Talk:Execution of Nathaniel Woods

Rename to Nathaniel Woods

Although Woods execution may have generated most coverage, there's enough background here on his life and the context that should really just be treated as a normal biography. —mako๛ 07:25, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn’t say so. There’s no sections regarding personal life. The controversy of the execution is the point of the article. TheXuitts (talk) 04:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I support the proposal that this article should be moved to Nathaniel Woods. The point of the move is that Woods is notable for more that one event, so the policy for People notable for only one event is no longer applicable. While the execution is the dominant event it is not the only event. This means the Wikipedia article should be about the person, rather than about the event, which is the execution. Indeed, the real controversy is about how Woods came to be on death row in the first place and the sequence of events that ultimately lead to his execution. The omission of details about Woods personal life is a distraction and is not a factor for deciding to write a biography, although that sort of content would be a matter for assessing the quality of the article after it was written. I wouldn't expect to find a section about a person's personal life in an event article about a person's execution in any case. Indeed, the only information about the execution in the article is that it was carried out "by lethal injection on March 5, 2020." There is no information about how the execution was carried out, unlike that for the Execution of Jeffrey Landrigan, which describes the controversial source of one of the drugs and give some statistics about the execution's ranking. The rest of the article appears to be devoted to controversy over executing an innocent man. This was already notable before the execution occurred and appears to be notable ever since Woods was first arrested BEFORE the first officer he is accused of murdering was shot by someone else. As I see it the following events are relevant:

1. On 17 June 2004, 4 police officers raided a crack house and arrested Woods in the kitchen.
2. After Woods arrest, Police encountered Spencer, who was upstairs. Spencer shot the 4 police officers, killing 3 and injuring the fourth. As a result, Woods then was able to escaped from arrest.
3. Both Woods and Spencer were charged with murder of the 3 police officers, even though Woods was unarmed and under arrest at the time of the shooting, so never fired a shot.
4. At trial, the prosecutors were able to manipulate the jury selection process so that there were 10 white and 2 black jurors drawn from a majority black community jury pool. Then, when Woods was sentenced, the jury returned a majority 10 to 2 verdict, which was sufficient for the State to impose the death penalty.
5. Before Woods execution, people, including a family member of one of the victims, appealed for clemency, arguing Woods did not fire a shot, so did not directly kill any of the officers, but these appeals were rejected.
6. On 5 March 2020, Woods is executed. Afterwards the execution is characterized as a "lynching" or a "killing".

Depending on how significant or notable you want to consider these events, there are a minimum of three notable events here, the Murder, the Trial and the Execution. That means this article should be a biography about Woods, not an event article about his execution. Also, generalizing this logic, any article about a person who has been legitimately tried and executed by a State for a criminal offence should generally be a biographical article because there are going to be at least 3 identifiable and notable events, the criminal incident, the trial and the execution. I would also expect any truly reliable source would covers all 3 events, even though there might be just one report as a source. (It is not a matter of the number of reports cited, but the number of events reported in those citations.) - Cameron Dewe (talk) 11:15, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, this article doesn’t include much about Woods’s personal life so it doesn’t make much sense to rename it as a biographical article. TheXuitts (talk) 00:40, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

"Crack house" or "drug house"?

User:Wes sideman is getting very frustrated when the intro says drug house instead of "crack house". In my view, "crack house" is rather deragatory and is slang, plus most sources call it a drug house and Wikipedia calls it a drug house, not a "crack house". Views on this? TheXuitts (talk) 01:11, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I searched both terms in Wikipedia, doesn't really seem to be a rule. Some articles use "crack house", some "drug house" or "trap house", some even use both in the same article. Lex Street massacre uses crack, Murder of Yetunde Price uses trap with "crack" in quotes, Shooting of Kayla Rolland uses drug house in the lead and crack house in the main text. Per the Rolland article, I think a good compromise would be to use the term "drug house" in the opening lead of the article and use "crack house" under the incident section of the article, as drug house is vaguer and can be used in the opening, whereas in the main source of text it can be specified exactly what drug was being produced. Inexpiable (talk) 07:17, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

That being said if other drugs like marijuana were being made/sold in the house then it should be "drug house" as it covers a broader range rather than just crack. Inexpiable (talk) 07:17, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Only one thing matters here: what does the source say? Source says "crack house". Your opinion that "crack house" is derogatory is just that: an opinion. Wikipedia policy is to reflect what reliable sources say. If reliable sources said "drug house", I would've changed the wording to that myself. This isn't a place for you to practice your wordsmithing skills. It's a place to report what sources say on a topic. Sorry! Wes sideman (talk) 13:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

The court documents and some of the other sources use the term "drug house" don't change it again until a consensus has been established. Inexpiable (talk) 20:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I count 6 reliable sources that say "crack house" and 1 that says "drug house". That's not even close. Wes sideman (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

AFAIK, both terms are used interchangeably, including on WP (Crack house redirects to Drug house). With regard to the article's subject: the sources seem to follow the same pattern, however, drug house appears to be used more often than crack house. M.Bitton (talk) 17:41, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Not all Google search results are reliable sources. See WP:GYNOT for a good explanation of why we shouldn't use those numbers for anything. Sources in the article are what matter. Wes sideman (talk) 14:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Comment I don't really care if it's "drug" or "crack" as it means the same thing. I am no longer interested in this. But, I will say it is unnecessary to have "quote=" saying anything within the sources. Changing it to drug or crack, either is fine with me, but there is no need to have quotes referencing the word crack or drug in the sources as it looks ridiculous and overkill. That is all. Any further edits I make to the article will not be in relation to "drug" or "crack". Inexpiable (talk) 16:09, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

It's helpful for readers who can't access the source either because of a paywall or their location to have the quote in the ref list, so I suggest you add it back and discuss it since you were literally just warned for edit warring and actually removed a helpful part of the ref template. PRAXIDICAE💕 16:12, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok understood, I reverted my edit back, I won't edit the article again. People can change it to what they think is best, I opt out. Inexpiable (talk) 16:17, 20 May 2022 (UTC)