. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.33.84.193 (talk) 13:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Noone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.33.84.193 (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

It means that they didn't have enough evidence for a trial in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohamedkaba (talk • contribs) 23:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

No, it means that the speaker doesn't think that the trial was fair, he thinks that it was a mock up of a trial, not a real trial. СЛУЖБА (talk) 12:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

No. This quote comes from one of the sisters of one of the victims, in an interview given by National Public Radio. She says that "We knew George was guilty. I don't think that they had too much of a trial". Then she laughs. She knows that the trial was a sham but it's okay, b/c she thinks he was guilty anyway. This is typical of White Southern Mentality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.138.92.237 (talk) 06:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Denialism of this kid's innocence and failure of being granted a fair trial amounts to being delusional and demonic, to say the least. I smell a twisted Manson of the time trying to start Helter Skelter by bludgeoning the girls and placing them in the black quarter. LKapish (talk) 13:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Birthday not correct

When he was 14 at execution in 1944, how was he born in 1897 as stated in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.254.89.229 (talk) 19:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It was done, probably, because it is poorly written POV article. Is there any evidence of the "corrected" date?John Paul Parks (talk) 04:28, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Youngest person to be executed

We have two competing claims to the youngest person executed in the 20th century.

Stinney: This New York Times article, cited in the article, says Stinney.

Ferguson: This article, which doesn't strike me as a reliable source, recently added by an IP editor, says it was a thirteen-year-old named Fortune Ferguson. Now, that is likely not an RS, but this Washingtom Post article also lists Ferguson; but says he was 13 at the time of the crime, not necessarily at execution. This book says he was executed "under the age of 14", which would make him youngest, but in a footnote concedes it doesn't have complete information.

I've edited it to just leave it as "one of the youngest" and avoid the issue completely, at least until there's a definitive answer on Ferguson. TJRC (talk) 20:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

And just to make this interesting, this book says "The youngest person to be executed in the United States was George Stinney, who was 14 years old when he was electrocuted in South Carolina on June 16, 1944.... Fortune Ferguson was 13 years of age when he was executed in Florida for the crime of rape." Obviously contradicting itself. TJRC (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Some further sources:

• "...in 1927, Florida executed Fortune Ferguson, who was about 13 at the time of the alleged crime...' and then goes on to cite to an appeal, Ferguson v. The State of Florida, 1925. This 1925 appeal would have been after the trial, and the trial would have been after the crime; so the latest the crime could have been is 1925. If Ferguson were 13 in 1925, more than a year would have gone by before his execution in 1927, making him at least 14 at the time of execution. [9]
• A snippet from this book, which shows up on the google search results but not in the Google Books preview, says "In the 20th century, the youngest persons executed were two boys, Fortune Ferguson in Florida (1927) and George Stinney in South Carolina (1944) who were executed at ages 16 and 14 respectively."
• Another book looks from the search results snippet and the GB preview to be very well researched and looks like it would have a pretty good answer, but the snippet and preview cut out just enough that I can't tell what it says. TJRC (talk) 21:01, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on George Stinney. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040711183120/http://www.soundportraits.org/on-air/youngest_executed/ to http://www.soundportraits.org/on-air/youngest_executed/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:52, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

"American murderer" subtitle on mobile app search

When I looked up George Stinney it came up with the subheading “American Murderer”. Given the facts in this case and the exoneration in 2014, I think the subheading should reflect the most current information. Heading suggestions could be: Youngest person lawfully murdered, youngest person executed, exonerated child, victim of system bias, etc. George Stinney shouldn’t be burdened with a label such as American Murderer, even in death. We should be better than that, and more accurate. Moshome7 (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I've just checked and it does indeed come up like this in the mobile app. The text "American murderer" does not appear in the wikitext. What is generating this? TJRC (talk) 23:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I found it... It was in Wikidata:Q1336052, added by a well-intended bot edit (to the extent that a bot can be said to have intent). I've reverted that for now, so there's no description at all for the time being. I really can't come up with a concise description; anyone who can is welcome to do so. TJRC (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Confused jumble

I really wanted to understand this case, but the article's a confused jumbled that seems to say everything twice. EEng 18:06, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Use of "wrongly" convicted

An IP editor and a newly-created editor (my guess being the same as the prior IP editor) repeatedly insert "falsely" (albeit sometimes misspelled) or "wrongly" into the opening sentence, e.g. "...was a 14 year old African-American wrongly convicted of murder...".

His edit is being continually reverted. I don't approve of the edit-warring approach, but given the 2014 case where the circuit court vacated Stinney's conviction, it doesn't sound like POV to say "wrongly convicted" in the lede; it seems to accurately reflect that his conviction was recognized as wrong, and vacated. Can anyone articulate what the objections are? TJRC (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

You'll likely have an ongoing difficulty preventing insertions like that. People have their own agendas to push on articles like this, TJRC. They need to put sentiments aside and look at sterile facts. (They possibly also believe he "confessed for ice cream" and I'm sure "compelling evidence" exists to support that substantiation.) Look at the insertions of "child" etc. smattered across the article. In the lede: "convicted of murder as a result of a racially-biased and discriminatory trial" etc. Hardly NPOV. Yes the racial aspect, and lack of a fair trial (let alone execution at age 14), is necessary, but to use wording almost as if to attempt to wrench tears from the new reader. To me, it subverts Wikipedias reputation of impartiality. His conviction was VACATED, and rightly so.--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Let me add that the current introduction ("wrongfully convicted at age 14 of the murder") to me reads as if he didn't murder the girls. I think it should be rewritten to reflect that his conviction was vacated, but that his guilt has not been determined. Ornilnas (talk) 04:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I believe "wrongfully convicted" usually refers to someone who did not commit a crime, but was convicted for it nonetheless. See e.g. List of wrongful convictions in the United States:

"This list includes people who have been legally exonerated, including people whose convictions have been overturned and have not been retried, as well as people who have not been formally exonerated but are widely considered to be factually innocent."

This definition focuses on the factual innocence of the accused, not the legal status of their conviction. I agree that "He was wrongfully convicted" could refer to the legal status in some cases, but the current introduction states that Stinney was "wrongfully convicted of the murders of" two specific victims. I read this to say that he did not commit the murders, which has not been established; it has only been determined that he was not given a fair trial (and perhaps a "wrongful conviction" if you phrase it carefully). I edited out the "wrongfully" and was reverted -- but now I see that TJRC reverted his own reversion, so I'll just leave the above as my reason for removing the word. Ornilnas (talk) 02:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't like the use of the phrase "unfair trial" in the Lede, as the word "unfair" is a layman's concept and not a legal one. I also agree with the sentiments of most of the other people here; that the Article should either decide that Stinney was convicted due to a flawed legal process (and then explain the speific nature of that), or that Stinney was innocent, and therefore was "wrongfully convicted". However I can also see how a flawed legal process results in a "wrongful" conviction, even if the person accused actually did the crime. I just think it's important to make certain that the Article is clear on the difference between the two. There's a difference between convicting and executing an innocent person, and convicting someone due to a flawed legal process. The Article should clearly differentiate between these two conditions.Tym Whittier (talk) 15:59, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

We as Wikipedia editors really are in no position to decide whether he was innocent. Even the judge who vacated the conviction said she couldn't make that determination. The most we can do, I think, is report on the finding that the trial and related processes were found to be flawed and did not measure up to the requirements of due process. The challenge is coming up with wording that gets that across clearly to a lay reader. Neither "wrongfully convicted" and "unfair trial" seem to come up short as discussed above, but I'm not sure I've got a better wording; especially for the lede, which is inherently simplified. TJRC (talk) 18:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Renewing discussion

We're seeing another spate of editors adding "wrongfully" or the like to the beginning. I'm sympathetic to this. If you read it baldly -- "... was an African American youth who was convicted of murdering two white girls..." -- the opening sentence gives no hint that he may have been innocent. It goes into it a couple paragraphs later, but that's burying the lead.

I understand we don't want to say "wrongfully convicted"; even the judge who vacated the conviction expressly declined to go that far. But I feel it needs something to capture what is a big part about the controversy over this case.

I'm thinking "... was an African American youth who was convicted, in a proceeding later vacated as an unfair trial, of murdering two white girls..."

Thoughts? It's an accurate statement, and gets it out right in front, where I think it should be. I would be WP:BOLD and just make the edit, but knowing it's a controversial area, wanted to post here first. TJRC (talk) 23:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree, that gives a much more accurate impression. Ornilnas (talk) 00:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Since there's been no objection in more than ten days, I've made that edit. TJRC (talk) 16:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

His injuries after execution

The article mentions that he had one eye missing, smoking teeth and a burnt scalp. I have been unable to find this in the references stated.

Can this be confirmed as true? GoodKingMort (talk) 22:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Claim that Stinney claimed innocence written as if it is fact

The investigation section has written:

The 14-year-old later claimed that the arresting officers starved him and then bribed him with food to confess

This sentence is written as if it is a fact when the only source for this claim was testimony from Wilford "Johnny" Hunter. This testimony is mentioned in the reopening of case section where it is properly addressed as the testimony of the man and not editorialized as if it is fact. Also the claim that he was starved and bribed with food isn't even in his testimony, and even if it was that claim is ridiculous. Stinney made his confession less then 24 hours after the bodies were discovered. I would make the changes myself but the user Acroterion wrongfully removed my ability to edit the article, as well as undoing my well reasoned changes.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.248.184.146 (talk • contribs)

I can't find the claim that the officers starved him in either of the sources provided, but since everyone seems to agree that *someone* has claimed this, I don't want to delete the line completely. Can you give me a source which clarifies where the claim comes from? Ornilnas (talk) 02:13, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@IP: I reverted because your change was based on the IP's personal analysis of what might have been possible during the 24 hours after Stinney's arrest. The IP may not use their own analysis to discount the assertion as baseless. However, I do not see the assertion in the two references for that paragraph. I'll look around - that's a different matter. I'm not sure what to make of the header to this talkpage section - whatdoes that mean? Acroterion (talk) 02:17, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

There are a lot of 404 results in the references, I haven't found the source of the assertion that food was withheld, so I've removed it. That's a valid basis for removal, not you analysis of what could have happened. Acroterion (talk) 02:45, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

This [10] is not a good look from the IP that started this thread. Acroterion (talk) 02:48, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't give a dam how you think my edit history looks, all my edits have been objectively correct. The header should not be hard to understand. Also very interesting that common sense is not valid on this website.67.248.184.146 (talk) 05:58, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

A different sibling?

According to the Find a Grave for George Junius Stinney Senior,it said he had a daughter named Carolina “Carrie” Chestnut.There is also a picture from a newspaper article on his death.And all of his children(except George Jr.)was there.Is it true? 47.188.156.111 (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Another rumor about a new sibling again

The same newspaper article I talked about said he had a son name Leroy,which I doubt. 47.188.156.111 (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

How do you add photos

How? 47.188.156.111 (talk) 01:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Magic. TheXuitts (talk) 10:21, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

African american

Use black American. The use of African insinuates they weren't slaves. African-American means a African person came to America and had American kids. Black Americans were stolen and don't have any connections with Africa or any of their people. 2603:3003:C86:4000:9CC5:9750:53FC:772C (talk) 18:47, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

N Not done and not likely to be done See Citizenship Clause. TJRC (talk) 20:57, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Infobox: "vacated" or "overturned"?

I edited the infobox to indicate that the conviction and sentence were 'vacated"; TheXuitts reverted it with the comment "They’re synonymous here. Also corrected horrendous grammar". I disagree, but, per WP:BRD, a discussion is the way to go.

I think "vacated" is the correct word here; it's both accurate and precise, and "overturn" is neither.

First, it is accurate: that's what's used in the actual order:

• "This Court ... hereby vacates the judgment"; and
• "Based on the foregoing, I hereby vacate the Defendant's conviction."

The word "overturn" is never used in Judge Mullen's order. The infobox should use the actual disposition set by the judge, not the paraphrase of an editor.

Second, "vacate" is more precise than "overturn". "Overturn" can be understood to mean either "vacate" (which simply un-does the judgment below, making it as if the judgment is no longer in effect); or "reverse", which means to actually find the opposite, which in this case would be a finding of factual innocence. But Judge Mullen expressly did not do that; she expressly cabined the order with the quoted phrase "not on the grounds that the judgment against him was wrong on the merits".

I don't see any benefit in using an imprecise and ambiguous word when we can use the word that has accurate and precise meaning and is, in fact, the actual order made by the judge.

I don't have any objection to using "overturned" in the body of the article, where it's used in conjunction with the precise "vacated", thereby removing any ambiguity. But in the infobox, and for that matter, the lede, neither of which have that additional context, the correct term should be used.

As a side note, I don't understand the grammar objection: why is "Conviction overturned" and "(posthumously overturned)" thought to be correct, but "conviction vacated" and "(posthumously vacated)" thought to be "horrendous grammar"? TJRC (talk) 23:46, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. "vacate" normally indicates that the original judgement is no longer valid; "overturn" indicates that it was determined to be wrong. But if TheXuitts really thinks they're synonyms, they won't mind if you revert back to "vacate". Ornilnas (talk) 02:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

"Vacate" means the original judgement is no longer valid. If a conviction is vacated, it means the accused has been charged but not convicted. This would normally result in a retrial. In the US, if the accused is dead, the charges will be dismissed, which is the final disposition of this case. 2001:56A:706E:1100:C00C:31FA:FB4:21B3 (talk) 00:03, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Disposal of case

When a conviction is vacated, there is no conviction (it "place[s] the parties in the position of no trial having taken place at all; thus a vacated judgment is of no further force or effect." on Vacated judgement). This puts the case in the position where charges have been laid but no trial yet.

The article needs an explanation for the disposition of the charge. In the US, if the accused is dead, the charges will be dismissed (see Mootness and Abatement ab initio). Otherwise, there'd be a retrial unless the court otherwise disposes of the charges. --2001:56A:706E:1100:D199:16C2:73ED:BA11 (talk) 18:08, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

It's an interesting interpretation, and may even be right. But there's no question but that this is pure WP:OR. You'll need cites to add it to the article. TJRC (talk) 02:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

The first part of the explanation with a citation can be copied from Vacated judgement, which I have done. As for the other part, there are many sources that state what happens (vacate conviction and dismiss charge) if an accused dies between conviction and appeal, but I have not found a good source confirming that when an accused dies between charge (indictment) and conviction.

In the Central Park jogger case, the defendants file "Motion to Vacate Judgment", and in response, the prosecutor files "Affirmation in response to motion to vacate judgment of conviction" (https://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/wise.pdf) to agree and move to dismiss the charges should the convictions be vacated: "Should the Court, as requested by the parties, vacate the convictions, the People will move the Court to dismiss the indictments." In the judgement (https://casetext.com/case/people-v-wise-46), the court decides "defendants' motion to vacate judgment and order a new trial, based on newly discovered evidence, must be granted". The dismissal of charges is handled elsewhere.

In Stinney's case, the charges would be dismissed because the defendant is dead, but without references, it is unclear whether the prosecutors in 2014 filed a motion to dismiss separately, or if the court dismissed it in another order. 2001:56A:706E:1100:B1C1:2FA:8EEF:3A25 (talk) 03:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, in Groveland Four, the state also moved to posthumously dismiss the indictments, and the court granted that motion. It explicitly mentions the dismissal of the indictments of two suspects who were shot and killed by the same officer before they were convicted, and it also seems to imply the dismissal of the indictments for the two vacated convictions. 2001:56A:706E:1100:A556:9FDA:2BC3:EA2E (talk) 19:57, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Laws changing over the year

The law before and now [1] The united states supreme court protects those who are below the age of 15 or younger for the death penalty The death penalty has been going on since the early 1600s, one of the first documented executions was in 1634, a 16 year old boy was hung for having intercourse with a mare, a cow and goats. The youngest girl to be executed was 12 year old Native American Hannah Ocuish. She murdered a 6 year old white girl in 1786. The use of executing children under the age of 18 has been going on for many years Montenegrok1127 (talk) 16:04, 9 May 2022 (UTC)Montenegrok1127

While in the US, the latest person executed as a juvenile was Leonard Shockley in 1959, and the latest person executed for juvenile crimes was Scott Hain in 2003, other countries continue to execute minors, such as Zeinab Sekaanvand in 2018. 2001:56A:706E:1100:A556:9FDA:2BC3:EA2E (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)